红杏视频

This report by the Social Science Research Council commissioned by the 红杏视频 found that making online voter registration accessible for Americans with disabilities can save millions of taxpayer dollars.

During the subprime lending boom of the early 2000s, communities of color were targeted for the riskiest, most predatory mortgages. Since the housing bubble burst in 2008, homeowners in these communities have disproportionately struggled with default and foreclosure. These are the communities that most desperately need solutions to the foreclosure crisis. Instead, new data obtained from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") by MFY Legal Services, Inc ("MFY") and the 红杏视频 ("红杏视频") supports the conclusion that loan modification programs are failing homeowners in communities of color.

This report's analysis of CFPB mortgage complaint data reveals a pattern: complaints about harmful servicer misconduct, the kind that places homeowners at risk of losing their homes, make up a larger share of complaints from communities of color than from predominately white communities.

We recommend concrete steps that federal, state, and local authorities must take to expose, address, and ultimately correct disparities in the way mortgage relief is reaching communities of color. These actions are crucial to ensure that communities of color are not, once again, bearing the brunt of systemic failures.

View the CFPB data here (.xls).

In 2013, the United States conducted 438,421 deportations. In more than 363, 2793 of those deportations鈥攁pproximately 83 percent鈥攖he individuals did not have a hearing, never saw an immigration judge, and were deported through cursory administrative processes where the same presiding immigration officer acted as the prosecutor, judge, and jailor. Some of those expelled without a hearing had lived in the United States for many years, have U.S. citizen children, and were never afforded the opportunity to say goodbye to relatives or call an attorney before being wrenched from their lives rooted in American communities. Some of those deported were fleeing violence, persecution, or torture and were turned back to danger. Others had lawful status in the United States, including U.S. citizenship, but were erroneously deported.

Executive Summary
Key Recommendations
Methodology

1. Summary Deportation Procedures: An Introduction
   1. Expedited Removal
   2. Reinstatement of Removal
   3. Administrative Voluntary Departure/Voluntary Return
   4. Administrative Removal Under INA 搂 283b
   5. Stipulated Orders of Removal
2. Who Is Getting Deported Without a Hearing?
   1. Asylum Seekers Returned to Danger
      1. Expedited Removal and the Impediments for Asylum Seekers
      2. Language and Information Barriers
      3. Failure to Refer Asylum Seekers to an Asylum Officer
      4. Asylum Seekers with Prior Removal Orders
   2. People Lawfully in the United States Who Are Deported Without a Hearing
      1. U.S. Citizens Deported Through Summary Procedures
         1. U.S. Citizens with Mental Disabilities
         2. U.S. Residents with Valid Status
      2. Expedited Removal of Tourists and Business Visitors
   3. Longtime Residents Removed Without a Hearing
      1. Deportations at the Border
      2. Apprehended and Deported in the Interior of the United States
         1. Voluntary Return
         2. Administrative Removal Under 238b
   4. Children Arriving Alone
      1. Legal Background
      2. Accessing the Protections of the System
      3. Mexican Children and the TVPRA
      4. The TVPRA in Practice
3. After Deportation: The Aftermath of an Unfair Removal
   1. Erroneous Deportations and the Lack of Oversight
   2. Reinstatement of Removal
   3. Prosecution for Returning
   4. American Families Living in the Shadows
4. International Law and Restrictions on Summary Removals
   1. Access to Justice and the Right to a Fair Hearing
   2. The Right to Apply for Asylum and Right to Protection from Persecution
   3. Special Protections for Children
   4. Limitations on Detention
   5. The Right to Family Unity

Recommendations
Glossary of Terms
Acknowledgements
Endnotes

Over the last two decades, the use of solitary confinement in U.S. correctional facilities has surged.

Before 1990, 鈥渟upermax鈥� prisons were rare. Now, 44 states and the federal government have supermax units, where prisoners are held in extreme isolation, often for years or even decades. On any given day in this country, it鈥檚 estimated that over 80,000 prisoners are held in isolated confinement.

This massive increase in the use of solitary has happened despite criticism from legal and medical professionals, who have deemed the practice unconstitutional and inhumane. It鈥檚 happened despite the fact that supermax prisons typically cost two or three times more to build and operate than traditional maximum-security prisons. And it鈥檚 happened despite research suggesting that supermax prisons actually have a negative effect on public safety.

As fiscal realities are forcing us to cut budgets for things like health and education, it is time to ask whether we should continue to use solitary confinement despite its high fiscal and human costs.

This briefing paper provides an overview of the excessive use of solitary confinement in the U.S. and strategies for safely restricting its use.

For much of its history, the United States has held itself out as a model of freedom, democracy, and open, accountable government. Freedoms of expression and association, as well as rights to a fair trial, are protected by the Constitution, and US officials speak with pride of the freedom of the media to report on matters of public concern and hold government to account for its actions. Yet, as this report documents, today those freedoms are very much under threat due to the government鈥檚 own policies concerning secrecy, leak prevention, and officials鈥� contact with the media, combined with large-scale surveillance programs. If the US fails to address these concerns promptly and effectively, it could do serious, long-term damage to the fabric of democracy in the country.

Specifically, this report documents the effects of large-scale electronic surveillance on the practice of journalism and law, professions that enjoy special legal protections because they are integral to the safeguarding of rights and transparency in a democracy. To document these effects, we interviewed 92 people, including 46 journalists and 42 lawyers, about their concerns and the ways in which their behavior has changed in light of revelations of largescale surveillance. We also spoke to current and former senior government officials who have knowledge of the surveillance programs to understand their perspective, seek additional information, and take their concerns into account in our analysis.

Whether reporting valuable information to the public, representing another鈥檚 legal interests, or voluntarily associating with others in order to advocate for changes in policy, it is often crucial to keep certain information private from the government. In the face of a massively powerful surveillance apparatus maintained by the US government, however, that privacy is becoming increasingly scarce and difficult to ensure. As a result, journalists and their sources, as well as lawyers and their clients, are changing their behavior in ways that undermine basic rights and corrode democratic processes.

Author: ()

Press Coverage: | | | | |

Articles/Blogs Written By Author: "" - The Providence Journal | "" - The Hill | "A New U.N. Champion for Privacy" - 红杏视频 | "Better Privacy Protections Are a Key to U.S. Foreign Policy Coherence" - 红杏视频 | "Government Attempt to Speed Up Guant谩namo Trials (Rightfully) Backfires" - 红杏视频 | "British Spying Is Our Problem, Too" - 红杏视频 | "How Surveillance is Changing Journalism and the Law" - 红杏视频

Related Advocacy/Litigation: Oklahoma Observer v. Patton - Defending Press Right to Observe Executions |

CLICK HERE TO READ THE PRESS RELEASE