|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE
The leading Copyright |
DHS Statement On Expedited Removal Procedures Inaccurateby William YoumansDHS misstated facts in its press release on its motion to end the ‘Orantes’ Injunction. WASHINGTON, The Orantes
injunction requires that when the government arrests Salvadorans without a
warrant, it must provide them with specific notice of their right to a hearing
to seek asylum. The injunction also facilitates their access to counsel
and sets limits on how quickly they can be transferred out of the jurisdiction
of apprehension. Expedited removal allows DHS to remove select immigrants
– those who have no or improper documents -- without a hearing before an
Immigration Judge. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
(USCCB), CLINIC’s parent agency, has long opposed the use of expedited removal –
including the recent expansion of this program to persons caught within the
Orantes was
intended to counter the government’s well-documented bias that discouraged El
Salvadorans from filing for asylum and encouraged them to give up their right to
a hearing. CLINIC agrees with DHS that country conditions in By stating
that the Orantes “injunction jeopardizes national security,” DHS implies that
Salvadoran asylum-seekers represent a threat to national security.
“Salvadorans do not represent a threat to our security,” said Mr. Kerwin, “and
there is no evidence that adherence to the Orantes standards inhibits DHS’s
ability to protect the country.” DHS’s press
release also features several statements that mischaracterize its compliance
with its own expedited removal procedures and its detention standards. The
release asserts that expedited removal meets the due process concerns addressed
in Orantes, and states that “many aspects of the injunction have become part of
standard operating procedures.” Additionally, the release claims that
detained immigrants “are generally provided a list of free legal service
providers,” and “access to telephones, a law library, generous legal visitation
hours, and the opportunity for legal service providers to give group legal
presentations to detainees.” Although
DHS maintains that its detention and expedited removal standards make Orantes
redundant, in CLINIC’s experience these standards are not consistently
met. The “Study on Asylum Seekers in Expedited Removal” conducted by the
United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) did not
find a single DHS detention facility in compliance with the law library
regulations. The “generous legal visitation hours” are mitigated by the
fact that most of the 185 detention facilities are in rural areas. They
are usually a great distance from deportees’ families, their legal
representatives, and organizations able to provide group presentation
programs. DHS also
claims that expedited removal procedures guarantee that those fearful of "return
to their country” are given a chance to make an asylum claim. However,
credible reports show that the expedited removal system often returns migrants
to countries where they risk persecution, torture, and death. The USCIRF
study found that one in six migrants who expressed a fear of persecution was
denied the opportunity to apply – a procedural and legal violation.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has also reportedly
found similar problems. In particular, immigration inspectors fail to
provide certified translators, give interested consulates inaccurate identities
of asylum-seekers, and make mistakes that impact the outcomes of their
decisions. These deficiencies undermine DHS’s claim that the expedited
removal system will safeguard the rights of El Salvadoran
asylum-seekers. “The USCCB
opposes the expedited removal process and the recent decision to expand it
beyond ports-of-entry,” says Kerwin. “CLINIC is particularly concerned
with the attempt to dissolve Orantes at a time when DHS does not fully comply
with its own expedited removal procedures or its detention
standards.”
About The Author |
