Our detention and deportation system failed Anya (her name has been changed for confidentiality purposes). She was born in Russia with heart defects and deformed hands. She was rejected by her parents for many years, spending her infancy in hospitals and institutions. Later she was abused by her parents, then abandoned by them. She immigrated to the United States as a young teen, adopted by U.S. citizens. After more than a decade, she had a child of her own, whom she abused. Anya was diagnosed with mental illness. Although she was convicted of child abuse, the state court recommended medication, counseling, and a chance to regain custody of her child. But Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") took over, and Anya was deported. Without a chance to comply with the state family court's order, Anya's ties with her child were permanently severed. She should not have lost her child. She should not have been removed.
The law required ICE to detain Anya. Mandatory ICE detention is required when the immigrant has been convicted of a moral turpitude crime where the maximum sentence is more than one year, even if the person was not sentenced to more than one year. Anya's child abuse conviction fell into that category, even though she was actually only sentenced to a few months in jail. Detention radically affected the complexion of the proceedings. Her attorneys could not meet and prepare with her in noncustodial settings, she could not assist in the gathering of and assembling of helpful evidence, and, perhaps most importantly, she could not abide by the family reunification order of the state court.
Individuals facing removal who are in detention suffer a distinct disadvantage in pursuing a viable claim for relief. Depending on the location of the detention facility, access to counsel can be severely limited. Some detention facilities are located in remote areas where few immigration attorneys are available. Being in custody itself can be very demoralizing, and detained individuals can be discouraged from pursuing viable claims due to the circumstances of confinement; they may think of deportation as a way of getting out of custody. Moreover, communication with attorneys (if available), friends, family, and potential witnesses is hampered.
For an attorney representing a client in ICE detention, the challenge to effective communication is severe. In complex cases, adequate representation requires hours and hours, if not days and weeks, of preparation. Developing a trusting and open relationship with the client is essential. Both the attorney and the client need to be able to speak with candor. Each element of a defense or claim for relief is important, and the explanation can be complicated because of the nuances of the law. Discussing case strategies and tactics is also important. When a client is detained, all of these efforts are truncated and less possible.
Conditions at ICE detention facilities leave a lot to be desired. Numerous international and national human rights organizations, scientific journals, and newspapers have published reports documenting different aspects of immigration detention conditions in heartbreaking detail. While all detainees endure inexcusably harsh conditions, some problems disproportionately affect those with mental disabilities while other problems are particular to them. Mentally ill detainees are especially vulnerable because they cannot advocate for themselves when they are not competent, and because they may be punished for behavior that they cannot control.
Immigration courts need more tools. Consider the options that have evolved in the criminal justice system over the years: drug courts, mental health courts, community service options, diversion programs. Why have these options evolved? Because criminal and juvenile courts are realizing that incarceration is not the answer for every defendant. They understand that in certain cases, a different option is worth trying for the sake of the defendant as well as the community. The problem with the immigration court system is that the immigration judge essentially only has two options: deportation or the full right to stay lawfully. So if an immigration judge has some doubt or is not inclined to take a chance, then the easy choice may be deportation. Allowing a so-called "criminal" alien to stay involves a risk of recidivism that an immigration judge may not want to take. The immigration judge loses immediate control over the life of the immigrant who is granted a waiver, In the meantime, the immigration judge and ICE have no direct influence over the person. In contrast, drug courts, mental health courts, diversion programs, and community courts are constructed in a manner that involve regular reporting to probation departments, community partners, or directly to the court. Ironically, in Anya's case, if relief had been granted, the immigration judge actually had a surrogate who would take control of Anya -- the state Superior Court that had a family reunification plan ready for her. In short, the state court would have monitored her behavior.
Outcomes are often a matter of chance or circumstance. The results of Anya's case could have been quite different without changes in the law if the personalities were different. For example, a different immigration judge might have seen things differently. A different government attorney may have been more sympathetic and taken a more humanistic approach to the facts in the case. A stronger attorney for Anya may have yielded a different result. However, when the stakes are so high, do we really want to leave things to such speculative chance? Matters involving such high stakes should not be left to simple chance or circumstance; because the stakes are so important in removal proceedings, processes must be institutionalized in order to better assure high standards of fairness and consistency. Faced with immigrants suffering from mental disorders, immigration judges should have options available that at least include referrals to mental health professionals outside of detention. At least then, immigrants like Anya would have a meaningful chance.
Follow Bill Ong Hing on Twitter: www.twitter.com/immprof
Tom Matlack: On Education, Immigration and Goodness
Bill Ong Hing: Infusing the Deportation System With Restorative Justice
Why does this happen? Our criminal legal system, and the attorneys within it, find it difficult to prove mental illness is the cause of a shoplifting. It can take quite a bit of preparation and put a client at risk for imprisonment to challenge police. Also prosecutorial discretion these days has become insensitive to the plight of the mentally ill. As a result, when an experienced immigration attorney sees this sort of matter, they first think, "can I afford to spend the time to represent this person?" If not, they run, because the Federal Government does not pay such attorneys fees. Assuming the attorney does not, it is possible that they are desperate for fees to support their practice. Such challenges come when the public does not place a high value on their civil rights. Civil immigration rights are not a priority until after deportation.
This story has big holes in it.
Give me a break, it's either legal or not...choose...either ALL stay or ALL go.
We can't save the world and we should NOT try to either...it's a losing proposition.
In their judgment, "Anya" presented a danger to that child, and there was a simple remedy to keep the child safe.
If only more child abuse cases offered such easy outs. Hope the child can break the cycle, deporting "Anya" probably makes that more likely, but of course its a tragedy even so, severing the child's link to her mother.
But then, the records aren't sealed. The child can choose to reconnect with her as an adult, when the person is old enough to protect him/her self.
Second, "outcomes are often a matter of circumstance" is the hallmark of our entire judicial system. You don't think a different judge in a criminal case, or a better lawyer in a civil case, has an impact? Our adversarial system doesn't test the truth, it tests the advocacy skills of the lawyers. This is one of the inescapable realities of life.
Anyway, I have a very hard time being sympathetic to "Anya". Convicted of child abuse, lose privilege to be in America. Seems pretty straightforward and fair to me. How does it contribute to American society to keep criminals here? Her mental illness was obviously not enough to render her not guilty of child abuse, so why should it render her immune to our immigration laws?