INS Human Rights Record

[CowGal]

RECENT INVESTIGATIONS OF THE INS’ HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD
A number of organizations and agencies examined the human rights record of the INS in the 1990s. These include
human rights monitors such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the American Friends Service Committee
(AFSC); investigative journalists; four Advisory Committees to the US Commission on Civil Rights, and, most
recently, the Citizens Advisory Panel (CAP) established by the INS itself.

1.

In February 1992, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) published Sealing our Borders: The

Human Toll.

12 This covered the period from May 1989 to May 1991 and concluded that significant and serious

abuses had occurred in the enforcement of immigration law, including: psychological or verbal abuse (use of racial
or ethnic insults, rude or abusive language, threats or coercion, and prolonged or aggressive interrogation
techniques); physical abuse (shootings, beatings, sexual assault, injury by vehicles and high-speed chases), at least
seven of which resulted in death; illegal or inappropriate searches (including questioning based solely on ethnic
appearance, entry without warrant or consent, overzealous execution of search warrants, strip searching without
proper motive, and illegal law-enforcement raids); violations of due process (failure to advise persons of legal
rights or eligibility for statutory benefit, denial of access to counsel, and fabrication of evidence); illegal or
inappropriate seizures of persons (unlawful temporary detention, false arrest, and illegal deportations); seizure or
destruction of property; and violations of the rights of Native Americans to cross the border freely.

2.

The Border Patrol was further criticized in a 1993 investigation by the Los Angeles Times13 which found that

the Border Patrol had hired agents with dubious pasts, including criminal records and checkered careers with
police agencies and the military; and pressures to rush agents to the border exacerbated a flawed screening
process. During the 1990s agents were prosecuted or disciplined for numerous offenses including unjustified
shootings, sexual misconduct, beatings, stealing money from prisoners, drug trafficking, embezzlement, perjury and
indecent exposure. Widespread illicit shooting by agents, and subsequent cover-ups, were a serious concern in
the solitary stretches of Arizona desert where agents focused on interdicting drug smugglers. Fear of retaliation
and a deficient complaint process discouraged victims and witnesses from reporting abuses. Internal investigations
of wrongdoing and discipline of agents were slow and erratic; weak oversight permitted agents to remain on duty
despite lengthy records of alleged misconduct.

3.

Between May 1992 and April 1997, HRW published five reports on the subject of human rights abuses along

the US-Mexico border, the last of which described the treatment of unaccompanied children detained by the

INS.14 These reports presented an extremely disturbing picture of an agency out of control. HRW reported dozens

nstances of people shot and killed or injured by the Border Patrol; violations of the INS’ firearms policies on
use of lethal force; sexual assaults, beatings and other ill-treatment of detainees; a code of silence by which
officers refused to testify against colleagues accused of wrongdoing; and virtual impunity for agents, regardless
of their actions. HRW was also extremely critical of the INS complaint procedures.

4.

In May 1997, four State Advisory Committees to the United States Commission on Civil Rights (Arizona,

California, New Mexico and Texas) published a report based on fact-finding meetings held in 1992 and 1993, and
subsequent research.The principal findings were that a pattern of abusive treatment by Border Patrol officials
might exist, and the sheer statistical numbers and severity of abuse complaints were “a cause of deep
concern.”Also that existing mechanisms for redress of alleged misconduct by Federal immigration officers were
“inadequate, inaccessible and lack the confidence of the communities most directly affected.” The Advisory
Committees’ report concluded, “It is...of critical importance that this agency rebuild its professional reputation
based on respect for individual rights, including those of minorities and immigrants, with or without
documentation.”

15

5.

In 1994 a Citizens Advisory Panel (CAP) was established by the INS to respond to concerns of the kind

described above. INS Commissioner Doris Meissner asked the panel to research the problems of abuse and
misconduct, and recommend to the Attorney General solutions and suggestions on ways to eliminate legitimate
causes for complaints, and to improve, where necessary, the complaint review and response procedures. The
panel was also asked to make recommendations on community policing and training initiatives for law enforcement
personnel in order to strengthen the relationship between the INS and the community. The panel comprised five
Department of Justice officials, nine private citizens and one non-voting representative from the Government of
Mexico. The panel presented its final report and recommendations to Attorney General Janet Reno on 30
September 1997. Two priority areas emerged: 1) the INS complaint process; and 2) the development of a culture
of professionalism among INS staff through training for current and new employees, as well as supervisory

initiatives. All the CAP recommendations are listed in Appendix II.

[CowGal]

View the complete document here:

Powered by Google Docs