Landmark Stateless Conference in Geneva this Week

As mentioned a few weeks ago, the UNHCR is holding its major conference on forced displacement and statelessness this week in Geneva. Today is the second day of the conference, and of course we are all eagerly waiting to hear what is in store (and especially whether any states will be making announcements pertaining to Treaty signatures). However, a lot has already happened, so here is a quick recap for those of us not lucky enough to be in Geneva.

•  High Commish Antonio Guterres opened the event with a speech emphasizing re-commitment, especially in the face of increased fear and intolerance. "Populist politicians and irresponsible elements of the media exploit feelings of fear and insecurity to scapegoat foreigners, to try to force the adoption of restrictive policies, and to actively spread racist and xenophobic sentiments," he said, in a comment that was a little more political than one is used to hearing from UNHCR. He emphasized the principles of collective security and non-refoulement that underlie the refugee regime, and announced a new effort by the organization to concentrate more heavily on gender and sex-based violence.
• A theme of the conference was "pledges for refugees:" States were encouraged to make commitments to strengthen existing laws or create new ones designed to identity and protect stateless persons and refugees. Most of the attendees apparently pledged to help in one way or another. (See some on twitter, #pledges4refugees")
• Sarnata Reynolds was live-tweeting the events yesterday and her tweets are definitely worth a perusal. Among the revelations: Georgia is about to pass the 1951 Statelessness Convention (YES!), Korea will adopt legislation promoting rights of asylum-seekers, Papa New Guinea will lift reservations on conventions (among other things), and Krygistan will promote child registration to reduce statelessness. If even some of the pledges are kept, the conference will have been a huge success!
• Serbia mysteriously alluded to new changes to the citizenship laws that would "enable all persons in Serbia’s territory to acquire citizenship". I'm working on this issue right now, so I am very curious to what they are referring... Remarks available here.
• U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech focusing on gender and statelessness, highlighting the link between discriminatory citizenship laws and children born stateless. "Because of these discriminatory laws, women often can’t register their marriages, the births of their children, or deaths in their families. So these laws perpetuate generations of stateless people, who are often unable to work legally or travel freely..."  She then went on to pledge the US's support in encouraging universal birth registration. Oh man, if loving Hillary Clinton is wrong, I don't want to be right. (Full text of speech available here.)

The conference continues today! You can follow it live via satelite here at the UNHCR's livestream.

Two New Lawsuits Shed Light on Immigrant Injustice in the States

On the same day last week two major non-profit organizations filed suit in the US over fairly shocking circumstances relating to immigrants and refugees. If they win, we could see some excellent new case law on immigrant rights. Here's a quick run-down.

Florida Tuition Inequality
In Ruiz v. Robinson (complaint) the Southern Poverty Law Center is suing the Florida Board of Education for a policy that, according to the suit, "treat[s] United States citizen students who reside in Florida as “non-residents” solely because their parents are undocumented immigrants." The effect of this policy is to hike tuition prices up to out-of-state rates (i.e., triple the cost for residents), and moreover, to discourage children of undocumented immigrants from attending college. Here's an example of the effect of the policy, as seen through plaintiff Caroline Roa:

...After Caroline was accepted to Miami Dade College, school officials informed her that she did not qualify for in-state tuition, even though she had resided in Miami-Dade County since birth. School officials explained to Caroline that her residency for tuition purposes was based on her father’s legal residence. Because Caroline could not show proof of her father’s legal immigration presence in the United States, she could not qualify for in-state tuition rates. Unable to afford non-resident tuition rates, Caroline has not enrolled in college. Instead, she works two jobs in the hope of one day being able to afford college.

Interestingly, the class action suit takes a dual legal track- SPLC challenges the policy under the 14th amendment's equal protection clause, but they also bring a federal preemption claim under the Supremacy Clause. In other words, they argue Florida's attempts to deny residency to the children of undocumented immigrants represents an impermissible attempt to regulate immigration- a field squarely within the exclusive domain of the federal government.

In my opinion, the equal protection argument is a slam dunk- these children are clearly being treated differently then other similarly situated children on the basis of their parent's immigration status... its going to be difficult for Florida to come up with a compelling justification for that which makes logical sense. The federal preemption argument, on the other hand, is a touchy subject. It has been a bumpy road for cases using this claim before, and now more than ever, with so many pending challenges to state statutes regulating immigration in some way, it will be interesting to see how the argument fares. One could suspect this case makes the point clearly, that when states try to regulate immigration they end up doing things that hurt citizens as well as non-citizens.

Sex Abuse in Immigration Detention
The second case is being brought by the ACLU against a Texas corrections facility, workers there, and the ICE for allegations of sexual assault against immigrants detained there. (Oy.) Essentially, the ACLU found hundreds of such allegations after filing a Freedom of Information Act request with ICE and Homeland Security. Although such allegations were found in every state, Texas had by far the most, and is thus the focus of the suit. An example of one of the stories can be found here. (Warning: graphic.)

Even more tragically, the plaintiffs named in the suit were asylum seekers escaping sexual violence in their home countries. It is ridiculous that people have to face this additional hardship in detention centers and it is obviously a violation of their human rights and basic tort law. I think this case will have no problem succeeding, but it remains to be seen how to protect the thousands of immigrants in custody all over the US from such horror. One way may be a legislative angle- extending the Prison Rape Elimination Act to immigrant detainees. The Act, passed by President Bush in 2003, establishes a national commission to prevent prison rape, assists with data sharing, and makes prevention a major priority for each prison system-- except for in immigration detention.

Here is a petition from the ACLU to President Obama asking them, as a first step, to extend the Prison Rape Elimination Act to all prisoners in the US: "President Obama: Protect Women Held in US Custody from Rampant Sexual Abuse"

****
What these two cases have in common is that they focus on rather non-contentious ways of preventing discrimination against immigrants. After all, the first case actually focuses on US citizens (though it arguably helps their undocumented parents), and the second reiterates a minimum standard for detention that should not even really be at issue, bodily integrity. There are much deeper problems facing the  American immigration system at the moment, but these two cases will hopefully be big wins that pave the way for more aggressive strategies in the fight to protect undocumented immigrants.