Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Detention Centers in the Deportation Equation

Immigrants awaiting deportation – whether refugees seeking asylum or green card holders with years of legal residence in the United States – are often incarcerated in detention centers located in remote areas throughout the country.  The government’s use of rural, geographically isolated prisons is presumably an effort to prevent overcrowding in the large cities where most illegal “aliens” are arrested by ICE officers.  However, the rural location of the detention centers  has such blatant and devastating effects on deportation defense, that it is questionable whether the government doesn’t purposefully isolate immigrants facing deportation in order to make the removal process easier. 
Although I will briefly explain the terms “legal immigrant” and “illegal immigrant” as understood in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), I will not use the statute’s term “alien.”  No human is an alien.  I use the term “non-citizen.”
A legal immigrant is a non-citizen that has been admitted into the United States under the country’s immigration laws.  Examples include legal permanent residents (“green card” holders) and temporary seasonal agricultural workers.  An illegal immigrant is a non-citizen not admitted into the country through legal channels and without a documented legal status.   
Both groups are potentially vulnerable to removal through the deportation process.  Unlike a defendant in the criminal system, a non-citizen does not have a right to counsel at a deportation trial.  Often lacking basic English, a non-citizen may be pitted against the forces of the Department of Homeland Security’s team of attorneys. 
Locating immigration detention facilities in rural counties prejudices both legal and illegal immigrants because it impairs the ability to gather evidence for defense and limits access to legal counsel. 
A legal immigrant might qualify, for example, for Cancellation of Removal.  That form of relief requires a redwood tree of paperwork and evidence.  A successful Cancellation of Removal case often includes: written declarations from friends and family attesting to the non-citizen’s good moral character, proof of a clean criminal history from law enforcement, medical records, financial documents spanning back half a decade.  A non-citizen held in a rural detention facility simply does not have access to those documents.  The remote location makes it physically impossible to gather the necessary documents.  Likewise, friends and family on the outside might have a difficult time traveling to the detention center to offer help with collecting the myriad of documents. 
To further illustrate the problem of an isolated detention center, consider the effect on legally complex cases.   For example, an illegal immigrant might defend against deportation by asking for asylum.  The United States has joined the humanitarian effort to allow non-citizens to stay when they show a well-founded fear of being persecuted if returned to their home country.  The process is incredibility complicated and most people have small prospects of succeeding when they represent themselves.  For example, in 2007, Human Rights Watch noted that represented asylum seekers were granted asylum at a rate of 45.6%, almost three times as high as the rate for those without legal counsel.  A non-citizen held in a remote detention center simply does not have access to competent immigration attorneys that are found in larger cities like Los Angeles and New York.  The Wickersham Commission observed that in “many cases” a lawyer acting for an alien would prevent a deportation “which would have been an injustice but which the alien herself would have been powerless to stop.” Although representation is clearly crucial, many non-citizens are represented by pro bono attorneys that simply cannot afford to travel to rural detention centers to help prepare a case.  As Human Rights Watch laments, “[a]lmost invariably, there are fewer prospects for finding an attorney in the remote locations” where immigrants are detained.
Whether the rural location of many detention centers is a pernicious strategy on the part of the government may be difficult to prove.  Slowly the issue is gaining attention in the media and in the courts.  In 2003, the Supreme Court recognized unconstitutional violations to Due Process that may occur from the government’s power to “detain, transfer, and isolate aliens away from their lawyers, witnesses, and evidence.”   Let’s hope that recognition can serve as a spring board for immigration reform.

It’s okay to be a LGBT student in rural America – or is it?

The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community has made great strides in the last decade. Although some aspects may be improving, such as marriage equality, young people who identify as LGBT are still suffering in a big way: bullying and harassment in school. According to a study from the Gay, Lesbian andStraight Education Network (GLSEN), rural and small town schools pose the greatest threat for LGBT students.

GLSEN’s study documented the experiences of more than 2,300 LGBT students, ages 13-20, who attend schools in rural areas. This in-depth examination uncovered many significant challenges for these students. For example, 81% of students in rural schools reported feeling unsafe in school because of their sexual orientation or gender expression; students in the South and Midwest felt the most unsafe. Eighty-seven percent of students reported being verbally harassed, 45% reported being physically harassed, and 22% reported being physically assaulted at school in the past year because of their sexual orientation. Most rural youth reported that such incidents were not effectively addressed by school staff; only 13% of rural LGBT students said that school personnel intervened when they heard homophobic remarks, while 11% said school personnel intervened when they heard negative remarks related to gender expression.

Many LGBT students cope with bullying and harassment by taking steps that ultimately affect their academic performance. For example, 53% of LGBT students who experienced a high level of verbal harassment reported skipping classes or missing school to avoid hostile school environments. Those students who experienced high levels of harassment and assault had significantly lower grade point averages (2.9 versus 3.2) and lower college aspirations.

Faculty and students can do several things to counter bullying and harassment in rural schools. For example, school administration can implement comprehensive anti-bullying policies. Although forty-nine states already have anti-bullying laws, attaining funding for bullying prevention programs is often troublesome for schools, so schools fail to implement required policies and programs. Additionally, many state laws have lax standards and/or do not have a clear definition of which types of behavior and what situations constitute bullying. To truly help LGBT students in rural areas, faculty and administration need to hold themselves accountable to state laws, and possibly even create more extensive policies within their own schools. Schools can also create curriculum that includes lessons about LGBT people and issues (such as California, which requires public schools to teach students about the contributions of lesbian,gay, bisexual and transgender Americans), and support student clubs, such as Gay-Straight Alliances. Students in rural schools have reported that these kinds of resources provide higher levels of feeling belonging and lower levels of victimization.

Reducing bullying and harassment may be a challenging task, especially in rural schools that may have fewer resources. Luckily, organizations exist that are dedicated to helping LGBT students. For example, Outright Vermont is an organization that has worked with LGBT youth since 1989. Although they generally work in both urban and rural areas of Vermont, they have recently teamed up with the Department of Justice on a special three-year project that is designed to reduce bullying in Vermont’s rural communities, such as Bennington, Caledonia, Essex, Lamoille, Orange, Orleans, Windham, and Windsor counties. Outright Vermont helps LGBT students in rural areas by training faculty and staff on LGBT issues, expanding the network of Gay-Straight Alliances and support groups, and providing anti-bullying training and resources. In addition to organizations like Outright Vermont, there are also online resources such as GLSEN. In short, even schools in rural communities who may have more limited resources than their urban counterparts can reach out to various organizations to help LGBT students.

Although the LGBT experience seems to slowly be getting better in rural areas due to national campaigns and new regulations (see posts here and here), bullying and harassment is still a problem. LGBT students in rural communities tend to suffer more than students in suburban and urban areas, and these problems must be addressed. By tackling these issues, faulty and school administrators can help remove barriers to academic success and emotional well-being for LGBT students.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Domestic violence and seeking help in rural communities

We often hear about the isolation of rural America as one of the defining features of rurality. In particular, the social isolation of rural America cuts off its residents from important resources and opportunities, from meaningful access to the political process to access to health care. This geographic and social isolation, and the resulting concerns about confidentiality in small communities can be especially problematic for women who are victims of domestic abuse. Rural women may hesitate to seek services anonymity. This isolation and limited resources can further entrap these women in their violent relationships.  More than one-third of women in rural areas will be victimized by an intimate partner. However, domestic violence and sexual assault services are primarily concentrated in urban and suburban areas. As a result, in many parts of the country it is not unusual for victims to be forced to drive several hours, or even fly out, to obtain victim services.

The geographic isolation experienced by many rural families limits the opportunities for the identification of and timely intervention to domestic violence. There are often large expanses of land that separate one family home from another, and sometimes these distances are also spanned by mountains or impassable waterways. Coercion through deprivation and isolation are common tools used by abusers to maintain their power over the victim, and these problems are only exacerbated in rural areas. In Alaska for example, there have been a number of instances where abusive partners have relocated their families to remote communities to isolate them from the support of their friends and families. With the wintry climate of Alaska, victims are often held hostage in their own homes with no winter clothing or means of escaping their extreme isolation.

In addition, public transportation can be very limited or non-existent in rural areas. Families may not have access to an automobile or may only have one vehicle that is not available to all members of the family. And aside from the problem of transportation, reliable telephone service can also be expensive in certain regions due to the topography and geography of some areas, and as a result many rural families do not have telephones in their homes. This sort of rural isolation decreases the opportunities for the identification of an abusive situation as violent incidences are less like to be witnessed by objective parties and as it boosts the abuser’s ability to prevent a victim’s escape. It is not uncommon for rural victims to report that their abuser controlled the access to any vehicles, refused to allow the victim to learn to drive, or disabled any existing telephone system.

Women in rural areas are much less likely than urban women to have credit in their own name, personal savings, individual checking accounts, or control over their own earnings.
Rural women overwhelmingly report economic reasons, such as limited job opportunities, lack of available housing, insufficient child care resources, as barriers to leaving their abusers. Although economic conditions vary across rural communities, persistent poverty is common, particularly in the southeast, southwest and Appalachian region and rural economics are generally unfavorable to women

Unique aspects of rural life, such as distance from victim services, the close-knit nature of rural communities, and the scarcity of employment and educational opportunities make it difficult for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault to report the abuse, leave abusive relationships, and seek services. This paints a bleak  picture of rural areas that are typically seen as warm, safe and inviting in contrast to the violent and unwelcoming urban spaces. 

Monday, November 17, 2014

Rural public education faces many obstacles far beyond insufficient funding

Recently the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled in favor of rural schools in a 21-year long court battle over education funding. While the South Carolina Supreme Court requires actions from the state legislature, they do not provide explicity parameters on what action is required. They must simply submit their plan to the justices within “reasonable time.”

This ruling provides South Carolina with a prime opportunity to address the shortfalls of the rural public education system – an issue that goes far beyond simply increasing funding. Not only do rural public schools experience problems similar to those of low-income, inner-city public schools, but they have a whole set of different issues specific to the fact that they are located in rural places. Moreover, this issue reaches far beyond South Carolina, and is an issue faced by many rural communities across America.

Rural communities often face teacher shortages. According to an article published in Education Week, 10 to 15 percent of teachers in rural communities are not licensed to teach the subjects they are teaching. This includes math, sciences, languages, and special education. Additionally, in some states, tenure laws and job protections make it difficult to fire teachers after just two years of being in the classroom, regardless of their performance. And even if states don’t have such protections, the shortage of teachers in rural areas makes it difficult to find a replacement, period.

Additionally, the lack of public transportation in rural communities makes it difficult for students to get to school, especially because of the expansiveness of rural space. Many schools are not located near student's homes, their families may not own a car, and effective school bus systems can be scarce. Moreover, it is not uncommon for states to charge public school students to ride the bus -- an additional burden for economically disadvantaged rural families. The Education Week article illustrate this issue through the story of a 17-year old boy named Raymond who lived in the Arkansas Delta and went to school fairly far from his home:
“On stifling-hot days, he had a 10-minute walk down a rutted dirt path to the main road, where he caught the school bus. On days when the rain poured down, the ruts in the dirt path converged into an insurmountable river. Even if Raymond could have forded the river, odds were good the bus wouldn't make it down the main road anyway. Raymond couldn't ask his grandparents for a ride; they didn't have a car.”

Finally, the school-to-prison-pipeline, traditionally seen as problematic for low-income, urban schools, is a issue faced by rural communities as well. This refers to the phenomenon of pushing disadvantaged kids out of school and into the American justice system. The geography of rural communities makes it difficult for juvenile offenders to have access to rehabilitation and diversion programs because they are scarce and often widely dispersed. Thus, as pointed out by the Marshall Project, judges will sentences kids to detention facilities because they have treatment on-site.  Additionally, many rural states take an aggressive approach to minor infractions, such as school fights, truancy, violations of probation, and alcohol consumption. Moreover, mental health and substance abuse programs are often so far away, that rural youth cannot access them; as a result, rural youth get incarcerated.