Randy McGroty, a Catholic Charities Legal Services attorney, and Anwen Hughes, a lawyer with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, both discussed their personal involvement in the case of Ernest Moise, a Haitian asylum seeker. Mr. Moise, his wife, and their children were separated and placed in indefinite detention as a result of, according to the presenters, INS� �facially discriminatory� policy.[3] Ernest Moise, they noted, was an anti-Aristide supporter who fled Haiti via water with his family and other anti-Aristide supporters, under the threat of violent political reprisal for their stance against President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Mr. Moise and the others were intercepted by U.S. patrols. The Moise family was separated while in INS custody, with members of the family being held at Krome, the Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center, and other INS or INS contract facilities. Mr. Moise, who is literate, was able to establish credible fear and convince a judge that he deserved political asylum. He was released, but the INS reserved the right to appeal his case. Moreover, because Mr. Moise and his wife were not technically married, different judges heard their cases and decided differently. According to Mr. McGroty, Mrs. Moise was not released and, as of June 21, 2002, attorneys were still fighting to obtain asylum for her.

HAITIAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY LEADERS, ASYLUM SEEKERS, AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS

Marie Jocelyn Ocean was the only member of any panel to have been detained under the current INS policy. Through the assistance of Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center attorneys, she was granted asylum. She spoke to the Commissioners through an interpreter.

Ms. Ocean explained that she came to the United States because in Haiti people were trying to kill her and members of her family because of their political activity. In fact, she stated that her brother and father had been killed. She told of very difficult living conditions, including lack of food, and fear resulting from ongoing political problems in Haiti. When she arrived in the United States, she was detained but was eventually released. However, she expressed concern for all the other Haitian women who came to this country to experience freedom and life without fear but who are now being held in U.S. custody and are likely to be returned to Haiti.

Jean Robert LaFortune, chair of the Haitian American Grassroots Coalition, averred that there is a historic prejudice in the United States against Haiti and Haitian immigrants and that this prejudice has its roots in the Haitian Revolution of the 18th century. He noted that President George Washington, himself, advised against the importation of any Haitian slaves who had witnessed the revolution for fear that they would agitate rebellion. Mr. LaFortune suggested that the actions of Denmark Vesey, a former Haitian slave who witnessed the Haitian rebellion and plotted a violent revolution in Virginia, reinforced the beliefs of many early Americans that Haitians and their descendents should not be brought to this nation. Moreover, Mr. LaFortune insisted that this foolish idea that somehow �the rebellious� Haitians threatened the national interest of our country has persisted in the United States. He suggested it can be witnessed in the former Bush administration�s policy toward Haitians, and he maintained that it is the basis of the current Bush administration�s INS policy toward Haitians. He noted that time and time again such policies have been rejected and urged members of the Commission to work toward doing so in this instance as well.

Sidney Charles, a Haitian businessman and president of the Republican Party of Florida, noted that he came to the United States at the age of 17 by boat and worked hard. Now, in his early 50s, he boasted that he has a six-figure income and has a picture of himself posing with former President Ronald Reagan. Nevertheless, he is still perplexed and distraught over his inability to navigate the complicated INS visitation and immigration rules that ultimately prevented him from obtaining a travel visa for his mother to fly to the United States. He noted that one of her only wishes was to see her grandchildren before she died. He insisted that INS policies, as applied to Haitians, prevented him from making that wish come true for his mother, who died in 1995. He urged changes in existing U.S. immigration policies.

Sister Jeanne O�Laughlin, president of Barry University, and Maria E. Roberts, chairperson of the Miami-Dade County Commission for Women, both spoke strongly against any INS policy that results in the unfair treatment of women in comparison with men. Both referenced an INS policy that allows the imprisonment of all female INS detainees in a maximum-security criminal institution because INS cannot guarantee their safety in one of INS� own facilities. Sister O�Laughlin lamented the need to house women detainees in prisons when better and more adequate housing is available; in fact, she offered housing at Barry University to the women detainees. Similarly, Ms. Roberts stressed the inequitable aspects of the women�s treatment in respect to the treatment of men. She noted that in mid-December 2000 all of the women at Krome Detention Center, including women from Latin American, Asia, Europe, and Haiti, were transferred to the Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center (TGK) after allegations of sexual abuse and improprieties by the guards were revealed. At TGK, she alleges that the women are subjected to conditions more restrictive than those imposed upon the men at Krome. According to Ms. Roberts, the women are offered less frequent family visits, no private room for meeting with attorneys, and a far inferior law library, and subjected to body searches, lock downs, and disruptive head counts in the middle of the night. Other alleged disparities include inferior food, inadequate medical treatment, problems getting items from the commissary, more limited phone access, and difficulty in getting translation help.

Finally, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff of the local ACLU chapter also questioned the government�s reason for the Haitian detention policy. She informed the Commissioners that, in her view, the government�s justification for its current discriminatory Haitian-only detention policy is bitterly reminiscent of the anti-Haitian policies of the past�policies that were rejected by the courts and repudiated by right-minded Americans. Ms. Roberts continued, saying that once again the excuse is that without these policies a mass exodus of Haitians can be expected. She stated that long-time residents of Miami vividly remember the year 1991, when following the coup d�etat in Haiti, lawyers for Haitians on board Coast Guard cutters were forced to file a class action to stop the government from forcibly repatriating them. The U.S. government, whose lead attorney in this case was Solicitor General Kenneth Starr, filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court of the United States, alleging that 20,000 Haitians were on Haitian beaches and ready to head to Guantanomo. For Ms. Roberts, and many others addressing the Commissioners, U.S. fears of a mass exodus have never been proven legitimate.[5] For almost all of those making presentations at the meeting, the current Haitian-only detention policy is a surreal repetition of the past racist and discriminatory policies that have been repudiated time and again in U.S. courts.

After listening to the impassionate testimony of the immigration experts, former Haitian refugees, detainees, and their family members, and several civil and human rights leaders, the Commissioners unanimously agreed that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights needed to take action to determine who is responsible for the change in policy regarding Haitian refugees. Once determined, the Commissioners approved contacting the appropriate officials and urging that this INS policy, which allows the indefinite detention of Haitian refugees, be reversed.