By The American Immigration Council

The Torrance County Detention Facility (Torrance) is one of approximately 200 facilities across the United States where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detains immigrants with pending removal proceedings. Located in the rural New Mexico desert, this detention facility holds a notorious reputation for its inhumane living conditions and for the speed at which individuals detained there go through their removal proceedings, often without adequate legal counsel. Despite these noted abuses, in September 2021, ICE placed over 100 Haitian migrants into Torrance while they awaited removal proceedings. For months thereafter, the media continued to report on a variety of obstacles Haitians endured in detention including inadequate access to legal counsel.

Due to the increase in complaints from individuals being held at Torrance, the American Immigration Council (The Council) sought to ascertain whether particular barriers to due process exist for Haitian nationals, as well as to investigate the overall treatment of Haitian nationals at Torrance. The request sought data related to individuals detained at Torrance from January 1, 2021, including arrest/apprehension information, immigration status, biographic information, detention history, and release information. ICE responded by providing data between January 1, 2021 and November 17, 2022, and this is what we found when we analyzed it:

ICE's Use of Racial Classifications Are Unreliable, Labeling Most Detained Individuals “White:” Individuals in detention at Torrance represented 54 different countries spanning five different continents. However, 86 percent of individuals detained at Torrance were categorized as racially “white.” The data suggests that ICE failed to systematically document the race of detained individuals.

Africans Had the Highest Lengths of Detention at Torrance: Because ICE’s race categorizations proved unreliable, researchers grouped detained individuals by continent to measure the impact geographic location has on detention lengths. The data showed that African migrants had the highest lengths of detention.

ICE Officers Continued to Populate Torrance Despite Multiple Warnings: During the reviewed time period, ICE had substantial warning signs that Torrance was not equipped to house detained migrants through failed inspections, COVID surges, staffing shortages, and even

government oversight agency reports recommending shutting the facility down. Despite these warning signs, the data showed that ICE continued to detain migrants at Torrance, putting them at risk.

Oversight Efforts Seemingly Reduced the Detained Population at Torrance—But Only Temporarily: The data shows that between August and November 2022, a period that included the suicide of Kesley Vial at Torrance and a government report calling for the closing of Torrance, the population of Torrance consistently decreased. However, in December 2022, ICE began repopulating the facility.

Washington, DC: The American Immigration Council, 2024. Published: October 24, 2024

By Anniina Jokinen, Anna-Greta Pekkarinen, Jessiina Rantanen

Forced marriage is a multifaceted phenomenon encompassing sev - eral intersecting factors that relate to situations in which individu - als are compelled to marry or stay married against their will. Forced marriage is widely recognized as a violation of human rights and in particular as a form of gender-based violence and honour-based vio - lence. The harms and negative consequences of forced marriages are multifold and challenge many service providers as well as the crimi - nal justice system. This report outlines the concrete challenges, factors and con - cepts that must be addressed when developing effective responses to tackle forced marriages and providing support to victims and persons affected. It is targeted towards various professionals and practitioners who may encounter victims of forced marriage or persons, families or communities affected by the phenomenon in their line of work. The content is based on a desk review of academic and other relevant liter - ature, as well information collected by the EASY project partners: the European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, affiliated with the United Nations (HEUNI), University of Lleida (Spain), Associació Valentes I Acompanyades (Spain), SOLWODI (Germany), and the Im - migrant Council of Ireland, to identify approaches that have relevance in the development of effective and victim-centred interventions for victims of forced marriages. The best practices were collected mainly via semi-structured (individual or group) interviews with experts and/or survivors, that were based on a shared interview framework. The interviews were conducted in the summer and autumn of 2023.1 The experts interviewed included, e.g., NGO representatives and counsellors working with topics related to forced marriage, migrant women’s rights, honor-based violence and human trafficking, shelter/residential counsellors, government officials and policymakers, and law enforcement authorities from Finland, Germany, Ireland, and Catalonia (Spain). The survivors interviewed included, e.g., victim-survivors who work as mentors and/or had been supported by the interviewing organisation. Throughout the report there are quotes from the interviews to demonstrate the challenges, experiences and solutions identified. Table 1. Number of persons interviewed to collect best practices by each country and in total. The best practices collected were also shared and discussed with partners in a best practice workshop hosted by SOLWODI in Bonn, Germany on 20–21 November 2023. Each partner identified 4–8 best practices with a focus on themes such as proactive methods to identify victims, engaging with persons from impacted communities and reducing the risk of forced marriage; ways to support and assist victims; training and awareness-raising activities targeting professionals; multi-agency collaboration at local, national and international levels; and municipal, regional or national strategies to tackle or address honor-related violence and/or forced marriages. Ten of the collected best practices were selected and summarised for this publication. Moreover, in early 2024, the EASY project partners launched a legislative overview which presents the results of comparative desk research on the legal approach to forced marriage in Germany, Finland, Ireland and Spain (Villacampa and Salat 2023). Therefore, this report does not cover legislative frameworks and procedures in place in the four countries to address forced marriages and to protect the victims as they are covered in detail in the legislative overview. The two reports are complimentary. The ultimate aim of the EASY project is to enhance support for victims/survivors of forced marriage and strengthen the work against forced marriage in the four partner countries.

Helsinki: European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, affiliated with the United Nations (HEUNI) HEUNI, 2024. 58p.

By Human Rights Watch

In December 2024, Saudi Arabia will be awarded the 2034 Men’s World Cup hosting rights, which FIFA has engineered without competition. The tournament is just one of many massive, planned projects requiring immense construction under Vision 2030, such as the $500 billion futuristic NEOM city. “Die First, and I’ll Pay You Later” shows how migrant workers continue to face widespread abuses across employment sectors and geographic regions including exorbitant recruitment fees, wage theft, job immobility, inadequate heat protections and uninvestigated deaths. Saudi authorities promised labor reforms, but the report based on interviews with more than 150 migrant workers and their families shows how Saudi authorities are systematically failing to protect migrant workers and remedy abuses. Migrant workers are the human engine of Saudi Arabia’s massive construction boom. There are 13.4 million migrant workers in the country and planned projects will result in millions more. The report shows how businesses and giga-projects funded by or linked to the Public Investment Fund (PIF), the country’s sovereign wealth fund, are among those exploiting and abusing migrant workers. This blatant failure to protect workers creates a near certainty that the 2034 World Cup will come at a large human cost. The report includes recommendations to the governments of Saudi Arabia and migrant origin countries, as well as to relevant international entities including FIFA, sponsors and businesses looking to profit from Saudi Arabia’s mega- and giga-projects.  

New York: Human Rights Watch, 2024. 130p.

By Human Rights Watch

The Rwandan government has long presided over the torture and ill-treatment of detainees, whether held in official or unofficial detention facilities across the country. In “They Threw Me in the Water”: The Need for Accountability for Torture in Rwanda, Human Rights Watch documents an array of serious human rights abuses, including torture, in detention facilities in Kigali and the west of the country. The case of Innocent Kayumba, the former director of Rubavu and Nyarugenge prisons, convicted on April 5, 2024, for the assault and murder of a detainee at Rubavu prison in 2019 underscores serious failings in the Rwandan judiciary’s response to evidence of torture. The judiciary, as well as the national human rights institution, have largely failed to investigate or address repeated and credible allegations of torture made by detainees and former detainees since at least 2017. While Kayumba’s trial is a significant first step towards breaking the near total impunity around abuse in detention, much more is needed for Rwanda to end the practice and hold accountable those responsible for torture and other ill-treatments in prisons and unofficial detention facilities. Rwanda should comply with the provisions of its own constitution and fulfill its obligations under international human rights law by urgently conducting a comprehensive investigation into torture in prisons, that is capable of leading to both accountability and redress for victims.

New York: Human Rights Watch, 2024. 39p.

By Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International

Amnesty International Kenya and Human Rights Watch document the abuses committed by police and other state agents during the 2023 nationwide protests. The opposition, Azimio La Umoja One Kenya Coalition, organized the protests over alleged fraud and malpractices during the 2022 elections, and against the high cost of living and tax hikes proposed by the new administration of President William Ruto. “Unchecked Injustice” is based on 224 interviews with survivors and witnesses to abuses in Nairobi, Kisumu, Machakos, Migori, Nakuru, Kisii, Nyamira, Homa Bay, Siaya, and Makueni counties. The report documents how police used arbitrary and excessive force against protesters between March-July 2023. They shot directly into crowds with lethal weapons and lesslethal “rubber bullets,” fired tear gas into residential areas and schools, and carried out violent and abusive house-to-house operations, beating and shooting residents, killing at least 31 people. The Independent Policing Oversight Authority, which provides civilian oversight of the work of the police in Kenya, recorded that at least 67 were killed during this period. The report also documents arbitrary arrests, detention, torture and other ill-treatment of people including children under 18, and the long-term health and socio-economic impact of abuses. Amnesty International Kenya and Human Rights Watch call on the Kenyan government to acknowledge, condemn and investigate the killings and use of excessive force by police, and hold to account those credibly implicated in abuses. The government should also introduce credible police reforms.

New York: Human Rights Watch, 2024. 96p.

By Michael Garcia Bochenek

In the last few months of 2017, public defenders working in United States communities along the US-Mexico border began noticing a pattern. Over several months, they had seen an increasing number of people facing criminal charges for irregularly crossing the border arriving in court with a new concern: When these people had a chance to speak in court, their primary worry was not that they were facing prosecution; instead, they were asking the judges where their children were. These public defenders were seeing the early days of the forcible family separation policy put in place by the administration of US President Donald J. Trump and developed in a larger context of overheated, dehumanizing, and at times racist official rhetoric toward migrants. The policy began in March 2017 as a pilot program in and around El Paso, Texas, and was then rolled out along the entire US-Mexico border in early 2018. The policy deployed a minor federal criminal charge—“improper entry”—to force children and parents apart. Its official name, “Zero Tolerance,” referred to Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ directive that every adult who entered the United States irregularly would face prosecution. Criminal charges for improper entry have long been misused as a means of immigration enforcement, raising serious human rights concerns. More than five years before Sessions’ “zero tolerance” directive, improper entry and improper reentry were the most prosecuted federal crimes in the United States. As misguided and abusive as this earlier use of such charges was, it had not deliberately targeted children and their parents. In fact, before mid-2017, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) generally did not request prosecution of parents arriving with their children and federal prosecutors had usually declined to pursue improper entry charges against parents traveling with their children precisely to avoid separating arriving families. The policy developed at Sessions’ directive did not appear primarily aimed at securing convictions. Although a criminal conviction would mean more serious consequences on a subsequent irregular entry, the offense is, as a federal magistrate judge observed, “quite literally one of the least serious federal offenses.”1 The real payoff, as far as the architects of the policy were concerned, was that a criminal charge could be used as a reason to transfer the immediate responsibility for protective care of the child. Parents who faced charges were in the custody of the US Marshals Service. Their children remained in US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detention. The parents were rapidly convicted—some spent less than a minute in front of the judge once their case was called, and most received sentences of time already served in government custody, so they were back in CBP holding cells in short order. In the meantime, however, DHS, the federal government department that includes CBP, had deemed their children to be unaccompanied. DHS agents not only knew exactly where the parents were but also knew that the parents would quickly return to CBP detention. Even so, the department treated the brief change in custody as meaning that parents were not “available” to provide care. Unaccompanied migrant children are entitled to specific protections. In response to a court case settled in 1997, Flores v. Reno, care of unaccompanied children is the responsibility of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), an agency of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). A 2008 anti-trafficking law requires DHS to transfer unaccompanied children to ORR expeditiously, usually within 72 hours. The forcible family separation policy weaponized these requirements. Keeping families together is, in the vast majority of these types of cases, in children's best interests. But instead of making every effort to keep families together, DHS transferred the children it had separated to ORR, without planning for or putting measures in place that would enable authorities to reunite them with their parents. Discussions about separating children from their parents at the border began less than a month after President Trump took office. One federal prosecutor commented in early 2017, “History would not judge that kindly.” 2 In March 2017, after Reuters broke the story that family separation was under consideration, a DHS staffer emailed Allen Blume, the department’s budget director, to say, “I would be truly grateful if you could tell me this isn’t being seriously considered.” 3 This report is based on a review of public and internal government documents, legal proceedings, and the findings of DHS, DOJ, and HHS internal investigations, drawing on Human Rights Watch’s extensive interviews with forcibly separated children and parents in 2018 and 2019. It finds that the forcible separation of children from their parents was a deliberate, targeted policy choice taken even though the architects of the policy knew or should have known that it would inflict anguish and suffering on families. Forcible separation of children from their families inflicted harms that were severe and foreseeable. Once parents realized they would not be immediately reunited with their children, they were distraught. Some children sobbed uncontrollably. Many felt abandoned. Nearly all were bewildered, not least because immigration officials would not tell them where their parents were or gave responses that proved to be lies. Children forcibly separated from their parents experienced anxiety, had nightmares, regressed to earlier developmental stages, or found it difficult to trust others and form attachments. Some lashed out. Others stopped speaking.

New York: Human Rights Watch, 2024, 145p.