Democratic Republic of the Congo: Third Review under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement, the Request for Modification of Performance Criteria and the Financing Assurance Review-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Published December 23, 2022 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
Georgia: First Review Under the Stand-By Arrangement and Request for Modifications of Performance Criteria and Structural Benchmarks-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Statement; and Statement by the Executive Director for Georgia
Published December 23, 2022 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
Argentina: Third Review Under the Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility, Request for Waivers of Nonobservance of Performance Criteria, and Financing Assurances Review-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Supplement; and Statement by the Executive Director for Argentina
Published December 22, 2022 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
The Gambia: Fifth Review Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement, Requests for Augmentation of Access, Waiver for Nonobservance of a Performance Criterion, Modification of a Performance Criterion, and Financing Assurances Review-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for The Gambia
Published December 21, 2022 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
Ukraine: Program Monitoring with Board Involvement-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Ukraine
Published December 21, 2022 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
Republic of Serbia: Third Review Under the Policy Coordination Instrument, Request for a Stand-By Arrangement, and Cancellation of the Policy Coordination Instrument-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of Serbia
Published December 20, 2022 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
Your Guide to Discussing the Right to Seek Asylum at the Dinner Table
For the past several years, a patchwork of policies have illegally restricted people fleeing persecution from seeking safety at the U.S.-Mexico border. The ACLU recently won a critical lawsuit when a federal judge ordered an end to Title 42, one of the most restrictive policies, but multiple states and members of Congress are trying to keep the policy in place. At the same time, the federal government is reportedly considering resuscitating other inhumane Trump-era policies that would continue restricting access to asylum, rather than focusing on real solutions to a more fair and efficient immigration system.
As we gather together with loved ones this holiday season, and as the U.S.-Mexico border continues to make headlines, this topic may come up in conversations. To restore humanity to U.S. asylum policy, we need to center human dignity, truth, and justice in our conversations. This guide will help you do just that.
Join the Fight
Protecting the civil liberties of all depends on the support of ACLU members in all 50 states and beyond. We need you with us to keep fighting — donate today.
The basic facts you need to know:
Seeking asylum is a human right protected under international and U.S. laws.
People may come to the U.S. or the border to seek asylum and must prove their cases to be granted permanent protection.
Many policies threaten the human and legal right to seek asylum from persecution, but none succeed in deterring people from trying to seek protection at the border.
Despite obstacles, asylum seekers become integral members of our communities.
Money spent policing the border can be better spent establishing a fair, orderly, and welcoming asylum process.
First-hand stories of courage and survival
For those who aren’t already interested in these issues, our laws might seem abstract or arcane. One of the best ways to understand and convey their importance is by sharing the stories of people who are fighting for their right to seek asylum and are directly impacted by the policies that make headlines.
The history of asylum law and why it’s still critical
Credit: Aimee Melo/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images
The right to seek asylum — or safety from persecution — in another country was born out of the tragedies of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. In its aftermath, dozens of nations committed to never again slam the door on people in need of protection. The right to asylum was enshrined in 1948’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and then again in the Refugee Convention of 1951 and its 1967 Protocol.
The United States is a party to the Refugee Protocol and passed the Refugee Act of 1980 to comply with its international obligations. The Act protects people who are fleeing persecution on “account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
The Refugee Act is meant to ensure that people who seek asylum from within the U.S. or at its border are not sent back to places where they face persecution.
These protections are just as critical today. More people have been forcibly displaced from their homes due to conflict, violence, and human rights violations in recent years than at any other time since World War II.
All people fleeing persecution are allowed to seek asylum under our laws. Period.
What you need to know about policies that restrict people from seeking asylum
The “Remain in Mexico” policy, first implemented by the Trump administration, forced people to wait in dangerous conditions in Mexico while their asylum cases proceeded in the U.S. The Biden administration attempted to end this policy, and the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that it has the authority to do so.
Title 42, first implemented by the Trump administration under the guise of public health, has been used for more than two-and-a-half years to expel people fleeing violence and persecution, rather than considering their claims. Expulsions under Title 42 have led to more than 10,000 documented cases of violent attacks, including rape, torture, and abduction, and have subjected Black and LGBTQ asylum seekers to particular risks. A federal judge recently ordered its end, but some politicians are fighting to keep it in place.
So-called “deterrence” policies aim to stop people from exercising the right to seek asylum through the threat of harm or punishment, such as family separation, mandatory detention, and criminalization.
Other policies aim to prevent people from requesting asylum to begin with, such as through severe metering or unlawfully denying asylum to people entering the U.S. at the Southern border who did not first apply for asylum in Mexico or another third country they transited through.
What you need to know about the impact of these restrictive policies
These policies subject people who have already endured violence and persecution to further harm, including rape, torture, and abduction in many cases, by denying them the chance to seek safety and sending them back into harm’s way.
Although elected officials have claimed these policies discourage migrants from coming to the border, evidence shows they do not stop people from seeking safety and ultimately create more disorder.
Expulsions under Title 42, for example, have the opposite effect of deterring people. They have encouraged people seeking protection to repeatedly attempt to cross the border to find safety.
Even after imposing the strictest and most punitive rules against asylum seekers, President Trump faced sharp increases in the numbers of migrants at the border, at that time the highest numbers in over a decade.
How fear-mongering is used to win support for these policies
Anti-immigrant politicians continue to peddle falsehoods and racist tropes about an “invasion” to instill fear and win support for harmful policies. Ahead of the midterms, America’s Voice, an immigration advocacy organization, identified over 3,200 different paid communications that employed anti-immigrant attacks.
Governors of Florida, Arizona, and Texas have used asylum seekers as political props, placing them on flights and buses to communities like Martha’s Vineyard, to make headlines and perpetuate a fear-based narrative around the border.
Despite these attacks, the vast majority of Americans support asylum rights. According to a new poll conducted by the U.S. Immigration Policy Center at the University of California, San Diego, nearly three-quarters of Americans (73.4 percent) agree that the United States should provide access to the U.S. asylum system to people fleeing persecution and/or violence.
What we really need at the border, and how to fund it
Credit: John Lamparski/NurPhoto via AP
We need a more efficient, humane, and welcoming system at the border for people seeking asylum.
Much of the money Congress now spends on a bloated Border Patrol police force should be spent instead on humane reception and screening of people at the border and on making sure our immigration agencies and federal courts have enough employees and judges to decide asylum claims in a fair, orderly, and timely manner.
This money could also be used to support people in reaching family members or sponsors in the locations where they will wait for the government to decide their claims and to more quickly process work permits for asylum seekers so they can support themselves and contribute to their communities. One recent study estimated that on average, an asylum seeker contributes over $19,000 per year to the U.S. economy, and that a 25 percent reduction in the number of all people seeking asylum in the country would cause an economic loss of $20.5 billion over a five-year period.
How you can join the fight to protect the right to seek asylum
The policies discussed in this guide present a serious threat to the future of asylum rights, but we’ll continue to fight back through our ongoing litigation, in the halls of Congress, and through public education. And we’re not stopping there. We’re fighting for a fundamentally more humane and welcoming system at the border for people seeking asylum — and you can, too.
Here are four ways you can join the fight to protect the right to seek asylum no matter where you live.
Use this guide to speak to your friends and family and educate them on the importance of protecting asylum rights.
Share why you support welcoming people with humanity and dignity on Soapbox and tag your members of Congress.
Your Guide to Discussing the Right to Seek Asylum at the Dinner Table
For the past several years, a patchwork of policies have illegally restricted people fleeing persecution from seeking safety at the U.S.-Mexico border. The ACLU recently won a critical lawsuit when a federal judge ordered an end to Title 42, one of the most restrictive policies, but multiple states and members of Congress are trying to keep the policy in place. At the same time, the federal government is reportedly considering resuscitating other inhumane Trump-era policies that would continue restricting access to asylum, rather than focusing on real solutions to a more fair and efficient immigration system.
As we gather together with loved ones this holiday season, and as the U.S.-Mexico border continues to make headlines, this topic may come up in conversations. To restore humanity to U.S. asylum policy, we need to center human dignity, truth, and justice in our conversations. This guide will help you do just that.
Join the Fight
Protecting the civil liberties of all depends on the support of ACLU members in all 50 states and beyond. We need you with us to keep fighting — donate today.
The basic facts you need to know:
Seeking asylum is a human right protected under international and U.S. laws.
People may come to the U.S. or the border to seek asylum and must prove their cases to be granted permanent protection.
Many policies threaten the human and legal right to seek asylum from persecution, but none succeed in deterring people from trying to seek protection at the border.
Despite obstacles, asylum seekers become integral members of our communities.
Money spent policing the border can be better spent establishing a fair, orderly, and welcoming asylum process.
First-hand stories of courage and survival
For those who aren’t already interested in these issues, our laws might seem abstract or arcane. One of the best ways to understand and convey their importance is by sharing the stories of people who are fighting for their right to seek asylum and are directly impacted by the policies that make headlines.
The history of asylum law and why it’s still critical
Credit: Aimee Melo/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images
The right to seek asylum — or safety from persecution — in another country was born out of the tragedies of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. In its aftermath, dozens of nations committed to never again slam the door on people in need of protection. The right to asylum was enshrined in 1948’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and then again in the Refugee Convention of 1951 and its 1967 Protocol.
The United States is a party to the Refugee Protocol and passed the Refugee Act of 1980 to comply with its international obligations. The Act protects people who are fleeing persecution on “account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
The Refugee Act is meant to ensure that people who seek asylum from within the U.S. or at its border are not sent back to places where they face persecution.
These protections are just as critical today. More people have been forcibly displaced from their homes due to conflict, violence, and human rights violations in recent years than at any other time since World War II.
All people fleeing persecution are allowed to seek asylum under our laws. Period.
What you need to know about policies that restrict people from seeking asylum
The “Remain in Mexico” policy, first implemented by the Trump administration, forced people to wait in dangerous conditions in Mexico while their asylum cases proceeded in the U.S. The Biden administration attempted to end this policy, and the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that it has the authority to do so.
Title 42, first implemented by the Trump administration under the guise of public health, has been used for more than two-and-a-half years to expel people fleeing violence and persecution, rather than considering their claims. Expulsions under Title 42 have led to more than 10,000 documented cases of violent attacks, including rape, torture, and abduction, and have subjected Black and LGBTQ asylum seekers to particular risks. A federal judge recently ordered its end, but some politicians are fighting to keep it in place.
So-called “deterrence” policies aim to stop people from exercising the right to seek asylum through the threat of harm or punishment, such as family separation, mandatory detention, and criminalization.
Other policies aim to prevent people from requesting asylum to begin with, such as through severe metering or unlawfully denying asylum to people entering the U.S. at the Southern border who did not first apply for asylum in Mexico or another third country they transited through.
What you need to know about the impact of these restrictive policies
These policies subject people who have already endured violence and persecution to further harm, including rape, torture, and abduction in many cases, by denying them the chance to seek safety and sending them back into harm’s way.
Although elected officials have claimed these policies discourage migrants from coming to the border, evidence shows they do not stop people from seeking safety and ultimately create more disorder.
Expulsions under Title 42, for example, have the opposite effect of deterring people. They have encouraged people seeking protection to repeatedly attempt to cross the border to find safety.
Even after imposing the strictest and most punitive rules against asylum seekers, President Trump faced sharp increases in the numbers of migrants at the border, at that time the highest numbers in over a decade.
How fear-mongering is used to win support for these policies
Anti-immigrant politicians continue to peddle falsehoods and racist tropes about an “invasion” to instill fear and win support for harmful policies. Ahead of the midterms, America’s Voice, an immigration advocacy organization, identified over 3,200 different paid communications that employed anti-immigrant attacks.
Governors of Florida, Arizona, and Texas have used asylum seekers as political props, placing them on flights and buses to communities like Martha’s Vineyard, to make headlines and perpetuate a fear-based narrative around the border.
Despite these attacks, the vast majority of Americans support asylum rights. According to a new poll conducted by the U.S. Immigration Policy Center at the University of California, San Diego, nearly three-quarters of Americans (73.4 percent) agree that the United States should provide access to the U.S. asylum system to people fleeing persecution and/or violence.
What we really need at the border, and how to fund it
Credit: John Lamparski/NurPhoto via AP
We need a more efficient, humane, and welcoming system at the border for people seeking asylum.
Much of the money Congress now spends on a bloated Border Patrol police force should be spent instead on humane reception and screening of people at the border and on making sure our immigration agencies and federal courts have enough employees and judges to decide asylum claims in a fair, orderly, and timely manner.
This money could also be used to support people in reaching family members or sponsors in the locations where they will wait for the government to decide their claims and to more quickly process work permits for asylum seekers so they can support themselves and contribute to their communities. One recent study estimated that on average, an asylum seeker contributes over $19,000 per year to the U.S. economy, and that a 25 percent reduction in the number of all people seeking asylum in the country would cause an economic loss of $20.5 billion over a five-year period.
How you can join the fight to protect the right to seek asylum
The policies discussed in this guide present a serious threat to the future of asylum rights, but we’ll continue to fight back through our ongoing litigation, in the halls of Congress, and through public education. And we’re not stopping there. We’re fighting for a fundamentally more humane and welcoming system at the border for people seeking asylum — and you can, too.
Here are four ways you can join the fight to protect the right to seek asylum no matter where you live.
Use this guide to speak to your friends and family and educate them on the importance of protecting asylum rights.
Share why you support welcoming people with humanity and dignity on Soapbox and tag your members of Congress.
Cambodia: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Cambodia
Published December 15, 2022 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
End of Year Pop Quiz: How We Showed Up for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in 2022
In 2022, our civil rights were challenged in unprecedented ways — from the overturn of Roe v. Wade, to mounting classroom censorship bills, to the scores of legal attacks on LGBTQ+ youth. But the ACLU and our supporters are no stranger to fighting against these unconstitutional onslaughts. This year, we showed up to protect civil rights through every avenue we could — and saw many victories along the way. Quiz yourself below to learn some of the ways we advocated our way to meaningful change this year.
End of Year Pop Quiz: How We Showed Up for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in 2022
In 2022, our civil rights were challenged in unprecedented ways — from the overturn of Roe v. Wade, to mounting classroom censorship bills, to the scores of legal attacks on LGBTQ+ youth. But the ACLU and our supporters are no stranger to fighting against these unconstitutional onslaughts. This year, we showed up to protect civil rights through every avenue we could — and saw many victories along the way. Quiz yourself below to learn some of the ways we advocated our way to meaningful change this year.
Namibia: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Namibia
Published December 14, 2022 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
From the Death Penalty to Marijuana, Clemency is a Tool For Justice
Yesterday, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown commuted the state’s entire death row. The death penalty in Oregon, as around the country, is unjust, unfair, and racially biased. Gov. Brown joins a bipartisan group of past and current governors who have used their clemency power to address systemic injustice.
“[T]he death penalty is immoral,” Gov. Brown said in her announcement. “It is an irreversible punishment that does not allow for correction; is wasteful of taxpayer dollars; does not make communities safer; and cannot be and never has been administered fairly and equitably.”
The death penalty is a stain on American democracy and represents the worst excesses of the American legal system. Capital punishment normalizes harsh sentences, perpetuates racial disparities, and wastes enormous financial resources on a punishment that is inhumane and fails to prevent violence and harm.
Clemency is one way our elected leaders can provide a modicum of delayed justice for thousands of people they are meant to serve and send a powerful message: no person is disposable.
Until the death penalty is abolished, clemency is a powerful gubernatorial tool to correct injustice. The commutation of a state’s entire death row is emblematic of how powerful a governor’s use of clemency can be, and follows other significant clemency actions taken this year.
In October, President Biden pardoned thousands of people with federal convictions for marijuana possession. He called on governors to follow his lead.
Just before Thanksgiving, Oregon Gov. Brown did just that. She issued pardons for more than 47,000 Oregonians with marijuana possession convictions under an outdated state law. In addition to sealing their criminal records, the governor will forgive $14 million in related fines and fees.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown defending granting clemency at a press conference in Portland, Oregon.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
The Redemption Campaign
President Biden and Gov. Brown are setting an example of using categorical clemency: instead of granting clemency on a case-by-case basis, they have granted clemency to a large group of people who fit certain criteria. The ACLU has long called for a categorical approach to clemency as it allows executives to address the harms of mass incarceration and the war on drugs at scale.
At the ACLU, we launched a nationwide campaign in 2020 to liberate 50,000 people from federal and state prisons by urging executives to use their existing clemency powers for justice, and to reverse the harm of the war on drugs.
Executive clemency is a foundational principle of this nation. The U.S. Constitution grants the president clemency power, and as state executives, governors have long possessed this power as well. Clemency is a routine part of the office of the president and the governor. Not only is it routine, it’s morally right and politically popular — most voters support clemency to correct injustices of the criminal legal system.
Correcting Injustice Demands Action from Governors
Since most of the 2.3 million people incarcerated in United States are in state prisons, clemency from governors will have the greatest impact and begin to unravel injustice in the criminal legal system.
In the case of marijuana pardons, clemency by governors should include commutations and expungements. States that legalized marijuana have already taken action to pardon or expunge marijuana convictions.
State-level pardons and expungements will begin to confront the harm of the war on drugs and begin to make amends for the lives that have been derailed or ruined by excessive sentences for marijuana and other drug convictions.
Although more than half of the states and the District of Columbia have legalized or decriminalized marijuana, police still make hundreds of thousands of arrests for marijuana possession annually, with Black people accounting for a quarter of all drug arrests (not just for marijuana).
Black people are 3.64 times more likely to be arrested than white people for marijuana offenses, even though Black and white people use marijuana at similar rates. These numbers don’t begin to quantify the true toll of these policies on individual lives, families, and communities. That toll is incalculable.
As a federal public defender, I witnessed the direct harm of marijuana prosecutions on hundreds of people and their loved ones. First, the arrest separates the person from their family, causing emotional harm. Next, bail exacts a financial toll on the family both because of the financial burden, and because of lost wages following the arrest. Lastly, the conviction creates lifelong obstacles to housing, employment, education, and more.
We must expect and demand more from our leaders, who have the power to begin to mend the damage caused by decades of misguided and harmful sentences and policies. And our leaders must use this power in a way that is inclusive, bold, and restores justice to people’s lives. This must include providing clemency regardless of citizenship status.
Second chances provided by clemency should be available to all
President Biden’s marijuana pardon applies to citizens and permanent residents. But as has been reported, thousands of our immigrant neighbors have been arrested and convicted over the years near the U.S.-Mexico border for marijuana possession under federal law. For immigrants, marijuana possession can result in deportation or family separation.
In 2016, the U.S. Sentencing Commission documented 1,967 arrests for federal marijuana possession at the border — accounting for 91.5 percent of all federal marijuana possession arrests that year. Of those arrested at the border, 94 percent were “noncitizens.” That same year, 99 percent of those arrested for marijuana possession near the border had “little or no prior criminal history,” but almost all served a federal prison sentence.
The president can and should extend marijuana pardons to immigrants and work to ensure that those who receive pardons do not continue to suffer immigration consequences. Governors can provide leadership to the president and to each other by including immigrants in their clemency orders. Everyone — including immigrants — should have a true second chance.
Clemency exists because we get things wrong as a nation — our governments adopt ruinous policies and harm the people they govern. The death penalty is always racist, arbitrary, and wrong. The death penalty has normalized harsh sentences — which drive mass incarceration and disproportionately harm communities of color, especially Black communities. Clemency is one way our elected leaders can provide a modicum of delayed justice for thousands of people they are meant to serve and send a powerful message: no person is disposable.
As Gov. Brown has shown, executive clemency means choosing mercy over retribution, and redemption over damnation.
From the Death Penalty to Marijuana, Clemency is a Tool For Justice
Yesterday, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown commuted the state’s entire death row. The death penalty in Oregon, as around the country, is unjust, unfair, and racially biased. Gov. Brown joins a bipartisan group of past and current governors who have used their clemency power to address systemic injustice.
“[T]he death penalty is immoral,” Gov. Brown said in her announcement. “It is an irreversible punishment that does not allow for correction; is wasteful of taxpayer dollars; does not make communities safer; and cannot be and never has been administered fairly and equitably.”
The death penalty is a stain on American democracy and represents the worst excesses of the American legal system. Capital punishment normalizes harsh sentences, perpetuates racial disparities, and wastes enormous financial resources on a punishment that is inhumane and fails to prevent violence and harm.
Clemency is one way our elected leaders can provide a modicum of delayed justice for thousands of people they are meant to serve and send a powerful message: no person is disposable.
Until the death penalty is abolished, clemency is a powerful gubernatorial tool to correct injustice. The commutation of a state’s entire death row is emblematic of how powerful a governor’s use of clemency can be, and follows other significant clemency actions taken this year.
In October, President Biden pardoned thousands of people with federal convictions for marijuana possession. He called on governors to follow his lead.
Just before Thanksgiving, Oregon Gov. Brown did just that. She issued pardons for more than 47,000 Oregonians with marijuana possession convictions under an outdated state law. In addition to sealing their criminal records, the governor will forgive $14 million in related fines and fees.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown defending granting clemency at a press conference in Portland, Oregon.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
The Redemption Campaign
President Biden and Gov. Brown are setting an example of using categorical clemency: instead of granting clemency on a case-by-case basis, they have granted clemency to a large group of people who fit certain criteria. The ACLU has long called for a categorical approach to clemency as it allows executives to address the harms of mass incarceration and the war on drugs at scale.
At the ACLU, we launched a nationwide campaign in 2020 to liberate 50,000 people from federal and state prisons by urging executives to use their existing clemency powers for justice, and to reverse the harm of the war on drugs.
Executive clemency is a foundational principle of this nation. The U.S. Constitution grants the president clemency power, and as state executives, governors have long possessed this power as well. Clemency is a routine part of the office of the president and the governor. Not only is it routine, it’s morally right and politically popular — most voters support clemency to correct injustices of the criminal legal system.
Correcting Injustice Demands Action from Governors
Since most of the 2.3 million people incarcerated in United States are in state prisons, clemency from governors will have the greatest impact and begin to unravel injustice in the criminal legal system.
In the case of marijuana pardons, clemency by governors should include commutations and expungements. States that legalized marijuana have already taken action to pardon or expunge marijuana convictions.
State-level pardons and expungements will begin to confront the harm of the war on drugs and begin to make amends for the lives that have been derailed or ruined by excessive sentences for marijuana and other drug convictions.
Although more than half of the states and the District of Columbia have legalized or decriminalized marijuana, police still make hundreds of thousands of arrests for marijuana possession annually, with Black people accounting for a quarter of all drug arrests (not just for marijuana).
Black people are 3.64 times more likely to be arrested than white people for marijuana offenses, even though Black and white people use marijuana at similar rates. These numbers don’t begin to quantify the true toll of these policies on individual lives, families, and communities. That toll is incalculable.
As a federal public defender, I witnessed the direct harm of marijuana prosecutions on hundreds of people and their loved ones. First, the arrest separates the person from their family, causing emotional harm. Next, bail exacts a financial toll on the family both because of the financial burden, and because of lost wages following the arrest. Lastly, the conviction creates lifelong obstacles to housing, employment, education, and more.
We must expect and demand more from our leaders, who have the power to begin to mend the damage caused by decades of misguided and harmful sentences and policies. And our leaders must use this power in a way that is inclusive, bold, and restores justice to people’s lives. This must include providing clemency regardless of citizenship status.
Second chances provided by clemency should be available to all
President Biden’s marijuana pardon applies to citizens and permanent residents. But as has been reported, thousands of “noncitizens” have been arrested and convicted over the years near the U.S.-Mexico border for marijuana possession under federal law. For immigrants, marijuana possession can result in deportation or family separation.
In 2016, the U.S. Sentencing Commission documented 1,967 arrests for federal marijuana possession at the border — accounting for 91.5 percent of all federal marijuana possession arrests that year. Of those arrested at the border, 94 percent were “noncitizens.” That same year, 99 percent of those arrested for marijuana possession near the border had “little or no prior criminal history,” but almost all served a federal prison sentence.
The president can and should extend marijuana pardons to immigrants and work to ensure that those who receive pardons do not continue to suffer immigration consequences. Governors can provide leadership to the president and to each other by including immigrants in their clemency orders. Everyone — including immigrants — should have a true second chance.
Clemency exists because we get things wrong as a nation — our governments adopt ruinous policies and harm the people they govern. The death penalty is always racist, arbitrary, and wrong. The death penalty has normalized harsh sentences — which drive mass incarceration and disproportionately harm communities of color, especially Black communities. Clemency is one way our elected leaders can provide a modicum of delayed justice for thousands of people they are meant to serve and send a powerful message: no person is disposable.
As Gov. Brown has shown, executive clemency means choosing mercy over retribution, and redemption over damnation.
When I graduated from nursing school five years ago, I worked for an agency in New York City’s foster care system. I believed I was helping families. But what I saw there was not a system working for children’s best interests, but one that was quick to separate children from their parents because they were living in poverty.
I’ve since gone to law school and now work as a human rights advocate. For the past year, as a fellow with Human Rights Watch and the ACLU, I have been investigating the system I once worked for — not just in New York, but across the country.
We found that child welfare systems punish families experiencing poverty by removing children and charging parents with “neglect.” Our analysis of nationwide child welfare data showed alarming racial and ethnic disparities. Black and Indigenous families are more likely to be investigated than white families. Single mothers of color are most frequently held responsible for neglect. Parents are often not told their rights or connected with an attorney early enough in the process.
Every year, more than three million children are subjected to a child welfare investigation. The process can be highly stressful and traumatic for families. Child welfare authorities may search the family’s home, interrogate neighbors, strip search and question children — sometimes based on anonymous or unfounded accusations.
Most referrals to the system do not involve abuse. The overwhelming majority of cases, nearly 75 percent in 2019, include allegations of state-defined neglect, which is inextricably linked to poverty. Parents struggling with limited resources, unable to pay rent or secure stable housing, or working long hours to make ends meet, are judged unfit and neglectful.
As a registered nurse in New York, I was required to report any concerns about child abuse or neglect to the state child protective services hotline, or risk losing my license and facing harsh criminal penalties. Every state has a similar requirement.
But broad and vague state definitions of abuse and neglect mean that teachers, social workers, and healthcare providers are required to report families out of an abundance of caution, even if our professional training and clinical judgment dictate otherwise.
Millions of reports are made every year, overwhelming an already burdened child welfare system. Most do not warrant an investigation.
Black children make up just 14 percent of the U.S. child population, but 24 percent of child abuse or neglect reports.
We found a clear correlation between child welfare investigations and poverty, as counties with more families living in poverty have higher rates of investigation. Black families, however, experience a high rate of maltreatment investigations even when living in counties where the poverty rate is low.
Black children make up just 14 percent of the U.S. child population but 24 percent of child abuse or neglect reports and 21 percent of children entering the foster system. Indigenous children are also disproportionately affected. They enter the foster system at nearly double the nationwide rate.
I’ve talked to parents who only learned about a child maltreatment allegation against them when a caseworker showed up on their doorstep. Often, the caseworker assigned to reunify a family is also responsible for making the case to terminate parental rights and place a child for adoption. These roles are inherently at odds. Caseworkers tasked with documenting parents’ struggles and shortcomings to build a case against them are, at the same time, expected to somehow support family reunification.
Caseworkers have significant influence in determining whether maltreatment occurred. If a caseworker “substantiates” an allegation, parents or caregivers are listed on a state central maltreatment registry, where they often remain for years, affecting job opportunities and perpetuating the cycle of poverty.
Of course, there are devastating cases where children face serious abuse and intervention is needed. The problem, however, is that the system we have now is not designed to effectively keep children safe. Instead, the system puts parents, especially single mothers of color, in the impossible situation of having to overcome poverty in order to stop being monitored and to reunite with their children, without providing them the resources necessary to do so.
The entire system needs an overhaul. Lawmakers should address the extreme economic hardship and systemic racism at the heart of many child welfare cases. Federal, state, and local governments should invest in community resources and support that addresses families’ needs instead of punishing and surveilling them.
When I graduated from nursing school five years ago, I worked for an agency in New York City’s foster care system. I believed I was helping families. But what I saw there was not a system working for children’s best interests, but one that was quick to separate children from their parents because they were living in poverty.
I’ve since gone to law school and now work as a human rights advocate. For the past year, as a fellow with Human Rights Watch and the ACLU, I have been investigating the system I once worked for — not just in New York, but across the country.
We found that child welfare systems punish families experiencing poverty by removing children and charging parents with “neglect.” Our analysis of nationwide child welfare data showed alarming racial and ethnic disparities. Black and Indigenous families are more likely to be investigated than white families. Single mothers of color are most frequently held responsible for neglect. Parents are often not told their rights or connected with an attorney early enough in the process.
Every year, more than three million children are subjected to a child welfare investigation. The process can be highly stressful and traumatic for families. Child welfare authorities may search the family’s home, interrogate neighbors, strip search and question children — sometimes based on anonymous or unfounded accusations.
Most referrals to the system do not involve abuse. The overwhelming majority of cases, nearly 75 percent in 2019, include allegations of state-defined neglect, which is inextricably linked to poverty. Parents struggling with limited resources, unable to pay rent or secure stable housing, or working long hours to make ends meet, are judged unfit and neglectful.
As a registered nurse in New York, I was required to report any concerns about child abuse or neglect to the state child protective services hotline, or risk losing my license and facing harsh criminal penalties. Every state has a similar requirement.
But broad and vague state definitions of abuse and neglect mean that teachers, social workers, and healthcare providers are required to report families out of an abundance of caution, even if our professional training and clinical judgment dictate otherwise.
Millions of reports are made every year, overwhelming an already burdened child welfare system. Most do not warrant an investigation.
Black children make up just 14 percent of the U.S. child population, but 24 percent of child abuse or neglect reports.
We found a clear correlation between child welfare investigations and poverty, as counties with more families living in poverty have higher rates of investigation. Black families, however, experience a high rate of maltreatment investigations even when living in counties where the poverty rate is low.
Black children make up just 14 percent of the U.S. child population but 24 percent of child abuse or neglect reports and 21 percent of children entering the foster system. Indigenous children are also disproportionately affected. They enter the foster system at nearly double the nationwide rate.
I’ve talked to parents who only learned about a child maltreatment allegation against them when a caseworker showed up on their doorstep. Often, the caseworker assigned to reunify a family is also responsible for making the case to terminate parental rights and place a child for adoption. These roles are inherently at odds. Caseworkers tasked with documenting parents’ struggles and shortcomings to build a case against them are, at the same time, expected to somehow support family reunification.
Caseworkers have significant influence in determining whether maltreatment occurred. If a caseworker “substantiates” an allegation, parents or caregivers are listed on a state central maltreatment registry, where they often remain for years, affecting job opportunities and perpetuating the cycle of poverty.
Of course, there are devastating cases where children face serious abuse and intervention is needed. The problem, however, is that the system we have now is not designed to effectively keep children safe. Instead, the system puts parents, especially single mothers of color, in the impossible situation of having to overcome poverty in order to stop being monitored and to reunite with their children, without providing them the resources necessary to do so.
The entire system needs an overhaul. Lawmakers should address the extreme economic hardship and systemic racism at the heart of many child welfare cases. Federal, state, and local governments should invest in community resources and support that addresses families’ needs instead of punishing and surveilling them.
When I graduated from nursing school five years ago, I worked for an agency in New York City’s foster care system. I believed I was helping families. But what I saw there was not a system working for children’s best interests, but one that was quick to separate children from their parents because they were living in poverty.
I’ve since gone to law school and now work as a human rights advocate. For the past year, as a fellow with Human Rights Watch and the ACLU, I have been investigating the system I once worked for — not just in New York, but across the country.
We found that child welfare systems punish families experiencing poverty by removing children and charging parents with “neglect.” Our analysis of nationwide child welfare data showed alarming racial and ethnic disparities. Black and Indigenous families are more likely to be investigated than white families. Single mothers of color are most frequently held responsible for neglect. Parents are often not told their rights or connected with an attorney early enough in the process.
Every year, more than three million children are subjected to a child welfare investigation. The process can be highly stressful and traumatic for families. Child welfare authorities may search the family’s home, interrogate neighbors, strip search and question children — sometimes based on anonymous or unfounded accusations.
Most referrals to the system do not involve abuse. The overwhelming majority of cases, nearly 75 percent in 2019, include allegations of state-defined neglect, which is inextricably linked to poverty. Parents struggling with limited resources, unable to pay rent or secure stable housing, or working long hours to make ends meet, are judged unfit and neglectful.
As a registered nurse in New York, I was required to report any concerns about child abuse or neglect to the state child protective services hotline, or risk losing my license and facing harsh criminal penalties. Every state has a similar requirement.
But broad and vague state definitions of abuse and neglect mean that teachers, social workers, and healthcare providers are required to report families out of an abundance of caution, even if our professional training and clinical judgment dictate otherwise.
Millions of reports are made every year, overwhelming an already burdened child welfare system. Most do not warrant an investigation.
Black children make up just 14 percent of the U.S. child population, but 24 percent of child abuse or neglect reports.
We found a clear correlation between child welfare investigations and poverty, as counties with more families living in poverty have higher rates of investigation. Black families, however, experience a high rate of maltreatment investigations even when living in counties where the poverty rate is low.
Black children make up just 14 percent of the U.S. child population but 24 percent of child abuse or neglect reports and 21 percent of children entering the foster system. Indigenous children are also disproportionately affected. They enter the foster system at nearly double the nationwide rate.
I’ve talked to parents who only learned about a child maltreatment allegation against them when a caseworker showed up on their doorstep. Often, the caseworker assigned to reunify a family is also responsible for making the case to terminate parental rights and place a child for adoption. These roles are inherently at odds. Caseworkers tasked with documenting parents’ struggles and shortcomings to build a case against them are, at the same time, expected to somehow support family reunification.
Caseworkers have significant influence in determining whether maltreatment occurred. If a caseworker “substantiates” an allegation, parents or caregivers are listed on a state central maltreatment registry, where they often remain for years, affecting job opportunities and perpetuating the cycle of poverty.
Of course, there are devastating cases where children face serious abuse and intervention is needed. The problem, however, is that the system we have now is not designed to effectively keep children safe. Instead, the system puts parents, especially single mothers of color, in the impossible situation of having to overcome poverty in order to stop being monitored and to reunite with their children, without providing them the resources necessary to do so.
The entire system needs an overhaul. Lawmakers should address the extreme economic hardship and systemic racism at the heart of many child welfare cases. Federal, state, and local governments should invest in community resources and support that addresses families’ needs instead of punishing and surveilling them.
When I graduated from nursing school five years ago, I worked for an agency in New York City’s foster care system. I believed I was helping families. But what I saw there was not a system working for children’s best interests, but one that was quick to separate children from their parents because they were living in poverty.
I’ve since gone to law school and now work as a human rights advocate. For the past year, as a fellow with Human Rights Watch and the ACLU, I have been investigating the system I once worked for — not just in New York, but across the country.
We found that child welfare systems punish families experiencing poverty by removing children and charging parents with “neglect.” Our analysis of nationwide child welfare data showed alarming racial and ethnic disparities. Black and Indigenous families are more likely to be investigated than white families. Single mothers of color are most frequently held responsible for neglect. Parents are often not told their rights or connected with an attorney early enough in the process.
Every year, more than three million children are subjected to a child welfare investigation. The process can be highly stressful and traumatic for families. Child welfare authorities may search the family’s home, interrogate neighbors, strip search and question children — sometimes based on anonymous or unfounded accusations.
Most referrals to the system do not involve abuse. The overwhelming majority of cases, nearly 75 percent in 2019, include allegations of state-defined neglect, which is inextricably linked to poverty. Parents struggling with limited resources, unable to pay rent or secure stable housing, or working long hours to make ends meet, are judged unfit and neglectful.
As a registered nurse in New York, I was required to report any concerns about child abuse or neglect to the state child protective services hotline, or risk losing my license and facing harsh criminal penalties. Every state has a similar requirement.
But broad and vague state definitions of abuse and neglect mean that teachers, social workers, and healthcare providers are required to report families out of an abundance of caution, even if our professional training and clinical judgment dictate otherwise.
Millions of reports are made every year, overwhelming an already burdened child welfare system. Most do not warrant an investigation.
Black children make up just 14 percent of the U.S. child population, but 24 percent of child abuse or neglect reports.
We found a clear correlation between child welfare investigations and poverty, as counties with more families living in poverty have higher rates of investigation. Black families, however, experience a high rate of maltreatment investigations even when living in counties where the poverty rate is low.
Black children make up just 14 percent of the U.S. child population but 24 percent of child abuse or neglect reports and 21 percent of children entering the foster system. Indigenous children are also disproportionately affected. They enter the foster system at nearly double the nationwide rate.
I’ve talked to parents who only learned about a child maltreatment allegation against them when a caseworker showed up on their doorstep. Often, the caseworker assigned to reunify a family is also responsible for making the case to terminate parental rights and place a child for adoption. These roles are inherently at odds. Caseworkers tasked with documenting parents’ struggles and shortcomings to build a case against them are, at the same time, expected to somehow support family reunification.
Caseworkers have significant influence in determining whether maltreatment occurred. If a caseworker “substantiates” an allegation, parents or caregivers are listed on a state central maltreatment registry, where they often remain for years, affecting job opportunities and perpetuating the cycle of poverty.
Of course, there are devastating cases where children face serious abuse and intervention is needed. The problem, however, is that the system we have now is not designed to effectively keep children safe. Instead, the system puts parents, especially single mothers of color, in the impossible situation of having to overcome poverty in order to stop being monitored and to reunite with their children, without providing them the resources necessary to do so.
The entire system needs an overhaul. Lawmakers should address the extreme economic hardship and systemic racism at the heart of many child welfare cases. Federal, state, and local governments should invest in community resources and support that addresses families’ needs instead of punishing and surveilling them.
Eswatini: Technical Assistance Report on Government Finance Statistics Mission (July 6-12, 2022)
Published December 06, 2022 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
The Federal Government Should Not Waste the Opportunity to Address Algorithmic Discrimination
Automated decision-making systems are increasingly being used to make important decisions in key areas of people’s lives. The vast majority of large employers in the U.S. — including 99 percent of Fortune 500 companies — use software to evaluate job applicants, and once hired, similar software is increasingly used to continuously surveil employees. Ninety percent of landlords use screening services, which are often powered by automated systems, to evaluate potential tenants.
These automated tools are a prevalent and entrenched part of our modern economic and social systems, and there is clear evidence that they can create and enable pervasive harm. For example, the automated tools frequently used by landlords to screen potential tenants are notoriously riddled with errors, locking consumers — disproportionately Black and Latinx renters — out of accessing housing. In the context of employment, the ACLU and other civil rights and technology organizations have repeatedlyraised concerns about hiring discrimination facilitated or exacerbated by these technologies. There are many examples of algorithmically driven or amplified racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and disability discrimination in this area. In financial services, discriminatory automated systems are regularly used in high-stakes areas, impacting people’s ability to access credit and mortgages.
Automated decision-making systems are increasingly being used to make important decisions in key areas of people’s lives.
It is clear that relying on voluntary efforts of companies building and deploying automated decision-making systems has not been and will not be sufficient to address these harms. That’s why last month, the ACLU responded to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s request for comment on harms stemming from commercial surveillance and lax data security practices. We are calling on the commission to adopt binding rules to identify and prevent algorithmic discrimination.
These problems are multi-faceted. Automated decision-making systems are often built and deployed in ecosystems and institutions already marked by entrenched discrimination — including in health care, the criminal legal system, and the family regulation system. Built and evaluated by humans, automated decision-making tools are often developed using data that reflects systemic discrimination and abusive data collection practices. Attempting to predict outcomes based on this data can create feedback loops that further systemic discrimination. These compounding issues can rear their heads throughout an automated decision-making system’s design and deployment. Moreover, these systems are often operated and deployed in such a way that impacted individuals and communities might not even know that they are interacting with these systems, let alone how they work — yet could still be materially affected by the system’s decision-making process and errors.
These automated tools are a prevalent and entrenched part of our modern economic and social systems, and there is clear evidence that they can create and enable pervasive harm.
The commission should establish tailored requirements for companies to undergo independent external audits of their automated decision-making systems. As highlighted in our comment, the commission can adopt these rules to prevent discrimination without contravening the First Amendment or Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The commission should consider requiring companies to adopt a comprehensive auditing framework to govern the use of automated decision-making systems and set clear standards for that framework. That’s because the harms of automated decision-making systems are best assessed as part of holistic efforts to understand the selection, design, and deployment of such tools.
These efforts should include meaningful engagement with people directly impacted by the deployment of automated decision-making systems. Companies should be required to undergo evaluations of the potential risks and harms of their algorithmic systems both before they are built and continuously if they are deployed. When these evaluations demonstrate the potential for algorithmic bias or other harms, companies can and should decommission or terminate the tools. To promote objectivity in evaluating algorithmic systems, these assessments should be carried out by independent external auditors who are provided with meaningful access to internal company systems under appropriate privacy controls.
That’s why last month, the ACLU responded to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s request for comment on harms stemming from commercial surveillance and lax data security practices.
To enact these new rules, the commission should also collaborate with external researchers, advocacy organizations, and other government agencies. For example, the ACLU has previously called for the commission to collaborate with other civil rights agencies to address technology-driven housing discrimination and employment discrimination. New requirements established by the commission can and should co-exist with standards and guidance currently being developed by other agencies, such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Artificial Intelligence (AI) Risk Management Framework. The ACLU recently also provided recommendations to NIST to ensure that the AI Risk Management Framework centers impacted communities in efforts to address the harms of AI systems.
In a digital age, protecting our civil rights and civil liberties demands that we address the harms of algorithmic systems. Strong protections that address algorithmic discrimination have the potential to benefit all people and can make AI systems work better for everyone. The commission should act now to provide much-needed protection from the harms of automated decision-making systems.
