老澳门开奖结果

Last week, the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Border Litigation Project and University of Chicago Law鈥檚 International Human Rights Clinic detailing child abuse by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The report, based on a portion of the more than 30,000 pages of government records we obtained through the , identifies numerous cases of serious alleged misconduct by CBP officials between 2009 and 2014, focusing on the agency鈥檚 verbal, physical, sexual, and emotional abuse of migrant children.

CBP by calling our report 鈥渦nfounded.鈥� Here, we address the false statements CBP made in its response.

鈥淐BP . . . is greatly disappointed that [the report] doesn鈥檛 acknowledge that the [Office of Inspector General] conducted an investigation in 2014 that determined that prior claims made by the 老澳门开奖结果 were completely unfounded. The OIG conducted 57 unannounced visits to 41 different CBP facilities and 鈥渄id not observe misconduct or inappropriate conduct by DHS employees during our unannounced visits.鈥� The full report is available 鈥�

Certain key facts are omitted here.

First, OIG conducted unannounced CBP site visits only after immigrants鈥� rights groups filed a in June 2014 detailing 116 cases of child abuse or neglect. Second, the visits occurred in 鈥� months after these abuses had been reported and after those children referenced in the complaint had been released. Third, in the fall of 2014, OIG announced that it would no longer conduct site inspections, without explaining why.

Perhaps most importantly, in June 2015 鈥� almost a year after the visits touted in CBP鈥檚 response 鈥� a coalition of immigrants鈥� rights advocates challenging CBP detention conditions. The litigation, which continues today, former CBP detainees鈥� horrific experiences, including through showing just how bleak are. CBP fought to keep all of this information secret 鈥� and for willfully destroying video evidence about conditions in its detention facilities.

鈥淭he 鈥榬eport鈥� equates allegations with fact . . .鈥�

To the contrary, our report notes that many of the complaints at issue never appear to have made it past the allegation stage 鈥� which is itself a problem. Because DHS 鈥渙versight鈥� agencies routinely close investigations without rigorous, thorough review, all 鈥渁llegations鈥� inevitably remain 鈥渦nfounded.鈥�

Our report details how DHS鈥檚 two oversight agencies, the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and OIG, lack sufficient authority and routinely fail to undertake independent, timely, or robust investigations. Using CRCL鈥檚 own records, for example, we show how this agency prematurely closed investigations, allowed complaints to go uninvestigated for months or years, and declined to pursue investigations on certain issues when it had 鈥渢oo many鈥� other complaints.

The records we have obtained reflect hundreds of cases in which minors report remarkably similar episodes of abuse or neglect over a multi-year period. These are reports made by children who were apprehended and detained hundreds of miles apart, from California to Texas, and who had no opportunity to consult one another.

鈥淸The report] . . . flatly ignores a number of improvements made by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. . .鈥�

Let鈥檚 assess each of these 鈥渋mprovements.鈥�

CBP references its National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search (), published in October 2015. According to the agency, these standards 鈥渉ave been implemented in all CBP facilities鈥� and include 鈥減rovisions related to sexual abuse and assault prevention and response.鈥�

Rather than 鈥渇latly ignore鈥� the TEDS standards, we discuss them in our report even though they had not been adopted at the time of the alleged abuses described. These basic requirements for humane detention conditions 鈥� including ensuring children鈥檚 access to clean bedding, edible food, and clean drinking water 鈥� should have been clear to CBP officials well before the TEDS standards were formally adopted. Yet there is evidence that CBP continues to fail to meet these basic standards 鈥� as an Arizona federal district court as late as November 2016.

The other 鈥渋mprovement鈥� is the agency鈥檚 implementation of the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA).

In actuality, CBP ignores key PREA requirements. CBP must conduct an annual review of sexual abuse data and prepare an annual report of its findings and corrective actions, and then make this report publicly available online.

CBP last published a PREA report in March 2017, covering May 2014 through December 2015. This means that CBP has not released any public report about its PREA compliance during 2016, 2017, or 2018.

Additionally, the PREA requires CBP officials to report alleged sexual abuse 鈥渦nder applicable mandatory reporting laws.鈥� There is no indication, from the records we have obtained from the government or otherwise, that the agency does so.

鈥淐BP's Office of Professinal Responsibility investigates allegations of misconduct on the part of CBP employees when an NGO provides sufficient information necessary to conduct an appropriate inquiry."

OPR鈥檚 investigations routinely conclude with no finding of policy or other violations by CBP. For example, since CBP鈥檚 was established in late 2014, OPR has never concluded that any CBP use-of-force has violated 鈥� including the brutal and unjustified tasing of U.S. citizen and the senseless tasing and beating of , which led to his death.

Additionally, even CBP employees who have been found to violate agency policy regularly evade discipline or any other meaningful form of accountability. Recall, for example, the case of Cruz Velazquez 鈥� a teenager who died after two CBP officers encouraged him to drink liquid methamphetamine. Despite of these officials鈥� egregious disregard for human life, and despite a 鈥�,鈥� no disciplinary action was ever taken against either CBP officer.

鈥�. . . the report contains a number of anecdotal assertions and does not provide specifics, preventing CBP from commencing reasonable steps to examine these assertions and addressing their concerns.鈥�

Each and every 鈥渁necdote鈥� referenced in our report is supported by one or more government document, all of which are cited in the endnotes and provided online for public review. At the end of June, we鈥檒l publish the next set of records, which include audio files of CBP officials subjecting children to coercive and abusive interviews.

The government did everything it could to delay the release of these records. It has taken over three years of aggressive litigation to obtain these records, and many of the specifics at issue have been withheld by the government itself. For example, the government initially redacted case numbers from responsive records and only provided this information after the presiding federal district court judge . Additionally, the government has withheld the name of CBP officials accused of misconduct and abuse. Although the federal district court judge has , the government has refused to release it.

Our report speaks in the voices of defenseless children who were mistreated by federal agents acting on behalf of our government. The heavy burden is on the government 鈥� which today confines more than 10,000 immigrant children 鈥� to show that its standards can be independently verified to be in the best interests of these children.