UNHCR High Level Roundtable San Pedro Sula, Honduras U.S. Civil Society Recommendations October 26, 2017 Overview A crisis of violence, corruption and impunity continues driving individuals, families and children from the Northern Triangle countries of Central America (NTCA) to seek international protection in the United States and other countries in the region. In 2016, the three NTCA countries had a combined total of 14,870 homicides, and individually were still well above the minimum identified by the United Nations to constitute an epidemic of violence with El Salvador at 81 murders, Honduras at 58, and Guatemala at 27 per every 100,000 inhabitants. 1 In the first six months of 2017 alone, children have been the victims of multiple homicides and massacres in Honduras, and murders of LGBTI individuals are on the rise. Domestic violence, and other sexual and gender-based crimes against women and children are pervasive throughout the region, and perpetrators are seldom brought to justice. High impunity rates at or over 95 percent for such crimes in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras foster widespread violence and distrust in government. Internal displacement, often a precursor to international migration, continues to increase in 2017 in El Salvador and Honduras, with a lack of responses from governments to ensure that internally displaced persons (IDPs) have access to basic services and protections. It is incumbent on governments of the region and international donors to devise responses to the crises in the NTCA that address international protection needs, vulnerable populations, and root causes of migration and displacement, and that provide for the needs of returning migrants. United States policies and practices at its own border, as well as policies it promotes throughout the region, must be consistent with international obligations and international human rights norms. Policies and practices must also be appropriate to particularly vulnerable populations, for example taking into account the best interests of the child and keeping families together. The below recommendations call on the U.S. government to ensure: access to asylum and refugee resettlement, policies and practices appropriate to the vulnerabilities and protection needs and rights of families and unaccompanied children, decisions regarding Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) that carefully consider both the human consequences of ending these programs, as well as the negative consequences of ending them on the security situation in Central America, sustained U.S. commitment to support meaningful efforts to address the root causes of migration and displacement, and 1 Violencia siguió desatada en el Triángulo Norte: 14 mil 870 homicidios en 2016, Departamento 19, Honduras, 7 de enero de 2017, http://www.departamento19.hn/index.php/elcamino/ddhh/42993-violencia-siguio-desatadaen-el-triangulo-norte-14- mil-870-homicidios-en-2016-.html 1
the development of programs to support repatriated migrants who can return safely. Refugee Resettlement The United States has long been a resettlement leader, welcoming more than 3 million refugees since 1980. The U.S. refugee resettlement program not only saves lives, but it also plays an integral role in advancing U.S. foreign policy and national security considerations. Therefore, the U.S. should return to its leadership role and increase the number of refugees that it welcomes and abandon policies that target some of the world s most vulnerable refugees for exclusion. The current admissions goal of 45,000 for this fiscal year is an historical low, and should be increased in FY19 and beyond. The decline in U.S. resettlement, and the targeting of refugee families from Muslim majority countries for the sharpest declines, bans and suspensions, undermines efforts to encourage greater global cooperation and commitment to addressing the plight of refugees. In reclaiming leadership, the United States will be in a position to encourage other countries in the Americas to expand their resettlement programs to admit refugees from around the world, as well as from the region. Resettlement is a critical component of any refugee protection and solutions strategy. Any U.S. commitment to refugee protection must include an increase of the number of cases resettled from the Americas. We are concerned about the intent to eliminate in-country processing for the Central American Minors (CAM) program. CAM has allowed vulnerable children from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador to find safety with their families in the United States through a secure and regulated process. The conditions which force children and families to flee the Northern Triangle countries have not improved, and the need for resettlement or parole through CAM remains urgent. At the very least, the United States must commit to process the remaining cases in the CAM pipeline and to expedite the arrival of approved cases. For the 1,500 children and family members who entered the United States under CAM parole the U.S. government should favorably consider applications for re-parole based on violence and lack of protection in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, as well as family unity now that children have been reunified with parents following years of separation. It is also important to note that the proposed termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for El Salvador and Honduras has significant refugee protection implications. For Salvadoran and Honduran children who arrived in the United States as refugees; were paroled in for humanitarian reasons, or were granted asylum; and, have families with TPS, they are at immediate risk if TPS is revoked. Family members will likely face the same violence in their home countries if forced to return, and if family members are no longer in the United States, the children left behind will lose their most valuable support networks. Extending TPS for El Salvador and Honduras will allow families to stay together in safety rather than be torn apart and returned to possible danger and persecution. The Presidential Executive Order on Resuming the United States Refugee Admissions Program with Enhanced Vetting Capabilities requires all refugees to provide a phone number and email address for 2
every one of their relatives, as well as the exact addresses where they have lived for more than 30 days, going back 10 years. This new requirement takes effect immediately, even for those who have been successfully pre-screened and for refugees who have already been approved for resettlement. This will cause serious and unnecessary delays for refugees in the pipeline, and will cause additional trauma to separated children, in particular. The Administration should reconsider these new provisions and reverse course. The United Sates should use resettlement strategically to encourage Central American governments and Mexico to abide by their commitments as signatories to international refugee instruments, and strengthen their own asylum systems and refugee protection infrastructure. The United States should employ its diplomatic relations to encourage other countries in the hemisphere, particularly Canada and Brazil, to participate in the resettlement of Central American refugees, including to ensure a solution for those refugees who ultimately are found not to qualify for U.S. resettlement. Refugees with family links in the United States, or other compelling circumstances which indicate the United States as the most appropriate solution, should be resettled to the United States and not to other countries participating in the effort. Access to asylum in the United States and the region Ongoing conditions throughout the Northern Triangle countries underscore the importance and necessity of access to protection in the United States for asylum-seekers arriving at the U.S. southern border. As humanitarian protection emergencies continue in Northern Triangle countries, unaccompanied children, families, and other individuals must have access to protection at the border. Detention and prosecution as a response to increased flows in migration not only is inhumane, but has not been found to be an effective deterrent to the arrival of individuals seeking protection. This was underscored in a recent statistical analysis of the 178,825 cases of unaccompanied migrant children who fled to the United States from Northern Triangle countries during the years of 2011 through 2016. Violence in municipalities within the Northern Triangle countries was the single strongest causal factor in a child s migration over any other factor, including U.S. policy (enforcement policies or discretionary programs such as DACA) or economic factors in the region. 2 In fact the study found that 10 additional homicides in a municipality would cause 6 additional child migrants to come to the U.S. border. Recommendations to the U.S. government: Lead a comprehensive initiative, along with other nations, to expand protection of refugees in the region. Key components of such an initiative should include increased humanitarian assistance, development investment in refugee-hosting states and home countries, and increased access to asylum and adherence to refugee protection, human rights law, and treaties across the region. 2 Violence, Development, and Migration Waves: Evidence from Central American Child Migrant Apprehensions, CGD Working Paper 459. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development, available at: https://www.cgdev.org/publication/violence-development-and-migration-waves-evidence-central-american-childmigrant 3
Set a strong example at home and abandon efforts to shift refugee protection responsibilities on to Mexico, including through safe third country arrangements, firm resettlement revisions, turn backs at the U.S. southern border, or other moves to block refugees who pass through Mexico from the United States or the U.S. asylum system. The United States should comply with its own legal and treaty commitments including at U.S. borders and abandon any plans to evade these responsibilities or shift them onto Mexico. Progress in Mexico on refugee protection does not justify the United States failure to receive and process asylum seekers. The United States must stop turning away asylum seekers at its southern border without referring them for a protection screening or immigration court proceedings. Firmly support the strengthening of access to asylum and protection in Mexico and throughout the region. The United States, which provides significant funding to Mexican migration enforcement activities, should press Mexican migration officers to identify and refer asylum seekers for protection processing, rather than deporting them and dissuading them from applying for asylum. The United States should also support and encourage the use of alternative measures for individuals who apply for asylum in Mexico, rather than the use of detention, which discourages the filing of asylum applications in Mexico. The United States should require, as a precondition for any assistance to Mexico for migration or border enforcement, that Mexico demonstrate that its immigration officers are providing access to asylum and respecting the human rights of migrants and asylum seekers. Significantly increase, and encourage other countries to increase, funding to support the humanitarian response to the Central American refugee and displacement crisis. The United States and other donor states should robustly support UNHCR s efforts to enhance the capacity of the Mexican and other asylum systems in the region, including through support for increased staffing, offices, and training for the Mexican asylum adjudication system. U.N. humanitarian appeals to address the Central American refugee and displacement situation were only eight percent funded as of early June 2017. Assure that individuals seeking asylum in the United States are treated fairly and consistently with U.S. refugee protection and human rights legal obligations. DHS and DOJ should change regulations to assure all asylum seekers can access immigration court custody (bond) hearings, release asylum seekers who meet the parole criteria from detention on parole, and stop requiring asylum seekers to pay bonds they cannot afford. USCIS asylum division and immigration court hearings should be conducted in a timely and fair manner; while backlogs and resulting delays should be addressed, cases should not be rushed through the system in ways that threaten access to due process, counsel and asylum. Ensure that all asylum-seeking individuals are promptly processed at the border and are not turned away or removed without access to protection, as required under international and U.S. law. Stop referring asylum seekers for criminal prosecutions for illegal entry or reentry relating to their entry or presence in search of U.S. refugee protection. These referrals in most cases violate Article 31 of the Refugee Convention which prohibits the penalization of refugees due to illegal entry or presence. When referrals do not violate Article 31, the government should process claims for asylum prior to initiating any prosecution. Prosecuting individuals prior to 4
determining their eligibility for refugee status may violate U.S. obligations under the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which the United States ratified in 1968. 3 Ensure that U.S. law is interpreted consistent with international obligations in a manner that does not categorically eliminate protections for asylum seekers fleeing persecution by organized gangs in their home countries. Women and children in the Northern Triangle countries and Mexico are particularly vulnerable to gang violence, including rape and murder, because of their membership in recognized groups defined in society by their gender and age and other characteristics including their fundamental beliefs opposed to gang violence. The United States should continue to support case-by-case adjudication of asylum claims to not foreclose asylum protections to all asylum seekers targeted by gangs for persecution without regard to individualized circumstances. In addition, through agency guidance or regulations, it should return to an immutable characteristics definition of the term particular social group which was the law of the land for more than twenty years and endorsed by U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and sister signatories. It should further recognize that nexus between persecution and a protected ground is established where the protected ground is a factor and can be proved through either direct or circumstantial evidence adhering to the wellrecognized principle (codified in domestic law) that persecutors may have mixed motives for harm and that their reasons must be viewed in societal context. The well-documented modus operandi of organized gangs in Mexico and the Northern Triangle strongly support findings of nexus to a protected ground for harms perpetrated against women, youth, and families. Targeting of vulnerable populations A) Families and Children Family Separation and Due Process Current immigration enforcement practices, both at the border and in the interior, frequently result in the needless separation of protection-seeking families. Following significant public outcry over the policy proposal to separate all arriving families in order to deter future arrivals in March 2017, former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary John Kelly made assurances that families would not be separated. 4 However, over the past few months and particularly during August and September 2017, service providers and advocates noticed a spike in the separation of asylum-seeking families at the border. As a result, some children were rendered unaccompanied and sent to the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), where they [may] remain in custody for longer periods because their parent/caregiver is also being separately detained by federal authorities (U.S. Marshals Service and/or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE). In other cases, children and a parent were sent to family detention centers operated by ICE, while other family members were sent to adult detention 3 Streamline: Measuring Its Effect on Illegal Border Crossing (DHS OIG May 15, 2015), available at: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/mgmt/2015/oig_15-95_may15.pdf 4 Kelly: DHS Won t Separate Families Crossing the Border, Mallory Shelbourne (The Hill, March 29, 2017), available at http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/326444-kelly-we-wont-separate-families 5
centers and/or released. Raids and other enforcement actions conducted in the interior such as the so-called sponsor raids carried out on a large scale between June and August 2017 5 have, in documented cases, also caused family separation, as some parents and caretakers were apprehended and deported without an opportunity to make alternate custody arrangements or to make preparations to take their children with them. Family separation impedes on due process and family unity rights. There is no central mechanism in place to record and track these separations across the relevant DHS agencies and ORR, which causes family members to lose contact with one another temporarily and sometimes permanently. Separation may also result in duplicative cases in our already-backlogged asylum system. For children, who may neither have documentation nor an understanding of the underlying factors that caused the family to flee, this is especially disastrous for their cases, in addition to cruel and detrimental to their well-being. Recommendations to the U.S. government: Require DHS to hire child welfare professionals at the border to supervise the protection of children and families and oversee instances of family separation. Develop a centralized mechanism for use by all government agencies with enforcement and custody responsibilities to identify family members, and to prevent, mitigate, and track family separation in all cases. Family separation should be recorded and justified in writing. Such information should also be collected, analyzed, and reported regularly to Congress. Information should be accessible to ORR and to all family members and their attorneys. This should also permit families to trace other family members, file complaints about family separation, and seek family reunification. Prioritize liberty and family unity in its immigration policy, including enforcement actions. Provide training and guidance to DHS agents on identification, documentation, processing, and placement decisions for families. Family detention is not the answer. A continuum of alternatives to detention should be utilized instead of traditional institutional detention to avoid separating families and unnecessary detention causing trauma and due process complications. Identify cases of family separation and facilitate release and reunification. DHS and its components, including ICE, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), should work with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and ORR to ensure an inter-agency process to help separated family members be released and/or reunited. This should include mechanisms to help detained family members locate and connect with separated loved ones. Ensure that separated children who have been designated as unaccompanied children retain their designation for the duration of their removal proceedings. Consider the best interests of the child in all processing, custody, and removal and repatriation decisions. DHS should avoid placing family members, whether a mother with a minor child or others arriving together, into expedited or reinstatement of removal. 5 Garance Burke, Feds will now target relatives who smuggled in children, Associated Press, June 30, 2017. 6
Through the DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and its Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), investigate cases of family separation to identify trends, provide oversight and accountability, and offer systematic solutions, and report findings to Congress and the public. DHS agencies should also work with DHS CRCL to improve documentation, reporting, and policies on family separation. Family Detention The United States government is not providing the protections that both U.S. and international law guarantee to families and unaccompanied children, who have arrived at our borders seeking safety. Detention should only be used to mitigate public safety or serious flight risks and only when other measures such as alternatives to detention (ATDs) could not mitigate those risks. The Flores Settlement Agreement sets out national policy for the detention, release, and treatment of all children who are in immigration custody. As part of the agreement, it requires the government to place those children - whether accompanied or unaccompanied - who must be detained into settings meeting strict requirements for their care pending the outcome of their immigration removal case. Instead, however, the U.S. government has in recent years expanded the use of detention in inappropriate facilities and curtailed due process protections in order to expedite removal and deter others from making the journey, despite a lack of evidence that detention actually serves as a deterrent. Earlier this year the administration terminated its only formal alternative to detention program with an emphasis on community support and case management - the Family Case Management Program. The decision to detain families is arbitrary, inhumane, and has irreversible life-changing consequences for parents - and predominantly mothers - and their children. Recommendations to the U.S. government: End Family Detention and Arbitrary Detention Practices. There is no humane way to detain families. No family should be confined in a family detention facility. Each family should receive an individualized assessment of flight and security risk to determine if they may be released or should be placed into an alternative to detention. Invest in Alternatives to Detention. The Administration and Congress should invest in costeffective community support pilot programs, such as the recently ended Family Case Management Program, that provide case management and support to families. Facilitate Access to Counsel and Due Process. DHS and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) should ensure that all detained families have access to legal information and counsel in order to navigate their immigration case. Implement the Recommendations Contained within the Report of its own DHS Advisory Committee on Family Residential Centers (emitted September 2016 and available here), which generally discouraged the practice of family detention. Unaccompanied Children The current Administration has taken several steps to decrease protections for unaccompanied children, to keep children in detention rather than in the care and custody of their family members, to interfere in 7
a child s ability to adjust status, to characterize Central American youth as dangerous and gang members and to target them with unsubstantiated gang membership allegations, to target the family members of unaccompanied children, and to detain unaccompanied youth who turn eighteen. The Administration has suggested that the only way it would support permanent protections for youth protected by DACA would be to limit access to due process protections for unaccompanied children under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which are appropriate and necessary to their age and vulnerability. This runs contrary to approaches to consider the child s best interests and protection needs. Recommendations to the U.S. government: Ensure unaccompanied children continue to have access to a fair and victim-centered process for seeking legal protection as is currently reflected in the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and the Flores Settlement Agreement. Children must have an opportunity to tell their story to an impartial adjudicator in way that recognizes their unique vulnerabilities and developmental needs. Our treatment of undocumented children should always consider the best interests of the child. Children should retain the right to a full hearing before a judge to consider immigration relief options from the moment of apprehension and throughout the processing of their cases. The process children receive should not be expedited in a way that hinders a child s ability to have their full claim for protection be adjudicated. Enforcement actions against children should only happen in the case of substantiated charges against a child and should balance community risk and the child s best interests. Apprehending a child and ripping that child away from his or her family based on mere suspicion of criminal association or activity runs contrary to due process and to a child s best interests. Children should not be removed unless they have had access to immigration relief options with the assistance of an attorney at no cost to the child or youth. At present, children in removal proceedings have the right to a lawyer, but are responsible for finding their own lawyer even children who are still toddlers, who are in elementary school, or who have a mental illness or developmental delay. Children should only be removed when removal is in the best interests of the child and following the development of an individualized safe repatriation plan for the child. Currently children can be removed without any consideration of their best interests and without any repatriation plan for their return. Children should not be interrogated alone by immigration enforcement agents unless the child is represented by an attorney during the interrogation. Currently, immigration enforcement agents may interrogate a child without the knowledge of their parent or without an attorney or guardian ad litem present. This runs contrary to U.S. standards of due process and the best interests of the child. The U.S. government should devise procedures to facilitate the reunification and/or release of children with separated parents. Previously asylum-seeking parents who were separated from their children could be released from detention and enrolled in alternatives to detention in order to facilitate the reunification of the child with the family. Additionally, parents who were 8
being removed or seeking voluntary departure could seek reunification with their child upon departure. The Administration should immediately end all efforts to rescind or dilute protections for unaccompanied children under the TVPRA. Unaccompanied children should continue to be brought into the U.S. and placed in removal proceedings rather than subject to expedited removal. They should be screened for protection needs by child welfare officials, rather than immigration enforcement agents. B) Temporary Protected Status (TPS) Ending TPS for over 350,000 Central Americans would have profound negative impacts on the goals of the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America, undermining U.S. investments in improved security, prosperity, and governance in the region. Ending TPS undermines public safety: deported TPS holders would be at high risk for extortion and being targeted for gang recruitment, thus potentially strengthening organized criminal networks in the region. This population would be easily identifiable following years living outside of their countries of origin and would be perceived as having resources to exploit. With sexual and gender-based violence, gang violence, extortion, internal displacement, homicide, femicide, and violence against LGBTI individuals at exceedingly high levels in El Salvador and Honduras, deported TPS beneficiaries would be at extreme risk of harm, particularly given their lack of familial and social networks in these countries due to two decades or longer living in the United States. Deporting TPS holders would be a devastating hit to the Salvadoran and Honduran economies due to the stability provided by remittances; remittances account for over 17% of the total GDP in both of these countries. Ending TPS would also remove a critical source of contributions to Honduras and El Salvador s tax base, as TPS holders provide a significant source of Value Added Tax (VAT) revenues in El Salvador and Honduras. With poverty and employment remaining major problems in El Salvador and Honduras (66% poverty in Honduras and 41% in El Salvador 6, together with a 7% national unemployment rate and 28.7% urban underemployment in El Salvador 7 and population where 63% are either unemployed or underemployed in Honduras 8 ) repatriation of TPS beneficiaries would undermine the modest, but important development progress these countries have made (3.7% economic growth in Honduras in 2016 and 2.4% in El Salvador 9 ), and exacerbate job shortages. 6 World Bank country information: http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/elsalvador/overview; http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/honduras/overview. 7 Dirección General de Estadísticas y Censos, Encuesta de Hogares de Propósitos Múltiples, 2016: http://www.digestyc.gob.sv/index.php/novedades/noticias/767-ministerio-de-economia-y-digestyc-presentanprincipales-resultados-de-la-encuesta-de-hogares-de-propositos-multiples-2016.html 8 Congressional Research Service. Honduras: Background and U.S. relations. July, 2017: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/rl34027.pdf 9 World Bank country information. 9
Recommendations to the U.S. government: Secure existing TPS programs by extending current TPS protections for 18-months. Congress should enact a law that provides a path to permanent residency for TPS holders who have been in the United States five years or longer. C) Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has provided nearly 800,000 individuals who came to the U.S. as children but lack legal status with relief from deportation and work authorization. In turn, it has allowed these young people -- who are American in all but the paperwork and who were already woven into U.S. communities to more fully integrate by working, buying houses, starting businesses, and getting a higher education. In September 2017, DACA was rescinded, leaving this population highly vulnerable. The deportation of DACA recipients would be devastating to the individuals directly affected, to their families, including U.S. citizen siblings and children, to the communities of which they are a part, and to the broader region. Mexico and Central America, from which nearly 700,000 DACA recipients come, lack the capacity to receive and reintegrate these high populations. Because these young people have grown up in the United States and may have little or no connection to the communities where they would return, they will face challenges that differ from other returned populations for which services are already scarce. DACA recipients cannot be returned safely to Mexico and Central America, where widespread violence continues in communities to which they would return. Recommendations to the U.S. government: U.S. Congress must immediately enact a permanent, legislative solution that provides a path to citizenship for this population. Proposals to resolve the status of DACA recipients should be addressed on their merits, not used as bargaining chips in debates about other unrelated border enforcement issues. In the long term, U.S. Congress must enact commonsense immigration reform that provides a pathway to citizenship for individuals that lack legal status, protects vulnerable people, ensures family reunification and modernizes our immigration system. DHS should commit to not utilizing the information it has on these individuals, provided in good faith, to carry out enforcement actions. Addressing the root causes of migration Endemic violence compounded by a lack of opportunities and government institutions too weak and corrupt to provide security or basic services to their citizens continue to be the main factors driving Guatemalans, Hondurans and Salvadorans to leave their homes and countries. Until Central American governments, with the engagement of civil society organizations on the ground, and support from international donors (including the United States), address the needs of citizens to live in safe and sustainable communities, tackle corruption and invest in strengthening public institutions, children and families will continue to flee their countries. 10
While there have been some incipient steps in tackling corruption in recent years, new pressures threaten to undermine this limited progress. Mano-dura (firm hand) strategies to combat violence have contributed to further internal displacement of communities and extrajudicial executions of youth. The very law enforcement officials meant to protect citizens are often the perpetrators of abuses. Human rights defenders and journalists remain at risk, for their work promoting free and fair societies. A backlash against anti-corruption efforts, led by the President and supported by some political and business leaders, has set back progress in Guatemala. Moreover, the possible deportation of undocumented immigrants particularly TPS holders from El Salvador and Honduras from the United States threatens to undermine the prosperity and security of the region. Recommendations to the U.S. government and international donors: In order to ensure effective assistance to combat violence, address poverty, and strengthen both government institutions and state responses to corruption and impunity, transparency and consultation with a broad range of civil society organizations must form a part of any assistance provided by governments, multilateral banks and other international donors in the region. U.S. foreign assistance should not be linked to border management: The U.S. government should not condition funding to address the root causes of migration on the ability of governments to stop and return migrants to their countries of origin. Border cooperation should not be expanded at the cost of preventing families, individuals, and children fleeing violence from seeking protection outside of their home countries. Foreign assistance to governments in the region should not be managed by DHS but rather by the State Department and by U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which have aimed to prioritize development assistance, institution-building, and strengthening justice systems. Effective, violence reduction strategies Expand evidence-based community-based programs to reduce youth crime and violence. Support institutional reforms to improve police capacity and capabilities to prevent violence and investigate crimes while enhancing community relations. Focus investment in police reform where evidence shows government commitment to civilian policing. Implement an end to the role of the military in public security operations. Provide safe shelter to victims of internal displacement and protect their rights to access education, basic services, property and livelihoods, including specific resources and assistance for shelters for girls and women victims of violence. Support rehabilitation and re-insertion programs for ex-offenders. Implement public education to de-normalize violence against women and girls and LGBTI persons, including as part of curriculum in primary and secondary schools, and through public and community based campaigns. 11
Development and poverty reduction strategies Support effective rural poverty reduction by investing in small-scale farming and sustainable agriculture, local farmer organizations, small-scale and subsistence farmers and development strategies that prioritize women s economic independence. Protect the right of communities to free, prior and informed consent, regular consultations, and mitigation of environmental impacts and labor rights protection in implementation of projects. Support programs that provide comprehensive workforce training and skills development programs for youth, particularly in areas at risk for high levels of outmigration. Address systematic impunity, corruption & weak institutions Support efforts to address corruption such as the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). Strengthen judicial independence, transparency and accountability by supporting the justice sector with clear benchmarks for progress. Support transparent and independent processes for the selection of prosecutors and judges. Strengthen investigative capacity of specialized prosecutors including those investigating homicides, extortions, organized crime, and sexual and gender-based violence, as well as providing support for improving witness protection programs and access to justice. Strengthen preventative measures and investigations into attacks against human rights defenders, especially indigenous, Afro-descendant, women, LGBTI, and unionists, and ensure progress in prosecuting crimes against them. Ensure well-resourced and accountable child welfare systems. Expand national governments and localities capacity to respond to violence against women and girls and members of the LGBTI community, and to reduce impunity for sexual and genderbased violence. Repatriation and Reintegration Returning migrants and refugees to unsafe circumstances without support further fuels internal displacement (190,000 displaced in Honduras and 220,000 in El Salvador 10 ) and unsafe migration as individuals who cannot find safety and stability in countries of origin are forced to flee. Individuals for whom return to country of origin is safe need support and a range of services over a sustained period of time in order to successfully reintegrate into their countries and communities. Reintegration services are especially critical for vulnerable populations such as unaccompanied children, families, women, indigenous communities, and LGBTQ+ individuals among others. A small number of Central American civil society organizations have expertise in providing holistic reintegration services. However, the number of migrants that can access these programs is limited in comparison with the need, especially for adults. 10 Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, http://www.internal-displacement.org/countries/el-salvador; http://www.internal-displacement.org/countries/honduras/. 12
Recommendations: Individuals must not be returned to unsafe circumstances; those facing threat or harm upon return must not be sent back to countries of origin to face persecution, torture, or death, or to increase internal displacement. Children should only be returned when repatriation has been determined to be in their best interests and must never be returned to danger. Children lacking a safe family situation to which to return should only be repatriated if their governments can provide a safe alternative family arrangement for them upon return. Reintegration must be viewed as a process that requires support and assistance over time, starting with appropriate planning prior to repatriation, continuing during initial reception in country of origin, and continuing for months after return to communities in country of origin. Reception centers should have specialists with expertise in particularly vulnerable populations i.e. LGBTI individuals, children, individuals with disabilities, elderly individuals. Multi sectoral involvement and coordination across ministries of child welfare/protection, education, health, labor, and migration is key both at the local and national level. Governments of the region should develop national governmental reintegration bodies to oversee provision of reintegration services to repatriated migrants, inter-agency coordination, and coordination with the private sector. This body should have a national level presence with offices at the departmental level and ultimately in the municipalities with the highest numbers of returned migrants. Civil society organizations should have a presence at shelters for repatriated migrants to inform them of their rights and to assess protection and service needs. Ensure that funding to address reintegration programs is invested in direct services for the child and the family and in community development solutions that address the root of larger systemic issues, and includes job creation and training programs, including jobs specific to the skills of repatriated migrants, and jobs appropriate for adolescents and apprenticeship opportunities for youth, as well as training of repatriated youth in a range of skills connected to job market needs. Reintegration programs should monitor and verify the well-being of repatriated children by an independent agency over the longer term. Central American and Mexican governments should partner with civil society organizations with expertise in holistic reintegration in the design and execution of reintegration services. The United States and international development agencies, private corporations, and civil society organizations should seek to create models for reintegration that could be scaled by governments in areas where conditions are safe. Contacts: Alianza Americas, Amy Shannon, ashannon@alianzaamericas.org Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Blaine Bookey, bookeybl@uchastings.edu Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Advocacy Office, Alaide Vilchis-Ibarra, Alaide.VilchisIbarra@elca.org Human Rights First, Eleanor Acer, AcerE@humanrightsfirst.org Jesuit Conference Office of Justice and Ecology, Kristen Lionetti, klionetti@jesuits.org Kids in Need of Defense, Lisa Frydman, lfrydman@supportkind.org 13
Latin America Working Group, Daniella Burgi-Palomino, dburgipalomino@lawg.org Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Jessica Jones, jjones@lirs.org U.S. Committee for Refugees & Immigrants, Esmeralda Lopez, elopez@uscridc.org Washington Office on Latin America, Geoff Thale, gthale@wola.org Women s Refugee Commission, Michelle Brane, MichelleB@wrcommission.org 14