Victims of persecution and torture should never be at themercy of a filing deadline to gain asylum. Most asylum seekers do not realize that they only have one year aftertheir arrival to apply for asylum. If they miss this deadline, they risk beingsent back to their countries and into the hands of their tormentors.

Many asylum seekers have survived unspeakable acts ofbrutality and arrive in the USafter undertaking long and dangerous trips. They are often unable to cope withwhat has happened to them, and may not even be aware that they are eligible for asylum. This arbitrary one-year deadline,enacted in 1996 in a misguided attempt to deter and prevent fraud in the asylumsystem, has resulted in the denial of tens of thousands of legitimate asylumclaims.

Last week, Representatives Pete Stark, Jim Moran, and ZoeLofgren took a step towards eliminating the deadline and returning the US to itsformer status as a defender of human rights and protector of the world’s vulnerable.They introduced H.R. 2981, the Restoring Protection to Victims of Persecution Act, which would eliminate theone-year deadline and ensure that every person who flees to the US in order toescape persecution and torture has a chance to apply for asylum, regardless ofwhen they submit their applications.

The Restoring Protection to Victims of Persecution Act is animportant piece of legislation that would fix a major flaw in our country’simmigration system. Members of Congress who are serious about immigrationreform should show their support for the most vulnerable immigrants bysupporting this bill.

Whenit was discovered that the perpetrators of the 9/11 terrorist attacks enteredthe US legally with valid visas, immigration enforcement came into the national spotlight.

Holes in the immigration system were blamed for failing to identify theterrorists responsible for the attacks, sparking the creation of the Departmentof Homeland Security (DHS) and its sub-agency, Immigration and CustomsEnforcement (ICE). In response, both the Bush and Obama administrations haveclaimed to place special emphasis on targeting criminals and terrorists for deportationproceedings, but the reality is quite different.

In June, ICE director JohnMorton issued a memocalling for the preservation of government resources by using “prosecutorialdiscretion.” According to Morton, authorities should target cases involving seriouscriminals and those who pose a threat to national security or public safety,instead of non-priority cases that don’t necessarily merit deportation. Intheory, deportation proceedings are used to kick out the “bad guys” and allownon-dangerous immigrants to remain in the US; however the deportation numberstell a different story.

The totalnumber of deportations initiated under the Obama administration since fiscalyear 2009 is slightly under 1 million. Since 9/11, the annual average number ofdeportations has increased 12% under the Obama administration.

Despite theincrease, terrorists and criminals do not constitute the bulk of immigrantsbeing deported. Only 4 deportation proceedings were initiated on terrorismgrounds and 34 on national security grounds, and almost 83% of deportationshave been based on civil immigration law violations, such as working withoutproper authorization. The immigration enforcement net is too wide and is havinga disproportionate effect on individuals who pose no threat to society.

Withbudget cutbacks a growing concern for the federal government and the 2012presidential election on the horizon, the Obama administration will have tomake its immigration enforcement policy better align with the politicalrhetoric. Important government resources should be used to deport moreterrorists, threats to national security, and criminals, not civil lawviolators.

A federal task force created toprovide political cover for the controversial Secure Communities (S-Comm)program has instead sharply criticized the program. The task force calls for changesto curb the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants who pose little or nothreat to public safety. In a report released today (pdf), the Task Force on SecureCommunities details the failings of a program that was intended to identify anddeport only “the worst of the worst,” but has instead resulted in thedeportation of tens of thousands of immigrants with little or no criminalhistory, as well as a massive increase in the use of immigration detention.While we applaud the panel’s efforts to reform S-Comm, Physicians for Humanrights joins some members of the Task Force, as well as human rightsorganizations across the country, in calling for an end to this disastrousprogram.

Under S-Comm, the fingerprints ofeveryone booked into jails in the 1,508 participating state and localjurisdictions are sent to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), thefederal agency charged with immigration enforcement. After cross-checking thefingerprints with its own database of immigrants who have been fingerprinted byan immigration official, ICE then confirms immigration status and can take theperson into custody to begin deportation proceedings. Of the nearly 200,000people that S-Comm swept into ICE custody between October 2008 and March, 57,000 had no criminal record whatsoever, and many more had convictions only forminor offenses, such as driving without a license. State and localjurisdictions that have resisted S-Comm were told by ICE that participation wasmandatory, forcing them to take creative steps to get around the program.

The 19-member task force wascreated by ICE director John Morton in June to address concerns from immigrantrights organizations and state and local law enforcement agencies that S-Commwas undermining public safety and tearing apart communities. Originally taskedwith examining narrow issues within S-Comm, the panel instead decided to holdhearings across the country to hear directly from those most affected by theprogram. Dozens of immigrants and their families told the panel how S-Comm had destroyedtheir families and created a climate of fear in their communities. Lawenforcement representatives said that the program had undermined public safetyand community policing efforts by making undocumented immigrants reluctant to report crimes for fear of being detained and deported.

Short of calling for an end to S-Comm,the panel’s report suggests changes aimed at preventing the deportation ofimmigrants arrested for traffic violations and other minor offenses.  While it remains to be seen if ICE willimplement these changes and if they will have a meaningful effect, the panel’sconclusion that S-Comm undermines public safety is indisputable. Indeed, two ofthe panel’s members resigned before the report’s release, saying that itsrecommendations did not go far enough to protect immigrants and restore publictrust in local law enforcement. PHR hopes that this report signals thebeginning of the end of S-Comm and a shift to the humane enforcement ofimmigration laws.

Since its inception, the Secure Communities program hasco-opted state and local law enforcement agencies to detain and deport tens ofthousands of undocumented immigrants who have been arrested for (but often notconvicted of) traffic violations and other petty offenses. While the statedgoal of this program – ensuring that violent criminals are removed from the US– is laudable, many states and localities have attempted to opt out of theprogram since it became clear that the overwhelming majority of immigrants whoare apprehended by the program are guilty only of being in the US withoutpermission. Additionally, concerns have been raised  that implementation of Secure Communities significantlyundermines cooperation between police and immigrant communities and can lead tounder-reporting of crimes, thereby impacting both citizen and non-citizensalike. However, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency of theDepartment of Homeland Security responsible for its administration, has made itclear that the program is mandatory – and that local law enforcement will haveto continue to participate in a deeply flawed program that destroys familiesand communities while undermining the public trust in local law enforcement.

As legal challenges to Secure Communities make their waythrough courts across the country, Cook County, Illinois has found a bold andcreative way around this destructive program. Last week, the Cook County Boardof Commissioners voted to stop complying with ICE requests to hold immigrantsconvicted of misdemeanors and traffic violations. These requests, known as“detainers,” ask local jurisdictions to hold immigrants wanted by ICE for up to48 hours so that ICE can detain them and begin deportation proceedings. Themonetary cost of these detainers is borne completely by the state or localjurisdiction – in Cook County alone, complying with ICE detainers costs the countyapproximately $15 million each year. The cost in terms of communitytrust in local law enforcement, to say nothing of family and communitycohesion, is immeasurable.

Cook County’s courageous stand against this destructiveprogram sets an example for every other jurisdiction that has tried to opt outof Secure Communities. By continuing to comply with ICE requests to hold felons(but declining to hold misdemeanor and traffic violators), Cook Countycontinues to serve Secure Communities’ goal of removing the most dangerousoffenders from the country, but also shows that ICE’s overbroad administrationof the program is completely unnecessary to achieve its goals. And by taking acommon-sense approach to protecting its residents and communities, Cook Countyis an inspiring example for like-minded localities across the country.  

Two weeks ago, Iran executed three men because they were gay.Iranian authorities rarely admit executing prisoners on the basis of sexuality– typically they are killed on trumped-up charges like kidnapping or burglary –but here the men were explicitly charged with the crime of intercourse betweenmen. The government’s willingness to openly charge then execute men for sodomysignals a dangerous shift in policy that could harm thousands of people inIran. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isinfamous for his denial that gays exist in his country, but it seems that hisstate of denial has now turned to active persecution of the gay population.

The victims have been identified only by their initials.Their ages were not revealed. All that is known is that early in the morning onSeptember 4, three men lost their lives, convicted under ChapterThree of the Iranian Islamic penal code, which calls for death for the crime ofsodomy.

Iran is one of seven countries with laws penalizinghomosexuality with the death penalty. Thelast time people were executed for the stated crime of homosexuality in Iranwas in 2005 when the state hanged two teenage boys. 

Executing people on the basis of their sexuality is aviolation of the most basic human rights. Furthermore, the execution of these three menis part of a dangerous trend in Iran. There have been, on average, twoexecutions per day in the first half of 2011. It is a precarious time for thegay population in Iran, and the US needs to make an unequivocal statementagainst this reprehensible and hateful action.

Matthew Denice’s tragic death at thehands of a drunk driver is a crime that should be punished. But it is not thesingle incident upon which public policy should be based.

Nicolas Guaman’s previous arrestrecord is cited as “proof” that if Governor Patrick accepted implementation ofSecure Communities, a program that requires local police to send fingerprintsof those under arrest to Immigration and Custom’s Enforcement’s centraldatabase, Matthew Denice would be alive today because Guaman would have beendeported long ago.

In the solitary context of Guaman’sapparent crime, it’s a compelling argument. But the Governors of Massachusetts,New York, and Illinois have refused to participate in the program for numerous reasons,primarily related to concerns about public safety and racial profiling. Even though the explicit goal of SecureCommunities is toimprove public safety by increasing deportations of undocumented criminals, inpractice it can actually decrease public safety by eroding trust between immigrants and local police.Mistrust between police and immigrant communities can lead to underreporting ofcrimes, leaving all of us vulnerable to violence and impairing officers’ability to investigate and solve crimes. 

When public officials weigh the critical decision of whetheror not to implement Secure Communities in their states and districts, theycannot look to a single event to help them make that determination. For every Nicolas Guaman, there is an AntonioDiaz Chacon from Albuquerque, New Mexico. Recently, Chacon—like Guaman, anundocumented immigrant—jumped into his truck when hewitnessed the kidnapping of a 6-year-old girl, and chased down the allegedabductor. Chacon then rescued the child and is working with the police as theycharge the suspect with kidnapping and child abuse. Would this little girl be alivetoday if Chacon had been deported under Secure Communities? Thankfully, we’llnever have to wonder.

For every tragic story like Denice’shorrific death, there is a complementary story about an immigrant who saved alife, helped his neighbor, or otherwise made a positive difference. Thesestories may be harder to find in the “if it bleeds, it leads” news mentality oftoday, but they are out there. Isolated events, no matter how poignant, shouldnot be used to shape our public policy. Denice’s family said it best on theFacebook page they created for him: “There is too much hate in this world already. Thepolitical issues should be fought separately and should not be mixed in withwhat Matthew, and our family, are about.”

The White House recently reaffirmed itscommitment to closing Guantanamo—a commitment President Obama made almost threeyears ago when he signed an executive order mandating its closure within ayear. Last Thursday, White House Chief Counterterrorism Advisor, John Brennan,told a room full of reporters, “We're not going to bring people to Guantanamo. It's thisadministration's policy to close Guantanamo and, despite some congressionalhurdles that were put in our path, we're going to continue to pursue that."On Sunday, September 11 Brennan reiterated this stance andtold “Fox News Sunday” that the administration is still trying to close theprison camp and transfer or prosecute the remaining detainees. 

DespitePresident Obama’s pledge to shutter the prison—an undertaking that was also acampaign promise—170 detainees remain at Guantanamo. Last year, Congress passedthe NDAA 2011, which contains provisions that block the transfer of GTMOdetainees to the US for prosecution. The bill also severely restricts the President’sability to transfer detainees to their home countries or other safe countries.In response, the administration issued a signing statement criticizing Congressfor intruding on executive prerogative.

Recently, theadministration took a more practical approach. Instead of sending suspectedterrorist Ahmed Warsame to a military commission in Guantanamo as Republicansin Congress wished, Warsame was held on a Navy ship for several months and thentransferred to a US civilian court. As Congress considers passing NDAA 2012which contains much of its predecessor’s restrictive language, the future ofthe Guantanamo and the men held there remains murky. Although the administrationhas advocated closing the prison camp, it has also supported transferring somedetainees to the US for prosecution or long-term preventive detention.

While theadministration should be applauded for its commitment to closing Guantanamo,closing the detention center is only half the battle. Indefinite detention inthis “global war on terrorism” is essentially punishment for a crime that hasnot been committed—a life sentence without a conviction. As a report by PHR hasconcluded, indefinite detention can lead to serious physicaland mental health consequences, which in some cases may rise to the level oftorture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.  Such a policy neither adheres to the rule oflaw nor makes us safer.  As Judge JamesBaker, former Legal Adviser to the National Security Council and author of In the Common Defense, stated, "a nationalsecurity policy that does not include the rule of law as a core element willdiminish not only our liberty, but also our security.  That is becausegood process, founded in law, including good legal process, as well as goodfaith adherence to the law, produces better security results."  

PHR calls onPresident Obama and Congress to close Guantanamo and to transfer the men backto their home countries or to the US for prosecution. PHR also calls on theAmerican public to carefully consider and thoroughly debate any nationalsecurity policy that permits US military or CIA to pick up an individual anywherein the world and hold them indefinitely without a trial. Before we areremembered for that policy, let us remember what we stand for.   

PHR marks the tenth anniversary of September 11, 2001, by remembering the victims of the brutal terrorist attacksand thanking all those who continue to fight for human rights.

The assaults on September 11, 2001, represented a base attackon the most universal and elementary human right—the right to life, liberty, and security of person, as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Unfortunately, reflecting on the decade since 9/11 callsinto question our collective commitment to human rights, accountability, andjustice.

In the aftermath of the attacks, fear drove many of ouractions. Almostimmediately, the Bush Administration began dismantling USanti-torture law and policy and violating principlesenshrined in the US Constitution.

During this dark moment in our history, brave voices calledfor the US to honor its longstanding commitment to the principles ofinternational human right laws: the right to be free from torture, arbitrary arrest,and indefinite detention; the right to a fair and public hearing by anindependent and impartial tribunal; and the right to a social and internationalorder in which these rights can be fully realized.

September 11 will always be a day to remember those who werekilled or lost loved ones. Today, PHR also thanks the defenders of basic humanrights who seek torestore the US commitmentagainst torture, to ensure humane treatment of detainees, and to protect US healthpersonnel from complicity in mistreatment and harm.

>> Read PHR's reports and papers on torture.

TheChief Minister of Western Burma’s Chin State is forcing citizens to work for nopay, according to a recent press release by the Chin Human Rights Organization (CHRO). 

Overthe last month, Chief Minister Hung Ngai ordered civil servants to spend theirSaturdays cleaning areas of the capital city of Hakha, threatening to cut theirsalaries if they refused.  He also forced100 other people to work, threatening them with a fine if they did not comply.The civil servants cleaned the construction site of a government guest house anda road leading to a military base.

“They called us for forced laborwhen we should be working for our own survival. I had to miss out on work formy livelihood that day because of the forced labor,” a local man told CHRO.

Forced labor is common in ChinState. In the report Life Under the Junta, PHR reported that 91% of households in Chin State had atleast one family member that was forced to portermilitary supplies, sweep for landmines, build roads, or do other hard labor.

AlthoughBurma is a signatory to the Forced Labor Convention,the government continues to commit this human rights violation. When householdmembers are forced to work for the government, they have less time to spendearning wages or tending their fields resulting in less income and less foodfor their family. PHR condemns the recent incidents in Chin State and urges theBurmese government to change this policy.

In February Cheik Diop, aSenegalese asylum seeker, walked out of an immigration detention facility in Pennsylvania. Hisrelease came nearly three years after he was first detained by Immigration andCustoms Enforcement (ICE) in early 2008. Last week, a federal appeals courtheld that detaining Diop for 1,072-days while he fought to stay in the United States violatedthe Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This important ruling gives hopeto the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who are detained every year.

InDiop v. ICE/Homeland Security,the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (with jurisdiction over Delaware, NewJersey, and Pennsylvania) addressed the constitutionality of the prolongeddetention of immigrants under the Illegal Immigration Reform and ImmigrantResponsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”). IIRIRA mandates that any person who isremovable from the US on the basis of a criminal conviction must be detainedwhile they await the outcome of their immigration cases. Diop, who representedhimself in immigration, state, and federal court, successfully argued that thegovernment only had the power to detain him for a reasonable period of time –and that holding him for the 35 months it took for the courts to decide hiscase was so unreasonable that it violated the Due Process Clause of the FifthAmendment.

According to ICE, immigrants maybe detained for as long as their deportation proceedings are pending, even if ittakes several years. In the overburdened Immigration Court system, whichemploys far fewer judges than are needed to decide the outcomes of the hundredsof thousands of cases before them each year, this means that many immigrantsare detained for years while awaiting the outcome of their case. The courtrejected ICE’s argument, ruling that the statute only authorizes detention fora reasonable amount of time. Although the court refused to define “reasonable,”it strongly indicated that any detention over six months risks becomingunreasonable. At that point, an immigration detainee is entitled to a hearingto determine whether the person should be detained further (to ensure attendanceat Immigration Court hearings), and whether he or she poses a threat tosociety.  

The court’s decision is animportant reaffirmation that the nation’s sprawling immigration detentionsystem is still bound by law and the Constitution. It also means that futureimmigrants won’t suffer the torturous detention and drawn-out fight that Diopendured in order to free himself from custody. While the goals of IIRIRA –ensuring attendance at immigration hearings and protecting the public fromviolent criminals – are undoubtedly important, its unchecked application toooften results in unnecessarily long and severe detentions. The Third Circuitcorrectly interpreted Congress’ intent in enacting IIRIRA and still providedprotection for the thousands of immigrants who are detained every day.