Source: Human Rights Watch
(Washington) –The full US House of Representatives should reject a
dangerous version of a bill to renew the Violence Against Women Act
(VAWA), Human Rights Watch said today. The bill would undermine the law
and expose immigrant women and families to abuse, Human Rights Watch
said. The House Judiciary Committee on May 8, 2012 approved a version
that makes multiple changes to VAWA’s existing provisions addressing
immigrant victims of domestic and sexual violence.
“Renewing the Violence Against Women Act should take us one step closer
to becoming a society in which all women are safe from violence in
their homes and on the streets,” said Meghan Rhoad, women’s rights
researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The bill approved by the House
Judiciary Committee does the opposite. It rejects progress and rolls
back protections that have been proven effective in helping women escape
abuse.”
VAWA is the primary federal law providing legal protection and services
to women, men, and children who are victims of domestic and sexual
violence and stalking. It supports victims’ services such as rape crisis
centers, temporary housing for domestic violence survivors, and
programs to address violence against people with disabilities. Since it
was first enacted in 1994, VAWA has included protections to address the
particular challenges confronting immigrant victims of violence.
Congress has reauthorized VAWA twice and the law is now up for its
third renewal.A bipartisan reauthorization bill (S. 1925) passed the
Senate 68 to 31.
The version of the reauthorization bill approved by the House Judiciary
Committee (H.R. 4970), was introduced by Representative Sandy Adams,
Republican of Florida, and has 36 additional sponsors. Representative
Gwen Moore, Democrat of Wisconsin, has introduced an alternative version
of the VAWA renewal bill in the House with 75 co-sponsors.
Representative Judy Biggert, Republican of Illinois, has proposed a
third version, with one co-sponsor.
The Adams bill proposes sweeping changes to existing legal protections
for immigrant victims of sexual and domestic violence, Human Rights
Watch said. The bill would change the requirements for applications for
immigration status for abused immigrant spouses of US citizens and
permanent residents. These changes include imposing a stricter standard
of proof than required for asylum applications and allowing government
adjudicators to break confidentiality and interview an accused abuser
about the spouse’s immigration application.
“VAWA has always been about ensuring that all victims of abuse,
including immigrant victims, have somewhere to turn in the face of
violence,” Rhoad said. “The Adams bill tells battered immigrant women
that if they come forward, not only could they eventually be deported,
but the government may put their lives at risk by informing their abuser
that they are seeking help.”
The Adams bill further erodes protections for immigrant victims of
violence by undermining the U visa program, Human Rights Watch said. The
U visa is a temporary visa allowing an immigrant victim of a serious
crime to stay in the US to assist law enforcement in investigating and
prosecuting the crime. The Adams bill provides that crime victims
awarded a U visa would no longer be eligible for permanent residency
after the temporary visa expires. The prospect of eventual deportation
would provide abusers with leverage to keep victims in violent
relationships and inhibit victim cooperation with law enforcement, Human
Rights Watch said.
In contrast, the bill passed by the Senate would maintain current
protections for immigrant victims of abuse and make a limited number of
additional U visas available. Other provisions from the Senate bill that
are missing from the Adams bill would restore Native American tribal
courts’ criminal jurisdiction over crimes of domestic violence or dating
violence committed on reservations and tribal lands in cases in which
the victim is a tribal member but the defendant is not. Currently, those
cases fall outside the jurisdiction of both tribal and state courts and
are rarely prosecuted by federal authorities.
In addition, the House Judiciary Committee rejected amendments that
would explicitly provide protection for LGBT victims of sexual and
domestic violence. While such violence affects LGBT victims at
approximately the same rate as non-LGBT victims, discrimination can
prevent them from accessing social services like domestic violence
shelters or legal remedies like orders of protection.
“The Adams bill, with both its striking omissions and retrogressive
provisions, constitutes an attack on the principle that protection from
violence should be available to everyone,” Rhoad said. “It does a great
disservice to VAWA’s 18-year history and a greater injustice to the
victims of domestic and sexual violence whom it abandons.”