NEW YORK - Fundamentally unsafe, that's how New York immigrant advocates describe daily life for people in detention who identify as gay, lesbian or transgender.

Detention staff attorney Clement Lee with the group Immigration Equality says people who flee to the U.S. border because they fear persecution based on sexual identity almost always end up being placed in detention by Homeland Security.

The cruel irony is, these asylum-seekers end up in unsafe detention conditions because of their sexual identity. Lee says transgender people are 13 times more likely to be sexually assaulted in immigration detention.

"Gay men are 10 times more likely to face sexual assault," says Lee. "If the Department of Homeland Security can't detain lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender people safely, it should not detain them at all. "

Lee says the system is so overloaded that asylum cases that begin this year likely will not be resolved until 2018 at the earliest, putting LGBT detainees at significant risk. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is on record saying it is committed to developing new standards to protect vulnerable detainees.

Jamila Hammami, executive director with the Queer Detainee Empowerment Project, says the Department of Homeland Security has a strict quota to fill more than 400 beds in New York every night. She says that provides a perverse incentive for law enforcement to detain immigrants for very minor offenses.

"There are so many stories of queer youth jumping turnstiles to get on the train, and then ending up in immigration detention and then in deportation - which is absurd," says Hammami.

Vanessa "B" is a transgender New Yorker who says she fled Mexico in fear of her life, and was able to win her case for asylum in 2014.

"If I stay in my country, probably somebody kill me; maybe I never get a good job," she says. "This country is better, I love this country and the police help you, the organizations help you."

Lee says queer youth locked up for minor offenses in such suburban areas as Long Island are more likely to end up being transferred to immigration detention. While the U.S. does not guarantee legal counsel for asylum-seekers, he says those with a lawyer are six times more likely to be granted asylum.


get more stories like this via email

Providers of community IDs for North Carolina's immigrant communities say proposed legislation banning police officers and local governments from recognizing the alternative IDs as valid could have crippling effects on families.

House Bill 167 would restrict the use of cards issued to immigrants through the FaithAction ID Network. More than 15,000 residents in North Carolina and other states currently rely on FaithAction IDs.

María González, deputy director of the nonprofit group El Pueblo, said community IDs were created as a stopgap solution for individuals banned from receiving state licenses because they lack the required documentation.

"Medical care, participating in the cultural and business life of our community, getting a library card, picking up a kid from school," González outlined.

Supporters of the bill argued community-issued IDs pose security risks for communities. FaithAction explained in order to receive an ID, program participants are required to attend an orientation on the benefits and limitations of the card and sign a simple Memorandum of Understanding.

González added FaithAction IDs are designed to help people navigate daily life, and pointed out they cannot be used to vote or access federal benefits.

"We hope that there's a compassionate way that we can be reassured that our communities feel safe, are safe, that people are who they say they are," González emphasized. "But not at the expense of more vulnerable communities."

Research shows community IDs help reduce fear of interacting with law enforcement and witnesses and victims of crime are more likely to talk to police officers if they have an ID card.

Just 14% of California's 94,000 undocumented college students receive some form of state financial aid, according to a new report.

Researchers from the California Student Aid Commission found that only half of the people who are eligible for state aid for higher education even apply.

Marlene Garcia, the commission's executive director, said a lot of community college undocumented students apply to get their fees waived for coursework, but don't realize they could get a Cal Grant to help with living expenses.

Paperwork appears to be one of the issues.

"They may be applying for the College Promise, and they think that they've completed the financial aid application," said Garcia. "But then, they find out they have to complete the California Dream Act application. And sometimes, you'll lose students in that process."

Starting this year, state law requires all high school seniors to fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid or the California Dream Act application, so school counselors are going to have their hands full.

Garcia said many steps could be taken at the federal level to help undocumented students, including making the Pell Grant available, or reviving the DACA program and extending its provisions to allow students to have the right to work.

"If you're an undocumented student and you don't have work authorization to get a job after you graduate from college," said Garcia, "that's going to raise the question about where the value proposition is for a college degree for you."

Another barrier is the requirement that undocumented students sign an affidavit that they attended at least three years of high school in California. A new bill now in the California Legislature would integrate that affidavit into the California Dream Act application.

Support for this reporting was provided by Lumina Foundation.


get more stories like this via email

Nebraska welcomed more than 10,000 refugees between 2002 and 2016, and some are still hoping to bring family members to the U.S.

Under the Department of Homeland Security's proposed changes to the asylum application process, it could become more difficult.

They are designed to prevent a surge of migrants at the southern border once the federal health emergency ends in May, ending Title 42. They would deny entrance to anyone who lacks the proper documentation and can't meet certain expectations. Those who enter at the southern border would also need proof they applied for, and were denied, asylum in a third country they passed through.

Joe Lord, lead asylum attorney for the Immigrant Legal Center in Omaha, said it is an often untenable expectation.

"A lot of those countries don't have either an asylum system in place at all, or an effective or safe asylum system in place," Lord pointed out. "It's a complication that's not very fair to people actually fleeing danger and trying to get somewhere safe."

Lord believes the changes could lead to more family separations. He noted no consideration is given for the common case of a person coming to the U.S. alone and later petitioning for family members to join them. He added the backlog of immigration court cases in the Nebraska-Iowa region is currently 28,000, and believes the changes would make the wait even longer.

Another aspect of the changes Lord considers unrealistic is the expectation migrants will use a smartphone app to schedule an appointment with a border agent.

"A lot of people that come through the southern border have nothing when they get here, and that includes access to a smartphone," Lord stressed. "That would be a massive impediment to a lot of people applying."

The Department of Homeland Security proposal makes exceptions for people having a medical emergency, facing an imminent threat or the risk of being trafficked.

Lord pointed to the far greater effect the expectations will have on lower-income people entering through the southern border than on those who can afford to apply for a visa and fly to the U.S. He also believes the changes violate U.S. laws and treaties designed to protect people seeking asylum.

"The laws in the United States explicitly guard an asylum-seeker's right to seek protection, regardless of how they arrive here," Lord emphasized.

The proposed changes are open for public comment until March 27. Lord added he fully expects they will be challenged in court.


get more stories like this via email