Archive for the ‘asylees’ Category
Posted by Christopher Coen on May 6, 2012
There has now been a second series of firebombings in the Shapira neighborhood in south Tel-Aviv. Last week there was a series of three Molotov-cocktail firebombings of African migrants in the same neighborhood. In recent months the conservative led Israeli government has attempted to incite fear and hostility toward the African migrants. An article in Haaretz has more:
Two firebombs were hurled on Saturday night at a house in south Tel Aviv. No injuries were reported, but police are investigating whether the incident is connected to a similar attack a week and a half ago that targeted African residents…
…Tension between the long-standing Israeli residents of south Tel Aviv and the foreign refugees, asylum seekers and labor migrants now living alongside them, is not new. According to the Interior Ministry’s population registry, in 2011 more than 17,000 unauthorized foreign nationals – mostly from Sudan and Eritrea – sneaked into Israel through the border with Egypt. After their identities are checked at Ketziot Detention Center, most are bused to the Tel Aviv Central Bus Station area, in the south of the city.
City officials estimate that around 40,000 labor migrants and more than 20,000 asylum seekers live in south Tel Aviv. Most live in the disadvantaged Shapira, Hatikva, Neve Sha’anan and Kiryat Shalom neighborhoods, as well as the area surrounding the bus station. Read more here
Posted in asylees, xenophobia/nationalism/isolationism | Tagged: Africans, asylees, firebombing, israel, migrants, Molotov cocktail, refugees, resettlement, Shapira, Tel Aviv | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on April 30, 2012
The said purpose of the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s (ORR’s) Matching Grant Program (MG) is to place refugee clients in jobs which will enable their household units to meet self-sufficiency within 120 to 180 days (in this case “self-sufficiency” is defined as not accessing public cash assistance, although the household units may use other forms of welfare, e.g. SNAP/food stamps, Section 8 housing assistance, etc.). The MG supposedly works to speed up the process of self-sufficiency by offering programs, support, and incentives to refugees, making the transition to self-sufficiency faster and easier. Its called “Matching Grant” because participating agencies (private contractors) agree to match the ORR grant with cash and in-kind contributions (goods and services) from the “community”. The ORR awards $2 for every $1 raised by the refugee resettlement agency from non-federal sources – including state and local support, United Way contributions, and in-kind support from other local and volunteer organizations – up to a maximum of $2,200 in federal funds per refugee. So, self-sufficiency is the goal, but what are the results?
The Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights refugee resettlement agency in Chicago is one of the contractors that the ORR monitored to assess how well resettlement agencies are helping refugees using the Matching Grant money. In the past Heartland Alliance’ use of US Department of State refugee grant money, as well as a human trafficking grant from the US Department of Justice, left much to be desired. Now, it seems that a ORR MG Program Analyst noted deficiencies in Heartland Alliance’s use of the MG program grant as well, according to a newly released 2005 inspection of the agency:
…Case Notes – …The reviewer found little detail of services being provided, particularly in cases where clients did not become self-sufficient…
…Asylee Payments – Some asylee cases were found to be missing required monthly payments…
…Housing Provision – ORR observed a number of cases [where] full rental payments were not provided for the required time period, although needed. This forced clients to supplement the rent payments with their MG cash…
…Job Development – The reviewer found little evidence of true job developments on the part of [Heartland Alliance]. The program employment outcomes appear to be the result of fairly intense case management coupled with relatively independent clients who find their own jobs. In cases where clients have a family or a strong community base to assist in the employment search, this system seems adequate in assisting clients to become self-sufficient. However, few to no modifications to that procedure were evident in dealing with free cases [refugees with no local family or ethnic community support] that do not have a strong community base to assist, or other instances where such assistance is necessary. Such sub-par employment services were particularly evident in low English level refugee clients. The [Heartland Alliance] employment rate for CY2004 was 50%. USCRI national average for CY2004 was 85%; the national MG average was 72%… Read more here
This last figure seems to point to a problem at Heartland Alliance and not MG Program weaknesses. Yet, it also shows how dependent government inspectors are on contractors’ own written records in assessing compliance with government grants. Aside from the problems noted, what comes to mind is to what degree the contractor’s written records match refugee clients’ reports about services received, however, the inspection report shows no comments from the clients (as opposed to the State Department’s reviews of refugee resettlement grantees).
Nevertheless, though the national average for refugee employment in the MG program was 82% that year, Heartland Alliance’s refugee clients in MG only achieved a 50% employment rate. Much of that 50% appears to have been refugees finding employment on their own or with the help of family or community.
Posted in asylees, Chicago, economic self-sufficiency, employment services, employment/jobs for refugees, Heartland Alliance, Matching Grant program, ORR | Tagged: Chicago, grant, inspection, Matching grant, monitoring, Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on April 28, 2012
***UPDATE*** — April 29, 2012, Tel Aviv Police arrest suspect
Attacks on African asylum seekers in Israel continued with a series of Molotov cocktails thrown at apartments where the asylum seekers live, including an apartment used as a daycare center for children, in the Shapira neighborhood in south Tel-Aviv. The government buses the Africans to this disadvantaged neighborhood (site of Tel-Aviv’s bus station) after they have illegally crossed the border from Egypt. Now, some of the other inhabitants of the neighborhood, instead of addressing the government’s actions, are blaming the asylum seekers. In response. Israeli human rights supporters have rallied in support of the asylum seekers. (The goal of the asylum system in Israel under the current government is to reject as many applicants as possible. Those who stay in Israel are subject to confinement and official repression, e.g. targeting by police). An article at Ynetnews.com has the story:
Some 200 social activists on Friday protested in Tel Aviv’s Shapira neighborhood after Molotov cocktails were thrown at four apartments where African asylum seekers reside, including an apartment used as a daycare center for children.
Maya, one of the activists who rallied in support of the asylum seekers, said: “We came here to try to calm the spirits down, and help the victims of these attacks feel that there are other people who do not carry messages of hate.”
Another activist noted that Thursday’s incident “stemmed from a feeling of frustration and helplessness harbored by the residents of the neighborhood, who are rightfully angry at the government for neglecting their neighborhood. But on the other hand there are the refugees, who are also suffering.
“This area is becoming hell,” the activist noted, adding that “the two sides need to level their criticism at those who are responsible, instead of blaming each other. The government needs to give alternatives and address these problems – otherwise the situation will deteriorate,” he said.
Shapira resident Lior Levy said he came out to show solidarity with the refugees. “Many of the residents demand to have them deported, mainly for racist reasons. These are helpless people. This neighborhood was forsaken in the hands of racist groups like the KKK, who wish to terrorize innocent people.
Baso, 26, from Sudan, said he does not believe the police will do anything because “they think in the same manner as the people who did it. They probably think we shouldn’t be here,” he said… Read more here
Also, Haaretz reports that a Molotov cocktail was thrown at African migrants at a Shapira neighborhood park.
Posted in asylees, children, police | Tagged: Africans, asylum, human rights, israel, Molotov cocktail, refugees, resettlement, Shapira, Tel Aviv | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on December 30, 2011
**Clarification** – Refugees (they may apply to become Lawful Permanent Residents after one year in the US) are exempt from this new rule, although other Lawful Permanent Residents are not exempted (e.g. refugees’ family members who immigrate via family member status), except for pregnant women and children (those under age 21) . See January 5, 2012 Sun Journal article.
Changes to Maine law governing its Medicaid program (MaineCare), sold to voters by Gov. Paul LePage as a way to save money, are now preventing lawful permanent residents from access to Medicaid during their first 5 years (this does not affect refugees access to Medicaid during their first 8 months in the US). The changes also scapegoats, and singles out for exclusion, people waiting on decisions to their asylum applications. All of these people are poor, and many are elderly, disabled or frail, and have serious health care needs. An Op-ed in the Portland Press Herald details the case:
In October, about 500 legal immigrants, mostly living in Portland and Lewiston, lost their health insurance coverage, which had been provided through MaineCare.
The change in law affects lawful permanent residents who haven’t had that status for at least five years, as well as asylum seekers who have a pending application with the federal government.
Just like refugees, many of these folks have escaped atrocities in their own country or faced persecution based on their race, religion or political beliefs.
Now they are being singled out again…
…While the decision to eliminate health insurance coverage was sold as a way to save money by Gov. Paul LePage, that will not be the end result.
This insensitive change in the law merely shifts and hides costs, while leaving 500 people in our communities at risk of reduced access to health care.
All of these individuals are poor, and many are elderly, disabled or frail.
Many have serious health care needs, and in many cases, the community supports that do exist are unable to meet their serious health care needs when they become uninsured.
The cost will fall back on the state either way…
But perhaps, even more distressing, the policy doesn’t really accomplish its stated goal, which is to reduce costs.
While the money to pay for MaineCare for 500 people is removed from the state budget, the need for medical care doesn’t disappear.
It is shifted onto communities and health care providers such as clinics and hospitals.
Instead of receiving assistance through MaineCare, which has cost controls and a focus on preventative care, they are forced to rely upon emergency rooms, where the cost of care is the highest… Read more here
and
…Many of the new immigrants in Maine fall into a category described as asylum seekers because they are individuals waiting for an asylum decision from the federal government. As a result of new state laws, many of these individuals can no longer get help from the safety net programs administered by the state.
Being a person seeking asylum in a new country is already an uncertain time. It’s a time of limbo and people in this position may need some assistance from others until the immigration process grants the permits necessary to be able to get a paid job. It’s a time that calls for compassion… Read more here
Also see Maine Equal Justice Partners handout, here.
Posted in asylees, health, legislation, Maine | Tagged: asylees, disabled health care, elderly, Maine, MaineCare, Medicaid, Paul LePage, refugees, resettlement, scapegoat | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on August 3, 2011
If you’ve ever been stopped by a cop or had your day in court you’ve probably run up against the problem in which mere mortals, with all their biases and potential for failure, wield enormous power. If they woke up in a bad mood, for instance, the rest of us are going to feel their pain. Asylees face a similar phenomena in our courts in what is known as “refugee roulette”. Some of the judges seem to have almost never heard an asylum story that they didn’t find believable. Others rarely find the stories believable. It turns out that the difficult problem to get around here is the need we have for someone to decide if the asylee’s story is believable – it comes downs to that when actual proof is unavailable. So far we haven’t been able to invent a machine that can make this determination any better. An article in NY Daily News explains how the asylum court works in New York City:
For immigrants seeking asylum, winning the right to stay in the United States is often a game of chance that comes down to one thing: which judge hears their tale.
A report out this month shows two New York immigration judges with strikingly different records on granting safe haven – illustrating what experts call “refugee roulette.”
“One of the most important issues you ask, if they’re in court already, is, ‘Who’s your judge?’” said Zachary Sanders, a New York immigration lawyer.
At 26 Federal Plaza, lawyers hope for Judge Terry Bain, whose asylum acceptance rate is higher than that of any jurist in the nation. From October 2005 through this May, Bain approved 94.5% of applicants, well above the national rate of 46.8%, according to a new report by Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse…
…Judge Alan Vomacka sits in the same court, but he’s accepted just 28.3% of the cases he’s seen…
...Asylum law requires that immigrants prove they are fleeing persecution. They must give evidence or provide a reasonable explanation for why they can’t show proof. And they must be consistent. Some judges are more strict than others about demanding actual documentation. Approval ultimately depends on whether or not the judge believes an immigrant is telling the truth.
“Judges are people,” said Sanders. “You have to put yourself in the position of this person. You have to see things through their eyes, and then you have to decide if they’re lying or not.”
The system has come under fresh scrutiny after Nafissatou Diallo, who accused former IMF leader Dominique Strauss-Kahn of rape, admitted she embellished her asylum application.
“The system is created to give the benefit of the doubt to the asylum seeker,” said Jason Dzubow, a lawyer who blogs as The Asylumist. “On the one hand, it encourages fraud. But how many legitimate asylum seekers are you willing to send back to their countries, where they face persecution, in order to weed out fraud?”… Read more here
In case your tempted to think that it all evens out, by allowing individual judges of various backgrounds to use their own education and experience in deciding someone’s fate, for the judge who believes almost every asylee it means that crooks and schemers get through – not good for us. Then for the judge that almost never believes the asylees, we end up throwing good people back to the wolves in their countries — definitely not what America is all about.
So, why don’t we have panels decide these cases, e.g a panel of three judges? Wouldn’t that help to even-out judges using their personal education and experience in determining truth? If justice is the goal, this might get the best results.
Posted in asylees, court, Dept. of Justice, reform | Tagged: asylees, asylum, asylum law, courts, Department of Justice, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, IMF, immigration court, Jason Dzubow, Judge Alan Vomacka, Judge Terry Bain, Nafissatou Diallo, New York City, Refugee roulette, refugees, resettlemen | 3 Comments »
Posted by Christopher Coen on January 29, 2011
An article in the New York Times covers the subject of LGBTI’s applying for asylum in the US. Apparently applicants must pass a “gay social visibility” test in order for authorities to grant them asylum. U.S. authorities consider non-gender-bending LGBTIs’s as not at risk in their home countries.
…Amid international outcry over news of the Czech Republic’s testing the veracity of claims of purportedly gay asylum seekers by attaching genital cuffs to monitor their arousal while they watched pornography, some gay refugees and their advocates in New York are complaining that they can be penalized for not outwardly expressing their sexuality. While asylum-seekers and rights groups here expressed relief that use of the so-called erotic lie detector is impossible to imagine in the United States, some lamented in recent interviews that here too, homosexuals seeking asylum may risk being dismissed as not being gay enough.
The very notion of “gay enough,” of course, or proving one’s sexuality through appearance, dress and demeanor, can be offensive…
…“Judges and immigration officials are adding a new hurdle in gay asylum cases that an applicant’s homosexuality must be socially visible,” said Lori Adams, a lawyer at Human Rights First, a nonprofit group, who advises people seeking asylum based on sexuality. “The rationale is that if you don’t look obviously gay, you can go home and hide your sexuality and don’t need to be worried about being persecuted.”… Read more here
Posted in asylees, LGBT refugees | Tagged: asylees, asylum, bisexual, gay, lesbian, lgbt, lgbti | 3 Comments »
Posted by Christopher Coen on December 1, 2010
There is a good, succinct article about asylum in Immigrant Connect Chicago. Asylum-seekers (asylees) are different from refugees only in that they arrive in the U.S. and ask for asylum, as opposed to being outside of the U.S. and applying for refugee status. Both asylees and refugees are people who claim a credible fear of persecution or torture in their home country based on race, religion, membership in a political or social group and political opinion.
…In 2009, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) revised procedures to allow asylum seekers to be released from detention after passing a credible fear interview if they “establish their identities, pose neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community, have a credible fear of persecution or torture, and have no additional factors that weigh against their release.” According to UNHCR, which has published documents regarding the debate on detention, many of those who were detained among criminals were “not there by virtue of having committed a crime, but due to a breach of administrative procedures.”
“An asylum-seeker is someone who says he or she is a refugee, but whose claim has not yet been definitively evaluated,” according to UNHCR. In the credible fear interview upon arrival, an asylum officer determines whether or not the individual can claim the need for asylum based on their “credible fear of persecution or torture” in their home country, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
Between October 2009 and May 2010, a credible fear was established in 3,519 of the 4,504 interviews conducted, according to USCIS. Those who are determined not to have a credible fear may request review of the decision by an immigration judge. If no request for review is submitted or if the judge reaffirms the negative decision, applicants are sent back to their home countries. If the interviewer determines that there is a credible fear, the applicant continues the process in court where they may present a claim for asylum to an immigration judge.
The immigration judge’s decision depends upon a reasonable fear of persecution based on race, religion, membership in a political or social group and political opinion. The burden of proof is on the applicant to justify their fears. The success often depends upon whether or not the asylum seeker is represented by an attorney, according to Hughes. Eighty percent of applicants with attorneys are granted the status they seek while only 20 percent are granted asylum when not represented.
Many of the judges are former lawyers with “the other side,” according to Edget Betru, an immigration attorney at Refugee Resettlement and Immigration Services of Atlanta. Because of their involvement with the Department of Homeland Security and similar agencies, “they’re coming with a certain perspective or bias already,” says Betru.
In certain cases, the judge’s personal knowledge about the issue at hand may play an important part… Read more here
Posted in asylees, Dept of Homeland Security, ICE, immigration courts, immigration services, Nigerian, Refugee Resettlement and Immigration Services of Atlanta (RRISA), Refugee Resettlement and Immigration Services of Atlanta (RRISA), UNHCR, USCIS | Tagged: asylees, asylum, credible fear of persecution, detention, Edget Betru, green card, ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Refugee Resettlement and Immigration Services of Atlanta, refugees, RRISA, USCIS | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on November 27, 2010
According to an article in The Monitor, legitimate refugees, actually asylees, are being thrown into ICE detention facilities for long periods while they wait for their cases to come up before our backed-up immigration courts. Caseloads for immigration judges are now about three times that of federal district judges. Officials detained an Ethiopian refugee for seven months in an ICE facility in South Texas before his case began to wind its way through a patchwork of complex and confusing court asylum proceedings.
SAN BENITO — The young refugee retraced the long, twisted journey that landed him on the American side of the Hidalgo International Bridge earlier this year, pleading for asylum in the U.S., fearing deportation would amount to a death sentence.
The 24-year-old had fled his native Ethiopia months earlier, fearing near-constant government threats in retaliation for vocally supporting an opposing political party. Brutally beaten and twice thrown in prison, the young man was told authorities would kill him if arrested a third time.
His long path to the U.S. took him through Africa, Dubai, Cuba and eventually to Colombia, trekking through dense jungle to the Panama border. Over the course of months, a series of busses, trains and long hikes through Central America ended at the Hidalgo bridge, where he turned himself in and was immediately shipped to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Port Isabel, where he would stay for seven months.
“I was confused. I cried always because I didn’t know what was going to happen to me,” the man recalled. “I was scared. I know that if I go back (home) they’re going to kill me.”
The man’s account echoes the stories of hundreds of others who come to the U.S. seeking political asylum every year in U.S. immigration courts, a system that experts fear is already strained and overwhelmed with exploding caseloads. In Harlingen’s immigration court alone, data shows that pending cases have more than doubled over the past fiscal year… Read more here
Posted in asylees, Ethiopian, ICE, immigration courts, Texas | Tagged: asylees, asylum, Department of Homeland Security, Dept of Homeland Security, Ethiopian refugees, ICE, immigration courts, refugee resettlement, refugees | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on March 16, 2010
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has introduced the The Refugee Protection Act of 2010 (see here). The bill is co-sponsored by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI), Richard Durbin (D-IL), and Daniel Akaka (D-HI).
The measure would change existing asylum policies to ensure more people who need and deserve US protection can benefit from it. It would also make several discrete, yet long overdue improvements in the support provided to refugees newly arrived in the United States. Importantly, the bill would direct the United States government to apply one standard for all asylum seekers intercepted at sea. This would make uniform the treatment of Cubans, Chinese and Haitians attempting to enter America by boat.
Well, I guess this discreteness is somewhat undemocratic, but hopefully Congress intends for it to help legitimate asylees.
The measure would also make other changes in the way asylum seekers are treated. Since 1996, asylum-seekers have had to file an asylum claim within one year of arrival in the United States. This has led to bona fide asylum seekers being denied protection simply because of the deadline, no matter how compelling their asylum cases may be. These asylum seekers are then returned to their countries of origin where they face a real threat of persecution. The Refugee Protection Act would eliminate this one-year deadline.
Well, that makes sense –to allow these asylees to apply for their green cards (permanent resident status) earlier than one year after they have been here. But then why does the bill include a provision for refugee resettlement agencies to get more money each year based on, “inflation and the cost of living”. Isn’t the recent doubling of the State Department’s R&P (Resettlement and Placement) grant enough?
In addition, the bill would ensure that the State Department’s Reception & Placement Grant – the one-time, per-capita grant given to refugees upon arrival in the United States – is adjusted annually to keep up with inflation and the cost of living.
How do we know that the resettlement agencies will use increases directly for the refugees, rather than on salaries, etc? Audits by the State Department’s Office of Inspector General seem to be extremely rare, and resettlement agencies can use “in-kind” donations to refugees of all of the junk-for-Jesus stuff they receive as a type of R&P “direct service” to the refugees. They can then use the R&P grant for other things like salaries, blackberries, wireless internet, etc. (witness Susan Gibson-Wise and LFS in the Carolinas in Greensboro).
It seems that the resettlement agencies have become addicted to easy federal agency funding, and have decided to include sneaky funding increases in every refugee/asylee bill with the help of their allies in Congress. To the extant that we tolerate this, they will just continue these ploys. They must only be given government funding increases IF they agree to verifiable increased services to refugees and asylees, increased government oversight, and openess and transparency to the public.
Easy money is only good for refugee resettlement agencies, not for the refugees.
Posted in asylees, Congress, Haitian, R&P | Tagged: asylee. asylees, Congress, Patrick Leahy, R&P, refugee, Refugee Protection Act, refugee resettlement agencies, refugees, Resettlement and Placement | 2 Comments »
Christopher Coen
Melissa Sogard
nancylee1
