Well, I arrived at the LCHR ready to work on my projects. However, the doors were locked, the lights were off, and I had no idea what I was supposed to do. I knew that Angie and Margie would not be there, but I was told that I could still get in to work, but that was not the case.
I waited for two hours, thinking that the AmeriCorps volunteer would come, but my patience did not help.
So, I went back to UNL and worked on my journal entries and other human rights work.
Next week will be more productive. =)
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Update from the LCHR about Immigration and Homeland Security
Important News!
DHS Announces Indefinite Suspension Of Controversial And Ineffective Immigrant Registration And Tracking System
April 27, 2011
Program’s End Is Welcome And Long Overdue But Work Remains For DHS To Repair Damage, Says ACLU
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org
WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security today, in a long-overdue announcement, said it will indefinitely suspend the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). Instituted in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, NSEERS was a domestic immigration enforcement program targeting men and boys from predominantly Arab- and Muslim-majority nations for extraordinary registration requirements with DHS. The program was repeatedly condemned by the United Nations’ Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination as resulting in widespread profiling of tens of thousands of immigrants from Arab- and Muslim-majority countries.
Although conceived as a program to prevent terrorist attacks, NSEERS proved woefully ineffective as a counterterrorism tool. Among the tens of thousands of men and boys forced to register under NSEERS, none were ever convicted by the U.S. government for a terrorism-related crime. In practice, NSEERS led to the deportations of thousands of people from Arab- and Muslim-majority countries for civil immigration violations, and brought an abrupt end to their productive jobs, property ownership and community ties, including to U.S. citizen family members. It also caused unlawful profiling, arrest and detention of individuals who were not even required to register under the program. The American Civil Liberties Union represented one such individual, an Iraqi refugee who was pulled off an Amtrak train by border patrol agents while en route to Washington, D.C. from Seattle. He was arrested, handcuffed and imprisoned in a Montana jail for nearly a week for failure to register under NSEERS even though as a lawfully admitted refugee he was not required to do so. The government ultimately acknowledged its error and agreed to pay him damages.
The following can be attributed to Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:
“While the ACLU welcomes this long-awaited announcement by DHS to suspend NSEERS indefinitely, there remains much damage to rectify from NSEERS’ discriminatory immigration enforcement. During the past nine years, NSEERS inflicted enormous costs on those people subject to special registration and eroded our government's commitment to the principle of equal protection in law enforcement. The federal government must now work to remedy these injustices and take every available step to reverse the adverse immigration consequences that resulted from individuals being subjected to special registration under NSEERS.”
The following can be attributed to Joanne Lin, ACLU Legislative Counsel:
“Though DHS has made great progress in indefinitely suspending NSEERS, today’s move simply delists the affected countries and leaves the door open for renewed registration in the future. DHS should completely scrap this program and draw the appropriate lesson from the failure of NSEERS for its larger immigration enforcement strategy. Dragnet immigration enforcement programs that ignore lawful individual grounds for suspicion in favor of enabling group-based profiling are counter-productive to the goals of promoting public safety and national security and contrary to American values.”
Published on American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org/)
Source URL: http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/dhs-announces-indefinite-suspension-controversial-and-ineffective-immigrant-regist
DHS Announces Indefinite Suspension Of Controversial And Ineffective Immigrant Registration And Tracking System
April 27, 2011
Program’s End Is Welcome And Long Overdue But Work Remains For DHS To Repair Damage, Says ACLU
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org
WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security today, in a long-overdue announcement, said it will indefinitely suspend the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). Instituted in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, NSEERS was a domestic immigration enforcement program targeting men and boys from predominantly Arab- and Muslim-majority nations for extraordinary registration requirements with DHS. The program was repeatedly condemned by the United Nations’ Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination as resulting in widespread profiling of tens of thousands of immigrants from Arab- and Muslim-majority countries.
Although conceived as a program to prevent terrorist attacks, NSEERS proved woefully ineffective as a counterterrorism tool. Among the tens of thousands of men and boys forced to register under NSEERS, none were ever convicted by the U.S. government for a terrorism-related crime. In practice, NSEERS led to the deportations of thousands of people from Arab- and Muslim-majority countries for civil immigration violations, and brought an abrupt end to their productive jobs, property ownership and community ties, including to U.S. citizen family members. It also caused unlawful profiling, arrest and detention of individuals who were not even required to register under the program. The American Civil Liberties Union represented one such individual, an Iraqi refugee who was pulled off an Amtrak train by border patrol agents while en route to Washington, D.C. from Seattle. He was arrested, handcuffed and imprisoned in a Montana jail for nearly a week for failure to register under NSEERS even though as a lawfully admitted refugee he was not required to do so. The government ultimately acknowledged its error and agreed to pay him damages.
The following can be attributed to Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:
“While the ACLU welcomes this long-awaited announcement by DHS to suspend NSEERS indefinitely, there remains much damage to rectify from NSEERS’ discriminatory immigration enforcement. During the past nine years, NSEERS inflicted enormous costs on those people subject to special registration and eroded our government's commitment to the principle of equal protection in law enforcement. The federal government must now work to remedy these injustices and take every available step to reverse the adverse immigration consequences that resulted from individuals being subjected to special registration under NSEERS.”
The following can be attributed to Joanne Lin, ACLU Legislative Counsel:
“Though DHS has made great progress in indefinitely suspending NSEERS, today’s move simply delists the affected countries and leaves the door open for renewed registration in the future. DHS should completely scrap this program and draw the appropriate lesson from the failure of NSEERS for its larger immigration enforcement strategy. Dragnet immigration enforcement programs that ignore lawful individual grounds for suspicion in favor of enabling group-based profiling are counter-productive to the goals of promoting public safety and national security and contrary to American values.”
Published on American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org/)
Source URL: http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/dhs-announces-indefinite-suspension-controversial-and-ineffective-immigrant-regist
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Important Documentary on Human Rights: Standing Bear
|
| ||||
| |||||
| | |||||
| |||||
| | |||||
| |||||
| | |||||
| |||||
| |||||
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
April 14th: Commission day!
Today is another exciting day because it is Commission day!
When I arrived, I had a nice meeting with Angie about my role within the LCHR as we talked about my experience and thoughts on my internship We agreed that the history project was a lot harder than expected, but my other experiences in and around the office has been fruitful. As I said in my last journal post, I am thankful for this POLS 470 internship because it allowed me to gain a real world, human rights' experience in Lincoln.
Before we went to the commission meeting, a gentleman walked into the office who recently won his case. Angie invited me to attend the meeting. I listened to Angie as she relayed the information about his case and told him what he can do. His options included: accepting the decision or pursuing a higher compensation in court. The man decided to accept the LCHR decision and receive the compensation for work-related (employment) discrimination. I am thankful that I was able to hear a successful case and see how it is resolved. Also, the complainant recommended anger management sessions for the restaurant manager as a way to prevent further acts of discrimination (restorative justice/resolution in action!)
After this meeting, I worked on boxing up old cases and coordinating the data base, so the move goes smoothly. This project kept me busy until it was time to leave for the commission.
When I arrived, the city attorney was giving everyone a tour of the new LCHR and attorney office space. I was very excited to see this new space because it places LCHR in the heart of what is going on in the city of Lincoln. The people of Lincoln are able to have a central location to make their complaints of discrimination, and the investigators can communicate with the Attorney's Office whenever they need advice. I am very happy for the future of the LCHR.
After the tour, we all assembled for the commission hearing in the City Council Chambers. The agenda was packed, but business went very fast because the cases were prepared with no errors. The commission quickly passed seven No Reasonable Cause cases. Hear is a quick summary of the content:
1.) Black male claims race discrimination but did not have sufficient evidence. The evidence communicated his poor work performance.
2.) 64yr old female claims sex/age discrimination, but the evidence does not support her claim.
3.) Female claims sex discrimination, but the evidence does not support her cases, especially since she quit her job and was not fired.
4.) Female claims sex discrimination, but she also quit her position.
5.) 58yr old female claims sex discrimination, but her work performance does not support discrimination claim.
6.) Mom filed case for her son which claims race discrimination, but the son was not willing to work with the store schedule (as advertised).
7.) Black female claims race and sex discrimination, but she did have sufficient evidence to support her claim.
After those cases, the commission unanimously vote on the pre-determination cases. Later the commission passed through two failure to cooperate cases.
Then, they talked about the new office space, and I talked about the difficult history project and introduced myself, again, to the new commissioners. More importantly, the city attorney informed everyone that the LCHR will get a new director because of the community-wide support to find a replacement.
The meeting was adjourned, and I went back to UNL. It was a great day!
When I arrived, I had a nice meeting with Angie about my role within the LCHR as we talked about my experience and thoughts on my internship We agreed that the history project was a lot harder than expected, but my other experiences in and around the office has been fruitful. As I said in my last journal post, I am thankful for this POLS 470 internship because it allowed me to gain a real world, human rights' experience in Lincoln.
Before we went to the commission meeting, a gentleman walked into the office who recently won his case. Angie invited me to attend the meeting. I listened to Angie as she relayed the information about his case and told him what he can do. His options included: accepting the decision or pursuing a higher compensation in court. The man decided to accept the LCHR decision and receive the compensation for work-related (employment) discrimination. I am thankful that I was able to hear a successful case and see how it is resolved. Also, the complainant recommended anger management sessions for the restaurant manager as a way to prevent further acts of discrimination (restorative justice/resolution in action!)
After this meeting, I worked on boxing up old cases and coordinating the data base, so the move goes smoothly. This project kept me busy until it was time to leave for the commission.
When I arrived, the city attorney was giving everyone a tour of the new LCHR and attorney office space. I was very excited to see this new space because it places LCHR in the heart of what is going on in the city of Lincoln. The people of Lincoln are able to have a central location to make their complaints of discrimination, and the investigators can communicate with the Attorney's Office whenever they need advice. I am very happy for the future of the LCHR.
After the tour, we all assembled for the commission hearing in the City Council Chambers. The agenda was packed, but business went very fast because the cases were prepared with no errors. The commission quickly passed seven No Reasonable Cause cases. Hear is a quick summary of the content:
1.) Black male claims race discrimination but did not have sufficient evidence. The evidence communicated his poor work performance.
2.) 64yr old female claims sex/age discrimination, but the evidence does not support her claim.
3.) Female claims sex discrimination, but the evidence does not support her cases, especially since she quit her job and was not fired.
4.) Female claims sex discrimination, but she also quit her position.
5.) 58yr old female claims sex discrimination, but her work performance does not support discrimination claim.
6.) Mom filed case for her son which claims race discrimination, but the son was not willing to work with the store schedule (as advertised).
7.) Black female claims race and sex discrimination, but she did have sufficient evidence to support her claim.
After those cases, the commission unanimously vote on the pre-determination cases. Later the commission passed through two failure to cooperate cases.
Then, they talked about the new office space, and I talked about the difficult history project and introduced myself, again, to the new commissioners. More importantly, the city attorney informed everyone that the LCHR will get a new director because of the community-wide support to find a replacement.
The meeting was adjourned, and I went back to UNL. It was a great day!
April 7th: Working away at the LCHR! =)
This Thursday was very productive. I was able to work on multiple projects in the office.
Some of these projects included: boxing up LCHR files, organizing things for the move to the City Building, and shredding (lots and lots of shredding). =)
I was happy to help with some of the mundane work around the office because I know it frees up time for Margie, Angie, and Regina to work on cases. These ladies do a lot work with few resources, and I am impressed to witness how they are able to go through so many cases in a year, especially without a LCHR director replacement.
Throughout the afternoon, I was able to talk with Angie about the cases she was working on at the time. Her willingness to explain and share information about the LCHR and her cases was an unique privilege, and I am happy for what this internship has shown me over the last semester while I interned at the LCHR.
Some of these projects included: boxing up LCHR files, organizing things for the move to the City Building, and shredding (lots and lots of shredding). =)
I was happy to help with some of the mundane work around the office because I know it frees up time for Margie, Angie, and Regina to work on cases. These ladies do a lot work with few resources, and I am impressed to witness how they are able to go through so many cases in a year, especially without a LCHR director replacement.
Throughout the afternoon, I was able to talk with Angie about the cases she was working on at the time. Her willingness to explain and share information about the LCHR and her cases was an unique privilege, and I am happy for what this internship has shown me over the last semester while I interned at the LCHR.
Monday, April 25, 2011
March 31st: Commission on Human Rights Meeting
Today was an exciting day. I was able to meet with Angie and Margie right away and get debriefed on the cases being heard by the Commission. With each case, I received the details of the complainants and those accused of discrimination. This experience was fascinating, and I learned a lot from this day.
With this journal, I attached a brief summary of some cases (minus specifics) and the agenda.
As I listened to Angie, I learned about the history of each case and the formation of evidence as well as her personal thoughts about the cases. It is very important to remain unbiased while working on these cases, especially investigators like Angie and Margie. When a complainant files a case with the LCHR, the investigators go through an intensive process of gathering information, and when they are done they will finalize their decision: Reasonable Cause, No Reasonable Cause, Pre-Determination Settlements, Withdrawal, or Failure to Cooperate. The majority of the cases fall within the No Reasonable Cause category because there needs to be a sufficient amount of evidence to carry the case to another judicial hearing process, and it is difficult to find enough evidence: written forms of discrimination, multiple witnesses to harassment, etc.
After learning about the various cases, I went to work on the computer. I did some data base work, and I helped box up more LCHR stuff. This was fun because it is an exciting time for the staff as they move the Lincoln City Office Building. There new location is more spacious, located down the hall from the Mayor's Office, and they will be within the City Attorney's area. (more info. in the near future)
When 3:30pm came around, the office went to the City Building and prepared for the Commissioners meeting. Before the meeting, I was able to talk with some of the Commissioners and learn about their reasons for serving the city. I really enjoyed talking with the commissioners while they took their places in the City Council Chamber.
They approved the old minutes and the new agenda, and they went into the Case Dispositions. All four cases were sent with the recommendation of No Reasonable Cause. These four cases dealt with employment conflicts. One case, in particular, is worth mentioning.
A female complainant filed a case based on sex discrimination after she was denied a promotion for a position she was qualified. The defendant argued that she didn't meet the expectations of the interview board, despite a member telling her that she was the best applicant. The position went to a male, and the complainant felt she was didn't receive equal treatment. (Important facts: 1. the complainant reported the case despite the risk of retaliation 2. the complainant makes more than 100K in her current position 3. No females have ever held the position that she applied for) The Commissioners decided to table this issue because they wanted to have further research.
The meeting continued with the pre-determination settlement and withdrawal cases. Then, the commission moved into the report about the new Human Rights Space in the city building (very cool), and they talked about the recent Civil Rights Conference (hosted by the LCHR last week).
During the public comment, I introduced myself to the commission and told them about my temporary role with LCHR this Spring. They congratulated and welcomed me, and the meeting was adjourned.
I. Roll Call
II. Approval of minutes of February 24, 2011 Commission Meeting
III. Approval of agenda for March 31, 2011 Commission Meeting
IV. Case Dispositions
V. Administrative Closures
VI. Old Business
VII. New Business
VIII. Public Comment
Adjournment
With this journal, I attached a brief summary of some cases (minus specifics) and the agenda.
As I listened to Angie, I learned about the history of each case and the formation of evidence as well as her personal thoughts about the cases. It is very important to remain unbiased while working on these cases, especially investigators like Angie and Margie. When a complainant files a case with the LCHR, the investigators go through an intensive process of gathering information, and when they are done they will finalize their decision: Reasonable Cause, No Reasonable Cause, Pre-Determination Settlements, Withdrawal, or Failure to Cooperate. The majority of the cases fall within the No Reasonable Cause category because there needs to be a sufficient amount of evidence to carry the case to another judicial hearing process, and it is difficult to find enough evidence: written forms of discrimination, multiple witnesses to harassment, etc.
After learning about the various cases, I went to work on the computer. I did some data base work, and I helped box up more LCHR stuff. This was fun because it is an exciting time for the staff as they move the Lincoln City Office Building. There new location is more spacious, located down the hall from the Mayor's Office, and they will be within the City Attorney's area. (more info. in the near future)
When 3:30pm came around, the office went to the City Building and prepared for the Commissioners meeting. Before the meeting, I was able to talk with some of the Commissioners and learn about their reasons for serving the city. I really enjoyed talking with the commissioners while they took their places in the City Council Chamber.
They approved the old minutes and the new agenda, and they went into the Case Dispositions. All four cases were sent with the recommendation of No Reasonable Cause. These four cases dealt with employment conflicts. One case, in particular, is worth mentioning.
A female complainant filed a case based on sex discrimination after she was denied a promotion for a position she was qualified. The defendant argued that she didn't meet the expectations of the interview board, despite a member telling her that she was the best applicant. The position went to a male, and the complainant felt she was didn't receive equal treatment. (Important facts: 1. the complainant reported the case despite the risk of retaliation 2. the complainant makes more than 100K in her current position 3. No females have ever held the position that she applied for) The Commissioners decided to table this issue because they wanted to have further research.
The meeting continued with the pre-determination settlement and withdrawal cases. Then, the commission moved into the report about the new Human Rights Space in the city building (very cool), and they talked about the recent Civil Rights Conference (hosted by the LCHR last week).
During the public comment, I introduced myself to the commission and told them about my temporary role with LCHR this Spring. They congratulated and welcomed me, and the meeting was adjourned.
I. Roll Call
II. Approval of minutes of February 24, 2011 Commission Meeting
III. Approval of agenda for March 31, 2011 Commission Meeting
IV. Case Dispositions
V. Administrative Closures
VI. Old Business
VII. New Business
VIII. Public Comment
Adjournment
March 24th: Spring Break
There is not a lot to say about this week because UNL was on Spring Break, and I went home to spend time with my family. I looked into the history project, but I took advantage of a nice break.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)