DEPORTATION AS WEAPON

I have just finished reading "A Dangerous Woman: The Graphic Biography of Emma Goldman" by Sharon Rudahl (2007) which I received as an unexpected, but very welcome gift. As one might imagine, Goldman's life fascinates me for several reasons, among them her idealism and unwavering activism on behalf of the working class and the poor; her struggle for the rights of women (although she did not support the right to vote given the tenets of anarchism), including collaboration in the efforts of Margaret Sanger to free women from the oppression of constant child-bearing; her deportation from the U.S. on political grounds; and her relationship to Rochester and Buffalo, NY. As well, Goldman’s story is a thread in the history of immigration and the unjustified deportation of those who are deemed undesirable. As a token to the memory of the people's historian Howard Zinn, I've chosen to dedicate this post to a brief and very simple historical account of immigration law and policy, and to those who were kept out or sent "home."

A few years ago, at the invitation of the instructor of a university media class, I screened a film entitled “Out of Status” about immigration law and policy post-9/11, and hosted a panel discussion following the film. The presentation was an overview of immigration history and those who have been identified as undesirable throughout the decades. Reading Goldman’s biography made me think of that presentation, so I went back to my notes. In preparing for the class, I learned that, quite interestingly, a survey of international legal opinions indicates that there was no consensus among nations about the right to control migration into one’s territory until the 20th century. Not surprisingly, it can also be discerned that the primary forces for immigration control revolve around economics (“they are stealing our jobs!”); creating an ideal society, such as one that conforms to Eurocentric norms; and a crisis attributed to the foreign-born, such as the threat of radical politics or today’s "war on terror." Various agencies in the Government, including the Treasury Department, the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice, all have been charged at some point with the enforcement of immigration law since the U.S. Supreme Court determined in 1875 that such responsibility fell on the federal government.

The Bureau of Citizenship, a forerunner to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which was abolished in 2003 after more than 60 years of existence, was created during the Civil War to encourage immigration from Northern Europe. It hired “Chinese Inspectors” who were stationed at ports of entry to limit the admission of Chinese nationals to the country. Such positions were maintained by the INS in later years. Obviously cheap labor was sorely needed in the U.S. in the late 19th century, and the Chinese were among the greatest contributors to the construction of the transcontinental railroad. Nonetheless, the U.S. sought to keep them from settling here after exploiting their labor. Indeed, Asians who came from nations as far west as Afghanistan were among the earliest victims of the U.S.'s racist exclusionary laws and policies. Angel Island in the San Francisco Bay was opened one hundred years ago as a detention facility to hold Asians seeking to enter the U.S., and it was in operation until 1940 (See posts about Angel Island below). These discriminatory migration laws were also extended to the Japanese. The Japanese internments during WWII are perhaps the most offensive evidence that the profiling of Asian people in the U.S. lasted well into the mid-20th century.

In spite of the aforementioned, open borders were the norm in this country until the late 19th century. The Government was not so much concerned about the border, but rather about who sought to cross it. For example, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798-1802 called for the arrest of those who were “dangerous to the peace and safety of the U.S.,” and the Know Nothing Party of the late 19th century rallied against the Irish and other Catholics deemed a threat to Anglo-Saxon Protestantism. The chronology of immigration laws which sought to exclude the so-called undesirable is more or less as follows:

— 1875 law bars convicts and prostitutes from entering the U.S.
— 1882 law bars “idiots, lunatics, convicts and persons likely to become public charges”
— 1891 law bars those who suffer from contagious diseases
— 1902 law bars anarchists

Today’s immigration law still renders inadmissible those likely to become a public charge and those likely to engage in prostitution, those convicted of most criminal offenses, those with contagious diseases (and until very recently it included those with the HIV virus), as well as Communists. Homosexuality was also deemed a ground of exclusion in past decades. Since President George H.W. Bush's declaration of a "war on drugs" to combat the perceived drug crisis in this country in the mid-1980's, no single offense, other than than the obvious terrorist-related violation, has more serious immigration implications than drugs. Rehabilitation is not an option in law enforcement's arsenal (See posts below regarding "aggravated felonies.)

The National Origin Quota System of 1912 was in effect until the mid-1960’s, and its primary purpose was to limit Southern and Eastern European migration to the U.S. The law also maintained an “Asiatic barred zone.” Discrimination against Italians was quite visible during WWII. Some 58,000 Italians living on the West Coast were required to relocate, and certain German and Italian nationals were also interned along with the Japanese. One may recall when Senator Pete Domenici sadly disclosed his Italian mother’s arrest and detention by immigration authorities in the mid-1940’s when he was just a frightened little boy. In fact, during those debates on immigration law in 2006, Senator Arlen Spector also described his parents' migration from Russia only to find anti-Semitism present in the U.S.

Border control gained prominence at the beginning of the 20th century following the Mexican Revolution, and the fear that its “radical” ideals would spread northward. This led to an increase in the presence of agents on the Southern border in 1917, although there still were no quotas on migration from the Western Hemisphere countries until the mid-1920’s. Mexican agricultural labor was desperately needed in the United States and border enforcement remained lax. Moreover, until only about a half century earlier, the Southwestern U.S. had been Spanish, and then Mexican territory, and people were accustomed to venturing back and forth over the Rio Grande with relative ease. However, when the economy turned sour, American politics changed accordingly. During the Great Depression there were mass deportations of 415,000 Mexicans, some of whom were U.S.-born citizens, and no due process was ever afforded to the victims during these drastic practices. Prior to this time, the focus of border agents had been on the smuggling of alcohol into the country during Prohibition, especially from Canada. However, by 1933 immigration enforcement began to focus on Mexicans and the Southern border. When WWII produced labor shortages in the U.S., Mexicans were again encouraged to migrate North. The notoriously exploitative “bracero” program was created in 1946 to bring farm labor to work in the booming U.S. agricultural industry. (Its bitter legacy of abuse is one of the primary reasons why reaching an agreement today about an appropriate visa program for unskilled laborers is so difficult.) Although no formal restrictions against Mexican migration really existed until 1968 after the end of the “bracero” program, “Operation Wetback” was instituted in 1954, which in turn led to massive round-ups of suspected undocumented Mexicans in the Southwest. A record number of deportations ensued.

The Red Scare of the 1920’s, which led to the Palmer Raids, arguably set a historical precedent for today’s “war on terror.” Hundreds of immigrants, mostly Italian and Jewish, including Emma Goldman and Marcus Garvey, were deported for unionizing and/or for their “radical” political opinions and activism. Anarchists were deemed particularly threatening after the assassination of President McKinley in 1901 at the Pan American Exhibition in Buffalo by a Polish-American anarchist. The accused, Leon Czolgosz, who was born in Detroit, was arrested, tried and hanged in a little more than one month from the date of McKinley’s death. Goldman was suspected of having participated in the assassination plot, though Czolgosz always insisted that he had acted alone and that Goldman was innocent of any wrongdoing.

This is the period in American history during which J. Edgar Hoover rose to power, turning the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) into a massive bureaucracy, and using the agency to effectively suppress all dissidence which he deemed subversive, including anti-war protests during WWI and the rising labor movement. Labor organizing, in particular, involved many immigrants since they were already quite sensitive to issues of exploitation (For example, in John Sayles' film "Matewan," set in the early 20th century, the Italian immigrants, while initially viewed skeptically as outsiders, are ultimately called upon to tip the balance in favor of the miners' efforts unionize). Hoover had begun his career at the Justice Department as the head of the Enemy Aliens Registration Section. In fact, even John Lennon had to fight Hoover to obtain a “green card” in the 1970’s due not only to a marijuana possession conviction, but because of his popular political activism. (See the film “The U.S. v. John Lennon” ). As is also well known, Senator Joseph McCarthy led a witch hunt for Communists in the 1950’s, and operated his mission to rid the nation of leftists. He operated parallel to the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which was active from 1938 until 1975. Many of those brought before the Committee, like those accused of suversion in earlier years, were simply implicated through guilt by association.

Illegal migration in general became a crisis for the U.S. in the 1960’s and 70’s, although its targets in those years were still Mexicans and subsequently Central Americans, especially during the civil wars in Guatemala and El Salvador. It was not until 1980 that Congress passed the Refugee Act, formalizing the process by which those seeking safe haven in the U.S. could apply for asylum, something which, until then, seemed reserved exclusively for Soviets and other fleeing Communism. During the 1980’s, as the war in El Salvador became intensely violent, and the well-documented human rights atrocities committed against civilians grew fierce, Salvadorans fled en masse to this country for protection. Disturbingly, only about 5% of them were granted asylum status due to the U.S.'s support of the repressive Central American regimes primarily responsible for persecuting their own citizens. Out of this obvious injustice grew the sanctuary movement which was dedicated to helping Central Americans reach Canada, where asylum grants were much more generous (VIVE La Casa in Buffalo was founded with this objective); as well as the landmark lawsuit, American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, which denounced the Government for having brought Central American policy considerations into the objective asylum process. Both forever affected immigration policy and law toward Central Americans.

On September 24, 2008, I read an article in The San Francisco Chronicle reporting that Customs and Border Protection officials were inquiring about the political opinions and religious beliefs of those seeking to enter the U.S. These interrogations involved such questions as "do you hate America?" "did you attend mosque abroad?" "whom did you see while abroad?" These tactics coincided with newly instituted searches of laptops and other electronic equipment. Both measures were strongly denounced by civil rights groups and advocates for Muslims and Arabs, and have been the subject of legal action. Very interestingly, these types of policies had been previously instituted in the early 1980’s by President Ronald Reagan to question and search those returning from trips to Sandinista Nicaragua. However, even then, reasonable suspicion was required to undertake this kind of obtrusive search, and probing one’s thoughts and life was prohibited.

Excluding the undesirable, defined as such for various reasons throughout history, is most evident in deportation. The banishment of people who have made the U.S. their home is an aggressive measure, and Emma Goldman's recollection of the day when she was deported from the United States is a clear representation of the moment. Like Goldman, my own clients have frequently related to me how their own removal occurs when they are awakened in the early hours of the morning.

Below is Emma Goldman's narrative, reprinted from Emma Goldman Papers Project maintained on-line by the University of California at Berkeley:

"It was almost midnight when suddenly I caught the sound of approaching footsteps. 'Look out someone's coming!' Ethel whispered. I snatched up my papers and letters and hid them under my pillow. Then we threw ourselves on our beds, covered up, and pretended to be asleep.

The steps halted at our room. There came the rattling of keys; the door was unlocked and noisily thrown open. Two guards and a matron entered. 'Get up now,' they commanded, 'get your things ready!'...

Deep snow lay on the ground; the air was cut by a biting wind. A row of armed civilians and soldiers stood along the road to the bank. Dimly the outlines of a barge were visible through the morning mist. One by one the deportees marched, flanked on each side by the uniformed men, curses and threats accompanying the thud of their feet on the frozen ground. When the last man had crossed the gangplank, the girls and I were ordered to follow, officers in front and in back of us. . . .

I looked at my watch. It was 4:20 A.M. on the day of our Lord, December 21, 1919. On the deck above us I could hear the men tramping up and down in the wintry blast. I felt dizzy, visioning a transport of politicals doomed to Siberia, the étape of former Russian days. Russia of the past rose before me and I saw the revolutionary martyrs being driven into exile. But no, it was New York, it was America, the land of liberty! Through the port­hole I could see the great city receding into the distance, its sky­line of buildings traceable by their rearing heads. It was my beloved city, the metropolis of the New World. It was America, indeed, America repeating the terrible scenes of tsarist Russia! I glanced up at ­­the Statue of Liberty!"
Read more!

More on "Flying While Arab"

A friend who read the post below sent me this link:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/29/syed.muslim.while.flying/index.html?hpt=C2.

"It seems that now someone called "Barack Hussein Obama" can be pulled aside and patted down merely because of his name. But while our president has the benefit of Air Force One, millions of us with a "funny name" (Muslim and otherwise) do not. Like me." Read more!

"I will go to the airport in my underwear!"

Not long ago after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, a Palestinian-American attorney friend told me a story about her honeymoon. She's a wonderfully vivid story teller, and she recounted this tale with humor and lightness in her voice, even though it is really a reflection of these troubled times. It goes like this: When she left on an exotic honeymoon with her white, Italian-French-American husband, her own strikingly Arab name triggered a "hit" at the airport check-in. As a result, the couple's boarding passes were immediately marked with three bold letters, "SSS." And when she and her new hubby arrived at the security checkpoint, they were subjected to a special search which involved being placed on a platform with their arms outstretched and "wanded" with a metal detector. During the procedure, her lawyer husband decried the treatment by exclaiming, "you're profiling my wife, you've singled her out. This isn't right!" My easy-going friend amusingly thought to herself, "my poor white boy, he just doesn't get it!" Given his insulation from the backlash that struck Arabs and Muslims after 9/11, he was outraged by a situation that his wife had come to accept as routine. Of course, Palestinians have always been, in one way or another, deemed a people who require heightened vigilance by the West. But in a very recent conversation with another Arab friend about the new security precautions established after the "Christmas" bombing attempt by a Nigerian national, which involve full body searches of citizens of certain nations, including the one from which his family comes, he simply said with a sarcastic smile, "I will just go to the airport in my underwear!" Given recent news reports which indicate that Osama bin Laden's mug shot was updated using the google image of a Spanish politician, Spaniards may even find themselves under unusual scrutiny. After all, with black hair and darker skin tones, they have an uncanny resemblance to "terrorists."

I have several friends who themselves, or whose ancestors, are from countries that the U.S. Government (and other Western nations as well) has condemned as "terrorist havens." As a group, these men and women are highly educated, kind and compassionate, and care a great deal about the world and the communities in which they live. All of them have dedicated either their career, education or free time to the public interest, which is how I met each of them. They are both Muslim and Christian, some devout and others not so much so. The single absolute they share is that all are Arab, in a day and age when "flying while Arab" is frustrating, and sometimes downright intimidating. Yet all remain firmly proud of their heritage as they should be, but also appear resigned, without apparent bitterness, to the new status quo. I have also noted in my work, with exasperation and concern, the disturbing, yet clearly documented trend, that migrants from Muslim countries, who are arrested and detained by the Department of Homeland Security in this region of the country, are not afforded a bond. The required assessment of whether one is a flight risk or a danger to the community is ignored, and instead, a generalization is made that leads the officers to conclude that no bond will be set.

On the evening news not too long ago, I was intrigued by the anchor's statement at the beginning of the newscast, "Yemen, a country Americans know little about…," and then going on to explain how the country was a launching ground for terrorists, including the so-called Christmas bomber. Actually, I know a few things about Yemen which are quite fascinating. A friend, whose family is Yemeni, once sent me an array of beautiful photographs of Yemen, encouraging me to visit. It is a striking land. The old walled city of Shibam and the old medieval city of Sana'a, the capital, are UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Apparently, the latter was deemed so at the insistence of the Italian film director Pier Paolo Pasolini, who feared that Sana'a would succumb to the same modernization that his native land had suffered, eliminating its tranquility and unique character. I also have been quite struck by images of Al-Hajjara with its11th century mud structures rising from the cliffs. When I visited the Arab American Museum in Dearborn, Michigan, I learned that one of Cesar Chavez's loyal supporters was Negri Daifulla, a UFW member and an immigrant from Yemen. He was killed on the UFW picket line in 1973. I also recently read in The Washington Post that women from what was once known as the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen have lost significant ground since the unification with Northern Yemen (supported by the U.S.) in 1990. In the past, these women dressed casually and were professionals in several male-dominated fields such as law. Today, they feel repressed by orthodox Muslim codes and practices, as well as tribal traditions, which dominate the country. See, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012201354.html.

There is a well-established Yemeni community in Buffalo's neighboring city of Lackawanna. Many came to work in the prosperous steel industry of the 1950's and settled here, mixing the old ways with the new. Unfortunately, today the community is almost exclusively known for the prosecution of six young men accused of attending terrorist training camps in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. (For an objective look at the case, I would recommend Dina Temple-Raston's book, The Jihad Next Door (2007).)

Syria as well appears on a number of watchlists and was condemned in 2002 by the Bush Administration as a member of the expanded "Axis of Evil." However, Syria, from where two of my friends hail, generously hosts over 1.2 million Iraqi war refugees, and still maintains a population of Palestinians which makes up at least 3% of the country. A friend tells me that when he was growing up there, schools tolerantly accommodated all of the religious holidays of the students whether they were Muslim, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Alawite. Syria also boasts five World Heritage Sites, including the Ancient City of Damascus, the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world, the Ancient City of Aleppo and the site at Palmyra. I've read a number of articles about Americans traveling and studying in Syria, and all unanimously confirm that the country's people are gentle and generous toward American tourists. Sadly, but understandably, Syria plans to retaliate and will now subject Americans visiting their country to stricter security measures as well.

Today citizens of Syria and Yemen are both subjected to new security measures, but nationals of Jordan, Nigeria and the U.K. are not. Obviously, these purportedly improved measures do not appear to recognize that the doctor who killed eight Americans in Afghanistan not so long ago, including CIA agents, was a Jordanian; that the accused "Christmas bomber" was a Nigerian; and Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber," was a British subject. This is not to suggest by any means that one should condone the collective punishment of any nation for the isolated acts of one, or a few, of its citizens. Indeed, as the Nigerian Information Minister pointed out, in an interview with NPR earlier this month, Nigerians now feel like lepers who were singled out for the actions of one person in a country of 150 million inhabitants. It remains obvious to me that racial or ethnic profiling in general is a wholly ineffective tool for combating crime, let alone terrorist threats. Moreover, such profiling is contrary to the fundamental norms of civil and human rights, and was rightfully denounced, several years ago, during the debate over “driving while black.” However, I cannot help but wonder whether such continued reliance on such law enforcement measures is one of the reasons why terrorists are potentially still able to do us harm-- we really do not know who they are. We only assume that we know. It is clear that the simple label of "terrorist havens" and the stereotypes imposed on Arabs completely ignore the many attributes of Middle Eastern and North African countries, and serve to dismiss, or disinform us about, an entire people and their rich cultural heritage. Read more!

Biased Judging (revisited)

At the end of 2005 I co-authored an article about biased judging entitled, “Overwhelmed Circuit Courts Lashing Out at the BIA and Selected Immigration Judges: Is Streamlining to Blame?” 82 Int. Rel. No. 48 (December 19, 2005). While the issue has not captured the attention of the media in the past several years the way it did in 2005, the latest article, posted below, makes evident that the concern is still relevant five years later.

Decision-making in asylum cases has always been intriguing given the vast disparity in rulings that seem to exist from one judge to another. Syracuse University’s ”TRAC” has addressed the concern statistically, and affirms that the disparity has declined in recent years. See, http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/209/. Additionally, two newer articles on this issue, one from the Law Bulletin and the other from The Sun Times, are pasted below.

Perhaps one of the most egregious cases we wrote about in 2005 about was Fiadjoe v. Attorney General, 411 F.3d 135 (3d, 2005). In this asylum matter, the applicant, a young Ghanaian woman, had been horribly abused by her father, who belonged to a peculiar traditional sect. She testified that she had been his sex slave from the age of seven, subjected to brutal beatings and had boiling water poured on her. The immigration judge held that the testimony was not credible, even fabricated, and began to aggressively question the woman. The Court of Appeals found the immigration judge’s behavior “crude (and cruel).” The judge had tormented her so much on the witness stand that she broke down and began disassociating, a symptom of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The judge effectively succeeded in undoing months of psychotherapy the young woman had participated in to address her emotional pain.

More recently, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that an immigration judge denied an immigrant appearing before her a full and
fair hearing by unreasonably limiting her testimony. See, Rendon v. Holder, 588 F. 3d 669(9th Cir. 2009). While this was not an asylum application, the immigration judge’s conduct is equally troubling, especially since this is not the first time this particular immigration judge has been admonished for this very same reason by the federal court. In a case called Smolniakova v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2005), the court pointed out that it had previously questioned this specific judge’s faulty legal reasoning three times. This is unusual for a federal court. Usually, the immigration judge remains anonymous and no attention is called to his or her decision-making other than the legal or factual conclusions made.

In paraphrasing my co-author, Gerald Seipp, in our 2005 article, we recognize that most immigration judges endeavor to render fair and impartial decisions. Nonetheless, it is absolutely critical to recall that most immigrants in removal proceedings cannot afford the extraordinary expense of federal court litigation, or the type of remedial effort sought by the Bahamian citizen in the post below, in order to ensure that they receive due process. Therefore, it is vital that biases and other unprofessional behavior in the immigration courts be examined, and that corrective action be taken to assure fair and accurate decisions.

For more on a closely related issue, see December post, “The Price of Justice.”



April 21, 2009 Volume: 155 Issue: 77
Study eyes disparities in asylum outcomes
By Stephanie Potter
Law Bulletin staff writer

Two Georgetown University Law Center professors are urging an overhaul of the country's immigration system, pointing to widespread discrepancies in how officials handle asylum cases.

Andrew I. Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag on Monday presented data from their study, titled ''Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication,'' at a discussion sponsored by various local bar groups and held at The Chicago Bar Association.

The event featured remarks from Judge Richard A. Posner of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who has criticized flaws in the immigration system both in written decisions and in public forums.

Among the findings of the study was that the 7th Circuit, at 37 percent, has the highest remand rate for immigration appeals in the nation. Courts of Appeal, like other parts of the immigration system, were found to vary widely in their treatment of asylum cases.

In his comments, Posner recommended higher recruitment standards for immigration judges and more training, particularly training in the culture of asylum seekers' homelands. The discussion was moderated by Mary M. McCarthy, director of the National Immigrant Justice Center.

The study was published in the Stanford Law Review in 2007, and is to be published in the fall as a book by the NYU Press. It examined consistency — or the lack thereof — in adjudication throughout the system, from the asylum offices, where refugees make their initial applications for asylum, to the U.S. Courts of Appeal. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, a professor at Temple University's Beasley School of Law who did not appear at Monday's event, co-authored the article and book.

''Neither the government nor asylum seekers want a system where what matters most in a refugee claim is who the decision-maker is,'' Schoenholtz said.

''We don't want a system where an asylum seeker from a country that produces lots of refugees has a 5 percent chance of success before asylum officer or judge X, and an 85 percent chance down the hall, from a different asylum officer or judge."

Yet Schoenholtz and Schrag said that is just the type of immigration system we now have.

The study focused on asylum seekers from 15 countries, including China, Columbia and India.

Among the findings:

• Among six regional asylum offices, the rate at which Chinese refugees' requests for asylum were granted ranged from 15 percent to 73 percent.

• Asylum seekers have a much better chance of winning their cases in immigration courts in New York or San Francisco than in Atlanta or Detroit.

• The single greatest factor that affects whether an asylum seeker wins or loses in immigration courts is whether the applicant has a lawyer. The next greatest factor is the gender of the immigration judge. Female immigration judges grant asylum at a rate 44 percent higher than their male colleagues, the study found.

''We don't know what the right grant rate is,'' Schoenholtz said. ''We don't pretend to know that. All we know is there is no consensus.''

Schoenholtz and Schrag advanced several proposals for reform of the immigration system that they hope will be considered when Congress tackles the question.

They urged better training for immigration judges and joint judging in some cases. They also are pushing for an increase in the number of immigration judges and law clerks and a requirement of written opinions in asylum cases.

Schrag noted that there currently is one law clerk for every six immigration judges, and immigration judges in New York City conduct as many as four hearings on the merits each day.

One key recommendation is to move the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals out of the Justice Department and create an independent court in order to remove politics from the equation.

The authors also recommend providing free legal representation for indigent asylum seekers.

''If you lose a case, the chance of being sent back to a country where you may be tortured or imprisoned or killed is substantial,'' Schrag said. ''If you're faced with a year and a day in jail in the United States and you're indigent, you get a free lawyer. If you're faced with death in an asylum case, you don't.''

Posner said the study was a model of its kind, but noted that questions of uniformity of decisions and of quality of decisions are separate issues.

''It's a guess that if you have a higher quality at all levels, you would have greater uniformity, but it really is a guess,'' Posner said.

He said asylum adjudication is an inherently uncertain process because of language and cultural barriers and the unavailability of documents and witnesses.

That, coupled with the emotionally and politically charged nature of asylum cases, leads to decisions based on personal factors, Posner said.

Still, he said, certain reforms could improve the uniformity and especially the quality of immigration decisions. Posner described the work load of immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals as ''crushing.''

''Certainly the number of immigration judges and the number of board members should be increased,'' Posner said.

Lisa K. Koop, an attorney with the NIJC who attended the discussion, said the findings of the study reflected her experience. She particularly noted the importance of legal representation for asylum seekers, saying it can mean the difference between life and death.

''We see so many cases where there is that level of gravity,'' she said.

Schoenholtz and Schrag said after the discussion that they are continuing their research and are now focusing on the impact of a 1996 law putting a one-year deadline on asylum applications.

The discussion was sponsored by the NIJC, the Chicago Bar Foundation, the Chicago Lawyer Chapter of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, The Chicago Bar Association's Committee on Immigration & Nationality, the American Immigration Lawyers Association Chicago Chapter, and the Midwest Coalition for Human Rights.



Asylum seekers have better luck with northern or female judges
Northern, female judges most likely to let them stay
April 27, 2009

BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter apallasch@suntimes.com
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1545294,CST-NWS-asylum27.article#
If you're a political refugee afraid to go back to your homeland, pray you get a woman judge or a Northerner.
A male judge sitting in a Southern court is about twice as likely to reject your asylum plea, according to research from two Georgetown University professors.
"The fact that women are more sympathetic to asylum seekers -- that is certainly a factor, and maybe Southerners don't like foreigners as much," Federal Appellate Judge Richard Posner said with a chuckle. "Maybe people in big cities are more used to having large [less] indigenous populations. Maybe it's different in more homogenous areas of the United States."
Posner has been the most outspoken appellate judge criticizing the decisions of federal immigration judges and he sits on the appellate court most likely to grant asylum pleas -- the Chicago-based 7th Circuit. Posner spoke this past week at a seminar by the Georgetown professors -- Philip Schrag and Andrew Schoenholtz who are compiling the book about how U.S. Courts handle asylum cases.
What they found was utter randomness -- some judges who refuse all asylum requests, others who grant almost all.
"There is a great deal of persecution in the world, but there also are a great deal of people who want to come to the United States -- they'll come here illegally and try to stay here with asylum," Posner said.
Using data they obtained through Freedom of Information requests, Schrag and Schoenholtz charted the progress of asylum cases from the hearing officers who first rule on the cases, to the immigration judges who those rulings can be appealed to, to the Board of Immigration Affairs (BIA) in Virginia to the federal appellate courts that represent the last hope for the refugees.
At the immigration judge stage, they found judges in Atlanta granted only 12 percent of asylum requests, while judges in New York granted 52 percent and judges in San Francisco granted 54 percent. Even within those jurisdictions, the rulings were all over the map, they said. One New York judge granted asylum in six percent of the cases; another New York judge granted asylum in 91 percent of cases.
Asylum-seekers with no attorney won only 16 percent of the time. Those with an attorney won 46 percent of the time.
One statistic that caught the professors by surprise: the 78 female immigration judges granted asylum in 54 percent of cases; while the 169 male judges granted it in 37 percent of cases.
Early on, the Bush administration slashed the number of judges on the Board of Immigration Affairs. It had the effect the administration wanted: The overworked judges began denying without comment a far greater percentage of asylum requests. That boosted the number of cases appealed to the federal appellate courts, prompting an outcry from Posner.
Posner has criticized the lawyers who represent the refugees, the front-line hearing officers, the translators, the immigration judges, the State Dept. documents those judges rely on in making their rulings, and the BIA members who often write no opinions to justify their rulings.
The Chicago district reverses more than 30 percent of the BIA's denials of asylum, compared to the next-highest district, the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit, which reverses about 20 percent of the board's rulings.
Lowering the workload of the judges would help them to take more time on each case and properly consider them, Posner said.
"The 7th Circuit doesn't have one of the heaviest workloads," Posner said, and laughed as he added, "Maybe that's why we reverse so many of the appeals."
Congressional committees have expressed interest in Schrag and Schoenholtz' work and the professors hope the new administration will use it to revamp the asylum process.

. Read more!

Biased judging

This is indeed an unusual case in immigration practice, although it is not the first time I've heard complaints of biased judges : http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202439420796

"Despite having ruled three times in the last four years against the family's pleas not to be deported to their native Bahamas, the board on Jan. 11 agreed to reopen the case. The reason: an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) that concluded the immigration judge in the asylum proceeding 'engaged in professional misconduct when he acted in reckless disregard of his obligation to be fair and impartial.'"


Bad behavior by judge reverses asylum ruling
Asylum case reopened after Justice Department finds misconduct by
immigration judge.

Marcia Coyle

January 25, 2010

For Roscoe Campbell, his family's quest for asylum in this country has been
a "long and rough road, mentally, physically and financially." But years of
fearing deportation when any stranger rang their doorbell or stopped them on
the street ended this month with a remarkable and rare turnaround by the
Board of Immigration Appeals.

Despite having ruled three times in the last four years against the family's
pleas not to be deported to their native Bahamas, the board on Jan. 11
agreed to reopen the case. The reason: an investigation by the U.S.
Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) that
concluded the immigration judge in the asylum proceeding "engaged in
professional misconduct when he acted in reckless disregard of his
obligation to be fair and impartial."

"This is pretty amazing," said Nadine Wettstein, director of the American
Immigration Council's Legal Action Center. "That you can use OPR findings to
reopen a case really seems extraordinary to me."

The board's decision means a new day in court before a different immigration
judge and a temporary reprieve for Campbell, his wife and three children,
from "the nightmare of never knowing when you might be picked up," he said.

For Immigration Judge Bruce Solow of Miami, who rejected the Campbells'
asylum request, the board's decision is undoubtedly the continuation of a
different nightmare that now includes public embarrassment and possible
discipline. A number of immigration lawyers who have practiced before him
for many years insist that is undeserved punishment of a judge who is
demanding, compassionate and objective.

Besides the asylum case, the Campbells and Solow now share experience with
the Justice Department's process for investigating complaints against
immigration judges. It is a process that is neither swift nor transparent
and because of that, it can be unfair - to aliens, attorneys and immigration
judges.

In the Campbell case, the process worked, said the family's pro bono
attorney, Christopher Nugent of Holland & Knight's Washington office.

"We were pleasantly surprised by the process," Nugent said. "OPR pulled the
file on the case and when they listened to the tapes, that's when they
realized something had gone wrong. It's not just about the written
transcript. Solow was not only sarcastic and derisive, he was literally
shouting. When you go to the board and raise this behavior in your motion,
they don't listen to the tapes."

INTO THE SYSTEM

In their asylum application, the Campbell family claim they fled their
island nation in 1999 to avoid being tortured or murdered by allegedly
corrupt officials within the Royal Bahamas Defense Force. Roscoe Campbell, a
retired member of that force, reported illegal drug-smuggling activities by
Defense Force officers to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, and, in
the face of a subsequent threat, feared for himself and his family.

In 2005, the Campbells, accompanied by Pastor Chip Stokes of St. Paul's
Episcopal Church of Delray Beach, Fla., which has been supporting the
family, appeared before Solow for their asylum hearing.

Solow, appointed in 1986 by then Attorney General Edwin Meese, denied the
asylum application after finding that it was not filed on time, that
Campbell was not credible, and that there was no substantial evidence that
he had been tortured in the past or would be tortured by any Bahamian
official if he returned. The Board of Immigration Appeals and later the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed with the judge's -ruling.

Both the board and the circuit court did note that Solow's "sarcasm"
throughout the hearing was inappropriate and detracted from the dignity of
the hearing. But neither said that lack of judicial demeanor rendered the
hearing unfair. The board also noted that Solow was "actually generous" in
giving Campbell an opportunity to bolster his case with additional evidence.
The board twice rejected motions to reopen the case in 2006.

Holland & Knight had entered the case after Solow's ruling and at the
request of Stokes. Nugent's colleague, Leon Fresco, now senior immigration
counsel to Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), filed the misconduct complaint
against Solow in 2007.

In the complaint, Fresco described Solow's behavior during the Campbell
hearing as "abusive and intemperate." The transcript showed, he said, that
the judge had "commandeered" the entire direct examination. Campbell's
attorney asked only 13 questions but the judge asked more than 200 "in rapid
fire fashion - each time interrupting Mr. Campbell's answer to the previous
question." He continually accused Campbell of lying and made mocking jokes,
such as asking Campbell whether he spoke to fictional characters from
detective novels, for example Zelda Jones (from a series of books by Sharon
Duncan), at the U.S. Embassy.

At the close of evidence, said the complaint, the judge stated, "This is so
vague and general you could vomit and I could vomit because I can't, he
wants me to become a magician here and grant it merely based on this kind of
testimony," and "I think this case, quite frankly, I hate to use the word
but I think it stinks. It smells bad because there's no way, this is pie in
the sky."

The complaint said the board and the 11th Circuit had noted improper
behavior by Solow in two 2006 cases.

In September 2009, OPR informed Nugent of its conclusion that Solow had
engaged in professional misconduct in the Campbell case and that the agency
had advised the Executive Office of Immigration Review of its findings.
Armed with the OPR findings, Nugent filed the motion to reopen.

Neither OPR nor the Executive Office would comment on the Solow case. The
Executive Office has its own procedure for taking complaints against
immigration judges and private attorneys. Both agencies would not provide
statistics on the number of complaints received against immigration judges
in the last year or any year. The Executive Office does make public
disciplinary actions taken against attorneys, but not judges. The office
does not publish disciplinary actions taken against immigration judges
"because of Privacy Act protections," said a spokeswoman.

The lack of transparency irritates attorneys and judges alike. The American
Immigration Council's Wettstein and other immigration lawyers said
complaints against immigration judges to the Executive Office seem to go
into a "black hole," and, they added, getting notice of findings made by OPR
also seems rare.

"In immigration court, the anomaly is the mechanism for bringing to light
bad behavior of judges and government attorneys is so slow and obscure that
it seems to us in the alien bar that it's unbalanced," said Daniel Kowalski
of Reina, Bates & Kowalski Immigration Law Group's Austin, Texas, office.
"We feel a little put upon."

And so do the judges. The Executive Office prohibits immigration judges from
speaking to the press, which leaves them "undefended" in the face of -public
criticism by the media, courts or others, according to Immigration Judge
Dana Marks, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.

Complaint investigations often take years and focus on alleged behavior that
may have occurred four or more years before the investigation began, she
added.

"It's unfairly prejudicial to everybody that this process lasts so long,"
Marks said. "There should be some consideration of the totality of a judge's
record as well."

Marks said her union's concern with OPR proceedings stem from the Justice
Department's position that immigration judges are attorney-employees, not
judicial officers.

"Immigration judges welcome transparency into our conduct," she said. "The
proper standards to evaluate judicial performance as well as discipline are
not being implemented by the department because immigration judges are
treated as attorneys, not as judges. We think the proper standards are the
American Bar Association's model code of judicial conduct."

The department proposed a code of conduct for immigration judges three years
ago - not the ABA model code. It has not gone into effect and is the subject
of negotiations with the judges' union.

DEFENDING SOLOW

Solow may not be able to speak in his own defense, but he is not without
defenders. A number of veteran immigration practitioners in interviews with
The National Law Journal attested to his fairness, compassion, high
standards for lawyers appearing before him, legal knowledge and humor in
many cases.

"He is a judge I am confident of getting a fair hearing from," said Randy
McGrorty, chief executive officer of Catholic Charities Legal Services in
Miami. "He goes out of his way to see that people get adequate
representation. Is he direct? Absolutely. In my experience with him, which
goes back 17 years, he has never ever been inappropriate."

Solow is now represented by nationally known immigration lawyer and scholar
Ira Kurzban of Miami's Kurzban & Kurzban. Kurzban said OPR has no
jurisdiction to investigate immigration judges unless there is an allegation
of corruption.

"The procedure that OPR uses to reach its conclusion is just violative of
due -process," he said. "They refuse to give us notes of their interviews
and a transcript of his interview. The process is ludicrous."

He also questioned an investigation into allegations about a five-year-old
case.

The Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to reopen the Campbell case based
on the OPR findings is "an important precedent," said Holland's Nugent,
adding, "There is no statute of limitations for complaints against attorneys
for ethical misconduct. Isn't that the same principle here? In the final
analysis, Roscoe Campbell was vindicated, thanks to the grace of the board." Read more!

Burnout

After I posted my first couple of pieces on this blog in December, I realized that I had stirred some strong feelings in my fellow non-profit colleagues on the issue of burnout. One friend, a public defender, immediately commented to me that, " I almost cried when I read about feeling burnout. Sometimes I can't tell where my frustration comes from. You are so right that it comes from seeing injustice dumped upon helpless people everyday." Her admission struck me, so I thought I'd briefly return to the topic.

My colleagues and I, employed in direct service non-profit legal organizations, work in the "trenches" -- we have day-to-day contact with clients who are desperate for legal representation but cannot afford the luxury of private counsel. They often come to us with a lot of hope; little understanding of the law and the means by which it can and cannot solve one's problems; and sometimes with doubts about our abilities since we are free lawyers. I once had a prospective client ask me why I did not charge any money for my services. Was it because I had not passed the bar exam? Daily, we see the good and the bad of human nature. We are worn down by dishonesty, manipulation and constant demands, yet invigorated by sincere gratitude, candidness and the victories we obtain for the underserved in our population. We perform our work without the benefit of assistants and secretarial staff. One colleague laughingly told me that when she started working in non-profit, after having been at a prestigious law firm, she had to be taught how to use the fax machine. At my current job, I had to learn how to operate a postage meter.

In the non-profit sector, there is no doubt that we lawyers are sometimes called upon not only to solve legal problems the way we were educated and trained to do, but also to virtually perform miracles and provide basic social services to our vulnerable clients, whether or not this appeals to us. I have found myself attempting to locate housing for a homeless client, pick up another at the bus station in a frigid night, loan a third the fare for a bus ticket (without reimbursement despite the promise to do so), provide warm clothing for the winter months, and even buy a pair of shoes for one who was desperately poor. For this reason, we must consistently remind each other not to take our work home with us. The emotional toll might overwhelm and leave us indifferent, and I’ve certainly been through many bouts of burnout in my two-decade career. There is even a report that was published about a year ago indicating that lawyers who represent asylum-seekers may suffer secondary post-traumatic stress disorder given the tales of horror to which we are consistently exposed, as well as the demands we must meet to "save" our clients from future pain. Secondary trauma results from the natural emotional consequences of learning about trauma and helping or wanting to help its victim. (See, Secondary Trauma in Asylum Lawyers, Bender’s Immigration Bulletin, March 1, 2009). The same source points out that burnout is different. Burnout results from a working environment characterized by high stress and low rewards, the epitome of which is employment in the non-profit sector. Imagine if one suffers from both burnout and seconday PTSD! Regardless of this possibility, we inevitably still let certain clients and their conflicted lives get to us. It's hard to let go of your humanity just because you leave the office.

A young, dedicated immigration attorney, whom I had once had the pleasure of mentoring, recently informed me after reading my blog for the first time, and sympathizing with my tales of burnout, that she was changing jobs in order to handle fewer cases and more administrative duties. She'd spent the last several years representing the indigent in immigration court, like I. She told me frankly that, "working with clients is really, really difficult and I'm glad that someone else shares my frustrations." Initially I thought that her decision was premature and made too early in her career. After all she'd only graduated from law school a few years earlier. But I understand. The exhaustion creeps up on you, and when it stares you in the face, all you can think of is to run. Run far away and never look back. The key, however, is coming back to your senses after you feel there's no other solution but to jump ship. How we each do this varies from one person to the next, and I have no remarkable insight on how to reach this point, although obviously I've hung around for over twenty years. For me, it just happens. I have a good day and forget about the previous bad day(s). I suppose it helps that, ultimately, I truly like my clients and their stories. My friend, on the other hand, really needs a change of pace for the time being.

A feeling of burnout is particularly disheartening when family and friends inadvertently contribute to it by questioning the motives for which you engage in this type of work. The most common offending line is, "don't you want to make more money?" I suppose that, given the reputation that the legal profession has for being a lucrative career, people find it hard to comprehend why some of us might practice in non-profit and virtually live paycheck to paycheck. One former colleague simply did not tell her family about her exact career choice. As she explained it to me, "they wouldn't understand it. They think lawyers make lots of money." It's no wonder that she left the non-profit sector after an extremely short stint for a more traditional legal position with the government. I also thought such a change might help when I joined private practice for a brief three years. I learned, however, that the field was not really so lucrative, but that I had many more limitations on what cases I chose to handle since, naturally, legal fees and profit were the underlying goal of the law firm. I guess I value my freedom more than money.

A good friend of mine who was one of my first mentors in the profession, himself the son of immigrants and someone to whom I turn regularly for all sorts of insights given his years in the field, says that he finds solace in his faith, which is reflected in a quote by the late, brave Archbishop of El Salvador, Oscar Romero: "We cannot do everything and there is a sense of liberation in realizing that. This enables us to do something and to do it very well." He adds that "stoking the passion that led me to work for the poor is essential to combating burnout." I agree. He, like I, admits that he has less patience with clients as time goes on, whether it is a result of age or experience. There is no doubt that sometimes you want just to admonish your client, "how could you do that?" or "what the hell were you thinking?" "You made your bed, now lie in it!" I remain conscious that some of my clients have put themselves in the situation in which they find themselves by poor decision-making or inappropriate behavior, and I remember that I am simply not responsible for it or its consequences. I get handed my deck of cards and I am not a magician. I cannot change the bad hand that people bring to the table with them.

My "old" friend and former mentor also says, "as long as I have a sense of caring, I know I have not burned out." I too rely on my empathy to keep trudging forward, and try to recall the moments with clients that touched me. I once had a Vietnamese Amerasian client who wasborn in the midst of the war. He was unrecognized by his American father, rejected by his mother, and then abandoned by those who "adopted" him as soon as they had used him to immigrate to the United States under a special program for Amerasians. He explained to me how, as a child, he could not attend school because of the discrimination he faced as a child of the "enemy," and how he wore tattered clothes and owned no shoes. No one loved him, he candidly told me in his heavily accented English. He said that the other kids had their mothers and fathers to hug. He hugged only trees. When I think of such a story, shared with me so trustingly, I know I am where I should be. Perhaps that's my little secret. Read more!

Angel Island: 100 Years Old

As a follow-up to my post, "The Islands:" http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_14241518?nclick_check=1

"The Angel Island station was built after passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, a race-based doctrine that limited immigration. While some were welcomed to America, others - typically Asians - found themselves stuck on Angel Island for months, or years in some cases." Read more!

What About Haitians in Detention (Part Two)?

According to U.S. Government figures, up to 200,000 Haitians present in the United States as of January 12th will apply for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). I do not know whether this number includes those who are in detention or not, but I think it remains to be seen exactly what will happen to those who are detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Today I was asked by someone to explain the concerns I had about detained Haitians. Here are three general issues on this subject which I hope to see addressed favorably by the Government very soon.

First, there needs to be a directive by ICE headquarters to release all detained Haitians who are prima facie eligible for TPS and have not yet been ordered removed from the U.S. by an immigration court. Additionally, immigration courts should administratively close all removal proceedings pending against Haitians who qualify for TPS during the time that they remain in valid status. This is not a novel idea. It was implemented in 1990 when nationals of El Salvador were first granted TPS status. Obvioulsy, if an individual qualifies for TPS she or he has not been convicted of a felony or two misdeamenors, and presumably, poses no danger to the community. On the other hand, it costs the U.S. taxpayer approximately $90 per day to hold an immigrant in detention, and there is no reason to do so if the immigrant is clearly eligible for relief. Once free, these men and women can seek assistance to complete a TPS application from a lawyer or knowledgeable advocacy group who speak their native language. In detention, the language barrier makes it almost impossible to successfully prepare an application. Very recently, I met with two detained Haitian men who are clearly TPS eligible, and through a mix of English and French we were able to muddle through the lengthy form. However, it was far from an ideal situation, and one of the men would have clearly benefitted from communicating in his native Creole. This ensures that there are no misunderstandings and errors made in the process. As well, once free from custody, these men could more easily obtain the money required for the TPS filing fees. And of course, we as taxpayers would save the detention cost, as well as the Government's expense to litigate a deportation case, which is also clearly borne by the taxpayer.

Second, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must urge all of its attorneys to agree to reopen the removal cases of Haitians who are prima facie eligible for TPS, but were ordered deported before TPS was implemented. The U.S. announced last week that it would not enforce orders of removal to Haiti. The country simply cannot integrate deportees at this point in time when it is struggling beyond measure to aid its desperate population. At the same time, there is no reason to keep individuals who qualify for TPS in detention under an order if removal for all of the aforementioned reasons. The normal process when there is an order of removal issued and an immigrant becomes eligible for some form of relief, is to make a motion to reopen the removal proceedings to apply for the relief. Given the 90 day statutory time limitation to file a motion to reopen, some Haitians may find that they are time-barred from reopening their case unless, as the law dictates, the Government agrees to the motion to reopen. For this reason, it is critical that DHS attorneys be directed to join in motions to reopen so that the case may then follow the process set forth above.

Third, and perhaps most difficult to address, is how we should deal with those Haitians who do not qualify for TPS on account of criminal convictions, but cannot be removed from the United States even if ordered deported. As stated in my first post on this subject, there are certain procedures currently in place for such situations. I would only add that release from detention should be strongly encouraged as a matter of policy when the individual poses no danger to the community and no flight risk.

Finally, from a humanitarian point of view, a person whose family and/or friends have just perished in one the world's greatest tragedies should not be held in detention. It is not healthy for the psyche, and not conducive to healing. The men with whom I recently met had both lost family in the earthquake. One lost his two year old daughter and her mother. The other lost his father and several siblings, and had stopped eating. The pain and exhaustion of the trauma was visible on their faces. They need their community now more than ever and should be freed so they can mourn among people who care for them and understand their sorrow. Read more!

Filing for TPS: "Buyer Beware"

As the immigrant advocacy community nationwide gears up to help 100,000 to 200,000 Haitians in the United States to apply for Temporary Protected Status (TPS), a concern has arisen that unscrupulous individuals and organizations will crop up, as they often do in similar situations, to meet the unmet demand for help. It is very important, therefore, for Haitians to know who are the reputable attorneys and other legal advocates in their communities whom they should trust in this important filing process. Vulnerable immigrant communities, desperate for legal assistance in times like this, can fall prey to those who offer legal services but are wholly unqualified to give immigration-related information and representation—even just to complete and file forms. The consequences of inaccurate legal assistance can have a serious and lasting effect on one’s future immigration status.

While I cannot begin to list those entities which provide qualified and responsible legal assistance, I can set forth a few guidelines that may help a TPS applicant identify when there may be a problem, such that if that problem is not raised or addressed by the person assisting a Haitian to file for TPS, it may be a warning sign to seek help from someone else.

First and foremost, an eligible applicant has 180 days from January 21, 2010to file a TPS application. Only those Haitians who resided in the U.S. as of January 12, 2010are eligible. Those who arrive after that date are not eligible!

Secondly, not every Haitian is eligible for TPS even if she or he meets the qualifications listed below. A person convicted of a felony or two misdemeanor offenses is not eligible. Additionally, a person with criminal convictions who is not a U.S. citizen may be placed in deportation proceedings if s/he has a criminal conviction. If one has had police contact in the past, it is highly advisable to speak to a reputable and knowledgeable lawyer about this issue before submitting a TPS application.

These are the general requirements for and things to know about filing for Temporary Protected Status for Haitians:

1) TPS is temporary. TPS does not lead to permanent residency and anyone who promises a “green card” as the result of filing TPS should be viewed with caution. If a person is granted TPS, the status will be valid for 18 months. After such time, the U.S. Government must decide whether to extend the status. If so, a new application will be required.

2) TPS allows one to obtain employment authorization and a separate application for a work authorization is required when filing for TPS is required unless you are under 14 or over age 65. The application for TPS is an I-821. The application for a work permit is an I-765. These applications, as well as all of the very good information the U.S. Government has produced about TPS, may be found at the website of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) at www.uscis.gov. CIS will also be launching a blog exclusively addressing TPS for Haitians.

3) An employment authorization document is generally valid for a specified, limited period of time. After such time, it must be renewed using the I-765 application.

4) There are fees to file for TPS, although fee waivers are available as stated below. The fees are: $50 for the I-821; $80 for biometrics (biometrics are photos and fingerprints taken at a CIS office, but they are only required for those over age 14); and $340 for the I-765. However, you are not required to file for a work permit if you do not want or need one and you are under 14 or over age 65. Two color passport style photos are also required.

5) Fee waivers are available for those unable to pay the fees and can prove financial need. The CIS website offers guidelines about obtaining a fee waiver.

6) You must be a Haitian national or a person without a nationality who last habitually lived in Haiti to qualify for TPS. You will be required to prove your citizenship with a copy of a passport (even if it is expired) or a copy of your birth certificate or your Haitian national ID card. If you do not have these documents, the Government may accept other forms of proof of nationality, but this depends on the document. This matter may be complicated and USCIS has guidance on what documents may be provided available at www.uscis.gov. Also note that, according to the Haitian Consulate in Miami, any child born outside of Haiti to a Haitian mother or father is a Haitian national.

7) You must have continuously resided in the United States as of January 12, 2010 (the date of the earthquake in Port-au-Prince). If you first arrived in the U.S. after that date, you are not eligible for TPS. You will have to prove your residence and continuous presence in the United States with rent receipts, payroll stubs, bank statements, school records, etc.

8) When you are granted TPS, you may be able to obtain a document, called "advance parole," which allows you to leave the U.S. However, before leaving the United States for any reason, you should consult a reputable attorney. The law says that anyone who has lived in the U.S. illegally for six months or more at any time may be barred from returning to the country, even if s/he has special permission to travel, like advance parole, through TPS. Be careful about leaving the country when you have lived in the U.S. out-of-status. The law on this issue is complicated and you should seek a legal consultation before applying for this permission.

9) The TPS application contains many questions which require an applicant to check "yes" or "no." Anyone who answers one of these questions, "yes," should seek a consultation from a reputable lawyer since a "yes" response may raise issues about eligibility for TPS or even one's right to be in the United States.

10) After you file for TPS, you will be sent an appointment notice for your biometrics (See #4 above). Do not miss this appointment. It may be a good idea to bring a translator to this appointment if you do not speak English. Some locations of CIS in the U.S. will have Creole interpreters, but not all. Bring valid photo I.D. to this appointment if possible.

11) You may still apply for other immigration benefits for which you qualify even if you file TPS. Read more!

COMING OUT

“When she was a top student in her Chicago high school French class last year, Reyna Wences tried every excuse to avoid a planned field trip to Quebec. She knew she'd be arrested if she tried.”

This article reflects why we need to pass the DREAM Act, legislation which would allow high school graduates who seek to attend college, and who were brought to the U.S. illegally as small children, to gain permanent residence. For more information, click here. There is even a Facebook campaign in place for this struggle. Join at OBAMA: Pass the DREAM Act by clicking here Read more!

MY MESSAGE TO CONGRESS: Enough of the 1996 law, It's Time for a Change!

"The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you." Exodus 12:14

On this weekend when we commemorate the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., one of the world's renowned civil rights activists who recognized human dignity and freedom above all else, I wish to send my own powerful message to Congress.

As explained in my earlier posts, "The Myth of the Aggravated Felon" and "The Price of Justice," immigration law became wholly unforgiving in 1996. At that time Congress passed an extraordinarily mean-spirited law affecting people who had legally immigrated to the United States and established their lives here. It is now time for Congress to roll back immigration law and (re)enact the pre-1996 provisions pertaining to lawful permanent residents ( also known as "green card holders") before more lives are unjustly ripped apart.

Under the current law, a host of crimes, including misdemeanors and non-violent offenses, are deemed "aggravated felonies." Congress decreed that permanent residents who were convicted of these so-called aggravated felonies were ineligible to present a case before an immigration judge setting forth all of the favorable circumstances in their lives in an attempt to avoid deportation. That is, a judge is stripped of the authority to balance an immigrant's equities against their criminal acts and any other negative factors to determine whether, in spite of the criminal conviction(s), the permanent resident should be given a second chance to remain in the United States. I have been a repeated witness to the cruel consequences this law has had over its lifespan of fourteen years. It has split families, left children without a parent, forced mothers and their children onto welfare, and sent men and women back to countries which they left, and in some cases fled, decades ago.

While our country should indeed address the status of some 12 million hard-working undocumented immigrants who have made this country their home following their dream of a better life, we must absolutely address the pain we have wrought upon permanent residents whom we already invited to live and work in our country and to grow deep roots in this land. I sincerely hope that the "throw-away" mentality that permeates many aspects of American culture has not gone so far as to include human beings. We should be willing to forgive those who have made mistakes, even serious ones, when they can establish compensating circumstances. And, of course, we should give them back their day in court, a fundamental democratic principle. It is clear that the impact of the 1996 law mirrors broader, and quite problematic, trends in the United States as manifested by the mass incarceration and punishment of those who violate drug laws, as opposed to any attempts at successful rehabilitation; by the strikingly disproportionate imprisonment of people of color; and by the continuous promotion of a greedy prison industrial complex which places profits above all. I am reminded of the statement made by Fyodor Dostoyevsky: "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." (from The House of the Dead).


Prior to 1996, only the most serious of crimes were aggravated felonies under immigration law. Generally, in order to constitute an aggravated felon, one's offense had to carry a sentence of imprisonment of five years. All other permanent residents would have available a hearing to prove they deserved to stay in the U.S., and judges had the discretion to grant a waiver of deportation if the crime was found to be outweighed by family ties, a long period of residency in this country, a steady employment history, rehabilitation and remorse for their wrongdoing, and other favorable conditions. So decisions about whether one should be deported were left in the able hands of immigration judges who heard testimony and considered evidence on all of these equities. A judge could consider the overall effect of deporting the individual to determine whether s/he merited another chance. Plenty of people were deported under this former scheme, but the deserving stayed and rebuilt their lives. Then Congress intervened, believing it knew better, and struck that power from the judges. Since then, I have sat with grown men and watched them break down when they learn this aspect of our law. They are truly stunned when
I tell them that they will be deported without the chance to present a defense.

At the detention center not too long ago, I represented a fortyish year old Laotian man who came to the United States as a twelve year old refugee, after spending five years of his young life in a refugee camp in Thailand. He was ordered deported as an aggravated felon. His aggravated felony offense? In 1987, he had forged his brother’s signature on a check and was sentenced to one year of imprisonment, though he actually served less. He was helping a crack-addicted girlfriend get money for a fix. Under the law, a crime of theft with a one-year sentenced imposed, whether or not it is actually served, is an aggravated felony. So one night, while he was home having dinner with his family, the man was picked up by agents for the Department of Homeland Security, ten years after he'd been released from jail for the forgery. He was ordered deported to Laos, a country from which he and his entire family had fled 33 years earlier. His brother forgave him for the offense when my client paid him back the money he'd stolen. However, the U.S. never did.

Here are more examples of people whose stories will never be heard because they are "aggravated felons":

A Ghanaian man I met recently came to the United States in 2000 with his parents and siblings after they'd won the "green card lottery." Shortly after he immigrated he enlisted in the U.S. Army and was sent to Iraq. According to his DD-214 papers, he was honorably discharged from the military after his five years of service. He was then convicted of selling a drug. The sale of any quantity of any drug at any time is an aggravated felony under Congress's draconian law. He will return to Ghana if he has not already. No one will hear about the trauma of war and how it might lead someone to use drugs to still his nerves. Yet, how much more American can one be? This young man was prepared to sacrifice his life for his adopted homeland. I've known the same to happen to Gulf War veterans, as well as those who were drafted in the U.S. war in Vietnam. In one case, a client of mine had immigrated in 1958, and was a grandfather as well as a veteran. Not surprisingly, his experiences in Vietnam led him to a heroin addiction, which later resulted in a drug sale to support the habit. In fact the problem seems all too common according to sources:
Here and Here and Here

In a "Know Your Rights" session conducted in Spanish at the detention facility, one of the men looked at me quizzically as I spoke to the assembled group. He was born in Central America but could not understand Spanish since he had immigrated to the U.S. as a child and never returned to the country of his nationality. He was now the young father of a disabled boy and a little girl, and was desperately trying to patch his life up. Foolishly, he had sold $200 worth of ecstasy. Coincidentally, in the same group there was a Dominican citizen who had immigrated with his entire family in the 1960's at the age of four, much like me. He was an aggravated felon based upon an offense for which he had been convicted a decade earlier. The Government alleged that it was a violent crime for which he had received a one year sentence, but the criminal system had released him after eight months. He admitted to me that he had developed an alcohol addiction after the death of his beloved father, which had led him into trouble, although he had managed to overcome it.

In the years immediately after passage of the unforgiving 1996 immigration law, I attempted to help a woman with a relatively troubled past involving drug abuse and the sad incidents that plague those who are addicts. She had arrived in the U.S. from Europe as a three-year-old with her mother. She had never known her father. She was deported as an aggravated felon. Upon arrival at the airport in her native country, where the former Immigration and Naturalization service officers left her after accompanying her on the journey back, she had no idea what to do. She lived in the airport for a few days and then decided to contact her estranged father. He came to meet her, but explained that so many years had passed and he had moved on with his life. There was no room anymore for a daughter he hadn't known or seen in over thirty years. He handed her a few hundred dollars and left. But for the Grace of God go I...

EPILOGUE
"And why did they not become U.S. citizens?" I am often asked, "then they would not have been deportable." "Because," I answer, "many felt like citizens already." I sympathize because I know this personally. I immigrated when I was three years old and remained a permanent resident until the age of 22 when I enrolled in law school. I knew that legally I was not a citizen because I kept a "green card" in my wallet which I had to produce whenever I traveled abroad. But I felt like an American; I spoke English as well as any American, and knew this country's history and culture intimately. So why was a piece of paper proving my citizenship necessary?

It is also important to note that the cost of filing for naturalization is also prohibitive for many low income and working class people. The current fee to file a citizenship application is $595. plus the $80. cost for the required biometrics. Add to that the price of two passport photos, which are also required, and you might realize why immigrants do not consider naturalization a priority. Read more!

HAITI

- By Sami Hanna

To see the smell of death
dashing through the gates of broken eyes.
Where did the wave of the great tremor
send the remains of my last sighs
before it ripped the disk of the land astray?
They rose carrying a glimpse of soft decay
they came knocking at the wall of the eternal dusk.
With a few droplets of salt
they lifted the sea from beneath its bed
to let it breathe the blast of sleep.
The tree that I grew up memorizing
raced away with my stolen arm.
The tea kettle awaits the dwellers of invisibility
the empty water glass lusts after tired lips
the unfinished cigarette suffocates and dries.
To have witnessed flowers’ end.
The poor march along the hymn
of the red path of sorrow
they pluck a child from its orbit
and fling it against the sun.
I live with my dead neighbor
just down the road from my truncated mother
and we spent the night of howls
remembering the slope
where we both meandered
before the moon fell below its knees.
To have witnessed flowers’ end.
Lives drop behind my ears like a wintery sky
they pass the barrier of shatter with a thud
they collect their little veins in capped shrieks
until the night draws nearer to the edge.
I saw the muscle that twitched in grey soil
I heard the cells that drank the sea.
How deep is the bottom?
Is it deeper than a cry?
Is it shallower than the leveled earth?
Close that lid of wires and let me
blow away my fingertips
so I can pinch that lonely flower
out of its fear, into its ashes. Read more!

And what about Haitians in Immigration Detention?

US halts deportations to Haiti, illegal immigrants will remain in detention centers

Upon learning the news yesterday that the U.S. would not execute deportation orders to Haiti in the aftermath of Tuesday's devastating earthquake and the ensuing chaos, I wondered what might happen to those Haitians who are detained by the U.S. immigration authorities and already have been ordered removed. I wondered whether they would be entitled to "post-order custody review" and eligible for release from detention.

Under the law, the United States has 90 days to execute a final order of removal. This means that when immigration authorities are unable to deport a detained immigrant who has been ordered removed by a court, the immigrant is entitled to request release from custody after 90 days if s/he has not be returned to the native country. However, release is not mandatory, and requires that the detainee prove s/he is not a flight risk or danger to the community. This is called a "post-order custody review" and the decision to release or not release is made exclusively by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.

The reasons why the U.S. Government may not be able to deport an immigrant who has been ordered removed may vary. Sometimes it is due to the immigrant's stateless status, or because of the lack of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and the home country. It may also occur on account of the native country's lack of cooperation in issuing the required travel document. Obviously, in the case of Haiti, it is because it is impossible to effectuate a deportation under the current tragic circumstances.

Clearly then, it would be unjustified for ICE to keep Haitians languishing in detention when they cannot be deported for reasons clearly beyond their control. While it remains to be seen exactly what will happen, the attached news article, citing a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, states that detained Haitians will remain in ICE custody. This is troubling news.

On the other hand, Florida Representative Kendrick Meek is quoted in the article suggesting that the issuance of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian citizens in the U.S. is imminent. This would be very welcome news. (For a discussion on TPS, and what it is, see article below, "Ede Ayiti"). Not only would TPS halt deporations to Haiti for both those who are detained and those who are not, but it would allow detained Haitians to seek immediate release from immigration custody if they indeed qualify for the benefit.

Read more!

Edwidge Danticat

The Haitian-American writer, Edwidge Danticat, whose work I recommend and cite in the post below, appeared on Democracy Now! this morning to speak about the disaster in her native country. See, Democracy Now here. Read more!

"Ede Ayiti!"

By now the world has learned of the devastating 7.0 magnitude earthquake in Haiti and its wicked toll on the lives of thousands. It is the strongest earthquake in more than 200 years according to the Associated Press, and Port-au-Prince is described as "total disaster and chaos." Haiti is a land of brave men and women who have endured extreme political violence and natural disasters throughout their history. Only five years ago, the nation suffered the impact of Tropical Storm Jeanne, which caused massive flooding and killed over 3000 people. While Haiti was the first of the European colonies in America to proudly obtain its independence on January 1, 1804, and the first republic established by former black African slaves, it is today the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere.

Note: The title to this post is "Help Haiti" in Creole. I chose the title because there is a beautiful work, designed in 1937 for a French anti-Fascist pamphlet by the Catalan artist Joan Miro, called "Aidez Espagne." The piece is a call, in French, to help the Spanish Republic during Spain's brutal civil war. Beneath the image, it is handwritten, "...immense creative resources will provide Spain a burst that will astonish the world." A postcard of Miro's "Aidez Espagne" has hung on my wall for many, many years.

In the U.S. there are large Haitian communities in New York, Miami, Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia. A 1998 law allowed qualifying Haitians to obtain a "green card" if they had applied for asylum and been present in the United States as of December 31, 1995. During the lifespan of that legal provision, approximately 15,500 gained permanent residence. However, with the exception of the aforementioned law, Haitian migrants to this country have not fared well, especially compared to their Cuban neighbors.

Regularly, Haitians attempt to make the dangerous voyage to Miami on rickety boats which are intercepted by the Coast Guard and immigration authorities. In September 1981, the Reagan administration entered an agreement with Haiti to interdict Haitian boats and return prospective immigrants to their homeland. Those who make it to our shores, like other migrants, have very limited means to gain legal residence and must live underground. Many apply for asylum in an attempt to gain protection from return to Haiti because of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, though only 17% were granted asylum between 2001-2006 (by comparison China and Colombia also have high asylum application rates, yet 50% of Chinese are granted asylum and 34% of Colombians. Some Haitians come to the U.S. with special temporary visas to cut cane in Florida's sugar industry, or pick crops in other parts of the country.

In contrast, Cubans who set foot on U.S. soil are permitted to enter the country, obtain a work permit, and may apply for permanent residence one year later, regardless of whether they have a genuine fear of persecution in Cuba. Even the attempt by Haitians to obtain "temporary protected status" (TPS) in the past has been met with resistance by the U.S. Government. TPS is a measure which allows citizens of designated countries to remain in the U.S. for a limited time while their nation suffers the severe consequences of a natural disaster, widespread political turmoil or war. Over the decades Somalia, Liberia, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Sudan, for example, have been designated for TPS status and their nationals protected from deportation and granted employment authorization during their stay.

Despite the repeated political and environmental disasters in Haiti, Haitians have never enjoyed this benefit. The Government generally cites the fear of a mass exodus of Haitians as the ground for denying TPS to them. In a troubling precedential decision issued in 2003 by former U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft, Haitians were deemed a "national security threat" in order to justify their detention in the U.S. when arrested by U.S. immigration officials. The Attorney General went so far as to reason that the allegedly massive migration of Haitians by sea diverted required resources necessary to combat terrorism.

In light of the devastation and human suffering caused by Tuesday's earthquake in Haiti, I turn to my friend Nicole Lee, currently on maternity leave as the President of TransAfrica Forum in Washington, DC. Nicole lived and worked in Haiti for several years. What can we do to help Haitians? Nicole posted this message on her Facebook page yesterday: "Call your Senator and Representative and demand that the U.S. send emergency personnel, equipment and aid immediately. Also, tell them to grant Haitians Temporary Protected Status. Support charities doing proven sustainable work like Partners in Health,
(For updated information on Haiti, click here) Read more!

Now the fruit is rotting on the tree

The recent attack on African farmworkers in southern Italy simply breaks my heart. There's no other way to put it, especially when Reuters reported on January 10, 2010 that the incident is reminiscent of 1960's Ku Klux Klan attacks against black citizens in the United States, and the anti-Berlusconi press in Italy is running headlines declaring that the migrants' wholesale expulsion from Rosarno, the Calabrian town where the attacks occurred, was tantamount to "ethnic cleansing."

The BBC indicates that the migrants, mostly from Ghana and Nigeria, were fruit pickers who camped in abandoned factories and other decrepit buildings without utilities and were paid only about $30 per day. This recalls Edward R. Murrow's brilliant work, "Harvest of Shame," exposing the abhorrent conditions under which African-American migrant laborers worked in this country in the 1950's, and also the desperate characters from "The Grapes of Wrath." Despite toiling in the most miserable of circumstances, the workers in Italy were deemed a threat by the residents of Rosarno, and thus were violently attacked. What could those residents have been so desperately afraid of I must ask, albeit rather rhetorically.


Clearly, people are afraid of those who are not like them. It is the definition of xenophobia and this offensive fear exists throughout the world. What happened in Italy is not unique to the Italian character. The French, plagued by turbulent riots in their immigrant-dominated "banlieus" (working class suburbs inhabited primarily by ethnic and racial minorities), and their controversial laws prohibiting the display of religious symbols, such as wearing yarmulkes and hijab, have received international attention and condemnation. And Spain, formerly a poor, emigrant nation like Italy, has struggled with anti-immigrant sentiment, and has engaged in an aggressive practice of intercepting the arrival to its shores of boats of migrants from Africa. Similarly, in November 2009, the Swiss voted to ban future construction of minarets on mosques in their country, an act which offended Muslims far beyond the borders of Switzerland. As well, European nations are adopting the American model of detaining people found unlawfully present inside their borders regardless of whether or not they present a danger to society. (See, http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/home.html). Nonetheless, an Italian friend finds the incident in his homeland shameful, and compares it to the treatment of Jews in Italy a generation or two earlier. He is undoubtedly, and thankfully, not alone in this assessment.

To their credit, both the Pope and the U.S. Catholic Church have expressed sympathy toward victimized migrants. On January 11th, The Guardian of London on reported that "In his traditional Sunday sermon to the crowd in St. Peter's square yesterday, the pope said: 'Immigrants are human beings, different in culture and traditions, but nevertheless to be respected. Violence ought never to be the way for anyone to resolve the difficulties.'" It reminds me a bit of the slogan often used in pro-immigrant rallies here, "no person is illegal." Indeed, it is noteworthy that Italians themselves, upon their immigration to the United States at the turn of the century, were viewed with disdain by the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants who held power in this country. They were but dirty Southern Europeans who were less intelligent than their Northern peers, and most immigrants at that time, coincidentally, were Calabrian and Sicilian. So now the discriminated against have become the oppressors. Power corrupts.

The Guardian further revealed that a growers' association leader from the region stated that Italians do not want to do such farm work, and with the evacuation of the migrants, 800 kilograms of citrus fruit remains rotting on the tree. My Italian friend confirms that a relative, who is an employment specialist in that country, finds that while Italians complain about the foreign-born invading their country, no Italians respond to announcements for jobs in farm labor, and Romanian and Albanian women have become the primary caretakers of the elderly and infirm.This rings quite familiar. In the U.S., Mexicans and Central Americans take on the tedious and dangerous work on our acres and acres of farmland, and Caribbean women in cities like New York care for our parents and children. The issues of integration and tolerance have become commonplace discussion in the U.S., and we are now engaged in a national debate on immigration reform. Is there a lesson here we might share with our European brethren?

NOTE: For an excellent view of the racial and ethnic tensions in France's poverty-stricken neighborhoods, I recommend two films available on DVD: La Haine (Hate)(1995) and The Class (PG-13, 2008). The former is filled with offensive language and troubling scenes. It should not be watched by children or sensitive adults. For a peek at immigrants in Italy, watch Rahil's Secret (2006). Read more!

BOOKS TO READ IN 2010 (and one DVD)

I've compiled this short list of books about migration which have impressed me because they quite pointedly address migration's very human dimensions. They are not new, but are very compelling and worth reading if you have an interest in this subject.

Luis Alberto Urrea, The Devil's Highway (2004) is the painful yet enlightening story of 26 Mexican men who slowly died of heat while attempting to cross into the U.S. after their smuggler abandoned them to the fierce elements of the scorching Arizona desert. While the book is written as a documentary account of a true event that occured in May 2001, its author is also a talented novelist, and thus the work is thoroughly descriptive and quite emotional. This story presents a critically important point of view in the debate about immigration from Mexico.

Dave Eggers, What is the What: the Autobiography of Valentino Achak Deng (2006) is a "best-selling" and harrowing account of the life of one of Southern Sudan's "Lost Boys" and his journey from Sudan to Kenya, and ultimately as a refugee to the U.S.

I have represented a couple of "Lost Boys" who were unfortunately convicted of crimes after their admission to this country as refugees. It is clear to me that the criminal behavior in those matters was directly attributable to the men's previous exposure to incomprehensible brutality, and obviously, they are not alone. For many of the refugees who seek peace and stability in the U.S., there are personally destructive consequences which may result from their past sufferings. I wish more could be done to assist psychologically traumatized individuals who arrive to this country. We have a moral obligation to address the mental turmoil caused by war, barbaric violence, and any past persecution refugees have endured so that they may all lead more emotionally healthy lives. It is in the best interest of our society as a whole to do so since, as we already know, scarred souls may turn to alcohol, drugs and violence to assuage their lingering pain, and this will ultimately cost us all.

Edwidge Danticat, Brother, I'm Dying (2007) is by a wonderfully gifted writer of Haitian descent whose body of work offers a marvelous look at long-suffering, but proud Haiti and her people, culture and history. The title reflects the author's beloved uncle's last words to an immigration officer when he was apprehended and detained while legally entering the U.S. The book details the uncle's remarkable life in his native country and how he came to land in Miami on that fateful day. It is an important contribution to the current discussion about detention standards in the U.S. and the deaths of over one hundred migrants in the past few years while held in the custody of the U.S. Government. See, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/us/10detain.html?pagewanted=1&hp

Of course, anyone who has never read the Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck should do so. This American classic defines migration and the overwhelming poverty and desperation which universally leads to it and will continue to do so as long as the world remains a place of marked differences between the obscenely rich and abject poor.

Finally, the way in which the aforementioned books affected me, the striking film Sin Nombre (R, 2009) equally impressed me. Here is a description of the film from Netflix:
"Fleeing retaliation from the violent Central American street gang he has deserted, young hood Casper boards a northbound train, where he takes refuge on top of the moving freight cars and hopes for a fresh start in a new country. Dodging authorities and other dangers, he finds a new friend in Sayra, a Honduran girl also making a run for the American border. Cary Fukunaga directs this exciting thriller."

The film, in Spanish with English subtitles, depicts a growing debate in immigration law about whether former gang members, fleeing the life-threatening consequences of abandoning or betraying their gang, should be offered asylum protection in the United States. The touching film is violent and disturbing at times, but such a story cannot be accurately told without these components. Read more!