[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Of those, 79 per-cent were found to have a credible fear.The GAO report also foundthat 47 percent of those referred to an ER removal procedure for at-tempting to enter without proper documents or through fraud ormisrepresentation were not found to be inadmissible into theUnited States on the basis of those charges (Wolchok 2000, 185).Asylum applications present the most sensitive questions,since the consequences of an erroneous decision can be extreme,even fatal.The 1996 law mandates a review by an immigrationjudge, expressly specifying an opportunity for the alien to beheard and questioned by a judge, either in person or by tele-phonic or video connection, within seven days of the asylum of-ficer s decision (Martin 2000, 162 173).David Martin has argued that the ER provision should be re-tained with some key modifications to enhance its due process.He recommends that the ER procedures should1.Assure humane treatment of persons going throughsecondary inspection2.Improve internal monitoring of secondary inspection3.Provide for carefully designed outside monitoring4.Limit ER to persons with fraudulent documents or nodocuments5.Improve consultation arrangements6.Avoid backsliding on key protections7.Resist the temptation to apply ER to entrants with-out inspection 8.Use ER for persons caught during or after an ob-served entry between points of entry9.Improve conditions and times of detention of asylumseekers (Martin 2000, 174 180) 50 Domestic PolicyExpedited removal power is exercised by about 4,500 INS of-ficers at nearly 300 ports of entry to U.S.land borders, at both in-ternational airports and seaports.About 77,000 removal orderswere issued in fiscal year 1998, following which 3,000 peoplewere referred to the asylum corps for credible fear interviews.Critics of the ER process such as human rights advocates,legal organizations, and refugee-service organizations fear thatadmissible individuals are being denied entry and that refugeesfleeing persecution may not make it through the inspectionprocess to a credible fear interview.They maintain that the se-crecy surrounding the ER process, anecdotal evidence of mis-treatment by INS inspectors, and the drop in asylum applicationsby arriving aliens indicate that these processes are being misusedbehind closed doors.They argue for independent researchers tomonitor and report on the process (Wolchok 2000, 185).Critics of ER have raised questions about the future of ERand about how the process may be expanded as the process be-comes institutionalized in the INS, particularly in light of thepost September 11 homeland-security measures and subsequentannouncements by Attorney General Ashcroft.Those questionsare summarized here:1.Will there be an expansion of the ER program be-tween ports of entry?2.Will inspections be treated as an enforcement func-tion if the INS is split into two agencies or separatedinto an enforcement and a service component?3.Will asylum seekers who have passed the crediblefear screening process be eligible for release fromdetention, and if so, who will make that determina-tion? Today there are 16,000 detention beds availableto the INS, 60 percent of which are rented from stateand local jails.4.Will asylum officers be authorized to grant asylum toeligible individuals at their credible fear inter-views?5.Will litigation resolve some of the implementation is-sues?6.Is further legislation likely?Given the concerns raised by nongovernmental humanrights, legal, and refugee organizations over the ER process, theBush administration s consideration of legislation dubbed Pa- Border Control and Management Issues 51triot Act II, and its efforts to reform ER provisions rather than torepeal them, expedited removal will probably remain a contestedissue for the foreseeable future.Border Control and Management IssuesThe perennial proposals for immigration reform all speak to an-other ongoing concern: Does the United States have adequatecontrol over its borders? The political battles over control of ille-gal immigration, now three decades long, reflect the view ofmany that the nation has lost control of its borders.The 1986,1990, and 1996 laws all involved some provisions to beef-up or reform the Border Patrol.These concerns were exacerbated bythe September 11, 2001, attacks, resulting in two laws that addressthe issue (the USA Patriot Act of 2001 and the Homeland SecurityAct of 2002) and in ongoing proposals to further revise andstrengthen homeland security. This is no small task.The UnitedStates shares 5,525 miles of border with Canada and 1,952 mileswith Mexico.Ocean borders include 95,000 miles of shore and a3.4-million-square-mile exclusivity zone.Annually, more than 500million persons cross the borders, among whom some 350 millionare noncitizens.They enter through no fewer than 350 officialports of entry.Managing the borders, securing transportation sys-tems by sea and air, and controlling international airports andseaports are inseparable tasks.The USA Patriot Act, passed nearly unanimously by Con-gress with great emotion and little debate, grants the attorneygeneral and the Department of Justice sweeping new powers fordomestic surveillance, powers largely unchecked by judicial re-view.On May 8, 2002, the House of Representatives overwhelm-ingly approved establishment of the new Department of Home-land Security (DHS) [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl trzylatki.xlx.pl
.Of those, 79 per-cent were found to have a credible fear.The GAO report also foundthat 47 percent of those referred to an ER removal procedure for at-tempting to enter without proper documents or through fraud ormisrepresentation were not found to be inadmissible into theUnited States on the basis of those charges (Wolchok 2000, 185).Asylum applications present the most sensitive questions,since the consequences of an erroneous decision can be extreme,even fatal.The 1996 law mandates a review by an immigrationjudge, expressly specifying an opportunity for the alien to beheard and questioned by a judge, either in person or by tele-phonic or video connection, within seven days of the asylum of-ficer s decision (Martin 2000, 162 173).David Martin has argued that the ER provision should be re-tained with some key modifications to enhance its due process.He recommends that the ER procedures should1.Assure humane treatment of persons going throughsecondary inspection2.Improve internal monitoring of secondary inspection3.Provide for carefully designed outside monitoring4.Limit ER to persons with fraudulent documents or nodocuments5.Improve consultation arrangements6.Avoid backsliding on key protections7.Resist the temptation to apply ER to entrants with-out inspection 8.Use ER for persons caught during or after an ob-served entry between points of entry9.Improve conditions and times of detention of asylumseekers (Martin 2000, 174 180) 50 Domestic PolicyExpedited removal power is exercised by about 4,500 INS of-ficers at nearly 300 ports of entry to U.S.land borders, at both in-ternational airports and seaports.About 77,000 removal orderswere issued in fiscal year 1998, following which 3,000 peoplewere referred to the asylum corps for credible fear interviews.Critics of the ER process such as human rights advocates,legal organizations, and refugee-service organizations fear thatadmissible individuals are being denied entry and that refugeesfleeing persecution may not make it through the inspectionprocess to a credible fear interview.They maintain that the se-crecy surrounding the ER process, anecdotal evidence of mis-treatment by INS inspectors, and the drop in asylum applicationsby arriving aliens indicate that these processes are being misusedbehind closed doors.They argue for independent researchers tomonitor and report on the process (Wolchok 2000, 185).Critics of ER have raised questions about the future of ERand about how the process may be expanded as the process be-comes institutionalized in the INS, particularly in light of thepost September 11 homeland-security measures and subsequentannouncements by Attorney General Ashcroft.Those questionsare summarized here:1.Will there be an expansion of the ER program be-tween ports of entry?2.Will inspections be treated as an enforcement func-tion if the INS is split into two agencies or separatedinto an enforcement and a service component?3.Will asylum seekers who have passed the crediblefear screening process be eligible for release fromdetention, and if so, who will make that determina-tion? Today there are 16,000 detention beds availableto the INS, 60 percent of which are rented from stateand local jails.4.Will asylum officers be authorized to grant asylum toeligible individuals at their credible fear inter-views?5.Will litigation resolve some of the implementation is-sues?6.Is further legislation likely?Given the concerns raised by nongovernmental humanrights, legal, and refugee organizations over the ER process, theBush administration s consideration of legislation dubbed Pa- Border Control and Management Issues 51triot Act II, and its efforts to reform ER provisions rather than torepeal them, expedited removal will probably remain a contestedissue for the foreseeable future.Border Control and Management IssuesThe perennial proposals for immigration reform all speak to an-other ongoing concern: Does the United States have adequatecontrol over its borders? The political battles over control of ille-gal immigration, now three decades long, reflect the view ofmany that the nation has lost control of its borders.The 1986,1990, and 1996 laws all involved some provisions to beef-up or reform the Border Patrol.These concerns were exacerbated bythe September 11, 2001, attacks, resulting in two laws that addressthe issue (the USA Patriot Act of 2001 and the Homeland SecurityAct of 2002) and in ongoing proposals to further revise andstrengthen homeland security. This is no small task.The UnitedStates shares 5,525 miles of border with Canada and 1,952 mileswith Mexico.Ocean borders include 95,000 miles of shore and a3.4-million-square-mile exclusivity zone.Annually, more than 500million persons cross the borders, among whom some 350 millionare noncitizens.They enter through no fewer than 350 officialports of entry.Managing the borders, securing transportation sys-tems by sea and air, and controlling international airports andseaports are inseparable tasks.The USA Patriot Act, passed nearly unanimously by Con-gress with great emotion and little debate, grants the attorneygeneral and the Department of Justice sweeping new powers fordomestic surveillance, powers largely unchecked by judicial re-view.On May 8, 2002, the House of Representatives overwhelm-ingly approved establishment of the new Department of Home-land Security (DHS) [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]