When I listened to the testimony yesterday of Ms. Antonia Peña, a domestic worker who volunteers at Casa de Maryland, I heard a story I've heard many times that never fails to affect me. Her friend Maria, who was born in El Salvador and has a two-year-old daughter, was in an abusive relationship. Because of her immigration status, coming forward led to legal retaliation against her. In her case, and in those of countless other women across the country, the law existed not to protect her but to protect her abuser. She was literally trapped in her own family and her own home. The status quo made it difficult for her to seek shelter for herself and her daughter, and she is currently fighting deportation proceedings. The crimes against her -- violence, threats, intimidation -- continued for months. Law enforcement, rather than sending her to El Salvador, should have opened a Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) protection case on her behalf.
Even abused women, if they are undocumented, will often be punished with deportation and imprisonment if they go to the police for help. Where it is in the public interest to remove criminals and dangerous individuals, we should do so -- and we are. But the public interest is also best served when we protect abused women and help children lead healthy lives. When Congress reauthorizes VAWA later this year, maintaining legal protections for battered immigrant women needs to be a priority. Some protections already exist: abused women are able to adjust their immigrant status independently of a spouse's sponsorship if an abusive relationship can be proved. But even this crucial protection is often overlooked, especially when Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice officials carry out crackdowns or operations with local partners unaware of VAWA's language on immigrants.
This issue cannot and must not become an occasion for demagogues to spin their wheels. Abusive relationships are not a political issue -- they're a public health and human rights issue. Making sure women don't have to suffer beatings in silence, whatever their immigration status, has to be a priority. No one deserves to be beaten. No child deserves to grow up in an abusive environment. Whatever other laws may apply to a family's situation, VAWA must ensure that abuse cannot continue in silence.
I was proud to listen to the testimony Ms. Peña and our other witnesses offered yesterday. Yesterday was one of the strongest displays I've ever seen of why VAWA and other federal laws and regulations must play a central role in our thinking. There will be many opportunities to highlight the ways federal lawmakers can better protect immigrants, women, mothers and children. But I will remember what I heard on Feb. 10 very clearly.
Below is the video of Ms. Peña's testimony:
For part two of the hearing, featuring Rev. Linda Olson Peebles of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington and Miriam Yeung of the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, visit this link. For part three, featuring Leslye Orloff of Legal Momentum, visit this link.
This blog is part of the Peaceful Revolution series that explores innovative ideas to strengthen America's families through public policies, business practices, and cultural change. Done in collaboration with MomsRising.org, read a new post here each week.
Purpose of Form : "To provide temporary immigration benefits to aliens who are victims of qualifying criminal activity, and to their qualifying family members, as appropriate"
Forms and $0 filing fee information can be found right here
http://www.uscis.gov/i-918
According to the above video clip, Maria was stopped and detained for illegally selling phone cards.
Maria would have qualified for the U visa had she only been lawfully stopped and detained for having been a suspect for illegally selling phone cards. Why are the details surrounding this missing?
Was it a legitimate charge that the police had, and if not what happened?
According to USCIS:
Q: How does one become eligible for U nonimmigrant visa status?
A: There are four statutory eligibility requirements:
(1) the individual must have suf fered substantial physical or ment al ab_use as a result of having been a vict im of a qualifying criminal activity;
(2) he/she has information concerning that criminal activity;
(3) he/she has been helpful, is being helpful, or is likely to be helpful in the investigation or prosecution of the crime; and
(4) the criminal activity must have violated the laws of the United States or occurred in the U.S.
Q: What qualifies as a "criminal activity?"
"This is not an exclusive list – in fact, the list of qualifying crimes represents the myriad types of behavior that can constitute domestic violence, sexual abuse, trafficking, or other crimes which vulnerable immigrants are often targeted."
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/U-VisaFS_05Sep07.pdf
Secure Communities' ICE program was mentioned in the above clip, however ICE would not have taken Maria, unless her fingerprints matched at D H S or the F B I. It is troubling that Secure Communities would have had a match for Maria's fingerprints, and that is not being mentioned in this article or the video clip.
Raul wrote above,
"This issue cannot and must not become an occasion for demagogues to spin their wheels."
I must now ask you Raul, by witholding the pertinent information, are you in fact doing what you asked others not to do? Demagoguing?
What is the situation here? Was Maria in fact a criminal registered with either the D H S or F B I fingerprint program, before Maria was ever having a serious domestic problem at home?
Our Constitution grants rights and protection to all people in our country, regardless of immigration status.
I raise the same question I raised in the Redefining rape Articles.. How can we, a "Civilized" country criticize other countries for the treatment of women.. When we don't even value the women here as equals?
VAWA isn't an amnesty bill, it offers protection to women who are suffering abuse. It should be common sense, and part of human decency... But I see the commenters are lacking even a shred of Human decency with calls of deport them, and shades of "They wouldn't be beaten if they weren't here illegally"
Sad commentary on the society of a nation people think is Exceptional... Maybe Exceptionally regressive.. but that's about it.
There are pertinent details missing about Maria, and this situation.
1) Why was it that Maria's fingerprints were within the D H S or the F B I database before Maria ever had a serious domestic problem at home?
2) Maria would have been eligible for a U visa
http://www.uscis.gov/i-918
Had the following not occurred:
a) Maria was lawfully stopped and detained for illegally selling phone cards. Evidently the police had enough to warrant an arrest, but the details of this are not available. If Maria had only been lawfully stopped and detained for illegally selling phone cards, and not arrested, she would not have had her fingerprints taken. Because Maria was arrested, she was fingerprinted.
Because Maria was fingerprinted, the ICE Secure Communities program was initiated to run a database verification to see if Maria was already listed within either the D H S or F B I database. If Maria was already in the D H S database, it would mean that Maria could be charged with a felony for entering the USA a 2nd time after being deported once. If Maria was in the F B I database, it was likely that she was previously charged with a felony for something other than entering the USA illegally a 2nd time.
There is the problem.
b) Maria's fingerprints came up through the ICE Secure Communities program as a match with either the D H S or F B I databases. Which meant, before Maria had a serious domestic problem at home, she was already a wanted criminal.
-------------------------------------------------
If Maria's fingerprints had not matched either the D H S or F B I databases for a prior offense, Maria would not have been taken to ICE. According to the clip, Maria was evidently not selling phone cards illegally, but the details surrounding this are missing for some reason.
So hypothetically, had Maria had no prior offense, and the current illegally selling phone cards offense not stood up, as presumably was the case, Maria would have qualified for a U visa and Maria would not have needed VAWA.
My immigrant grandparents have protection & rights against domestic violence
Only, Illegal immigrants have consequences to their actions when excercising their rights against domestic violence
Hope it works for male illegals, as it does for female illegals
A case can be made either way on whether the funds should help those in the country illegally, but labeling the whole of VAWA 'back door amnesty' for illegal aliens is incorrect.
What kind of screwy thinking is that?
Undocumented immigrants are already protected against domestic vio|ence.
It is called a U visa
http://www.uscis.gov/i-918
Which Maria would have qualified for, if not for the fact that she had some prior offense which had her fingerprints already listed within either the D H S or F B I databases.
Q: What qualifies as a "criminal activity?"
"This is not an exclusive list – in fact, the list of qualifying crimes represents the myriad types of behavior that can constitute domestic vio|ence, se xual ab use, trafficking, or other crimes which vulnerable immigrants are often targeted."
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/U-VisaFS_05Sep07.pdf
Look at the links, and decide for yourself. U visa is for aliens. Maria was an alien. The latter link I gave you shows that she would have qualified, but Maria had a prior offense.
The way to stop this problem is to stop illegal aliens from thinkig it is ok to break the law in the 1st place.
All laws should be enforced, not just the PC ones.
The terms illegal, alien, & undocumented do not identify a race of people
Rather than the new meaning of Racist = I disagree with your view(s)
Even if USCIS or ICE was not called that back then, the agency had a different name. The USA law was there.
Your argument is that the laws have been race ist for more than a century.
I contend that you are claiming immigration laws of every country are race ist
If you are claiming only USA immigration laws to be race ist, and not true of other countries on earth, then define why?
Otherwise, you are using race as a red herring, to marginalize someone because you have nothing of substance to state.
2) Maria in this article, had managed to get into a predicament because she was already listed within either the D H S database or F B I database for fingerprints before Maria had a need to report her difficulty with the domestic problem at home. That is not good.
The details about why Maria was previously in either the D H S or F B I database before she ever had this domestic problem at home are conveniently missing, but she would not have been caught in the Secure Communites ICE filter if Maria was not in either database.
With knowing that information, it would seem that Maria was treated well, mostly because the actions that were take with her, removed Maria from the domestic situation that Maria was having a problem with.
Maria would not have been deported, if she had received a 'U visa.' A visa designed to protect illegal aliens in the USA from criminal activity. However, Maria must of had some prior offense, and then she became entangled with some new problem with illegally selling phone cards. The combination of those two, prevented her from being permitted to get the 'U visa,' and that is as it should be because she evidently did something wrong before to be in the D H S or F B I database before.
Which means that a special clause in VAWA for illegal aliens would not be needed.
3) I do not agree with you when you state that "illegals" should remain part of our cultural fabric. Employers and illegal aliens must be stopped from exploitation and usurping USA immigration laws. If you permit this to continue, then you must permit:
- US Department of Labor laws to be dismissed; you must permit
- laws about identity theft to be dismissed; you must permit
- OSHA laws to be dismissed; you must permit
- RICO laws to be dismissed; you must permit
- fraud laws to be dismissed; you must permit
- Etc. laws to be dismissed...
There are other avenues to address this, you do all of them.
Claming to surrender because there is NOT one solution to the whole situation is not appropriate.
BTW, no one is advocating the winking and nodding at while the looking the other way at safety or other laws safeguarding workers or the ignoring thereof. I'm dubious that people from OSHA are checking for safety compliance and green cards at the same time.
.
Does spouse abuse represent an extenuating circumstance that should lead to clemency on the part of the immigration court? Yea, nay? If yea, would there be a subsequent rash of spouse abuse to exploit such a new hole in the already cheese-gratered immigration system? There's still a movement, a pressure, to knock down any/all immigration restrictions to the US. Judges?
1.1 million immigrants enter the USA each year, as "documented"
Must not be too impossible to accomplish ~ only takes the genuine desire
This may come as a surprise to you, but...
What you wrote is handled irrespective of anyone's legal status, it is called a U visa.
Here is the U visa for an alien
http://www.uscis.gov/i-918
Here are the rules
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/U-VisaFS_05Sep07.pdf
The rules state
Q: What qualifies as a "criminal activity?"
"This is not an exclusive list – in fact, the list of qualifying crimes represents the myriad types of behavior that can constitute domestic vio|ence, se xual a buse, traffic king, or other crimes which vulnerable immigrants are often targeted."
Maria had a domestic situation. She would have received a 'U visa.'
Maria did not receive a 'U visa' mostly because she had some prior situation which already had her present within either the D H S or F B I fingerprint database. I do not know what the prior situation was, but if that had not occurred, she could have avoided deportation with a 'U visa' and if she had obeyed the rules, she may have been eligible in the future to become a Legal Permanent Resident.
The issue that is being made now obfuscates the fact that Maria was removed from the domestic situation. Bottom line, ICE removed her from the domestic situation. There seems to be a lot of other noise, and I suspect it has nothing to do with the fact that Maria was rescued from the domestic problem.
They can always go home.
Where is it stated that Maria remained in the domestic situation and something worse occurred?
I believe Maria wanted assitance with a separation from the domestic situation, well she received that.
The objection being made here by this article and some posters is that Maria wanted it to happen her way.
She could have had a 'U visa' and had her way, but somehow she ended up in the D H S or F B I fingerprint database for some prior, before this domestic situation occurred. Someone needs to disclose that and be held accountable for either witholding that, or giving the whole picture. Like why wasn't the 'U visa' mentioned?
Fav'd
There are many of us out here that experienced abuse and had to find creative ways to leave. I essentially left my life behind and took a job where I lived on the premises and no telephone or utility was in my name. I can only imagine how this challenge is multiplied exponentially when the abused woman is living in fear of immigration authorities and has no options available for she and her small children. Home should be the one place that women and children feel safe, but when it is turned into a prison, all bets are off.