Friends of Refugees

A U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program Watchdog Group

Archive for the ‘Laos’ Category

What was the Morrison-Lautenberg Amendment of 1989? Should it be renewed?

Posted by Christopher Coen on December 1, 2011

The Morrison-Lautenberg Amendment of 1989 and the issue of whether Congress should renew it is up before us again (the last temporary extension of the measure expired on May 31, 2011). San Antonio’s Express-News reports that US Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee with oversight over immigration policy, is holding up the renewal of the Morrison-Lautenberg Amendment:

In 1989, Congress passed legislation authored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., codifying the U.S. interest in assisting [people to] escape persecution...

…Congress has routinely renewed the refugee measure for 22 years. This year, as in the past, Lautenberg attached the legislation as an amendment to the foreign operations budget. But Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee with oversight over immigration policy, has stopped the Lautenberg Amendment dead in its tracks.

Smith raises two categories of objections. The first have to do with fairness. Smith contends that the 2,000 or so refugees who enter the United States annually under the Lautenberg Amendment receive preferential treatment in comparison with the other 73,000 refugees the United States takes in.

But that’s precisely the point of the amendment — to recognize special situations of persecution and open a relief valve to help avert a humanitarian catastrophe.

Smith’s second area of concern is that the amendment has never been subjected to oversight. Is the refugee program being run wisely and efficiently? Are people entering the United States under false pretenses?

Oversight hearings are entirely appropriate. We are confident that after hearing the facts about the refugee program, Smith will agree that the Lautenberg Amendment is a judicious and compassionate policy for legal immigration... Read more here

To understand this amendment we must first understand the meaning of the word “refugee” as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act – the basic body of immigration law:

Refugee – any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. here

The Morrison-Lautenberg Amendment then added more language in trying to help people experiencing persecution within their country of nationality, and in circumstances that are not easy to prove. A member of a category group:

…may establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion…by asserting a credible basis for concern about the possibility of such persecution.”

The category groups were Jews and certain Christians from the former Soviet Union (FSA), as well as certain refugees in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. A 2003 update to the law made the category also available to refugees from Iran – mostly Christians, but also Jews, Bahais, Zoroastrians and other persecuted minorities. Presently the US allows in only about two thousand people annually this category.

 The problem with the Morrison-Lautenberg Amendment was that powerful US political groups, e.g. Jews and evangelical Christians, abused it to help people they favored emigrate to the US. It allowed people to enter the US as political refugees from the FSA even after glasnost (openness) and perestroĭka (restructuring) often made moot any claim to persecution. Preferential treatment was indeed given to these people, which left some people with a bad feeling about the amendment. The Morrison-Lautenberg Amendment, however, remains the only option for legitimately persecuted groups who stay trapped inside their countries of nationality in circumstances of persecution not easy to prove. I would agree that Congress needs to inspect the oversight of the refugee program to check the many shortcomings that we explore on this blog, but not in the context of the Morrison-Lautenberg Amendment. I also question why the category is only open to persecuted groups from a select handful of countries.

Posted in Bahá'i, Cambodian, evangelical, former Soviet republics, HIAS, Iranian, Jewish, Laos, legislation, Morrison-Lautenberg Amendment, Vietnamese | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Hmong exploited in non-market contract-farming

Posted by Christopher Coen on July 2, 2011

An article at the The American Prospect explains the plight of former Hmong refugees who tried to make a go of it in poultry production in the Ozarks. Despite the farming skills and family values many Hmong brought from Laos — and hoped to use to achieve the American dream — American business markets set the Hmong up for failure. 

Shane Tawr doesn’t remember exactly why he first decided to try his hand at chicken farming. Tawr had a government job in Milwaukee but wanted relief from the city’s bustle. He decided in 2004 to head down to the Ozarks, buy a chicken farm, and work for himself, just as many of his Hmong ancestors had done in Laos.

The Hmong, who came to the United States in large numbers as political refugees after the Vietnam War, settled mostly in urban communities in California, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Some raised chickens and tended small vegetable gardens, but many worked jobs that kept them near the poverty line. In the early 2000s, chicken producers such as Tyson, which is based in northwest Arkansas, began courting the Hmong, and advertisements about chicken-farming opportunities appeared in Hmong-language newspapers. Roughly 500 Hmong now live in communities throughout Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma and raise breeder or broiler chickens for a handful of companies that operate in the Ozarks… Read more here

Apparently the highly exploitative contract-farming arrangements are not confined solely to Tysons, but practiced by other poultry processors such as Simmons, Peterson, George, etc. Other factors
involved in American businesses exploitation of the Hmong and other immigrants – a long tradition in American business – seem to include greedy realtors and inflated assessments of poultry farms, and “safe for the bank” loans guaranteed by the USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA). Read more here in a blog written by Daniel Krotz, a former Senior Consultant for the Washington DC based Institute for Social and Economic Development (ISED) explains these other factors on a blog at Carroll County News.

…the Hmong began arriving in the United States from Laos following the US exit from Vietnam. The Hmong, valiant allies with the US against communism, became refugees and were settled in the United States to avoid extinction at the hands of our North Vietnamese enemies as punishment for their service to the United States.

and

…Hmong operated farms were destined to fail from the onset or, to be fairly marginal business investments over any period of time, short or long term…

The underlying problem was that the Hmong had purchased farms that were overvalued and with equipment and buildings that were nearly or fully depreciated. The critical information missing from the Pott’s article was that appraisals of farms were too high at the time of purchase, and that area banks made loans even though it should have been fairly apparent to the banks that the Hmong purchasers were entering into fairly risky ventures that had limited potential to ever be
profitable.

Why would banks make loans for potentially high risk business ventures? Probably because, in most cases, the loans were guaranteed by USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA), which substantially reduced the risk for lenders…

In very general terms, what appears to have happened is that Realtors found a crowd of eager buyers fo farming operations the buyers were not adequately prepared to operate, and passed the buyers along to banks–accompanied by inflated appraisals–who made “safe for the bank” loans because they were guaranteed by USDA FSA. The only losers were the Hmong.

Again, while I cannot characterize how equitable the business relationships between Tyson and the Hmong farmers are, I can say that many of the farmers had similar if not identical contracts with other poultry processors such as Simmons, Peterson, George, etc. Financial outcomes for Hmong farmers was predictably poor regardless of the processing company they worked with… Read more here

Posted in Arkansas, California, Hmong, Hmong, Hmong, Minnesota, ORR, poultry production, US Department of Agriculture, Wisconsin | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Health care providers treat refugees without the use of interpreters – ignoring Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Posted by Christopher Coen on September 10, 2010

The issue of lack of interpreters for refugees during medical appointments is the focus of an article in the Anchorage Press. The piece focuses on the case of a Sudanese single refugee mother who was coughing up blood, but who a medical clinic misdiagnosed as having “touch of pneumonia” while refusing any suggestion that she needed an interpreter. Doctors later correctly diagnosed her with a heart tumor and ovarian cancer, and operated on her twice – again with no interpretation provided. Medical personnel strapped her down, and then played western music and danced in a failed attempt to calm her as she panicked while not knowing what was happening.

According to the article there are now thousands of refugees residing in Anchorage, many of them given medical treatment at clinics and doctors offices without the use of interpreters.

…there are about 1,000 Southern Sudanese refugees, between 5,000 and 6,000 Hmong refugees, about 100-plus Somali refugees, maybe 50 Iraqi refugees, 100 Bhutanese refugees and about 500 former Soviet Union refugees. There are also various asylees from Gambia and South America, entrants from Cuba and refugees from African countries such as Togo and Congo…

…Many Alaska physicians are breaking the law—specifically, “Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which requires that any health care provider who receives federal funds, including funding from Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program or Medicare, to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to its health services,” says Doreena Wong, a health policy expert and lawyer at the National Health Law Program, a public interest law firm based in Washington, D.C. 

It is horrifying to watch a human being treated this way. If you look at it from the doctor’s office, they don’t want to get known for this,” says Karen Ferguson, the director of the Refugee Assistance & Immigration Services (RAIS) program in Anchorage. She has a packet of information and a stocked reserve of horrific stories—cases of doctors’ seemingly malicious abuse of refugees in ill health….here

As in other parts of the refugee resettlement program, providers here are ignoring laws and regulations at will. I should note that when people do report the problems, the government oversight agencies do little to correct them. It’s as if the U.S. refugee resettlement program is still stuck in the wild west phase of its development, with government bureaucrats who can not be shaken out of their comfort zones.

…Medicaid in Alaska reimburses physicians for medical services but not for interpreters. It’s simple. An interpreter can cost between $40 to $120 per hour. If you are being paid $150 for a visit, it doesn’t make sense to pay $100 for an interpreter.

Curiously, the Anchorage Neighborhood Health Center in Fairview provides interpreters for any and every client who needs it. According to Joan Fisher, its director, they accommodate “over 21 different languages.” How? It turns out that with the special designation as a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC), Fisher can bill the federal government for interpretation services. It’s no secret formula. Find the money and find interpreters. Alaska physicians are not malicious; they’re practical.

Thus one encounters the common “friends and family” solution—the free solution—a pernicious panacea, where the responsibility for finding an interpreter is passed on to the patient, who is recommended to enlist the help of a multilingual friend or family member. Of the nine providers interviewed for this article, eight said that they depend on friends and family for their patients with limited English.

Think about this: If you are a mother, and you have a son who is moderately bilingual, would you want him to interpret for you at your next appointment at the OB/GYN? If you are a father, and you have a daughter who is bilingual, would you want your daughter to interpret at your next prostate exam? Would you want your friend or family member to be the first to know that you have cancer?

In the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Department of Justice writes, “It is inappropriate to ask family members or other companions to interpret for a person who is deaf or hard of hearing. Family members may be unable to interpret accurately in the emotional situation that often exists in a medical emergency.” Are the Sudanese refugee and the deaf individual different in this respect?

If something goes wrong and the physician used a family member deemed inappropriate (such as a minor) as an interpreter, the provider is liable. The Health Law Program studied a cohort of malpractice cases and found that nearly three percent of all cases arose from such problems, costing doctors millions…

Doreena Wong from the Health Law Program comments that “larger providers save money with interpreters.” For this reason, hospitals generally have systematic methods for interpretation needs. The problem is with small to medium private practices.

“The solution is simple,” says Barbara Richards, the regional director of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. If Alaska requests it, the federal government will provide the majority of the funding necessary to reimburse Alaska physicians for interpreters. Thirteen states have already implemented similar programs, including Washington, Hawaii, Iowa, Idaho, Kansas, Maine and Utah…

…The process to solve [this problem] is easy. Either the Alaska Legislature or the state director of Health & Human Services would need to recommend that interpretation services be included in the state Medicaid budget. Because law requires it, the federal government would immediately approve the expense. The state would cover a minority of the cost. Doctors would then be able to bill for interpreters.

Doctors want access to interpreters. Refugees need it. The law requires it. All the state needs to do is suggest it. In one of the most culturally diverse states in the nation, it only makes sense.

Just so readers know, language interpretation by phone is available to any organization that needs it via a company called Language Line. It is available 24/7 by phone in 175 languages and costs $2.90 to $3.90 per minute, with a $100 monthly minimum.

Posted in abuse, Alaska, Cuban, former Soviet republics, health, HHS, Hmong, Iraqi, language, language interpretation/translation, lack of, Nepali Bhutanese, Refugee Assistance & Immigration Services (RAIS), Somali, Sudanese | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 85 other followers