|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE The leading Copyright |
< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily <Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly
The mandate of the Women’s Commission is to work on behalf
of all women and children who flee their homes and communities, including those
who seek refuge in the United States. In 1995, the Women’s Commission initiated
a project to assess the treatment of women asylum seekers in the United States.
This evaluation considered the physical conditions in which women are detained;
their access to legal counsel and the U.S. asylum system; the protection they
are provided to ensure their safety; and their physical, mental and social
well-being. In 1997, the Women’s Commission expanded the Detention and Asylum
Project to address the critical protection needs of children and adolescent
asylum seekers who make their way to the United States. This includes assessing
the treatment that children receive in detention as well as their ability to
access the U.S. asylum system. In the course of its Detention and Asylum Project, the
Women’s Commission has interviewed dozens of women and children asylum seekers,
government officials charged with their care and legal and social service
providers. It has also visited more than 30 detention centers across the
country. The following is one in a series of reports on specific facilities;
this report focuses on the situation of women in detention in the Krome Service
Processing Center in Miami, Florida. The Women’s Commission visited Krome in
March 2000 and again in September 2000. The Women’s
Commission would like to thank the Joyce Mertz-Gilmore Foundation, the Nathan
Cummings Foundation, the J.M. Kaplan Fund and the Hillsdale Fund, without whose
support this report would not have been possible. The Krome Service Processing Center, a large detention
center operated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) on the
outskirts of Miami, Florida, stands as stark evidence of the INS’s failure to
centralize, professionalize and restore compassion to its immigration detention
program. Largely due to an increased emphasis on detention as an enforcement
tool under the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
the INS currently detains almost 20,000 individuals on any given day, making
immigration detention the fastest growing prison program in the United States.
Despite the fact that a significant percentage have committed no crime and are
simply exercising their right to seek refugee protection in the United States,
INS detainees are subject to harsh treatment and punitive conditions. Perhaps
nowhere is this more true than in Krome, a facility which for years has been
plagued with chronic problems and has been the target of multiple federal
investigations. The Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children assessed
conditions for women asylum seekers in the facility twice, in March 2000 and
again in September 2000. The Commission’s own research, based on interviews
with current and former women detainees and INS officials, as well as the
reports of local legal service providers, reveals widespread sexual, physical,
verbal and emotional abuse of detainees, especially women. Allegations
of sexual abuse are being investigated by three agencies of the Department of
Justice: the Office of the Inspector General, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the U.S. Attorneys Office. Attorney General Janet Reno has
also assigned a high-level Justice Department official to investigate other
abuses at Krome. However, it remains to be seen what will result from these
investigations. Disturbingly, similar complaints have been raised at Krome in
years past but with no disciplinary or legal actions resulting against the
officers implicated. Some of the very same officers who were accused of sexual
and/or other physical abuses are alleged to be involved in the latest
misconduct. Some continue to work at Krome to this day. Women
consistently describe an atmosphere of fear and intimidation in the facility.
Sexual abuses ranging from rape to sexual molestation and harassment have been
occurring repeatedly at the hands of at least 15 male INS officers. Women who
cooperated in sexual activities were made false promises of release from
detention. Threats of deportation, transfer to county jails, or even death were
leveled at women who dared to resist or complain of such abuses. Physical and
emotional abuses have included demanding that Muslim women remove their veils
or go without eating and yelling at women of particular nationalities. Language
barriers and a lack of access to legal services make women further vulnerable
to abuses. Medical care is grossly inadequate at times. Prolonged detention and
the stress caused by miserable living conditions drive some women to attempt
suicide. The
INS at the national level must regain control of its detention program. It must
develop and consistently apply generous parole policies for asylum seekers. It
must develop alternatives to detention for those asylum seekers who cannot be
released. It must ensure oversight of conditions of detention and the highest
level of professionalism among detention center personnel. And
it must aggressively pursue prosecution of or disciplinary action against every
officer involved in sexual abuses against women detained in the Krome facility
and immediately take every step necessary to ensure that such abuses are never
repeated in Krome or any other detention center. Nothing less is acceptable
from a country that prides itself for its strong refugee tradition and generous
immigration policies. Introduction Although
the United States claims to be a leader in refugee protection, in practice it
fails to live up to this claim. Since passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), it has adopted and
implemented harsh new asylum and detention procedures that severely threaten
the ability of asylum seekers to obtain refugee protection in the United
States. IIRIRA
constructed a series of almost insurmountable hurdles to asylum seekers seeking
protection in the United States under the guise of streamlining the asylum
process. These changes embrace two cornerstones. First is the implementation of
an expedited removal system at U.S. ports of entry, under which individuals who
arrive without the appropriate documents to enter the country are subject to a
cursory review of their claims that pays little heed to basic principles of due
process.[i]
Second, even if an individual successfully passes this initial screening, he or
she may be detained by the INS for a prolonged period that can last months or
even years. Moreover, the United States relies heavily on prisons and detention
centers with prison-like conditions to incarcerate asylum seekers. Of
the tens of thousands of individuals who seek protection in the United States
each year, thousands are women and children. They come from troubled regions
around the world, including Afghanistan, the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Somalia,
Sudan, China, Haiti, Cuba, Central America and Colombia. They have often fled
human rights violations specific to their gender, including rape, forced
marriages, female genital mutilation, sexual slavery, honor killings and forced
prostitution. Women are at grave risk of being denied the protection they
deserve under the restrictions of IIRIRA. Since 1995, the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and
Children has monitored conditions of detention for women in INS custody. This
assessment has looked at the physical conditions in which women are detained,
their access to legal counsel, the protection they are provided to ensure their
physical safety while in detention and their physical, mental and social
well-being. The Women’s Commission has also advocated for the development of
U.S. procedural protections and jurisprudence that fully acknowledge the often
unique forms of persecution that women and children are forced to flee.[ii] U.S. Detention
Policy Since 1996,
the detention of individuals apprehended by
the INS has dramatically increased. The daily capacity of the detention program
has almost tripled from approximately 7,000 individuals in 1995 to almost
20,000 today.[iii] The INS
has projected that these numbers will grow to 24,000 by 2001.[iv]
The Administration requested $1.195 billion to support its detention program
for Fiscal Year 2001.[v]
Immigration detention is in fact the fastest growing prison program in the
United States.[vi] Caught up
in the detained population are women who have fled human rights abuses in their
homelands and are exercising their right to seek refugee protection, or asylum,
in the United States. The INS has estimated that asylum seekers comprise
approximately five percent of the detained population on any given day. Women
constitute approximately seven percent and children three percent of the
detained population. Unfortunately, the exact numbers of detained asylum
seekers are difficult to ascertain as INS data gathering is notoriously poor.
In 1998, Congress passed two provisions requiring the INS to collect
demographic data on detained asylum seekers and other detained aliens. These
provisions require the INS to report such data annually to the Senate and House
Committees on the Judiciary starting on October 1, 1999. Despite this law, the
INS to date has failed to provide such data to Congress due to its inadequate
data collection infrastructure.[vii] The increase in immigration detention is largely
attributable to enactment of IIRIRA, a comprehensive overhaul of U.S.
immigration law designed to restrict access to the United States for most
newcomers, including those individuals seeking refuge from armed conflict and
persecution.[viii] Included
among the many enforcement tools embraced by IIRIRA was an increased emphasis
on detention of individuals who lack the required documentation to enter the
United States. Many asylum seekers fall into this category; asylum seekers are
often the least able to procure the documents necessary to enter the United
States because they cannot afford to risk the time or exposure to government
authorities necessary to obtain travel documents. Theoretically, however, parole from detention is available
to asylum seekers. The INS itself has stated in field directives that its
policy should normally be to release asylum seekers who have established a
“credible fear” of persecution, a preliminary screening standard that asylum
seekers must meet under expedited removal before they are allowed to pursue
their asylum claims.[ix] However, despite such instructions from INS Headquarters
to its district offices, many INS districts continue to imprison asylum seekers
for prolonged periods, in some cases even for years. The disparity between the
stated national policy and implementation at the local level is attributable to
the fact that tremendous discretion to parole asylum seekers has been delegated
to INS district directors. Belying the soundness of these decisions is the fact
that many such asylum seekers are ultimately successful in their asylum claims.[x]
Sadly, they may have endured years of unnecessary incarceration in the
meantime.[xi] Moreover, asylum seekers are detained in harsh conditions
in prisons or prison-like detention centers. The INS utilizes four types of
facilities to house adults in its custody: ·
Service Processing Centers, which are owned and
operated by INS; ·
contract facilities, which are designed to house only
immigration detainees but are subcontracted out by the INS to private
correctional companies which assume day-to-day responsibility for the care of
detainees; ·
county and local jails designed to house criminal
inmates but from which the INS rents bed space for detainees as needed; and ·
federal prisons operated by the U.S. Department of
Justice Bureau of Prisons.[xii]
In response to pressure from refugee and immigrant rights
organizations, the INS in recent years has begun to develop standards for
conditions of detention. These standards are designed to cover a range of
issues, including access to counsel, visitation rights, telephone access,
medical care, diet, grievance procedures and others. However, the standards
suffer from some fundamental flaws. First, they are non-binding, as they are
not incorporated in statute or regulation. Second, they are largely based on
the standards of the American Correctional Association, which are geared toward
a criminal population. Thus, the standards fail to adequately consider the
unique needs of asylum seekers. Finally, to date the standards do not apply to
the county and local prisons used by the INS, in which more than half of INS
detainees are actually housed.[xiii]
(The INS has stated that it intends to move toward requiring such facilities to
abide by the standards over the coming years; however, early indications are
that such standards may be watered down in order for local facilities to be
able to comply.[xiv]) [SIDE BAR] Synopsis
of Applicable International Legal Standards International Legal Standards Pertaining to
Detention Both treaty and customary international law prohibit
prolonged arbitrary detention. Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the basis for most human rights law, states that “No one shall be
subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile.”[xv] Additional support for this principle is found in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), article 9(1) of
which states that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.”
Article 9(4) of the ICCPR elaborates, “Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by
arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in
order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his
detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.”[xvi] The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR),
the primary international agency mandated to protect refugees, has elaborated
on these international standards as they apply to asylum seekers. In its Guidelines
on Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to the Detention of Asylum
Seekers, the UNHCR notes that detention of asylum seekers is inherently
undesirable and that as a general principle should be avoided. It recommends
that there be a presumption against detention, but that if used, detention
should be limited to a minimal period of time. Finally, the Guidelines urge
that detention be resorted to only in cases in which 1) it is necessary to
verify the identify of a person; 2) it is necessary to determine the elements
of a person’s asylum claim; 3) an asylum seeker has destroyed or used
fraudulent documents to mislead authorities; or 4) it is necessary to protect
national security. The Guidelines also call for special protection of
populations at risk, including children and single and pregnant women.[xvii] UNHCR has directly addressed its concerns about U.S.
detention policy to the INS. Prior even to the enormous growth in U.S.
detention since 1996, the agency wrote in 1993 to the INS Commissioner: “The UNHCR Executive
Committee has expressed deep concern about the detention of refugees and asylum
seekers merely on account of their undocumented entrance or presence in search
of asylum. Executive Conclusion No. 44 recommended that ‘in view of the hardship
which it involves, detention should normally be avoided.’ Detention of refugees
and asylum seekers should normally be limited to the shortest time necessary to
establish the applicant’s identity and the elements of the asylum claim.”[xviii] UNHCR has continued to express its alarm at U.S. detention
of asylum seekers since enactment of IIRIRA. In February 1999, the agency wrote
a letter to the Commissioner of the INS asking the United States to abide by
the UNHCR detention guidelines and to exercise its discretion to release asylum
seekers.[xix]
The UNHCR Washington Representative observed, “Asylum seekers who are not a
threat to society should not be detained and should not be treated like
criminals.”[xx] International Legal Standards Pertaining to
Refugee Protection After World War II, the international community joined
together to establish international standards for the protection of refugees.
This effort resulted in the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (the Refugee Convention).[xxi]
Together, these legal instruments impose on countries the obligation to protect
any individual found to have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of
race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular
social group.[xxii] Countries
are prohibited from expelling or returning refugees to a country where their
life or freedom would be threatened based on these criteria.[xxiii]
Refugee law also mandates that countries not impose penalties on asylum seekers
on account of their illegal entrance or presence as long as they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entrance or presence.[xxiv]
Countries are also prohibited from restricting the movement of such refugees
other than those measures that are necessary.[xxv] The United States ratified the Refugee Convention in 1968
and incorporated its principles into its domestic law in 1980.[xxvi]
The Refugee Convention does not specifically call for the protection of women
who flee gender persecution. However, in 1995, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service issued “Gender Guidelines,” which lay out procedural,
evidentiary and legal considerations for asylum adjudicators when addressing
gender persecution claims.[xxvii]
Since issuance of the Guidelines, U.S. jurisprudence has
slowly evolved to extend protection to victims of gender persecution. However,
this progress has recently been called into question by a decision of the Board
of Immigration Appeals, the highest administrative appellate body within U.S.
immigration law. In Matter of R-A-,
the Board overturned a decision of an immigration judge who granted asylum to a
Guatemalan women who had fled extreme abuse by her husband and to whom the
Guatemalan government had consistently failed to provide protection.[xxviii]
At the time of this report, an effort by women’s rights, refugee rights and
immigrant rights organizations was underway to persuade the Attorney General to
overturn the Board’s decision. [END OF SIDE BAR] Florida
is host to one of the largest immigration detention centers in the United
States, the Krome Service Processing Center. The INS uses Krome to house a
variety of individuals in its custody, the two largest populations being people
who are subject to removal from the United States because of a crime they have
committed and asylum seekers. A significant number of the asylum seekers
imprisoned in Krome have traditionally come from troubled Caribbean countries,
most notably Cuba and Haiti. However, they also come from a number of other
countries, including Algeria, Angola, eastern Europe, Yugoslavia, Nicaragua,
Guatemala, Colombia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Ecuador, Afghanistan, China
and others. Since
its opening, the Krome Service Processing Center has been the subject of
tremendous controversy. For years, the legal service community, detainees and
their families and even some facility staff have complained about the facility.
According to a 1996 report by the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center (FIAC): “…recent allegations include severe overcrowding,
prolonged detention and denial of parole, impediments to legal representation,
verbal and physical abuse, lack of a grievance procedure, untrained and
unqualified detention officers, improper use of segregation, lack of proper
medical care, unhygienic living conditions, transfers to county jails, denial
of access to journalists and visitors and discriminatory treatment of certain
nationalities.”[xxix] These complaints were not new. The facility has been the
subject of federal investigations of alleged abuses every few years going as
far back as 1986.[xxx] Criticism of Krome reached its peak after a 1995
congressional visit to the facility by the Congressional Task Force on
Immigration Reform. A group of INS staff leaked to the delegation that the INS
had attempted to cover up true conditions in the facility during the
delegation’s visit. Under instructions from top-level INS officials, the
facility had been cleaned up and detainees released or transferred to alleviate
overcrowding with the explicitly stated intent to deceive the delegation.[xxxi]
INS employees also engaged in a collective effort to generate and perpetuate
false information about what they had done. As a result of an investigation by
the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), the INS demoted and/or transferred
several officials implicated in the scandal, including the Eastern Regional
Director and the Miami District Director.[xxxii] After
this debacle and under increasing pressure from the immigrant advocacy
community to address widespread problems in the detention system, the INS
stated its commitment to cleaning up the facility and improving its management.[xxxiii]
The facility, however, first went through a very troubled period, in which INS
personnel rotated every few months in and out of the position of
officer-in-charge, the top administrator in charge of the facility, thus adding
to the low morale of staff and continuous confusion about facility rules. Finally,
in September 1998, the INS placed Edward Stubbs, a former U.S. Marshals Service
official, in charge of the facility, with the mandate to resolve the chronic
problems that plagued the facility.[xxxiv]
Soon after assuming his new position at Krome, Mr. Stubbs remarked: “We have a
car that is running. It’s just not running very well. At every stoplight, we
pray it won’t stall. We’re trying to make it a little more dependable every
day.”[xxxv]
Mr. Stubbs told the Women’s Commission, “When I arrived here, this place was in
turmoil.” At
the time of the Women’s Commission’s first visit to Krome in March 2000, it
appeared that Mr. Stubbs was making progress toward his stated goal of
improving the facility. Unfortunately, however, these improvements were seen as
cosmetic, as reports broke in May 2000 of rampant sexual misconduct by guards
and drug trafficking in the facility, events that led to Mr. Stubbs’s abrupt
resignation in July 2000 and a new period of public scrutiny of the facility.[xxxvi]
It was due to these events that the Women’s Commission visited Krome a second
time in September 2000. The Krome Service Processing Center is 25 miles from
downtown Miami and is located at the edge of the Everglades. It was opened in
1980 to handle the influx of Haitians and Cubans arriving in the United States
around that time. Although designed for short-term detention, detainees may
spend months or even years in the facility before their proceedings are finally
completed and they are released or deported. Since enactment of IIRIRA, the
composition of the population has changed significantly, with approximately 90
percent of the population now held due to mandatory detention for criminal
convictions and 10 percent held in administrative detention, such as asylum
seekers.[xxxvii] The
official capacity of Krome is difficult to ascertain. Numbers provided by the
INS have varied from 226 to 538.[xxxviii]
Some of this variation may be attributable to growth or shrinkage in dorm space
as the facility is renovated. Regardless,
the INS and local legal service providers report that the number of detainees
held in Krome fluctuates dramatically and that overcrowding is a chronic
problem.[xxxix]
An attorney who regularly visits the facility observed: “When the facility is
overcrowded, everything breaks down. Recreation stops, attorneys have to wait
hours to see their clients, et cetera.”[xl]
At the time of the Women’s Commission visit in March 2000, the facility was
clearly overcrowded. The officer-in-charge admitted, “They’re coming in quicker
than we have beds to put them in.” He indicated that the daily population was
at 680. Legal service providers reported that at other times the numbers have
climbed to over 800.[xli]
By the time of the Women’s Commission’s second visit, however, the numbers had
dropped to 525.[xlii] While
euphemistically referred to as a “Service Processing Center” in INS parlance,
Krome is in fact a prison. The facility is surrounded by double fences topped
with concertina wire. Visitors’ credentials are closely scrutinized. A Women’s
Commission delegate was reprimanded for taking photographs. Adding to the
enforcement environment is the persistent noise of gunfire, which originates
from a federal firing range located on the perimeter of the facility. Inside
the facility, detainees are housed in dormitories that are surrounded again by
fences. The facility is heavily guarded by INS officers dressed in uniforms.
Detainees themselves wear prison uniforms. Different colors denote different
security classifications; “criminal aliens” wear red, while “administrative
detainees,” such as asylum seekers, wear orange. When moving from one part of
the facility to another, such as from their dormitory to the cafeteria,
detainees are often forced to walk single file under the close supervision of
guards. The
dormitories themselves are institutional and sterile in nature. Women are
housed in Dorm 14, which is divided in half, with the asylum seekers housed in
Dorm 14A and the women who are subject to deportation because of crimes they
have committed housed in Dorm 14B. The two sides are connected through a
doorway. Bunk beds are lined up in long rows with little space in between.
Conditions become even more crowded as the population increases, as temporary
cots are squeezed between existing beds to accommodate the increase in numbers.
Bathrooms offer little privacy. There is a small sitting area with tables,
chairs and a television where the women congregate. Detainees are not allowed
to decorate the dorm in any way. Guards sit near the dorm entrance monitoring
the activities of the women. Dorm
14, however, does represent an improvement in housing for women held at Krome.
In past years, women were housed in the Public Health Service (PHS) medical
clinic. Conditions in the clinic were overcrowded and privacy disrupted by the
daily activity of the clinic.[xliii]
Women with children were held during the day in the processing area at Krome
and then moved to a hotel at night. Conditions in the processing area were so
poor that in August 1998 detention enforcement officers wrote a memo to their
supervisors voicing concern. Among their complaints were that criminal aliens
and male detainees were sharing a bathroom with minors, women and children were
forced to eat their meals on the floor, ventilation was poor and that women and
children had no access to recreation. The memo concludes: “We hope that by
reporting some of these violations we can instill a new attitude of caring,
professionalism and concern. We feel that this is not only a human rights
issue, but also a safety and legal issue that INS cannot afford to ignore.”[xliv]
In
addition to the dormitories, the facility also includes a recreation building,
the PHS clinic, a cafeteria and various administrative buildings. Attorneys are
allowed to visit their clients in four attorney/client visitation rooms in an
administrative building near the front of the premises. One of these booths is
assigned to FIAC and allows contact visits. The other booths are smaller and
attorneys must consult with their clients through plexi-glass dividers. The
Executive Office for Immigration Review maintains two immigration courtrooms
near the attorney visitation area. The INS Office of International Affairs also
maintains office space in trailers on the premises for the six asylum officers
it has assigned to the facility to conduct credible fear interviews with asylum
seekers. In
March 2000, Mr. Stubbs had clearly been making an effort to spruce up the
facility’s physical plant. In 1997, when the Women’s Commission participated in
an Amnesty International mission to Krome, the facility was run down and
criss-crossed with internal fencing. Bathrooms were dirty and suffered from
standing water.[xlv] In
contrast, the facility during this visit was clean and freshly painted. Much of
the internal fencing had been removed. A new activity center was under
construction. In November 1998, Mr. Stubbs indicated that Krome had been
provided with an additional $3.3 million to fund these improvements and that he
was confident that additional funding would be forthcoming to reach the $6
million level he projected was necessary to accomplish needed changes.[xlvi]
That month, INS announced plans to build a new complex to house women and
children at Krome,[xlvii]
but later said this would not happen. (Like any prison, Krome is expensive to
operate, costing approximately $75 per day to house each detainee. The annual
budget for the facility ranges from $9-11 million.)[xlviii] Mr.
Stubbs noted that he had four priorities in seeking to improve the Krome
facility: policies and procedures, the physical facility, the public perception
of the facility and personnel. He estimated that it would take three to five
years to accomplish these goals. While progress had been made on the first
three goals, it became apparent after the Women’s Commission visit in March
that personnel problems continued to plague the facility. The
physical safety of female detainees imprisoned at Krome has been seriously
jeopardized by officers who have preyed on the women’s vulnerability and
uncertain immigration status. Reports of sexual abuses began to surface in May
2000, shortly after the Women’s Commission’s first visit in March. What
is most disturbing is the fact that such reports are not new.[xlix]
In 1990, the FBI investigated allegations of sexual and physical abuse of
detainees held at Krome, but no official report was made public, and advocates
are not aware that any disciplinary actions were taken or criminal charges
lodged.[l]
At the time, investigators told advocates that if there was no third party to
witness the abuse, there was nothing they could do about it.[li]
In 1998, a woman detainee held in a local motel complained of sexual harassment
by an INS officer but he was never disciplined or indicted.[lii]
Some of the guards implicated in the most recent scandal had already been the
subject of investigation for sexual abuse in these prior investigations.
However, they retained their positions at the facility and are now the subject
of investigation once again. [SIDE BAR] Sexual Abuse of
Detainees by Krome Officers Not New Sara (a pseudonym) is an asylum
seeker from Angola.[liii]
She arrived in Miami in 1998 with her husband and seven-year-old daughter after
the Angolan military threatened to kill her politically active husband. The
INS separated Sara’s husband from Sara and her daughter. Although ill with an
infection in his leg, he was imprisoned in Krome, while Sara, at the time four
months pregnant, and her young daughter were taken to a hotel. Sara was only
allowed to see her husband for half an hour each weekend, even though she and
her daughter were taken to Krome, along with other women and children detained
in the hotel, each morning at 5:00 a.m. to spend the day. At
Krome, the women and children were held in a small processing room with little
space and little to do. They were fed their last meal at 4:00 p.m. and then
transported back to the hotel. Although the hotel was only 30 minutes from
Krome, the van ride back to the hotel would sometimes take hours as INS
officers stopped to eat. The women and children would be left in the closed van
for as much as an hour with the windows shut while the guards went to a
restaurant. Sara reported to her attorney: “The time we were left the longest,
my daughter and a one-year-old baby started throwing up. It was so hot and they
were both nauseous from the heat.” The officers would also eat in front of the
children, who would often cry from hunger. The van would sometimes not arrive
back at the hotel until midnight. Sara
was sharing a hotel room with her daughter and two Somali women. Typically, the
INS officers who guarded them during the night were men. One
night, Sara awoke with the feeling that someone was very close to her. When she
opened her eyes, a male officer was kneeling next to her bed, his face only a
foot or two away. He smiled and laughed. Sara turned away and tried to fall
asleep. The guard tapped her arm. He said: “I feel sad. My girlfriend left me.
I need someone to talk to.” Sara told him to leave her alone. He left. When
Sara awoke later, the officer had returned. He asked her for a massage on three
separate occasions. She refused and began to cry. The officer returned several
times during the night. He said to her “Where can I find a woman? I need a
woman.”[liv]
Sara told him that she was pregnant. The officer asked her how far along in her
pregnancy she was and then finally left her alone. After
Sara’s experience was reported to the INS by FIAC, the INS Office of Internal
Audit (OIA) interviewed her. However, prior to this interview, the
investigating officer told FIAC that the detainee “was just another person
making false accusations against Immigration,” thus raising serious concerns
about the investigator’s objectivity.[lv]
The investigation resulted in little follow-up and no disciplinary action. In
fact, the preliminary report from the investigation was lost for a period of
time. The Miami District staff were also dismissive of the woman’s complaint.
FIAC reports that when the issue was raised at a meeting with district staff
one supervisory official started to laugh.[lvi] In
January 1999, in response to a letter from FIAC in September 1998 inquiring
about the status of the investigation, INS Commissioner Meissner wrote: “The
OIA has completed the investigations…. The allegation that Ms. [Name Withheld]
may have been the recipient of improper advances was … unsubstantiated. The
investigation did disclose systemic issues. These findings regarding policy and
procedures concerning women and children detained as a result of a petition for
asylum have been forwarded to senior management for review and action. Let me
assure you that the INS does not tolerate rude or abusive behavior by our
employees.” Since
Commissioner Meissner promised systemic changes, the women and children housed
in hotels are no longer transported to Krome during the day. However, they are
now locked in the hotel around the clock with no outdoor exercise, a situation
that is particularly unhealthy for children. The women and children also do not
have adequate access to legal assistance, since attorneys cannot visit them at
the hotels. Finally, at the time of the Women’s Commission’s visit to the hotel
in March 2000, one of two officers assigned to guard the women and children was
male, leaving open the question as to how well protected the women are against
sexual abuse and harassment. [END OF SIDEBAR] Three
agencies within the Department of Justice are participating in the
investigation: the OIG, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the U.S.
Attorneys Office.[lvii] (Attorney
General Janet Reno has also assigned a high-level Justice Department official
to investigate other abuses at Krome.[lviii])
At the time of this report, these agencies were looking into 20 separate
allegations against several INS officers and one PHS officer. Two grand juries
had been convened and two INS officers indicted, one for rape and the other for
fraud.[lix]
Nine INS officers had been reassigned from their duties at Krome to desk jobs
in the INS Miami District Office pending the investigation.[lx]
However, several others against whom allegations have been made by women
detainees continued to work at the facility.[lxi] The
reports of sexual misconduct are repugnant in their detail, ranging from rape
to molestation to trading sex for favors. Women report that often officers use
the women’s lack of immigration status as an inducement to participate in
sexual activities. They report that officers would make false promises that
they could release a woman from detention if she participated in sexual acts.
In other cases, detainees say that deportation officers have threatened them
with deportation or transfer to a county prison if they resisted a guard’s
sexual advances or if they complained of a guard’s treatment. The
complaints of sexual abuse have been brought primarily by women who are subject
to removal from the United States because of criminal convictions. However, it
is clear that asylum seekers are also exposed to abuse and violence. One asylum
seeker was reportedly raped, and at best, other asylum seekers detained at
Krome are exposed to an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. A witness to the
sexual misconduct reported, for example, that an INS officer and a woman
detainee used the bathroom in Dorm 14A, where asylum seekers are generally housed,
to have sex in the middle of the night. It is also possible that women seeking
asylum are subject to sexual harassment or abuse but their experiences go
unreported due to language and cultural barriers. The
most serious allegation raised thus far has been the rape of a Mexican
transsexual who was seeking asylum in the United States on the basis of sexual
orientation, Christina Madraso.[lxii]
When asked by the Miami Herald why
she came to the United States, Ms. Madraso[lxiii]
said, “I felt that Miami was more safe for people like us.”[lxiv]
She had been badly beaten by four men in Mexico because of her sexual
orientation and had spent 20 days in a hospital as a result. She left Mexico
shortly thereafter. Ms. Madraso was granted asylum by an asylum officer, but
the INS appealed that grant. An immigration judge affirmed the grant of asylum.
However, a fingerprint check revealed that Ms. Madraso had been convicted of
two misdemeanors, although these misdemeanors do not appear in local criminal
records. As a result, the grant of asylum was rescinded and the INS apprehended
Ms. Madraso and detained her at Krome. The asylum denial is under appeal.[lxv]
Ms.
Madraso’s problems at Krome began almost immediately. While she was well into
the medical process for becoming a female, the INS inexplicably placed her in a
male dorm. There she had sexual relations with other detainees. Whether these
encounters were consensual or not remains unclear.[lxvi]
Ms. Madraso has also alleged that guards in the dorm touched her breasts and
followed her into the bathroom to gawk.[lxvii]
She
was then placed in a segregation cell. Lemar Smith, an INS officer who has been
working for the INS for two years,[lxviii]
was assigned to guard her. Ms. Madraso has reported that once in isolation Mr.
Smith asked her to take her clothes off. He then raped her while she tried to
defend herself. She reported the attack to the PHS and the INS and she was
moved to an isolation cell attached to the medical clinic. A week later, Smith
arranged to deliver her food tray to the cell and raped her again. At
this point, justice took an even stranger turn for Ms. Madraso. After she filed
a complaint regarding the second rape, she reports that INS officials gave her
an impossible choice: she could agree to either transfer to a mental
institution or a county prison or to return to Mexico, despite the fact that
she still had the right to appeal her asylum claim to the Board of Immigration
Appeals. Ms. Madraso agreed to return to Mexico. Fortunately,
before her removal to Mexico, an investigation of her complaints was finally
launched by the OIG. Ms. Madraso was moved to a hospital and then released from
detention. This investigation resulted in the arrest on August 31, 2000 and
indictment of Mr. Smith by a federal grand jury on four charges of sexual
assault, which could result in 42 years in prison.[lxix]
However, in striking contrast to the INS’s reluctance to release many of the
women who have spoken out about sexual abuses (see below), Mr. Smith was
released from custody on a $50,000 bond three days after his arrest.[lxx]
It
appears that the rape of Ms. Madraso is not an isolated incident of sexual
abuse at the Krome facility. Since her experience became public, several other
women detainees incarcerated in the facility have come forward with allegations
of sexual abuse and harassment. Maria
(a pseudonym) became a lawful permanent resident in the United States in 1975,
when she was 10 years old. Because she had been convicted of a non-violent
offense, however, her status was revoked and she became subject to removal to
her home country of Colombia. Maria, however, is homosexual and fears return to
Colombia where persecution of gays and lesbians is common and a civil conflict
is escalating.[lxxi] She
therefore raised a claim to asylum as a defense to removal. The
INS apprehended Maria and detained her at Krome. She was incarcerated in the
facility for 17 months, during which time she witnessed several incidents of
sexual abuse and harassment. During an interview, she reported to the Women’s
Commission that she was aware of 18 or 19 “bad guards.” She explained: “They’re
the old school at Krome. They have seniority and they know how to manipulate
it.” Maria
described several incidents of INS officers approaching women for sex. A fellow
detainee told her that she had been approached by a guard while participating
in a cleaning crew. She had spilled a cleaning chemical on herself and had
stopped to change her T-shirt. The officer approached her while she was
changing and tried to kiss her. He followed her into the bathroom as she
resisted his advances and told him that she did not want to get into trouble.
He opened the door of the bathroom while she was undressing, grabbed her by the
neck and began tearing at her bra. He then unzipped his pants and only stopped
when she threatened to scream. Before leaving her, he said, “I thought you
wanted it.” The detainee was transferred to a county prison shortly thereafter.
Maria
commented: “You have to understand that one of our biggest fears in detention
is being transferred. Usually it’s the woman involved who gets punished, not
the guard. The guards view Krome as just a meat market.” Maria
also reported that another detainee told her that a deportation officer had
called her into his office and asked her to write him “sex letters.” The
detainee told Maria that the officer said, “How good you are at talking dirty
will affect the way you are deported.” The detainee refused to write letters to
the officer. She was subsequently deported after an arduous trip from Miami to
Bradenton, FL to Texas in a van with men. Meanwhile, this officer also
continues to work at Krome. Maria’s report about corruption and abuse in Krome was
corroborated by other women interviewed by the Women’s Commission. Ana
(a pseudonym), who is from Nicaragua, served only 26 days in jail for a minor
crime. Because that crime made her vulnerable to removal from the United
States, however, the INS apprehended her in April 1999 and placed her in Krome
for 12 months. Her husband and three children are all U.S. citizens. Ana
came forward to file a complaint regarding the abuses she had seen at Krome at
the same time as Maria. Ana told the story of an officer who approached a Cuban
detainee; he pulled down his pants and asked her to perform oral sex on him.
She refused. Ana said: “The officer is still at Krome. He flirts constantly. If
you give him an inch, he’ll take a mile.” When
reports of rampant misconduct began to be investigated, a few of the victims
were finally released from detention, including the woman who had confided in
Maria. The guard implicated in this story, however, remains on duty at Krome. Ana
also described one male PHS nurse as a “gigolo.” He was interested in a woman
who had been released from Krome. He asked Ana: “What happened to your friend?
She promised to call me once she was released, but she never did. We had a
blast.” He then described to Ana how he used to kiss the detainee in question.
He told Ana to tell her friend to call him to set up a date. Ana said, “He told
me he was going to put my name on the list for a physical so that I could
report back to him what her answer was.” Ana refused to submit to the physical and
avoided contact with the officer. Shortly
after filing a complaint about the abuses she had witnessed, Ana was
transferred, along with several Somali women asylum seekers, to the New Orleans
Parish Prison (NOPP) in New Orleans. The NOPP was the subject of a Women’s
Commission investigation in 1996, which raised serious concerns about
conditions in the facility.[lxxii]
(Maria was also threatened with transfer to a county prison by the officer
against whom she had lodged a complaint, but that decision was overridden
because she was setting up computer programs for the facility. Another officer
intervened and blocked her transfer. The first officer told her that he had
been blocked but that he would get her transferred anyway. He said, “I know who
I can trust now.”) Ana
remained at the NOPP for two months before she was transferred back to Krome.
She saw other women who raised complaints released. However, a deportation
officer asked her about the pending investigation and told her: “You won’t be
released because I’ll make sure that you stay here. I’ll deport you and bar you
from returning to the United States for 10 years.” Ana was transferred to the
Federal Detention Center in Miami prior to testifying before a grand jury. She
was subsequently released. (See below.) Bernadette
(a pseudonym), a Haitian woman, spent 19 months in prison serving a criminal
sentence and seven months in Krome awaiting her deportation before she was
released pending the investigation of abuse at Krome. She has lived in the
United States since she was an infant and has a U.S. citizen child. She told
the Women’s Commission: “While I was in Krome, I prayed they would ship me back
to prison. Krome is disgusting, far worse than prison. It is pure sexism and
the women suffer more than the men.” Bernadette
herself was targeted by INS officers pressuring her to engage in sexual acts.
She said: “They come on to you. If you refuse their advances, they treat you
like crap.” She reported that one guard pressured her for sex. Initially she
agreed to cooperate, but then she backed off. He approached her again in the
PHS clinic. When she refused his advances, he grabbed her by the throat and
shoved her against the wall. She reported that after that attack, the officer
would call her nasty names, including “whore,” when he saw her. He would also
enter the women’s dorm late at night to talk to women with whom he had ongoing
sexual relations. When he walked by Bernadette’s bed, he would kick or shake
it. She said he would regularly threaten women with deportation or warn that he
would have them “disappear” in the Everglades. An
officer called Bernadette a “lollipop” (alluding to alleged sexual activity by
the woman) after she refused to have sex with another officer. When Bernadette
told him she was going to file a grievance for sexual harassment, he said,
“Don’t f--- with me.” One
day when Bernadette and her friend were in the cafeteria a detainee told them
that a letter was in the bathroom for them. Bernadette went to get the letter.
When she went in she was surprised to find an officer sitting on the toilet.
Bernadette said that she froze, and the guard told her to remove her shirt and
bra and then he began to fondle her. She said that the incident seemed “to last
an eternity.” After a while her friend walked in and the officer received a lap
dance from her. He also masturbated in front of them. Afterwards, the guard put
money in their pockets. Bernadette observed: “The other officers in the
cafeteria must have known what was going on. We were in the bathroom for a long
time and they would have noticed the two empty seats.” She concluded: “The
whole thing made me feel dirty. I had to see this guy every day.” Bernadette
later discovered that she was pregnant by a male detainee. The couple would
engage in consensual sex while in the PHS clinic. Bernadette reported that
approximately 15 INS officers were aware that the couple was having sex, but
did not intervene. Some officers teased her about the relationship, calling her
by the male detainee’s last name. Another officer told her that they would
transfer her to a county jail until she delivered the baby and then return her
to Krome. Bernadette reported that sexual relationships between male and female
detainees were common and that officers enjoyed facilitating such liaisons or
did so in return for sexual favors. Bernadette
told the Women’s Commission that the stress caused by the treatment she
received in Krome made her hair fall out. She concluded: “The INS has rules and
policies, but they don’t follow them. They treat us like animals. … They
degraded me so badly. … We knew there were only two ways out of Krome,
deportation or suicide. When you want your freedom so badly, you’ll do
desperate things.” Linda
(a pseudonym), a Jamaican woman, spent six months in Krome. During that time,
she witnessed what she described as “the arrogance and manipulation
demonstrated by the guards.” She also reported that other guards knew of the
abuses that were happening but pretended that they did not know. She said:
“Women were often promised release. It was clearly offered in exchange for
sex.” She reported that male officers would regularly visit the women’s dorm
late at night after the lights were turned off. One
night, she witnessed a detainee get up from bed and walk with a male officer to
the other side of the dorm, where women asylum seekers were housed. They
remained there for approximately half an hour. The detainee in question told
other detainees that she was in love with the guard and that he was in love
with her. Linda observed, “The guards should be setting an example, not
entertaining relationships.” In
another incident, she learned that a supervisory officer had told a detainee
that if she had sex with him he would stop her deportation. This followed a
prior incident in which a guard had kissed and groped the woman. The detainee
in question attempted suicide by taking 45 pills she got from the infirmary.[lxxiii]
In a subsequent interview, she said: “They lied to me. He said, ‘I’m going to
make sure that you get out.’ I let them do whatever they want to do because I
though they were going to help me.”[lxxiv] Linda
and another woman who had also witnessed abuses decided to come forward and
file a complaint. The complaint was referred to the INS Office of Internal
Audit and the OIG. Within two weeks, several officers were removed from the
facility. Linda, however, reported that her own situation in Krome became
uncomfortable. She said: “The word spread that we had complained. The other
guards began to stare at me and whisper.” She said that an officer threatened
to retaliate against the family of one of the other women who had complained
about him. Ironically,
Linda reported that their complaints actually made life at Krome more difficult
for all of the women detainees. She said that outdoor recreation and attending
meals in the cafeteria became compulsory, even if a woman did not feel well.
Outdoor recreation was particularly hard on pregnant women, as the outdoor
recreation field offers little shade and summer temperatures and humidity are
extremely high. Linda
concluded her interview by saying: “Something good must come out of this. I’m
glad that I came forward. Otherwise, the abuse could go on forever.” She also
observed: “All the outside delegations who visit Krome look at the physical
structure … and they make us clean up. But the real problem is the personal
relations. Don’t paint an ugly picture pretty just to leave an impression.” Witnesses
Incarcerated in Maximum Security Federal Prison Before Grand Jury Appearance The
INS’s treatment of women who filed complaints against INS officers implicated
in the sexual abuse varied considerably, but demonstrated a disturbing lack of
concern for the safety of the women. Women repeatedly reported abuses at Krome.
Weeks before any formal investigation began they spoke with a number of
officers, including INS lieutenants and captains based at Krome. They also sent
a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno in May and contacted the OIG before a
formal investigation was underway. They spoke at length with OIG officials and
sent a second letter to the Attorney General on June 29, 2000.[lxxv] Some
of the women were actually deported before the OIG, FBI, or U.S. Attorneys
Office had a chance to interview them.[lxxvi]
Some of the women were transferred to county jails and were thus cut off from
their attorneys and families. Some of the women were finally released pending
the investigation, but were forced to remain in Krome in the interim.[lxxvii]
Those who remained at Krome were subject to harassment and threats to their
safety. At the time of the Women’s Commission’s September visit, at least one
woman who reportedly was the most involved in the sexual abuse was still in
Krome. After
Ana and Maria reported what they had witnessed to supervisory officers at
Krome, they feared retaliation, a fear that was soon realized. Despite requests
from their attorney that the two women be released and the fact that other
witnesses had already been released, the INS delayed for several weeks and
instead transferred them to the Federal Detention Center (FDC), a maximum
security facility in downtown Miami used for the pre-trail detention of
individuals convicted of federal offenses and material witnesses to federal
crimes. The officers who processed Maria and Ana for the transfer did not
explain to them where they were being taken. They were handcuffed, shackled and
chained while moved. Once
at the FDC, it took several hours to process them. While they were waiting in
the processing area, they watched as INS officer Lemar Smith was released on
bond. They were terrified when they spotted him. As Smith walked by, he said,
“Hi ladies, why are you here?” Maria
and Ana were then split up and placed in segregation. The FDC warden later told
the temporary officer-in-charge of Krome that “it was for their own safety,”
even though the women had not raised complaints about any employee or inmate at
the FDC. The operations lieutenant at FDC told the women’s attorney that the
women were taken to FDC under orders from the INS and FBI and had been
identified as “material witnesses.” The
U.S. Attorneys Office told the women’s attorney that he had no idea the women
were being transferred to FDC and he had not identified them as material
witnesses at that point.[lxxviii]
It remained unclear which agency was in charge. Maria
and Ana remained in isolation for 12 and 13 days respectively. During this
time, Maria was not allowed to use a telephone to contact either her attorney
or family. Ana was able to make one brief phone call to her mother only because
she had a phone card that worked at the facility. The women were deprived of
outdoor exercise. They were given inadequate toiletries and were denied both
shampoo and combs (they were not allowed to comb their hair before appearing
before the grand jury after 10 days in isolation). They had to beg for a change
of clothes. During processing, the FDC officers took away the medication that
had been provided to Maria by the PHS clinic at Krome for a hyperthyroid
condition. She had to plead with the officers to replace it, and was given only
a few days’ supply. The
women’s placement in the FDC also interfered with their ability to consult with
their attorney. The attorney was forced to wait for as long as three hours to
consult with her clients. The day before their grand jury appearance, the
facility was shut down entirely to outside visitors. When the attorney was able
to see the women, they were brought to the attorney visitation room in
handcuffs. The
Women’s Commission delegation experienced similar delays when trying to visit
the women. Clearance procedures for access were cumbersome, even with proof of
bar membership. One delegate was a member of the New York State bar, which does
not issue bar cards. She experienced particular trouble persuading FDC guards
to admit her, even though she had proof of membership in the New York Bar
Association, a private organization that admits only attorneys as members.
After almost two hours of waiting for clearance, the delegation was finally
admitted but only had one hour with the women before visitation hours were
over. During most of that time, the only contact visitation room was being used
by another attorney, so the delegation and the women’s attorney were forced to
consult with the two women through the bars of adjoining cells. Maria
and Ana’s attorney requested that the women be released from prison or be taken
out of segregation at the very least. Despite repeated promises from the U.S.
Attorneys Office that the women would be moved to a regular cell, the women
continued to languish in isolation. In
response to a query from the INS to the FDC as to why the women were being held
in isolation, the warden responded that the they were in “protective housing”
and that they were therefore supposed to have access to family visits and phone
calls. In fact, Maria’s family attempted to visit her and was turned away
twice, once after waiting three hours, on the basis that she was housed in the
Special Housing Unit. After intervention by a FIAC attorney, the family was finally
allowed to see Maria on its third attempt.[lxxix]
Maria had told the Women’s Commission that she feared being returned to
Colombia without ever having the opportunity to say good-bye to her loved ones. The
warden justified placement of the women in the Special Housing Unit by noting
that FDC guards knew Krome guards. The implication that the women might be
threatened by FDC guards calls into question why the INS had placed the women
at the FDC in the first place. After the women appeared before the grand jury
and were returned to FDC, an officer at FDC asked Maria if they had testified
against any federal officers and to name the officers they had testified
against. When
the Women’s Commission interviewed Maria and Ana at the FDC, they told the
delegation that they were suffering from insomnia, depression and anxiety. Ana
said: “I cry every five minutes. I cooperated with the government and this is
what I get? This is punishment.” Maria agreed: “We’re the ones being treated
like major criminals. My biggest fear is that the guards here might know that
we complained at Krome. We’re so isolated in here.” After
this visit and the women’s appearance before the grand jury, Maria was deported
to Colombia. She had requested removal and abandoned her asylum claim, because
she could no longer tolerate the stress of detention and the threats and
punishment in the aftermath of the investigation. She told the Women’s
Commission, “If I had the energy, I would keep fighting.” She said that she
would stay in Colombia only long enough to obtain a passport and then would
seek asylum in Europe. Ana was transferred back to Krome where she spent a
sleepless night before finally being released. Women detainees interviewed by the Women’s Commission,
both asylum seekers and non-asylum seekers, also raised concerns about verbal,
physical and emotional abuse of detainees. Due to language barriers, asylum
seekers may be particularly vulnerable to such abuse. Chi (a pseudonym), an asylum seeker from
China, arrived in the United States when she was 17 years old. According to her
attorney, Chi fled China because her grandfather wanted to sell her into
slavery to the nephew of a local police officer. The grandfather locked her up
for a month and her “suitor” would come visit her. Her mother helped her to
escape. Chi
arrived in Los Angeles, where she was apprehended by the INS. The INS arranged
for a dental radiograph exam to be conducted on her, a procedure utilized by
the agency when they doubt the age of a youth.[lxxx]
When the exam showed that she was under age 18, she was placed in a juvenile
jail, Los Padrinos. The INS frequently houses minors in such correctional
facilities because it lacks adequate shelter and foster care placements to
accommodate the number of children in its custody on any given day. Chi
remained in the jail for one month before she was transferred to Miami. Because
she was under 18, Chi was initially housed in the Boystown shelter. Chi
preferred Boystown over Los Padrinos because she had more freedom there. At
Boystown, she said, the staff asked her questions about her family in the
United States and said that she might be released to them. On her 18th
birthday, however, the INS transferred her to Krome where she was placed in the
female dormitory. The INS did not explain to her where she was being taken.
Chi, however, said that she knew that she was being transferred to Krome
because she had seen similar transfers of other youth on their 18th
birthdays.[lxxxi] When
the Women’s Commission visited Chi at Krome, she was visibly frightened and had
a difficult time sharing her story with the delegation. Her eyes filled with
tears when she described arriving at Krome. She said, “When I arrived, I was
afraid and I did not know anyone.” She told the delegation that no one
explained the rules of the facility to her in Chinese. She explained: “When I
first arrived at Krome, I was not used to it. I cried a lot.” She could only
communicate when there were other Chinese women in the dormitory. When
asked about the guards, she asked, “Will I get in trouble if I talk to you?”
She then said that the guards discriminate against the Chinese. She said that
they yell at the Chinese in an aggressive manner. She said: “They don’t use our
names. They just shout at us all, calling us ‘China, China.’ ” She concluded,
“I’m afraid of the guards who shout.” Chi also noted that sometimes male guards
come into the female dorm late at night, but she was not sure why. Marta
(a pseudonym) is an asylum seeker from Guatemala. She was a forensics
investigator and archeologist with the Guatemala Truth Commission and was
assigned to look at sexual violence against women. In 1988, she reports that
she herself was drugged, kidnapped, tortured and raped repeatedly by members of
the Guatemalan military. After she shared her own story with the Truth
Commission, she received death threats and was kidnapped. When she fled her
country, Marta was apprehended by the INS at the Miami Airport, because it was
discovered that she had overstayed her tourist visa on a prior visit to the
United States by two days. Marta
reported that when she was taken to Krome it reminded her of her kidnapping in
Guatemala. She said, “There were lots of people in uniform and I didn’t know
where I was being taken.” She noted in an affidavit, “…[W]hile at the Miami
airport, the small authorities that handled my case made me feel fear and gave
me the treatment that you would only expect in a Soviet country or from SS
officers in the time of World War II.” Despite Marta’s strong asylum claim,
Miami Airport officials told her she was crazy to ask for asylum and harassed
and intimidated her. Marta
also reported that these abuses continued once she was at Krome. She told the
Women’s Commission: “The guards at |
Add to del.icio.us