Two years ago, in announcements made in August and October of 2009, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) committed to transform the U.S. immigration detention system by shifting it away from its longtime reliance on jails and jail-like facilities, to facilities with conditions more appropriate for the detention of civil immigration law detainees. In this report, Human Rights First reveals that despite these commitments, the United States continues to hold the overwhelming majority of detained asylum seekers and other civil immigration law detainees - nearly 400,000 each year - in jails and jail-like facilities across the country. The facilities are expected to cost American taxpayers more than $2 billion in 2012. In the course of its assessment, Human Rights First visited 17 ICE-authorized detention facilities that together held more than 10,000 of the 33,400 total ICE beds, interviewed government officials, legal service providers, and former immigration detainees, as well as a range of former prison wardens, corrections officials, and other experts on correctional systems. The report also notes that former prison officials and other corrections experts have found that less penal conditions in detention can actually help improve safety inside a facility, a finding echoed in multiple studies. It outlines steps that the administration should take to end its reliance on facilities with conditions that are inappropriate for asylum seekers and other civil immigration law detainees, and to bring U.S. detention practices into compliance with international human rights standards.

Every year, thousands of people seek asylum in the United States because they have been persecuted in other countries due to their race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion. In seeking refuge and protection, these immigrants must rely on the American court system to help them achieve safety from the great harm they have suffered.

In her unique and compelling judicial memoir, Susan Yarbrough, a former US immigration judge, highlights five significant asylum cases that she heard and decided during almost eighteen years on the benchcases that profoundly changed her not only as a judge, but also as a person.

Yarbrough recounts heartrending testimony described against the background of the countries in which the persecution took place, following each account with personal reflections on how she was emotionally and spiritually transformed by each person who testified. From Josue Maldonado, persecuted in El Salvador because of his religion, to Daniel Quetzal, an Indian from Guatemala who was tied naked to a pole and tortured because of his political opinion, the cases that the author shares provide an unforgettable glimpse into the lives of courageous people who risked everything for peace and freedom in the United States.

Bench-Pressed is the story of five asylum seekers and the judge who was irrevocably changed by the intersection of her life with theirs.

The 109th and 110th Congresses considered, but did not enact, comprehensive immigration reform legislation that included large-scale legalization programs for unauthorized aliens. In the aftermath of these unsuccessful efforts, some interested parties have urged the President and Congress to pursue more limited legislation to address the status of unauthorized alien students. Such legislation is commonly referred to as the "DREAM Act." Unauthorized aliens in the United States are able to receive free public education through high school. They may experience difficulty obtaining higher education, however, for several reasons. Among these reasons is a provision enacted in 1996 that prohibits states from granting unauthorized aliens certain postsecondary educational benefits on the basis of state residence, unless equal benefits are made available to all U.S. citizens. This prohibition is commonly understood to apply to the granting of "in-state" residency status for tuition purposes. Unauthorized alien students also are not eligible for federal student financial aid. More broadly, as unauthorized aliens, they are not legally allowed to work and are subject to being removed from the country. Multiple DREAM Act bills have been introduced in recent Congresses to address the unauthorized student population. Most have proposed a two-prong approach of repealing the 1996 provision and enabling some unauthorized alien students to become U.S. legal permanent residents (LPRs) through an immigration procedure known as cancellation of removal. While there are other options for dealing with this population, this report deals exclusively with the DREAM Act approach in light of the considerable congressional interest in it. In the 111th Congress, the House approved DREAM Act language as part of an unrelated bill, the Removal Clarification Act of 2010. However, the Senate failed, on a 55-41 vote, to invoke cloture on a motion to agree to the House-passed DREAM Act amendment and the bill died at the end of the Congress. The House-approved language differed in key respects from earlier versions of the DREAM Act. Bills to legalize the status of unauthorized alien students (S. 952, H.R. 1842, H.R. 3823) have again been introduced in the 112th Congress. It is unclear, however, whether any of these measures will be considered. On June 15, 2012, the Obama Administration announced that certain individuals who were brought to the United States as children and meet other criteria would be considered for relief from removal. Under a memorandum issued by Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano on that date, these individuals would be eligible for deferred action for two years, subject to renewal, and could apply for employment authorization.

The ability to remove foreign nationals (aliens) who violate U.S. immigration law is central to the immigration enforcement system. Some lawful migrants violate the terms of their admittance, and some aliens enter the United States illegally, despite U.S. immigration laws and enforcement. This book provides an overview of removing foreign nationals from the United States. It discusses immigration policies and issues on health-related grounds for exclusion; terrorist grounds for exclusion and removal of aliens; and the consequences of criminal activity for immigrants.

"Sin imaginarlo otra vida comenzaba para nosotros como para otros miles o millones de cubanos comenzaba la diaspora a esparcirse por el mundo buscando lo mas elemental para vivir, un trabajo, un pan, un alero. Igual que cuando salimos de Cuba no tenia idea de lo que estaba pasando cumplia con mis responsabilidades sacaba los grados de la escuela vivia como cualquiera otra hija de vecina, algunas veces iba al cine hoy Teatro Trial o con las companeras de la escuela al Orange Bowl para algun juego. Un dia me montaron en un avion destino: Caracas, la sucursal del cielo. Venezuela. Hoy cuando he jurado respetar la constitucion y leyes de esta republica de alguna manera me pregunto porque el destino me jugo esta partida de ser y no ser, de tener y no tener, de ser de aqui pero ser de alla un poco como no ser de ninguna parte de un libreto que me toco vivir gracias a Dios por todo esto, a mi hermano, su esposa, mis hijos, los hijos del Sr Smith, a mis dos sobrinos a mis amigos que me ayudaron a correr este camino largo y dificil de la mejor manera. Tambien al Sr Smith mi companero inseparable de tantos anos, algunas veces alumno otras maestro siempre con su espiritu de manana sera mejor que hoy tambien hizo posible este fin de etapa.""

Resort by the state to measures of exclusion and expulsion from the territory of the UK and/or from British citizenship have multiplied over the past decade, following the so-called 'War on Terror', increased globalisation, and the growing politicisation of national policies concerning immigration and citizenship. This book, which focuses on the law and practice governing deportation, removal and exclusion from the UK, the denial of British citizenship, and deprivation of that citizenship, represents the first attempt by practitioners to provide a cohesive assessment of UK law and practice in these areas. The undertaking is a vital one because, whilst these areas of law and practice have long existed as the hard edge of immigration and nationality laws, in recent years the use of some powers in this area has greatly increased and such powers have arguably expanded beyond secondary existence as mere mechanisms of enforcement. The body of law, practice and policy created by this process is one which justifies treatment as a primary concern for public lawyers. The book provides a comprehensive analysis of the law in these areas and its background. This involves a consideration of interlocking international and regional rights instruments, EU law and the domestic regime. It is a clear and comprehensive everyday guide for practitioners and offers an invaluable insight into likely developments in this dynamic area of public law. '...deserves to be on the bookshelves of all those who seek to practise within this carefully defined area of immigration and nationality law.' From the Foreword by Lord Hope of Craighead KT

Written in both English and Mandarin Chinese, this book seeks to help spouses achieve their immigration goal to live together in the United States legally and free. The United States is a land of laws and immigration is a legal action. Immigration of a spouse has always been a process of much confusion, rumor, doubt and misconception. Yesterday's rules do not apply today, and the rules may change tomorrow.

FREE CONSULTATION HOW TO BE SEEN AS AN EXPERT BY BECOMING AN AUTHOR (WITHOUT WRITING ONE WORD) Everyone wants to do business with the person who "wrote the book." It's easier than you think BG Publishing International is offering every reader a FREE 15-MINUTE PHONE CONSULTATION-a $150 VALUE call 1.888.SheilaD (1.888.743.4523) TO LEARN HOW TO BE SEEN AS EXPERT IN YOUR FIELD "Sheila... the book works like magic. It's a business card on steroids " "The results far exceed what I ever imagined. I am THE ONE everyone trusts." FREE IMMIGRATION CASE ANALYSIS We specialize in RFEs, denials, NOID, difficult cases, 3-year degrees, ICWAI, CA, exam-based certifications, work + education evaluations, expert letter assessments... Sheila Danzig will provide a FREE analysis of the education aspect of any immigration case. No obligation. Learn before you file what the chances of an approval are. Visit Career Consulting International at http: //www.cciFree.com for results in 36 hours or less, via email. Or call our LAWYERS HOTLINE toll free: 1.844.cciFree (844-224-3733)

As a nation of immigrants, the United States has long accepted that citizens who identify with an ancestral homeland may hold dual loyalties; yet Americans have at times regarded the persistence of foreign ties with suspicion, seeing them as a sign of potential disloyalty and a threat to national security. Diaspora Lobbies and the US Government brings together a group of distinguished scholars of international politics and international migration to examine this contradiction in the realm of American policy making, ultimately concluding that the relationship between diaspora groups and the government can greatly affect foreign policy. This relationship is not unidirectional--as much as immigrants make an effort to shape foreign policy, government legislators and administrators also seek to enlist them in furthering American interests. From Israel to Cuba and from Ireland to Iraq, the case studies in this volume illustrate how potential or ongoing conflicts raise the stakes for successful policy outcomes. Contributors provide historical and sociological context, gauging the influence of diasporas based on population size and length of time settled in the United States, geographic concentration, access to resources from their own members or through other groups, and the nature of their involvement back in their homelands. This collection brings a fresh perspective to a rarely discussed aspect of the design of US foreign policy and offers multiple insights into dynamics that may determine how the United States will engage other nations in future decades.

As a practicing immigration attorney for many years, I have had to help many clients solve some of the most common problems, simply because they had no knowledge of the immigration laws of the United States. Whether you were born in the US, whether you are now in the US, or even if you are planning to come to America, this book is for you. You MUST read this book, especially as an alien, because the information you will find here will help you to stay out of trouble and direct your path from the time you arrive in America up to you becoming a US citizen if you so desire. When you read this book you will learn about some of the things which you should and should not do when you come to America. Others will tell you things which may not always be true, so do not be fooled by people who do not know the law. Let this book be your Guide.

Immigration reform in the United States is imminent. If the proposals on the table haven't impacted your business yet, they will when law is passed. Forewarned is forearmed: "To be prepared is half the victory." The Gringos Guide to Immigration Reform for Employers was written to do just that-prepare employers for new requirements in compliance, documentation and employer-employee relations. This book will teach you how to counteract undue union pressure, revise or create company policies and procedures, comply with new Form I-9 changes, manage healthcare benefits under ObamaCare, and more, including essential bonus material helpful for others who need to be preparing for changes now Authors Jacob M. Monty and Sarah D. Monty-Arnoni bring many years of experience as legal counsel to both employers and foreign nationals to the pages of this book.

Immigration, has given the European nations the serious problem of solving the acceptance and the integration of the newcomers into their nations. How to balance the necessary opening of the borders with the interests of their own citizens who might feel threatened in their primary needs (for example they think about the lack of work places). It is with this in mind, and in general to ask the question WHY DO THEY HATE US ? In these pages, every non EU member can find -synthesized and simplified - the principle laws necessary to live in these countries taking Italy as an example people are worried about foreigners stealing their places of work, and the insurgency of different crimes that comes with immigrant due to lack of ingnorance of their Host country laws. A kind of which one can refer in order to know immediately the correct way to behave; what to do or what not to do, what to expect from the public authorities and who to turn to; what his rights and his obligations, are what constitutes a crime in Italy, what procedure to take in order to legalize his status, and so on. I hope i have produced something useful for both the foreigners who often violate the laws due to ignorance and lack of understanding, and for the Italians and the Institutions who will be able to live alongside, in an atmosphere of mutual respect, with foreigners who know and follow the laws of the country where they found themselves.Coming to somebodys country without prior knowledge of what might come your way can be more frustrating than you ever imagined, in this one fees not wanted or hated by the Host country.The answer is simple just know few things before setting out on the journey. Foreigners rights and duties In Italy, every non European foreigner that is someone from a country outside the EU has the same fundamental human rights provided for by internal and international law (for example, a foreigner can freely defend his rights in a court the same way as any Italian citizen).

Forced migration is a global issue. About 34 million of the world's inhabitants were identified in 2010 by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as either refugees, internally displaced persons, asylum seekers or stateless people. Systematic inquiries are urgently needed to understand and improve the circumstances in which these people live, and to guide national and international policies and programs. However, there are many ethical complications in conducting research with uprooted people, who have often been exposed to persecution and marginalisation in conflict situations, refugee camps, immigration detention settings, and following resettlement. This book brings together for the first time key scholars across a range of disciplines including anthropology, bioethics, public health, criminology, psychology, socio-linguistics, philosophy, psychiatry, social policy and social work to discuss the ethical dimensions, challenges and tensions of such research. It encompasses the theoretical, conceptual, practical, and applied aspects of research ethics, while integrating different disciplinary perspectives. It is intended as a resource not only for researchers, students and practitioners but also for those conducting cross-cultural research more broadly. Many of its arguments, examples and concerns are pertinent to research with other vulnerable or marginalised populations.

This report calls on Congress to eliminate a technical asylum filing deadline in U.S. law that has barred thousands of legitimate refugees with well-founded fears of persecution from receiving asylum in the United States. The report finds that in the 12 years since the provision took effect, more than 53,400 asylum applications have been rejected, denied or delayed based on the deadline and many of these cases have been pushed unnecessarily into the already overstretched immigration court system. The report uses real case examples and Human Rights First's own refugee representation experience to demonstrate the harmful effects of the provision. That provision has consistently denied asylum to persecuted individuals in ways that are inconsistent with the nation's leadership in protecting victims of political, religious and other forms of persecution and has caused inefficiencies and delays in the asylum system and diverted significant governmental resources.

As "Living in Limbo" attests, thousands of Iraqi refugees - including Iraqi Christians and other religious and sexual minorities, as well as U.S.-affilitated Iraqis - are living in limbo in the Middle East region, struggling to survive outside of Iraq without the right to work, put their children in school, or get heath care. As violence and instability persist in Iraq, resettlement to other countries - including the United States - remains the only effective path for many of these refugees, including those who have faced persecution in Iraq because of their work with the United States. While the United States has stepped up its response to Iraqi displacement over the last few years serious reforms are needed in the U.S. resettlement program to remove unnecessary processing delays which now leave many Iraqi refugees and U.S.-affiliated Iraqis vulnerable and stranded in difficult and sometimes dangerous situations.

The extent to which residents of the United States who are not U.S. citizens should be eligible for federally funded public aid has been a contentious issue for more than a decade. This issue meets at the intersection of two major policy areas: immigration policy and welfare policy. The eligibility of noncitizens for public assistance programs is based on a complex set of rules that are determined largely by the type of noncitizen in question and the nature of services being offered. Over the past 16 years, Congress has enacted significant changes in U.S. immigration policy and welfare policy. Congress has exercised oversight of revisions made by the 1996 welfare reform law (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, P.L. 104-193)-including the rules governing noncitizen eligibility for public assistance that it established-and legislation covering programs with major restrictions on noncitizens' eligibility (e.g., food stamps/SNAP, Medicaid). This report deals with the four major federal means-tested benefit programs: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant programs, and Medicaid. Laws in place for the past 15 years restrict the eligibility of legal permanent residents (LPRs), refugees, asylees, and other noncitizens for most means-tested public aid. Noncitizens' eligibility for major federal means-tested benefits largely depends on their immigration status; whether they arrived (or were on a program's rolls) before August 22, 1996, the enactment date of P.L. 104-193; and how long they have lived and worked in the United States. LPRs with a substantial work history or military connection are eligible for the full range of programs, as are asylees, refugees, and other humanitarian cases (for at least five to seven years after entry). Other LPRs must meet additional eligibility requirements. For SNAP, they generally must have been legally resident for five years or be under age 18. Under TANF and SSI, they generally are ineligible for five years after entry and then eligible at state option. States have the option of providing Medicaid to pregnant LPRs and children within the five-year bar. Unauthorized aliens (often referred to as illegal aliens) are not eligible for most federal benefits, regardless of whether they are means tested, with notable exceptions for emergency services, (e.g., Medicaid emergency medical care or Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster services). TANF, SSI, food stamp, and Medicaid recipiency among noncitizens decreased over the 1995-2005 period, but has inched upwards in 2011. While the 10-year decrease was affected by the statutory changes, the poverty rate of noncitizens had also diminished over the 1995-2005 decade. The poverty rate for noncitizens residing in the United States fell from 27.8% in 1995 to 20.4% in 2005. It has risen to 24.3% in 2011. Noncitizens are disproportionately poorer than native-born residents of the United States.

American Immigration Lawyers Association wrote: "With a cast of colorful characters and compelling tales, My Trials: What I Learned in Immigration Court is both a scathing indictment of a broken immigration system that sends vulnerable immigrants back to the perilous situations from which they fled, and a heartfelt call for a return to the values upon which our nation of immigrants was founded." VOICE magazine Gerry Spence, noted trial lawyer, wrote: "Thanks for your good work, Paul. I am not surprised at the horror and inhumanity you have witnessed." "America is famous for priding itself as a nation of immigrants, but the often shabby and sometimes downright abusive treatment that immigrants seeking asylum suffer in our nation's immigration court system is a well-kept secret. The truth is that our government fails to hire prosecuting attorneys and appoint judges with expertise in the field or even adequately train them in the law and procedure. But this failure pales in comparison to the even greater scandal that the immigrants herded into these courts are often treated with disdain, disrespect, or even outright contempt by sworn officers of the law. The often needless, lengthy and costly pre-trial detention of individuals who usually do not represent any danger to the community is an everyday and shameful fact of life in our immigration system."

Few African countries provide for an explicit right to a nationality. Laws and practices governing citizenship effectively leave hundreds of thousands of people in Africa without a country. These stateless Africans can neither vote nor stand for office; they cannot enrol their children in school, travel freely, or own property; they cannot work for the government; they are exposed to human rights abuses. Statelessness exacerbates and underlies tensions in many regions of the continent. Citizenship Law in Africa, a comparative study by two programs of the Open Society Foundations, describes the often arbitrary, discriminatory, and contradictory citizenship laws that exist from state to state and recommends ways that African countries can bring their citizenship laws in line with international rights norms. The report covers topics such as citizenship by descent, citizenship by naturalisation, gender discrimination in citizenship law, dual citizenship, and the right to identity documents and passports. It is essential reading for policymakers, attorneys, and activists. This second edition includes updates on developments in Kenya, Libya, Namibia, South Africa, Sudan and Zimbabwe, as well as minor corrections to the tables and other additions throughout.

Master's Thesis from the year 2010 in the subject Law - Comparative Legal Systems, Comparative Law, grade: A-, University of Auckland (Law Faculty), course: Corporate Governance, language: English, abstract: This paper considers duties and liability of independent non-executive directors as authorities of advice and control in companies. It deals with the question of how non-executive directors should be made liable for mismanagement of the board, but primarily by, and particular failures of their own through breach of duty. Rather than engaging in the debate about non-executive directors' function and their efficiency for a business enterprise, the essay takes the latter as a given. Instead, it neutrally provides an outline of non-executive directors agreed functions, preferred skills and favoured qualities. The paper, moreover, details on the different duties deriving from common law principles, equity, and case law. It also considers on statutories and codes as well as contractual provisions providing equivalent regulations on directors' duties. This is to draw a complete picture of non-executive directors' role in a company and to classify where liability can result from. Furthermore, non-executive directors' liability is analysed. The focus, hereby, lies on the determination of directors' negligence. The issue is considered as to whether a court applies a different degree of negligence on non-executive directors than on executive directors. In this context, the influence of contractual provisions is contemplated. In addition, liability of non-executive directors is also compared to the liability of supervisory board members. Subsequently, alternative mechanisms of equalizing the risk of liability, such as indemnifications, insurances, and adequate reimbursements, are examined more closely. Concluding on non-executive directors' liability, the paper declares the loss of reputation and further "soft" sanctions as the actual sanction on non-executive directors.