After immigration officialsraided the factory where she worked, Encarnación–a native of Guatemala – was arrested and detained. At the time, her son, Carlos– a US citizen – was only 6 months old. Encarnación hasbeen separated from Carlos for nearly 4 years. During her detention, she wasnot allowed to participate in her custody case, resulting in the termination ofher parental rights. Against her wishes, an American couple adopted Carlos. Herlegal battle to get her son back continues.

Reports and criticisms ofthe immigration system tend to focus on the hardships felt by the detaineesthemselves, incarcerated and facing possible deportation. Far less attention,however, has been paid to their children. A recent study conducted by the Applied ResearchCenter shows that 25% of individuals deported in 2011 left behind a US-citizenchild. Because Child Protective Services (CPS) cannot legally place thesechildren with undocumented family members such as aunts, uncles, orgrandparents, the children end up falling into the general ranks of anexpensive and already overcrowded foster care system.

The odds of reunificationfor children and their detained parents are extremely low. Detainees arefrequently transferred, without notice, over hundreds of miles from home tofacilities where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has more bed space.Relocating a transferred person in the immigration detention system isdifficult, and CPS is required to search for parents for only a limited periodof time. Detained parents normally cannot attend juvenile court hearings tocomply with CPS requirements. This inability to participate in the processoften culminates in the termination of parental rights, and CPS takes custodyof the child without parental consent or notification.

The Board of ImmigrationAppeals, the highest adjudicatory board for immigration matters, has statedthat the parent being deported may decide whether to take the child or leavethe child in the US. However, CPS frequently fails to reunify children withtheir parents in foreign countries due to the difficulty of locating parentsabroad and the biased belief that children are better off in the US, even ifthat means that they are placed in foster care. 

Placing children ofdeported parents in foster care without attempting to reunite the biologicalfamily is in direct contravention of both domestic policy and internationallaw. Family reunification is always supposed to be the primary goal under USchild welfare policy. Similarly, the United Nations Convention on the Rights ofthe Child prescribes that children have the right to family reunification and theyshould not be separated from their parents against their will.

The detention anddeportation of immigrants is at its historical peak, and the numbers are onlyincreasing, resulting in more broken families and disenfranchised children.Recently, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began reviewingcurrently pending immigration cases to weed out “low priority” cases and scaleback deportations. Undocumented parents of US citizen children should qualifyas low priority cases. If relief from deportation is granted to these parents,families will remain intact, children will not be thrown into a foster caresystem rife with its own problems, and US taxpayers will save substantial sumsof money.

President Obama has taken a significant step in guaranteeingthat the US does its part to ensure that the human rights of lesbian, gay,bisexual, and transgender persons around the world are protected. In a memorandumissued today, Obama directed all federal agencies engaged in actions abroad to“ensure that US diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the humanrights of LGBT persons” and outlined several specific steps to protectespecially vulnerable LGBT populations.

In particular, PHR commends Obama’s directive to theDepartments of State, Homeland Security, and Justice to ensure that LGBTrefugees and asylum seekers have “equal access to protection and assistance”from the US government. We hope that this commitment to ensuring that LGBTpersons around the world who face persecution and torture because of theirsexuality or gender identity will be followed up with concrete policies andpractices on the ground.

But while this memorandum will ideally result in increasedaccess to asylum and refugee status for LGBT persons around the world, theObama administration must also strengthen the protection of LGBT immigrants andasylum seekers in the US. Currently, LGBT asylum seekers face a high bar whenapplying for asylum, often being forced to prove that they were “out” in theirhome countries or having to demonstrate their “gayness” to an asylumadjudicator. And our nation’s broken immigration detention system hits the LGBTpopulation especially hard. LGBT detainees frequently face the worst the system has to offer: they are held in solitary confinement forlong periods of time, ostensibly for their own protection; they are harassedand threatened by law enforcement officials; and they are routinely subject tosexual assault by both law enforcement officers and other detainees.

This memorandum is a step in the right direction. But weurge the Obama administration to take a close look at the treatment of LGBTimmigrants and asylum seekers in the US and work to reform our nation’s brokenasylum and immigration detention systems, especially for the most vulnerable. Wecannot expect to credibly protect the human rights of LGBT persons abroad whenwe cannot do so at home.

The incremental steps taken by the US government to reformthe immigration detention system have been outmatched by the furious pace atwhich people have been forced through it in the last two years. With nearly34,400 immigrants detained every night, the need for strong, bindingregulations and comprehensive oversight has never been greater.

But despite thepromises of the Obama administration in 2009 to overhaul the way we detainimmigrants, little has been accomplished two years later. As the New York Timespoints out in a recent editorial,the immigration detention system is still “dangerously broken.”

The immigration system was never intended to be used as asystem to punish immigrants for criminal convictions. While many detainedimmigrants have been convicted of crimes, many more, including detained asylumseekers, have no criminal convictions; others have only been convicted of minoroffenses, such as driving without a license.

And those who have been convictedof crimes are transferred to immigration detention centers after being releasedfrom criminal custody – not for additional punishment, but to ensure that theyattend immigration court hearings and comply with the orders of the ImmigrationJudges. Nevertheless, as the Times points out, approximately half of allimmigration detainees are held in actual jails – the same proportion as in 2009– while many others are held in jail-like facilities.

Given the strong incentives that private correctional corporations and local and state law enforcement agencies haveto preserve the current system and expand the use of detention, it may bewishful thinking to hope for a wholesale shift toward a civil detention model.But DHS does have the power to drastically improve conditions in detentionfacilities, which are often shockingly poor. Indeed, DHS has devoted some ofits reform efforts since 2009 to improving the quality of medical care indetention facilities, and has made strides in areas such as treatmentauthorization, standardizing medical records, and screening detainees formedical and mental health issues.

But there is still a drastic shortage of healthprofessionals working in detention facilities, especially in those located inremote areas or that have small populations of immigration detainees. Andanecdotal evidence suggests that detainees with serious health problems who arenot subject to mandatory detention are often released from custody when theypress their medical concerns, instead of being provided with medical care.

Atthe most basic level, doctors, lawyers, and advocates continue to have difficultyaccessing detainees’ medical records, which are not even transferred when adetainee is moved to a different facility.

Our government has made a commitment to detaining 34,300immigrants every night, and has said that it wants to improve conditions indetention centers. It is time to match these words with actions by creating anon-penal detention system, implementing strong and binding standards, andproviding detainees with adequate legal services and medical care.

Until theadministration fully commits to fixing this dangerously broken system, it willremain a shameful reminder of how far we have fallen in our treatment ofimmigrants and our commitment to human rights.

PHR today calls on President Barack Obama to veto the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012(NDAA). On December 12, the House and Senate issued their conference report on the NDAA, which authorizes but is not essential to funding for most Defense Department operations. The House and Senate conference report does not fix fundamental flaws found in the provisions regarding treatment of terrorism suspects. President Obama had previously threatened to veto the defense bill over the detainee provisions, and PHR calls on him to honor that promise.

The latest version of the NDAA continues to authorize the indefinite detention without charge or trial of individuals suspected of terrorism and does not make an exception for US citizens or legal residents. It continues to mandate military detention for most terrorism suspects, making traditionally civilian law enforcement activities subject to military authority without regard for due process protections.

The new bill also extends the severe restrictions on the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to their home or third countries although, more than half of the 171 men at Guantanamo have been cleared for transfer.  These restrictions will continue to keep Guantanamo—a symbol of detainee abuse—open well into the future.

“The President must veto this bill and stand in defense of our Constitution and basic human rights,” said Kristine Huskey, Director of the Anti-Torture Program at PHR. “The rights of citizens and our country’s long-standing human rights protections are what make us, as a nation, strong. We cannot continue to undermine those rights and the rule of law.”

PHR calls on the President to stand up for due process and reject the false choice between our ideals and security, as he promised in his 2009inaugural speech.

About Physicians for Human Rights

Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) is an independent organization that uses the integrity of medicine and science to stop mass atrocities and severe human rights violations against individuals. We are supported by the expertise and passion of health professionals and concerned citizens alike.

Since 1986, PHR has conducted investigations in more than 40countries around the world, including Afghanistan, Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, theUnited States, the former Yugoslavia, and Zimbabwe:

• 1988 First to document Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Kurds
• 1996 Exhumed mass graves in the Balkans
• 1996 Produced critical forensic evidence of genocide in Rwanda
• 1997 Shared the Nobel Peace Prize for theInternational Campaign to Ban Landmines
• 2003 Warned of health and human rights catastrophe prior to the invasion of Iraq
• 2004 Documented and analyzed the genocide in Darfur
• 2005 Detailed the story of tortured detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay
• 2010 Presented the first evidence showing that CIA medical personnel engaged in human experimentation on prisoners in violation of the Nuremberg Code and other provisions

###

Following the release of Physicians for Human Rights’ (PHR) reportdocumenting human rights violations and humanitarian needs in Kachin State,northern Burma, PHR applauds Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for expressingconcern about violence against ethnic groups in Burma. PHR’s report, Under Siege in Kachin State, Burma,detailed attacks by the Burmese military on civilians, including looting food,firing indiscriminately into villages, and forcing civilians to serve asporters and human minesweepers. Earlier this week, PHR called on SecretaryClinton to discuss these and other crimes during her historic trip to Burma.

In her initial reports, Secretary Clinton has expressed concernabout violence against ethnic groups, the ongoing imprisonment of politicaldissidents, and Burma’s ties to North Korea. She also called for greater accessfor humanitarian aid groups in areas of conflict -one of PHR’s key recommendationsto the Government of Burma. Secretary Clinton noted that preliminary gesturesof openness on the part of the leaders of Burma will not automaticallytranslate into a lifting of sanctions.

While PHR welcomes initial changes in Burma, the US andothers in the international community must not lose sight of the ongoing abusesin rural Burma. Incremental changes that do not reach ethnic minoritycommunities are not signs of sustainable progress. PHR applauds SecretaryClinton for addressing ongoing human rights violations in Burma, and urges theUS Administration to continue to closely monitor the situation in Kachin Stateand other ethnic areas of Burma.

As the revolutions collectively known as “the Arab Spring” have rocked the Middle East and North Africa, medical professionals have often been caught in the crossfire. PHR's Richard Sollom joins WHYY NPR in Philadelphia to discuss doctors under siege in the Arab world, and the pursuit of “medical neutrality” on Capitol Hill and in the United Nations.

Watch or Listen Now »

Source: WHYY NPR

A Sudanese doctor treats severely wounded members of a rebelgroup from Darfur while working for a humanitarian NGO. As a result of theassistance he provides, the doctor is then targeted by the Sudanese government-captured, interrogated and tortured for aiding Darfuri rebels. Fearing arrestand potentially execution, he flees to the United States in search of safetyand requests asylum.

Up until earlier this month, the doctor’s asylum claim wouldhave been denied, even if he legitimately feared persecution and immigrationauthorities found him to be credible. Providing medical assistance to injuredDarfuri rebels was considered “material support” to a terrorist organizationand therefore barred him from receiving asylum in the US. In response toadvocacy from groups like Physicians for Human Rights, however, Secretary ofHomeland Security Janet Napolitano fixed this flaw by creating an exemptionto the material support bar for health professionals who have provided medicalassistance to wounded combatants as part of their ethical and moralresponsibilities.

The “material support bar,” created by the USA PATRIOT Actin 2001 and codified in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), providesthat a noncitizen who commits an act that he or she  “knows, or reasonably should know, affordsmaterial support” to a terrorist organization may not be admitted to the US.Because an applicant for asylum must be “admissible” before he can win asylum,the material support bar excludes many bona fide victims of torture andpersecution from gaining protection in the US for doing something as benign asgiving water to a family member who happens to be a member of a groupdesignated as a “terrorist organization” by the US government. Before the recent change, the provisionsquarely conflicted with internationally-accepted principles of medical ethicsand humanitarian law and contradicted  ahealth care provider’s ethical duty to treat anyone in need, regardless of thepatient’s affiliation. Denial of asylum to these health professionals alsoclashes with US policies which support medical neutrality and the protection ofhealth care workers in war.

While this exemption is laudable, the material support barremains overbroad. It still makes no exemption for situations in which anasylum seeker assists a terrorist organization under duress or coercion. Thismeans that asylum seekers who are victimized by groups that the US hasofficially designated as terrorist organizations are treated as terroriststhemselves, even if they had no choice but to do what they were told underthreat of death. And the government has yet to define what exactly it means by“material support,” leaving it open to uneven and sweeping interpretation bythose who are charged with enforcing the immigration laws.

A 2009 Human Rights First Report estimated that over 18,000refugees and asylum seekers have been directly affected by expansiveterrorist-related provisions in immigration law. Rather than trying to addressthe negative impact of these provisions through piecemeal statutory changes andwaivers to individual classes of refugees, Congress should enact legislation toensure that all victims of persecution and torture who are neither guilty ofcriminal wrongdoing nor pose a threat to US security have a chance to winasylum. Anything less will continue to undermine our obligation to protectrefugees while doing nothing to protect the US against terrorism.