Author: mopress

By Nick Braune
Mid-Valley Town Crier
by permission

This week I interviewed Susan Watson, an energetic attorney with Texas RioGrande Legal Aid (TRLA) which has offices in Weslaco, Edinburg, and Harlingen.

Braune: Your work has brought you into contact with special undocumented youth being detained by the government, “unaccompanied minors.” I suppose that means they came to this country by themselves. They sound like very brave youth, but they are still youth and must be pretty scared and maybe confused. Could you tell us something about these young people and how you meet up with them?

Watson: Unaccompanied minors (UACs) are children under 18 without legal status and who have no parent or legal guardian present. Of the estimated 8,000 UACs who enter the United States each year, most come from Central America or Mexico. All of the UACs I’ve met come from horrific situations: some are orphaned, sometimes because their parents were killed in gang violence or by military factions; some were abused or abandoned by parents; others lived in abject poverty. They are, indeed, extremely brave: the stories I’ve heard about their lives and their harrowing trips to reach the U.S. include things most of us could never imagine.

We at TRLA first became involved with UACs last year. We were contacted by immigration counsel for several children who were victims of sexual assault in a shelter facility in Nixon, Texas. The children needed representation for civil rights and other claims arising from their treatment there. Because TRLA has a long history of fighting for the poor and the vulnerable, our group was a good choice — and these kids probably are the most vulnerable and least likely to be able to seek justice on their own.

Braune: Does ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) take charge of these youth? And how are they treated? I suppose there is a range: some are treated poorly and some are treated better. Right?

Watson: In 2002, the responsibility for caring for UACs while they are in immigration proceedings was delegated to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) of the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. This was done to separate the responsibilities of caring for these children (ORR) from prosecuting the immigration cases (ICE). Although some children are treated pretty well, far too many receive sub-standard care and are subjected to physical, sexual and emotional abuse.

Braune: A related matter. If teens in custody turn 18, are they just thrown into the world to fend for themselves or are they deported? If they have no family with them and have just been released from the juvenile centers, they must be pretty distressed. Do they get some help from the government for health care, counseling, education, job hunting assistance, etc.?

Watson: Detained UACs are transferred to adult detention facilities on their 18th birthdays, and then they may be eligible for release on bond. But you are right — they are just turned out on the street even if they have been in ORR custody for years. Until their immigration case is decided, most have no ability to work legally, are ineligible for public benefits, and find no system in place to provide them with basic human needs, such as shelter, food, and clothing. If bond is denied, the person remains in ICE detention until the immigration case is completed.

Braune: I’ve heard that the Rio Grande Valley facilities are better than others around the country. Why is that?

Watson: I can think of two reasons why these UAC facilities — about six are in the Valley — are generally better than others. First, and without meaning to sound stereotypical, the Valley is primarily Hispanic, and children are cared for by people from similar cultural backgrounds, Spanish speakers who understand the important cultural differences among regional groups.

The second important reason is that members of ProBAR (South Texas Pro Bono Asylum Representation Project) of Harlingen, visit the facilities regularly, meeting with every child. Having an independent group in constant contact with the children significantly decreases the likelihood that abuse will occur or that it will go undetected.

Braune: Lastly, is there one specific thing you would change immediately?

Watson: If I could change only one thing, it would be to require independent monitoring and contact with all UACs, much like ProBAR does in the Valley. In addition to deterrence and early discovery of abuse or other care issues, having “outsiders” come in on a regular basis also provides children with knowledge of their rights and an assessment of potential immigration relief. Finally, it increases the possibility of getting pro bono legal representation, which dramatically affects a child’s ability to present a strong case in immigration court.

Braune: Thanks, counselor, for your time today and your important work.

A headline in the Dallas Morning News fairly represents the tone and content of a story: “Tales of terrorists breaching border overblown, so far.” Indeed it is a long story about what “could” occur, but hasn’t occurred. A curious bit of news.

On the other hand, immigrant families from around the world continue to be abused by USA immigration authorities in Dallas. And the stories continue to be widely ignored, so far.

It has been some time since we’ve heard news of a happy ending, and we watch with distress as a recent case of abuse involving Rrustem Neza jolts down a darkening tunnel of climate controlled indifference. Not only are USA authorities trying to deport him, too; they are petitioning to dope him first.

In all the cases we have shared at the Texas Civil Rights Review, the pattern is the same. Hard working, decent people crammed into a wringer without remorse. These exercises of American power cannot fail to provoke anger in a beating heart, and we have proved that hearts of Texas are beating.

Yet, at some level of structural maladjustment a sinister formula requires that news of someone’s stated fears should overtop interest in the real suffering of the day. As another chance at a happy ending slips past.

Against the discouragements of our continuing alliance with refugees and deportees, we quote John Rawls from “A Theory of Justice”:

“Now one feature of a rational plan is that in carrying it out the individual does not change his mind and wish that he had done something else instead. A rational person does not come to feel an aversion for the foreseen consequences so great that he regrets following the plan he has adopted. . . . We may, of course, regret something else, for example, that we have to live under such unfortunate circumstances . . .” (421-422) –gm

MALDEF WILL PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE FIFTH CIRCUIT TO PROTECT HISTORIC TEXAS DESEGREGATION PROVISIONS

AUSTIN, TX – The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the nation’s leading Latino legal organization, will argue on behalf of LULAC and the GI Forum to uphold student transfer provisions for Texas school districts in order to ensure that desegregation efforts are not impeded. Multicultural Education, Training and Advocacy, Inc. (META) serves as co-counsel in the United States v. Texas case, which will be argued before the Fifth Circuit by David Hinojosa, Staff Attorney for MALDEF’s Southwestern Region, on December 5, 2007.

Filed in 2004 by the Harrold and Samnorwood Independent School District’s (ISD), the ISD’s claimed that the State had unlawfully withheld their funds after they failed to enter student transfers into the state’s student transfer computer system. The Districts also argued that the transfer provisions of Order 5281 only applied to those school districts that were part of the original 1970 lawsuit and that ISD’s did not need to report Hispanic transfers.

Despite having prevailed in the district court, the districts argued that the transfer provisions should not remain intact and the State has essentially consented. MALDEF filed a brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and will argue: 1) that the matter is moot since the Districts prevailed in the trial court; and 2) that the transfer provisions remain relevant and are aimed at TEA’s past violations. If TEA desires to have those modified or dismissed, then it must properly bring a motion before the District Court, not the Court of Appeals.

By James C. Harrington
Director, Texas Civil Rights Project

President George W. Bush noticeably stiffened his stance on immigration issues during his recent speaking foray along the border with Mexico. As is his current custom, Bush appeared in non-public forums – a military base in Arizona and with border patrol officials in El Paso, wearing a green agent’s jacket.

Bush talked about “hardening” the border and imprisoning people who enter the country illegally. He shifted away from his earlier talk of regularizing illegal immigration with a guest worker plan. Bush’s trip occurred two weeks after it came to light that soldiers from Ft. Bliss were patrolling the border in Arizona and New Mexico, assisting immigration agents. They dodged the issue of using American military for internal law enforcement by claiming they were gathering intelligence, not arresting anyone – and learning lessons to apply in Iraq.

Bush’s visit also played into the agenda of the Minutemen, who, amid considerable fanfare, have deployed themselves along the same areas visited by the president. The Minutemen want to seal off the border, either with armed presence or an impenetrable 1800-mile fence along the border. Some in Congress support this unworkable idea.

Bush’s change of pace doesn’t help a bit. No matter how much the border is “hardened,” people will continue to cross because their economic need is so great. People simply cannot survive in Mexico. Mexicans receive $1 billion/year from people working in the United States. This is Mexico’s largest source of income – even greater than from its oil and petroleum industry. It’s also easier on Mexico to have some ten million of its people working in the United States, than face possible upheaval there in they were unable to migrate.

The other part of the equation is that the American economy is dependent of inexpensive labor – construction, agriculture, and the service industry, in particular.

The immigration problem will not be resolved until the severe economic dislocation between the United States and Mexico is lessened. All that “hardening” the border does is increase the peril for undocumented people coming into this country, forcing them to walk through the desert’s extreme heat by day and freezing temperatures at night, without water. This year alone, some 500 persons will perish during the trek.

President Bush’s recent pronouncements dodge the phenomenal problems at the heart of illegal immigration. They do nothing to move the United States and Mexico toward really tackling perhaps the greatest economic crises facing the northern hemisphere, made worse by NAFTA. They reflect a lack of political will.

Playing to the anti-immigration and nativist forces in this country doesn’t help. Nor does it help if the president is simply trying to distract attention from other issues, such as Iraq and rapidly declining public support. It would be extremely difficult for Bush to convince his business and political allies to undertake the kind of dramatic economic re-structuring without which there can never be meaningful immigration reform.

Politicians are short-term and short-vision leaders. Their survival generally motivates them, not necessarily the long-term good of the country. Added to this mix is the fact undocumented immigrants don’t form a political constituency since they cannot vote. This makes it easy to scapegoat them.

This country needs to commit itself to real economic structural reform and address illegal immigration in that context. We don’t need political grandstanding and beating up on people whose only crime is to try to survive.

—–

The Texas Civil Rights Project, a nonprofit foundation, promotes civil rights and economic and racial justice throughout Texas.

[Received via email Dec. 8, 2005, posted by permission–gm]