[ad_1]
Two pilot programs that sought to deport deported asylum seekers from Mexico and Central America on the southern border discussed, among other things, migrant families forced to be detained for longer than appropriate. men, and toilets had limited privacy in the facilities.
The details come from a draft report by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security, obtained by BuzzFeed News. Two pilot programs launched last fall – the Humanitarian Asylum Review Process (HARP) and the Asylum Claim Review (PACR) – were part of the Trump administration’s efforts to quickly screen and potentially eliminate asylum seekers at the border.
According to HARP, Mexican asylum seekers arrested by Border Patrol agents gave an initial screening of the horrific interview called by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) within 48 hours, and the decision on the screening was expected to go faster than usual. . The other program, PACR, was similarly organized, but was aimed at Central Americans who traveled from Mexico to reach the U.S. border.
Eventually the programs were interrupted coronavirus pandemic, as the administration has decided to return the asylum seeker to the border immediately, including children.
DHS officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Inspectors conducted the investigation in the El Paso area, where they found numerous problems with the pilot program, including families who had been in the custody of the Border Patrol for more than a week, exceeding 72-hour rules for arresting immigrants in CBP custody.
Inspectors, however, stressed the lack of privacy in the border facilities.
The report says that the large cells in the facility caused CBP officials to struggle with the arrest rules: those that promise family unity, that require women and children to be separated from men who have no ties. CBP officials reunited different families and as a result, women and girls in the cells were with men and boys who were not family members.
“We found that CBP brought a lot of families together in the vast cells of El Paso [Central Processing Center] a guarantee of privacy or to separate minors from unattached adults, “the report says. In a cell, two 14-year-old girls were arrested along with nine unrelated men.
“With the bathroom partitions, the restrooms offered little privacy,” and there was no “private nursing space,” despite the presence of mothers who had babies. CBP officials put in a guard to supervise the detainees, and then there were no complaints from families.
CBP officials said the report tried to create a “less restrictive” environment for foster children.
“CBP created a play area in each cell, with mats and colorful toys. CBP officials said they filled concrete posts to protect children running inside detention cells, “the report said, contrasting that experience with ICE-managed family detention centers, which include access to outdoor recreation, exercise equipment, sports and counseling.” .
Border officials did not measure the success of the program in a practical way, the auditors wrote. According to the report, CBP had two metric assessments for PACR and none for HARP. There was no evidence that the agency intended to expand the policy after evaluating its effectiveness, and even CBP did not set targets for border officials to evaluate its initial success.
CBP staff had trouble providing migrants with the privacy to speak only to legal counsel and government officials. USCIS officials have told inspectors that many immigrants do not understand what legal representation means and that CBP officials have struggled to gain access to phones.
In a compelling horror interview, asylum seekers must prove that they have a strong fear of persecution in their country as a significant option. At the end of the interview, immigrants use the time spent in detention to consult with lawyers or others to help prepare their case.
In the end, only a small percentage of each of these groups were able to pass the initial asylum screening interview: 19% PACR and 29% HARP.
The draft report of the Chief Inspector was a provisional document, and the Inspectors intend to assess the remaining border areas in the future.
[ad_2]
Source link
