jump to navigation

Three Years, 30,000 Incidents of Human Rights Abuse: Are Border Patrol Agents the Real Criminals? October 4, 2011

Posted by rogerhollander in Civil Liberties, Criminal Justice, Human Rights, Immigration, Racism.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Allegations range from Border Patrol agents denying food and
water to adults and children in detention for several days, to purposely
separating families during deportation.

September 29, 2011  |
Those are the findings of a new report released by the Arizona humanitarian
aid organization No More Deaths.

The report, “A Culture of Cruelty,” documents 30,000 incidents of human
rights abuses against undocumented immigrants in short-term detention between
fall 2008 and spring 2011. Nearly 13,000 people were interviewed in the Mexican
border towns of Naco, Nogales and Agua Prieta.

Allegations range from Border Patrol agents denying food and water to adults
and children in detention for several days, to purposely separating families
during deportation or forcing people to sign removal orders.

They also include concerns that detainees were not provided the right to due
process.

“We didn’t go out looking for these stories. They came to us and they were
inescapable,” said Hannah Hafter, a co-author of the report who works as a
volunteer for No More Deaths helping deported immigrants.

“Many of the grassroots services we provide wouldn’t need to exist if the
Border Patrol was doing the right thing,” she said.

The report contends that the alleged physical and verbal abuse suffered by
immigrants fits the international definition of torture.

According to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, physiological
abuse can be defined as “an act committed by a person acting under the color of
law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering
[…] upon another person within his custody or physical control.”

Allegations of torture include threatening detainees with death while in
custody, and verbal and physical abuse.

“That is a pretty serious allegation, and any allegation we are going to take
very seriously and we’re going to look into it,” said Colleen Agle, a
spokesperson from the Tucson Sector of the Border Patrol.

Agle said the Border Patrol couldn’t provide statistics on the number of
complaints referred to the agency. But she said they would seriously consider
the findings in this report and investigate if there are credible
allegations.

“This has nothing to do with how you or I feel about immigration policies,”
said Reverend Peter Morales, president of the Unitarian Universalist
Association, which represents over 1,000 congregations with Jewish-Christian
roots. “The majority of Americans don’t want to see this kind of treatment of
innocent people, women and children, in their name,” said Morales, who has been
involved in acts of civil disobedience in Phoenix against the anti-immigration
law SB 1070.

Hafter said that part of the problem is a culture of abuse within the
agency.

“Above all, Border Patrol’s steadfast denial of abuse in the face of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary is indicative of an institution vehemently
resistant to any measure of accountability,” the report claims.

But an even more significant issue for Hafter is the lack of an adequate
process for immigrants in detention to file complaints without fearing
retaliation or being held for long periods of time.

Agle said that normally immigrants in detention can either report a complaint
with Border Patrol itself or request to see a consular official from their
country. She said whether or not they stay longer in detention would depend on
the individual case.

The Inspector General ultimately handles complaints against the Border
Patrol, she said.

Activists, meanwhile, have been filing complaints with the Office of Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties, a branch within the Department of Homeland Security.
They’ve filed 75 complaints so far but say they have received no answer on
whether or not action was taken.

Danielle Alvarado, one of the co-authors of the report, says part of the
problem is that there is no uniformity in the way complaints are handled.

“A lot of times when they get complains they refer it back to the agency
they’re investigating,” said Alvarado. “The only way we have of knowing if the
complaint process is working is talking to people afterwards to see if trends
are changing.”

Agle said that due to privacy concerns she wasn’t able to reveal how many
complaints the Border Patrol has investigated or the outcome of those cases.

Some of the complaints in the report allege violations of international
agreements between Mexico and the United States, for example, the agreements
that families should be kept together during the removal process and that
vulnerable populations like women with children should be deported during
daylight hours.

Activists have criticized some Border Patrol policies for putting immigrants
in harm’s way. One example is the practice of “lateral removal.”

According to the Border Patrol, this is part of a “consequence delivery
system” whose goal is to deter immigrants from re-entering into the country
illegally.

Through “lateral removal,” immigrants get deported to areas that are far away
from where they first tried to enter illegally.

“The smugglers are preying on them so we want to get them out of their hands,
so they don’t continue to be put into a dangerous situation,” explained Border
Patrol spokesperson Agle.

But this can result in deporting immigrants to dangerous cities they are
unfamiliar with where they could be exposed to kidnappings or violence,
according to Hafter, co-author of the report.

No More Deaths has documented a change in the demographics of those who are
being deported from the country. A survey of 100 people found that the majority
of the immigrants being deported have been living in the United States for an
average of 14 years. Many have more than two children in the United States.

Almost 70 percent of those interviewed said they would continue to try to
cross the border to reunite with their loved ones.

“No amount of personal risk or inhumane treatment will ever be an effective
deterrent,” the report concludes.

Among the report’s recommendations is the creation of an independent
commission that would investigate alleged Border Patrol abuses to improve
transparency and accountability of the agency.

Valeria Fernández is an independent journalist in
Phoenix, Arizona. She worked for La Voz newspaper for the last six years
covering the immigration beat and she is a guest contributor on Race Wire.
Valeria was born and raised in Montevideo, Uruguay, and moved to the United
States in 1999.

Reagan’s Refugees: Why Undocumented Migrants Have a Right to Work Here May 2, 2010

Posted by rogerhollander in El Salvador, Guatemala, Immigration, Mexico.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far
Posted by Tikkun Daily at 2:41 pm
April 30, 2010

By David A. Sylvester. Cross-posted on Tikkun Daily.

Undocumented migrants have a right to work here because they deserve economic reparations for failed U.S. economic policies and disastrous military interventions.

Hundreds of thousands march for immigration rights in Chicago, May 1, 2006. Credit: Alana Price. Hundreds of thousands march for immigration rights in Chicago, May 1, 2006. Credit: Alana Price. 

We hardly need another symptom of the spiritual and social bankruptcy of the system, but this new Arizona law targeting and criminalizing undocumented migrants is a good example. You might know that Gov. Jan Brewer signed last week a new law that broadens police power to stop anyone at anytime for virtually any reason simply for looking suspiciously like an undocumented immigrant. It is supposed to take effect in August, but this is unlikely since it is probably unconstitutional and will face a barrage of court challenges.

This Saturday, May Day, the traditional day for workers rights, more than 70 cities are planning protests against the law, and boycotts against Arizona are spontaneously spreading — as they should. Mexican taxi cab drivers are apparently refusing to pick up anyone from Arizona, and the Mexican government has issued a travel advisory warning Mexicans of the danger of traveling through Arizona. In California, pressure is growing to join the boycott.

In the midst of this uproar, few are asking one simple question: Why? Why do so many Mexicans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans enter the U.S. by the most dangerous and expensive route possible? Just imagine yourself in their shoes: You leave your family and neighborhood to make a dangerous trip, including a difficult trek for three nights across barren deserts, pay as much as $7,000 person to put yourself in the hands of an unofficial guide of questionable character. On the way, you are prey to exploitation, robbery and especially if you are a woman, to rape. Then you arrive to live in crowded apartments, hopefully with some family members or people you know, but under constant fear of arrest and deportation. If you’re lucky, you get the brass ring you’ve been reaching for: casual work cleaning homes, gardening or working odd jobs in construction for $8 to $10 an hour. If you’re unlucky, you might stand on street corners for hours waiting without work, vulnerable to the temptations of drugs and alcohol to numb despair.

Sound like a bargain? Now, consider that, in spite of this, you decide scrape together another $7,000 to bring the next family member. How can this make any sense? It does if you take a close look at what has happened to the economies and social fabric of the countries below the U.S. border. Most U.S. citizens have little idea of the devastation wrought by NAFTA in Mexico and by the murderous civil wars that Reagan Administration funded and supported during the 1980s has done to El Salvador and Guatemala.

This is the reality that none of the opponents of this “illegal” immigration want to face. And it is a reality that even the advocates of change have not fully articulated. In essence, the neoliberal economic policies of the so-called Washington consensus, including NAFTA, have plunged Mexico into an economic crisis in the countryside. More than 2 million agricultural workers have been forced off their land and have moved into urban areas that can’t absorb them. The undocumented workers from El Salvador and Guatemala, the two other main sources of migration into the U.S., are fleeing dysfunctional and oppressive social and economic systems maintained by U.S. military power and funding since Ronald Reagan and CIA director William Casey turned these small countries into demonstration projects for Cold War power. As a result of these interventions, the U.S. has blocked democratic social change in these countries, sustained the exploitative legacy of the conquista and kept the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of rich, uncontrolled oligarchies.

In other words, Arizona is facing “blowback,” the natural consequences of failed U.S. policies trumpeted by the Arizona-style conservatives. These undocumented workers are economic refugees fleeing from broken economic systems — and they have every right to work here to earn the living that they cannot earn in their home countries. It’s a form of economic reparations. And the situation would be considered ironic if it wasn’t so tragic: The more the economic policies fail, the more the poor of these countries are impoverished and the more they seek to survive in el Norte, the more the supposedly anti-government, free-market fundamentalists want to put the government squarely on the backs of and into the lives of individuals through increasingly repressive measures.

It isn’t just some kooky left-wing thinking to blame Washington’s policies for a large part of the problem. This is widely known among the academic researchers. I spoke with Marc Rosenblum and Miryam Hazan, two staff policy analysts at the Migration Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. who have studied the issues. “NAFTA has supported a low-wage development model, and with Mexico’s implementation, you haven’t seen integrated development,” Rosenblum said. “Almost everybody will agree it has increased migration.”

The basic problem is that Mexican tariffs were lowered under NAFTA so that inexpensive corn and other agricultural products from U.S. agribusiness flooded Mexico and drove out up to 2.3 million small and medium-sized farmers. The idea was that they would move to the cities and provide the labor for new, more advanced industries to export. As Hazan describes it, the idea was to “modernize” the Mexican countryside.

The only problem is that such a plan depended on Mexico’s GDP growing at 6 percent to 7 percent — almost two-thirds of the rate of China’s growth. In fact, Mexico’s growth has stagnated under NAFTA at half the expected rate. Besides, it isn’t clear what these “new advanced industries” were supposed to be, except for the sweatshops and maquilladora along the U.S. border. Cheap labor is not what economists would call “a competitive advantage,” because there’s always another country with even cheaper labor to exploit.

Hazan has found that each year, Mexico adds 1 million new workers to its labor force — but only creates half a million jobs. This means that every year, half a million Mexicans must either enter what she calls “the informal economy” of low-wage work without benefits, the criminal and black market economy, or leave the country.

In fact, the criminal economy of the drug cartels, estimated at 2 percent of Mexico’s GDP, has become the new export-oriented industry. Again, for all the complaining about the Mexican drug traffickers, few people are wondering what kind of society has developed we’ve developed in the U.S. that generates such an incessant and growing demand for narcotics. Without the U.S. demand, the narcotraffickers would be largely out of business.

In El Salvador, there’s a separate problem stemming from the violence of the Reagan wars of the 1980s — and now compounded by the recent deportation of U.S. gang members back to El Salvador. Originally, they entered the U.S. as children with their undocumented parents, learned their gang skills in the U.S. and then once arrested, were deported back to El Salvador. As a result there’s been an explosion of gang violence in El Salvador.

Every week, I hear of new reports from Salvadoran friends: Six bodies showed up on the streets overnight in one small town, a man with an expensive car is kidnapped and killed, a schoolteacher threatened with a gun by a disgruntled parent of one of his students. During a visit three years ago, the student leader of the National University suddenly disappeared without explanation, and the newspapers were reporting a wave of killings of poor drug dealers in the slums as “social cleansing.” In addition, the phenomenon of femicide, the rape and murder of women, is not just a problem in Juarez or the border towns but has become a new problem throughout the countries. At one point, gang members had apparently infiltrated the telephone companies in El Salvador, found out who had been making calls to the U.S., then called those U.S. cell phone numbers with a simple message: Send us $500 within 24 hours or we’ll kill your family.

Guatemala is hardly any safer. A friend of mine who was a journalist in Guatemala City had to leave with his family after a government official took him aside and played for him tape recordings of his cell phone conversations with his sources — when he was inside his own home! Assassinations of the community leaders opposing destructive mining operations are common. At another point, a well-known TV reporter was gunned down in broad daylight in the capital.

From my experience, when I asked about this violence, many people there said it was difficult to know exactly what to blame: the economic crisis, the unresolved conflicts of the civil wars, the habit of violence from the wars or the lure of fast money in the drug trade, the unraveling of families as the more and more parents head north into the U.S. to work. All of it is connected to U.S. policies and actions, particularly the 1980s wars.

“There’s no question that the civil wars were a big source of initial migration of Central America into the U.S.” Rosenblum told me. The problem has become worse in El Salvador, he said, because besides the violence, it has embraced the neoliberal economic policies of corporate development that has led to highly unequal growth among the rich and poor.

These economic and social problems are precisely why the U.S. will never solve the problem by enforcement, no matter what kind of walls we build or border patrol we fund. The “push” out of these countries has become much greater than the “pull” of a better economy and growing social networks of migrants now living in the U.S.

The Arizona law shows how much enforcement alone sacrifices basic moral values. The law itself is chilling to read. In the tradition of the double-standard legal system pioneered during the war on terror under Bush, it broadens police powers and makes enforcement much more stringent for non-citizens than for citizens. It requires all immigrants to carry documents, such as driver’s license, to prove their immigration status whenever asked by police with a “reasonable suspicion” about their status. If you are undocumented, you can be charged with a misdemeanor, fined (between $500 on the first offense up to $2,500) jailed for six months under mandatory sentencing. Courts are prohibited from suspending or reducing sentences. It also turns citizens into vigilantes: anyone can sue a government for failing to enforce this law. It prohibits picking up day laborers on streets to hire, transporting anyone in your car without documents if you do so “recklessly disregarding” their immigration status. And it expands the powers of police to pose as workers when they investigate employers who might be hiring the undocumented workers.

Where’s the Tea Party when you need it? Isn’t there supposed to be a revolt brewing in this country in favor of a “constitutionally limited government”? And isn’t this the free market at work, with workers responding to the market signals of wages to meet the demand for labor where there is a lack of supply? Oh, I forgot: Free markets and limited government are good — unless they interfere with U.S. dominance and privilege.

It’s easy to slip into bitter rhetoric, but the hypocrisy of the debate has its own spiritual significance. The U.S. seems to be afflicted by a strange blindness that prevents it from understanding the full dimensions of the problem it has created. I think this blindness is a natural spiritual consequence of the idolization of power and wealth. In my opinion, one of the best analyses of this was in the Nobel Prize speech of British playwright Harold Pinter. He spoke about the relationship of truth and lies in art, and then connected this to the relationship of truth and lies to political power.

To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.

Then he focused how lies played a part in the brutality of the U.S. government’s treatment of Central America:

I spoke earlier about ‘a tapestry of lies’ which surrounds us. President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a ‘totalitarian dungeon’. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by the British government, as accurate and fair comment. But there was in fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua. There were in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships.

Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. That extremely brave man Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified them as communists. They died because they dared to question the status quo, the endless plateau of poverty, disease, degradation and oppression, which had been their birthright.

Pinter pointed out that at the time the U.S. maintained 702 military bases in 132 countries and said:

The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

This hypnosis isn’t just of the rest of the world; we’ve hypnotized ourselves so that we fail to understand the consequences of our actions. We’ve become like the violent drunk who trashes a motel room at night, then wakes up in the morning and demands to know who made such a mess.

In my brief search of the Web this week, I found only one person who had the courage to say aloud an obvious truth. Seth Minkoff of Somerville, Mass., a lone letter-writer to The Boston Globe of Somerville explained eloquently why the immigrants have a moral right to be here:

What goes unmentioned, however, is that some of us also feel that the fundamental aim of this law — enforcement of federal immigration regulations — is immoral.

A great many undocumented immigrants come here from countries that the United States has systematically devastated for generations by overthrowing democracy (as in Guatemala), sponsoring dictatorship and state terror (Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Haiti), and invading and annexing territory (Mexico). Actions such as these have helped the United States to control a grossly outsized share of world resources.

Until the US share of world resources is proportional to its population, so-called illegal immigrants will have a moral claim second to none on the rights of US citizenship. Arizona’s new law, like the federal laws it seeks to enforce, is an assault on people’s basic right to feed and clothe their families – in other words, on their right to access their fair share of the planet’s wealth, the patrimony of humanity.

The readers of The Boston Globe, profiled for advertisers as highly educated and high-income, responded with such comments as:

What a complete F$%KING MORON. Does that moral right include stealing, bank robbery, perhaps rape and why not murder too.

And:

Shame on you Minkoff, go take your nonsense to Cuba or talk to Chavez and see how you make out.

And:

This letter sounds like it was written from some fatuous far left wing Chomskyan elitist nutty northeast college professor.

Seth, Harold Pinter’s got your back.

It would be helpful if more people had his back as well. But some of the opposition to the Arizona law is disappointing. For instance, U.S. Catholic bishops couched their opposition entirely in terms of pragmatics. Salt Lake City Bishop John Wester called the law “draconian,” as if problem is only its severity, not its inherent nature. He worried that the law could “possibly” lead to racial profiling when racial profiling is almost unavoidable in spite of hypocritical language to the contrary in the law. He worried about how immigrants might be “perceived and treated” and the impact on U.S. citizens who are unfairly targeted.

This statement should have been much stronger in the light of Roman Catholic tradition. Basic Catholic teachings evaluate the moral value of actions and distinguish between morally good and evil choices. Actions are “intrinsically evil” if they are “hostile to life itself.” The examples of these actions include the obvious, such as homicide and genocide but also include:

whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit;

whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat laborers as mere instruments of profit and not as free responsible persons;

all these and the like are a disgrace and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honor due to the Creator (Encyclical Letter of John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor IV, italics mine).

By this Catholic standard, the Arizona law is not only badly designed and unconstitutional but quite possibly an intrinsic evil. One can argue that the law is also an attempt to stop human smuggling and trafficking in women and children, but if this was its aim, it would have been designed differently. As written, it subjects immigrants to the torture of insecurity and offends their human dignity with arbitrary imprisonment and deportation.

In the end, the crisis can be solved until we face the spiritual roots of the lies, the violence and the self-righteous myths we tell ourselves. We need to understand and address the real nature of the problem if we want to solve it. I’ve always remembered the words of a friend of mine as we participated in a memorial service for Monseñor Oscar Romero in San Salvador: “We have to start telling ourselves the truth.”

Deadly Effects of Racism and Lack of Healthcare on Latin American Immigrant Workers November 28, 2008

Posted by rogerhollander in Immigration, Latin America, Mexico.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

from: San Francisco Gray Panthers

Immigration, Health Care Highlighted in UC Report

Contra Costa Times, October 23, 2008

Sarah Terry-Cobo

BERKELEY — Immigrants, particularly those of Latin American origin, significantly contribute to the work force but are harmed by the lack of health care coverage, according to a UC Berkeley report released Monday. The study was based on US Census data.

“What this report is showing, unfortunately, is that immigrants and those who come from Mexico and Latin American countries are absorbing the most difficult jobs and are facing the highest job-related deaths,” said Xochitl Castaneda, director of the Health Initiative of the Americas, a program of the UC Office of the President.

Mexican immigrants make up nearly one-third of U.S. population, but because they are usually employed in dangerous occupations, such as farming and construction, they account for 44 percent of immigrant workers who die on the job or as a result of an on-the-job injury, the report states.

Professor Steven Wallace, associate director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, School of Public Health, described some of the findings.

“Despite taking the large number of dangerous jobs in the country, (immigrants) are not offered the basic necessities such as health insurance, where they are literally putting their life on the line,” he said.

The research for “Migration, Health and Work: The Facts Behind the Myths,” was conducted by the UCLA and UC Berkeley schools of public health, the UC Office of the President and the Health Initiative of the Americas.

In particular, Mexican immigrants often work at low-wage jobs that provide little or no insurance. Nationwide, about one-fifth of Mexican immigrants in sectors such as construction, agriculture and service industries have insurance, the report states.

In addition, the report notes that Latin American immigrants are in better overall health than most non-Latino whites, but their health declines the longer they reside in the United States This is most likely because of inadequate access to services and lack of funds to pay for prevention and treatment.

Immigrants arrive healthy, Wallace said. “There needs to be a concern with adequate levels of health care services so they can maintain the level of health,” that they had when they entered the country.

“The report is an instrument for those who want to make informed decisions,” said Castaneda. “It provides facts behind the myths for those who really want to construct a better world, who should be more informed.”

The release of the report coincides with the Binational Health Week and the Binational Policy Forum on Migration and Health held in Los Angeles.

By the numbers

# One in four workers in California are Latino immigrants.

# One in five employed men in California ages 18-64 are Mexican immigrants.

# Eight in 10 agricultural workers in California are Mexican immigrants.

# 94 percent of Mexican immigrant men in the United States are actively employed.

# One in four Mexican immigrant adults live in families that are below the federal poverty level.

# “Mexican immigrants report fewer chronic conditions overall, spend fewer days in bed because of illness and have lower mortality rates than U.S.-born non-Latino whites.”

Source: “Migration, Health and Work: Facts behind the Myths”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 207 other followers