Results are excerpts from the referenced publication, and may not be current at the time of the search. Please also note the database is currently in its testing phase. We would welcome any feedback at [email protected]

  • Right to education for non-citizen children (multiple countries)
  • United States of America
  • The fundamental right of all children to education, regardless of their legal status, is recognized in Argentina, Belgium, Chile, Italy, Spain, Thailand, the Netherlands and Uruguay. In France, there is a ministerial circular to the same effect.

    Italy guarantees to migrant children the right to education, regardless of their status, on the same terms as Italian children. The 1998 Immigration Act integrates the right to education in national legislation. It provides for the compulsory education of migrant children, the teaching of Italian, and the promotion of the culture and language of the countries of origin of migrant children.

    Chile guarantees access to public education to migrant children and adolescents, regardless of their migration status (Ministry of Education, Ordinary Communication N°07/1008 of 2005).In 2016, a new procedure was established to facilitate the enrolment of irregular migrant children

    The US Supreme Court ruled in the landmark Plyler v. Doe case in 1982, that it was a violation of the Constitution to deny irregular migrant children free compulsory education under the same conditions as citizens and regular migrant children. The legal ruling has been complemented by guidelines, for instance those produced by the National School Boards Association and the National Education Association, regarding legal issues and specific schools. A number of States have fully implemented this ruling to include access to other school-based services, such as free and reduced-price meals and educational assistance for children with learning disabilities.

    In 2005, Thailand’s Ministry of Education instructed school directors to enrol all children, including irregular migrant children, so they could access free basic education.
  • Law
  • Minimum Standards
  • Respect of fundamental rights
  • Undocumented or irregular migrants
  • Children
  • Legal aid for people in immigration detention in the United States
  • United States of America
  • The Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, Arizona. Since 1989, this nongovernmental agency has been permitted entry to immigration detention facilities (Florence INS Service Processing Center) to give daily legal rights presentations to between 20-40 detainees at a time prior to their first hearing before an Immigration Judge. The presentations assist detainees in evaluating whether to go forward with their case, increasing the efficiency of the immigration court process and reducing the overall costs of detention. The group orientations are followed by individual interviews with those who request them. The Project also provides instructions for writing supporting/bond letters for parole hearings and directly represents a portion of those applicants at their bond hearings. In 1998, based on the success of the Florence Project, the US government (administered via EOIR) funded legal orientation projects in three different sites, with three different agencies, for three months each. The Department of Justice’s findings from these pilot projects were that providing such rights information to immigration detainees made the immigration proceedings more efficient and reduced overall bed days in detention by 4.2 days per detainee. Such legal orientations have now been funded nationwide. At an estimated cost of detention of $65.61 per day, such orientations should lead to a $12.8 million saving. If the legal orientations cost $2.8 million, the government will still save $10 million
  • Practice
  • Minimum Standards
  • Legal advice and interpretation
  • Migrants
  • All
  • NGO program to support released detainees in the United States of America
  • United States of America
  • CIVIC is national convener of a network of groups providing support to people released from detention. Some of these programs have official partnerships with ICE to run alternative accompaniment programs and others operate post-release accompaniment programs.

    What is a CIVIC Alternative Accompaniment Program (CAAP)?
    CAAP are community-initiated alternative to detention programs run by community groups or nonprofits in a similar manner to the federal Refugee Resettlement Program. Instead of being detained, immigrants are allowed to remain living with family. If they are recent asylum seekers without family, then they are housed with volunteers or in group homes while the courts process their immigration cases. An “alternative accompaniment program” does not include ankle monitors and demonstrates that people nationwide can build effective and humane pathways away from our punitive immigration detention system. CIVIC coined the term “alternative accompaniment” after private prison corporations hijacked the term “alternative to detention.”

    Are there examples of alternative accompaniment programs?
    CIVIC’s Post Release Accompaniment Program (PRAP) is a community-initiated alternative accompaniment program. PRAP provides immigrants who would otherwise be detained with the ability to fight their case from the outside. PRAP assists in helping immigrants obtain release on parole, for example, and provides them with housing, connections to attorneys, transportation to immigration court, and limited financial support. Over the last year and a half, volunteers have secured the safe release of approximately 300 asylum seekers, and CIVIC is now expanding on the scope of its demonstration model by engaging local and federal governments in supporting a community-based alternative to detention that replaces immigration detention beds with holistic community support for all immigrants, eventually capping (and then eliminating) the number of people in immigration detention. With careful data tracking, CIVIC is proving that this new model is less expensive than immigration detention, and also leads to more successful outcomes. [reviews Vera stats] In 2013, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (LIRS) and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops both signed Memorandum of Understanding with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to administer self-funded community-based alternatives to detention pilot programs. LIRS administered its program in New York/Newark area and in San Antonio. USCCB administered its program in Baton Rouge and Boston.
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Immigration detainees
  • All
  • Screening and assessment: The United States
  • United States of America
  • In March 2013, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deployed a new Risk Classification Assessment instrument nationally. This is the first automated system of individualised assessment used to assist placement determinations. The Risk Classification Assessment tool was developed in response to criticism over the increasing numbers of people being unnecessarily detained or detained for prolonged periods. Such detention was taking place without uniform, individualised assessment or determination that their detention was proportionate or justified, including whether they were a danger to society, or a flight risk.

    The Risk Classification Assessment tool is used during the detainee intake process to determine (a) whether a person should be released or detained, (b) if released, what levels of supervision should be placed on the individual, and (c) if detained, the individual’s custody classification level. The tool guides ICE officers through a multi-staged process of decision-making, starting with a legal assessment of whether the individual is subject to mandatory detention, or whether detention would otherwise be required. In respect to the latter, the Risk Classification Assessment tool uses objective classification scales and mathematically weighted factors/algorithms to score the risk that an individual poses to the community. Persons who do not pose a risk to the community and who are eligible to be released are then assessed using additional factors that score the risk of absconding. The results determine the type of alternative best suited to the individual.

    The Risk Classification Assessment tool requires ICE officers to screen for the existence of family
    ties, immigration history including compliance with previous immigration decisions, as well as medical, mental health and other vulnerability triggers at the outset. It includes prompting questions for a number of vulnerability triggers including disability, advanced age, pregnancy, nursing mothers, sole caretaking responsibilities, mental health issues, and victimisation, including aliens who may be eligible for relief under the Violence against Women Act, survivors of crime, or survivors of human trafficking. It is designed to take eight minutes to complete. It remains to be seen how effective the tool is in a context where conditions are applied rigorously and there is a historical predisposition to detain.
  • Policy
  • Screening & Assessment
  • Healthy, identity and security checks
  • Migrants
  • All