[ad_1]<\/p>\n
The United States signed the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (\u201cICERD\u201d or \u201cConvention\u201d) in 1966. President Lyndon Johnson\u2019s administration noted at the time that the United States \u201chas not always measured up to its constitutional heritage of equality for all\u201d but that it was \u201con the march\u201d toward compliance. The United States finally ratified the Convention in 1994 and first reported on its progress in implementing the Convention to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (\u201cCERD\u201d or \u201cCommittee\u201d) in 2000. In August 2022, the Committee will examine the combined 10th<\/sup> \u2013 12th<\/sup> periodic reports by the United States on compliance with the Convention. This report supplements the submission of the government with additional information in key areas and offers recommendations that will, if adopted, enhance the government\u2019s ability to comply with ICERD.<\/p>\n In its 2000 report, the United States stated that \u201covert discrimination\u201d is \u201cless pervasive than it was thirty years ago\u201d but admitted it continued due to \u201csubtle forms of discrimination\u201d that \u201cpersist[ed] in American society.\u201d The forms of discrimination reported to the United Nations by the United States included \u201cinadequate enforcement of existing anti-discrimination laws\u201d; \u201cineffective use and dissemination of data\u201d; economic disadvantage experienced by minority groups; \u201cpersistent discrimination in employment and labour relations\u201d; \u201csegregation and discrimination in housing\u201d leading to diminished educational opportunities for minorities; lack of equal access to capital, credit markets and technology; discrimination in the criminal legal system; lack of adequate access to health insurance and health care; and discrimination against immigrants, among other harmful effects. The United States also noted the heightened impact of racism on women and children.<\/p>\n It has now been more than 50 years since the US signed the ICERD, nearly 30 years since it ratified the Convention, and more than 20 since it identified the extensive foregoing list of impediments to its effective implementation. Yet progress toward compliance remains elusive\u2014indeed, grossly inadequate\u2014in numerous key areas including reparative justice; discrimination in the US criminal legal system; use of force by law enforcement officials; discrimination in the regulation and enforcement of migration control; and stark disparities in the areas of economic opportunity and health care. Structural racism and xenophobia persist as powerful and pervasive forces in American society.<\/p>\n During his first days in office, President Joseph Biden called for urgent action to advance equity for all, calling this a \u201cbattle for the soul of [the] nation\u201d because \u201csystemic racism\u201d is \u201ccorrosive,\u201d \u201cdestructive\u201d and \u201ccostly.\u201d As this report and its annex, jointly authored by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch, demonstrate, the US has a great deal of work ahead to realize the promises of the ICERD. This report therefore includes important recommendations in areas in which our organizations have specialized expertise, for addressing some of the US\u2019s most flagrant violations of the Convention. Additionally, although we recognize the political challenges facing the Biden Administration as it seeks to promote racial equity, we note that its recent declarations on racial justice are disconnected from the government\u2019s longstanding human rights obligations under the ICERD. The attached annex therefore identifies additional, more targeted measures to align President Biden\u2019s commitments with the ICERD. These measures are both fully within the control of the executive branch of the federal government and powerful enough to give life to the President\u2019s stated commitment to put \u201cevery branch of the White House and the federal government\u201d to work in the effort to \u201celiminate systemic racism\u201d in the United States.<\/p>\n President Biden has declared that racism, xenophobia, nativism, and other forms of intolerance are \u201cglobal problems.\u201dThe ICERD is an important part of the solution and to confront these global problems effectively, the US should fulfill its obligations under the treaty.This report and its detailed annex offer an initial roadmap for the US to do exactly that.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Article 6 of the ICERD establishes the right to remedy and to seek just and adequate reparation for acts of racial discrimination such as enslavement, the many post-emancipation crimes against Black people in the United States, and the insufficiently remediated ongoing discriminatory structures. The US government has never adequately addressed the gross human rights violations perpetrated against Black people as part of chattel slavery or the exploitation, segregation, and violence unleashed on Black people that followed. The discrimination against Black people that is a legacy of enslavement persists and is perpetuated by economic, health, education, law enforcement, and housing, and other policies and practices that fail to adequately address racial disparities\u2014part of the ongoing structural racism and racial subjugation that prevents many Black people from advancing, and facilitates police violence, housing segregation, and a lack of access to education and employment opportunities, among other things. States are obligated under the ICERD to overcome such structural discrimination, both through effective remedies\u2014such as reparations and \u201cspecial measures\u201d\u2014and through the Convention\u2019s obligation to \u201c[t]ake steps to remove all obstacles that prevent the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by people of African descent especially in the areas of education, housing, employment and health.\u201d<\/p>\n The ICERD requires States Parties to \u201cassure to everyone within their jurisdiction effective protection and remedies, through the competent national tribunals and other State institutions, against any acts of racial discrimination\u201d and to ensure \u201cthe right to seek from such tribunals just and adequate reparation or satisfaction for any damage suffered as a result of such discrimination.\u201d The CERD has noted that the right to seek just and adequate reparation \u201cis not necessarily secured by the punishment of the perpetrator of the discrimination\u201d and that \u201cthe courts and other competent authorities should consider awarding financial compensation for damage, material or moral, suffered by a victim, whenever appropriate.\u201d The UN has also established principles on the right of victims to remedies and reparations, and specifically set forth the right to reparations for people of African descent.Although States generally only incur international responsibility for acts that are both internationally wrongful and attributable to the State, this principle<\/a> does not apply to slavery and its legacy. While the US has enacted civil rights statutes since the 1950s, such legislation has been largely ineffective at curbing structural discrimination and racial inequality because of judicial decisions that significantly undermined their scope and meager government enforcement and investment, as well as the onerous requirements of discriminatory intent instead of discriminatory effect. Further, the US has consistently indicated<\/a> in its ICERD reporting that \u201cinadequate funding\u201d is one of the central reasons for insufficient federal enforcement. The failure of the US to expand enforcement efforts and resources while acknowledging these widespread disparities over the last twenty-two years since it became a party to ICERD requires immediate redress.<\/p>\n Reparative intervention for historical and contemporary racial injustice is urgent and required by ICERD. The deep racial harms and unequal structures that are inextricably rooted in chattel slavery remain unremedied, perpetuating systemic inequality. Scholars have estimated<\/a> that the US benefited from 222,505,049 hours of forced labor between 1619 and the end of slavery in 1865, which would be valued at $97 trillion today. In 1860 alone, there were four million enslaved Africans whose labor is valued at least $3 billion<\/a>, which was more than all the capital invested in railroads and factories in the United States combined<\/a>. Enslaved people were subjected to brutal\u00a0 forced labor<\/a> as well as formal and informal state-sanctioned discrimination that resulted in severe economic damage, in addition to psychological, social and political harm.<\/p>\n Black people in the US continue to endure severe economic disadvantages in wealth and income and suffer from discriminatory policies in land and home ownership, denial of health care, and segregation in education. The resulting disparities are staggering: The average white family has roughly ten times the wealth of the average Black family and white college graduates have over seven times more wealth than Black college graduates. With the current pace of growth in wealth among Black families, it will take an estimated 230 years for Black families to obtain the same amount of wealth that white families currently have. About 21 percent of Black people in the United States live in poverty, more than double the rate for white people (8.8 percent). Although \u201cthese wealth disparities are rooted in historic injustices and carried forward by recent and ongoing practices and policies that fail to reverse inequitable trends,\u201d to date the US government has not done nearly enough to address the lasting and contemporary racially discriminatory effects of structures of inequality and racial subordination. It has also openly admitted to failing to provide sufficient resources for civil rights enforcement even though ICERD requires restitution, compensation, and restoration.<\/p>\n While the CERD has not yet made specific recommendations to the US with regard to reparative justice, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in her 2021 report on systemic racism in law enforcement, urged the US (alongside other governments) to initiate reparations. Although some localities have implemented reparation initiatives or commissions to address past racially motivated harms, <\/sup>there remains no formal nationwide federal initiative to advance reparations. Neither US courts nor other tribunals have provided reliable remedies for the descendants of enslaved people. H.R. 40 – Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act, a bill currently before the House of Representatives, would establish a commission to study the effects of slavery and recommend appropriate remedies. But no progress<\/a> has been reported as of this writing. In sum, the US federal government continues to neglect its ICERD commitments to remedy the systemic, longstanding and grave legacy of enslavement and racial discrimination.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Article 2(1) of ICERD states that States Parties need to pursue the elimination of racial discrimination in all its forms. ICERD prohibits discriminatory practices and requires that States Parties \u201ctake effective measures to review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws which have the effect of creating or perpetuating discrimination.\u201d Additionally, Article 5 guarantees equality before the law, including \u201cthe right to equal treatment before tribunals and all other organs administering justice\u201d; and article 6 requires states to guarantee \u201ceffective protection and remedies, through competent national tribunals,\u201d against acts of racial discrimination.<\/p>\n The CERD has broadly articulated that \u201cthe mere fact of belonging to a racial or ethnic group . . . is not a sufficient reason, de jure or de facto, to place a person in pretrial detention\u201d and that States should \u201censure that the courts do not apply harsher punishments solely because of an accused person\u2019s membership of a specific racial or ethnic group.\u201d Additionally, the UN, in its 2021 common position on incarceration, stated that \u201cincarceration should be used as a last resort,\u201d and recommended shifting to non-custodial alternatives.<\/p>\n The CERD has repeatedly emphasized profound concerns with the US criminal legal system, first articulated<\/a> in its 2001 Concluding Observations to the US, in which it noted that \u201cthe incarceration rate is particularly high with regard to African-Americans and Hispanics.\u201d It thus recommended that the US take \u201cfirm action to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin,\u201d to equal treatment before all organs administering justice. In its most recent review, the Committee went further, expressing its concern that \u201cmembers of racial and ethnic minorities, particularly African Americans, continue to be disproportionately arrested, incarcerated and subjected to harsher sentences, including life imprisonment without parole and the death penalty.\u201d It specifically recommended that the US amend \u201claws and policies leading to racially disparate impacts in the criminal justice system\u201d at all levels of government and implement \u201ceffective national strategies or plans of action aimed at eliminating structural discrimination.\u201d In its 2021 submission, the US reported that the federal prison population had dropped to its lowest level since 2000, \u201cdeclining almost 31% since 2013,\u201d though it is worth noting that the federal prison population only represents about 10 percent of the total US prison population. Further, the federal prison population has grown under President Biden. The US also cited the First Step Act, enacted by Congress in December 2018, as central in making reductions possible. In its 2021 submission the US reported that of the total number of people who received reduced sentences as a result of the First Step Act, 91 percent were Black<\/a>, which is consistent with the historic over-policing and overcharging of Black communities. At the same time, the US failed to mention that its own Department of Justice (DOJ) found the risk assessment tool\u00a0 the Prisoner Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risk and Needs (PATTERN) created by DOJ in connection with the First Step Act, resulted in racial disparities. Despite repeated attempts at reform, the tool continues to overestimate the number of Black women who will engage in recidivism, compared to white women, and produces other racial disparities.<\/p>\n While some reforms have taken effect over the last decade, the US has failed to systematically address the immense breadth and depth of harm caused by its criminal legal system\u2013harms that are the product of deliberate <\/a>legal and policy choices<\/a> created by a dominant white population supported by a culture of white supremacy.<\/p>\n US authorities hold almost two million people in detention and correctional facilities across the\u00a0 United States<\/a>, and they imprison Black people at a rate three times higher than white people<\/a>. Black women are imprisoned at a rate that is 1.7 times<\/a> the rate of white women. While systemic discrimination against Black people is particularly blatant, the US also disproportionately punishes Indigenous<\/a> <\/a>and Latinx<\/a> <\/a>people. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Racial discrimination is also deeply woven into the policing and charging practices that harass, target, and subject Black people and other people of color to the most severe punishments available. One out of seven people in prison are serving a life sentence<\/a>, and nearly half<\/a> of that group is Black. US authorities continue to apply the death penalty both discriminatorily and arbitrarily.<\/p>\n In 2021, more than half of people executed were Black, and approximately 60% of people sentenced to death were Black or Latinx<\/a>. Nearly 200 people on death row have been exonerated<\/a> since 1972\u20141 for every 8.3 people executed. In fact, both death-row exonerees in 2021 were Black men imprisoned in Mississippi for nearly three decades because of false forensic testimony<\/a>.<\/p>\n Mass incarceration harms not only those incarcerated, disproportionately people of color, but entire communities. About half of adults<\/a> in the US have had an immediate family member incarcerated in jail or prison. Black people are 50 percent more likely to have experienced familial incarceration than whites, and they are three times as likely to have had a family member incarcerated for a year or longer<\/a>. Research also shows<\/a> that nearly half of incarcerated people in state prisons and almost 60 percent in federal prisons are parents with minor children, and Black children are six times more likely than their white peers to have had a parent behind bars<\/a>.<\/p>\n One of the most damaging aspects of mass incarceration in the United States is the harm caused to incarcerated people by dangerous and degrading conditions in prisons, jails, and other places of detention. Practices such as solitary confinement<\/a>, denial of adequate medical and mental healthcare<\/a>, and sexual and other violence<\/a> cause lasting injury, and sometimes death, to those exposed to them. Because of space limitations, this report does not discuss these conditions of confinement in detail, but they are an inseparable element of the harm caused by mass incarceration.<\/p>\n The ICERD requires<\/a> States to \u201cpay the greatest attention possible with a view to ensuring that [children from racial minorities] benefit from the special regime to which they are entitled in relation to the execution of sentences.\u201d Other prominent human rights bodies have reinforced this message. The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has stated that \u201cparticular attention must be paid to de facto discrimination and [racial] disparities\u201d and urged states to provide \u201cappropriate support and assistance\u201d to reintegrate young people who commit crimes. In its most recent recommendations to the US, the CERD urged the US to intensify efforts to address the \u201cschool-to-prison pipeline,\u201d ensure that young people are not placed in adult criminal settings, and abolish life-without-parole sentences for people under eighteen.<\/p>\n Racial inequities pervade every stage of the juvenile legal system. Black and brown young people are more likely than their white peers to be stopped and harassed by the police.This increases the likelihood of future arrest: Black young people who come into contact with the police by eighth grade have eleven times greater odds of being arrested in young adulthood. Once arrested, Black young people are four times as likely to be detained as white young people. Black young people comprise just fifteen percent of the US youth population, but forty-one percent of those confined in juvenile facilities. Black children are also disproportionately likely to be charged as adults. Indeed, eighty percent of young people serving life sentences are children of color, and more than fifty percent are Black. The traumas of incarceration\u2014which are especially acute for children in adult prisons and include sexual abuse, solitary confinement, and death by suicide\u2014therefore fall too often on children of color, especially Black youth.<\/p>\n Beyond the general requirement that \u201call public authorities and public institutions, national and local\u201d eschew racial discrimination, the ICERD contains provisions that bear specifically on homelessness and poverty. Article 5(e) of the Convention addresses discrimination in protections against unemployment and the provision of social security and social services. Additionally, Article 5(f) articulates a \u201cright of access to any place or service intended for use by the general public.\u201d In 2014, the CERD expressed concern over the \u201chigh number of homeless persons, who are disproportionately from racial and ethnic minorities,\u201d and the \u201ccriminalization of homelessness through laws that prohibit activities such as loitering, camping, begging and lying down in public spaces.\u201d The Committee recommended abolishing laws criminalizing homelessness, and \u201cintensify[ing] efforts to find solutions for the homeless, in accordance with human rights standards.\u201d<\/p>\n Although the US has previously acknowledged the CERD\u2019s concerns, the criminalization of homelessness remains a pressing social problem across the United States\u2014and one that continues to burden people of color disproportionately. In 2020, there were an estimated 580,000 unhoused people in the United States, 39 percent of whom were Black, despite only being 12 percent of the US total population. Fifty-three percent of unhoused families with children were Black. Native American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander people made up 1 percent of the US population, but 5 percent of the unhoused. Many localities persist in criminalizing the presence of homeless persons in public places\u2014in essence, punishing people for lacking a home by prohibiting sleeping outside, loitering, or requesting assistance from others. For instance, in one town near Los Angeles, California, only 1.3 percent of the population is homeless, but that group received a staggering 26% of all citations issued in the town by the Los Angeles Sheriff\u2019s Department. Zealous targeting of homeless populations essentially for being homeless inexorably feeds a vicious cycle of escalating enforcement, generating misdemeanors, warrants, unpayable fines, and incarceration. The criminalization of homelessness now includes arrests, citations, and forced banishment of people through encampment clearances and property destruction by sanitation workers and police. In cities like Los Angeles as well as elsewhere in the US, a long history of racial discrimination in housing, lending, employment, policing, and other factors (government policies like \u201curban renewal\u201d and freeway construction included)\u00a0 have led to high levels of Black homelessness.<\/p>\n Poverty implicates issues of concern to CERD outside the context of homelessness as well. The US has conceded that, within the criminal legal system, some rights are contingent upon ability to pay. Although variation occurs across US states, the US has noted that \u201cpersons with felony convictions may \u2026 have to pay any outstanding fees, fines, or restitution before [voting] rights are restored\u201d upon release from incarceration. While this statement indicates some recognition of the problem, the federal government\u2019s current actions are inadequate to remedy the immense harm to poor individuals stemming from the criminal legal system, a system that keeps the already marginalized in poverty. In its most recent response to the CERD, the US fails to address the crushing effects of fines and fees accompanying low-level infractions, the accumulation of which affect the poorest in society, who pay the vast majority of these penalties. A study in Tulsa, Oklahoma found that Black residents were disproportionately subject to county-based warrants that are often issued for minor infractions such as failure to pay court costs, fines, and fees. The threat of rearrest for one\u2019s inability to afford mounting debt keeps people in a cycle of incarceration and forces families to decide between paying fines and fees and purchasing necessities such as diapers and formula for their children. <\/sup>Mothers are separated for lengthy periods of time from their children as a result of being held in custody, sometimes lengthened due to the fines and fees.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Furthermore, pretrial incarceration, often ordered by judges setting unaffordable money bail, disproportionately harms low-income and low-wealth people of color. In the case of bail, wealthy defendants are more able to secure their freedom while poor ones are forced to remain incarcerated, affecting their livelihoods and family ties. Pretrial incarceration leads to increased likelihood of convictions and harsher sentences. People held in jail pretrial are\u00a0\u00a0 pressured to plead guilty to secure their release, regardless of their actual guilt or innocence. Additionally, pretrial incarceration can result in even more fines and fees, as some jails bill detained people for each day of their detention. These inequalities have troubling racial implications, as Black people are 2.5 times more likely than white people to live in poverty and face much higher arrest rates.<\/p>\n Probation and parole are portrayed as alternatives to incarceration, but in reality they drive high numbers of people\u2014particularly Black and brown people\u2014into jail and prison. About 4 million people in the US are on probation or parole, and nearly half of all state prison admissions stem from violations of the conditions of probation or parole. Black people are 4.15 times more likely to be under supervision than white people, and remain on supervision longer than similarly situated whites.<\/p>\n Black people are also more likely to be incarcerated for supervision violations. Due to generations of structural racism, Black and brown people are less likely to have resources, such as housing, wealth, reliable transportation, and jobs, that make it feasible to complete the onerous requirements of supervision. Meanwhile, they are disproportionately stopped, searched, and arrested by police\u2014making them more likely to be incarcerated for probation or parole violations. And some supervision conditions\u2014such as requirements to stay away from people with felony records\u2014disproportionately burden Black men, one in three of whom have a felony conviction.<\/p>\n The ICERD requires States to take \u201cspecial and concrete measures to ensure the adequate development and protection of certain racial groups or individuals belonging to them, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms,\u201d <\/sup>including the right to work and the right to housing. The Committee has raised concerns about persistent housing and employment racial disparities in the US.<\/p>\n The United States imposes more than 48,000 legal restrictions on people with criminal records\u2014barring them from work, housing, jobs, and civic engagement. These barriers disproportionately impact Black and brown people, who are more likely to have criminal records and to face discrimination when attempting to access housing and employment. Sixty-four percent of unemployed men in their thirties have criminal records, and Black men are almost twice as likely as white men to be unemployed.<\/p>\n Additionally, the high rate at which the US subjects Black people to correctional control results in their underrepresentation in the US electorate, as many US jurisdictions deny voting rights to people on probation and parole, and nearly all deny those rights to people in prison.<\/p>\n The ICERD guarantees the right to equal treatment generally and, under Article 2(c), requires States Parties to \u201ctake effective measures to review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations that have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists.\u201d In its General Recommendation XXXI, the CERD recommended that States \u201cpay the greatest attention\u201d to \u201cproportionately higher crime rates attributed to persons belonging to [racial minorities], particularly as regards petty street crime and offenses related to drugs\u201d as an indication of the \u201cnon-integration of such persons into society.\u201d Additionally, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV\/AIDS (UNAIDS) has called for the \u201cdecriminalization of drug possession for personal use\u201d and the \u201celimination of stigma and discrimination against people who use drugs.\u201d In its 2014 concluding observations to the US, the CERD expressed concern over \u201cthe application of mandatory minimum drug-offense sentencing policies\u201d that exacerbate racial disparities in the criminal legal system. Additionally, the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights highlighted the \u201cconfused and counterproductive drug policies\u201d in the US in his 2018 country report. The report described how, in the context of drug addiction in the US, the \u201cmain responses have been punitive,\u201d rather than the appropriate response of \u201cincreased funding and improved access to vital care and support.\u201d The report further suggested that this \u201curge to punish\u201d has \u201cracial undertones,\u201d noting the disparities in sentencing between Black users of crack cocaine and white users of opioids. Similarly, the UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent has urged the US to amend any judicial policies that disproportionately target Black people, stating that \u201cthe war on drugs has operated more effectively as a system of racial control than as a mechanism for combating the use or trafficking of narcotics.\u201d<\/p>\n In its 2021 report to the CERD, the US pointed to the 2018 enactment of the First Step Act, a law that reduced racial disparities in sentences for certain drug crimes. While these reforms are helpful, they do not do nearly enough to remedy past discriminatory treatment or change laws, policies and practices in ways that would prevent it in the future.<\/p>\n Nearly 400,000 people are in prison for drug crimes. The vast majority of individuals incarcerated in federal prison are there on a drug charge,and by some estimates, nearly eighty percent of people in federal prison for drug offenses are Black or Latinx.Though Black and white people use drugs at similar rates,Black people are imprisoned for drug crimes at five times the rate of white people. \u201cBlack people [a]re arrested at over three times the rate of white people, and up to eight times as often in some states,\u201d for marijuana offenses.Additionally, police have targeted Black people specifically for federal prosecution, because \u201cfederal drug laws carry harsher punishment\u2014including mandatory minimum sentences\u2014than charges brought in state court.\u201dThough some authorities have begun to embrace a less punitive, more health-based approach to substance use disorders, this shift is still far too limited, and only began to take place after years of especially harsh treatment of Black people as part of the War on Drugs amidst an opioid crisis associated primarily with white people. Further, drug arrests\u2013the vast majority for possession\u2013remain the leading cause of arrest in the US.<\/p>\n Black people have in fact been hit the hardest by the opioid crisis in recent years, one that has only worsened since the Covid-19 pandemic began. One study shows a thirty-eight percent increase in overdoses among Black people between 2018 and 2019 across four states. Additionally, some states have responded to the opioid crisis by passing drug-induced homicide laws, which seek to charge people with murder for selling drugs that may have led to an overdose. Such laws can result in the disproportionate prosecution of Black and Latinx people\u2014providing another basis for subjecting individuals of color to lengthy prison terms for drug-related offenses.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n ICERD Article 5 includes the rights to work, free choice of employment, just and favorable conditions of work, equal pay for equal work, and just and favorable remuneration.Further, the guidelines for prison labor set out in the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the \u201dRules\u201d) prohibit work \u201cof an afflictive nature,\u201d require permitting incarcerated people to \u201cchoose the type of work they wish to perform,\u201d and mandate that such labor be supplemented with vocational training. The Rules also state that the \u201cprecautions laid down to protect the safety and health of free workmen shall be equally observed in [correctional] institutions,\u201d and that \u201c[p]rovision shall be made to indemnify prisoners against industrial injury, including occupational disease, on terms not less favorable than those extended by law to free workmen.\u201d<\/p>\n Almost one million people are currently working while confined in US prisons. They often work in grueling and degrading conditions for little to no pay\u2014often pennies on the hour\u2014and under threat of punishment (including solitary confinement) for refusing to work.US law explicitly excludes incarcerated workers from the most basic workplace safety guarantees, including the constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude. <\/sup>The US prison labor system involves present-day involuntary servitude. Prison labor is also a legacy of slavery, and racial inequities persist today. Black people are disproportionately incarcerated and thus overrepresented among those working in prison.Black people also work lower-wage and unpaid agriculture and maintenance jobs at a disproportionate rate in prison, while a higher proportion of white people work in higher-paying prison-industries jobs. Indeed, across the deep south, agricultural workers, largely Black, pick and harvest crops in prisons located on the sites of former slave plantations.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Article 5(b) of the ICERD requires States Parties to ensure equity in the right to be free from \u201cviolence or bodily harm, whether inflicted by government officials or by any individual group or institution.\u201dAccordingly, the CERD has called on States Parties to improve the training of their law enforcement officials, and it has long expressed concern about police profiling, bias and brutality <\/sup>(as well as attendant impunity) that disproportionately harms people of color in the United States. The Committee even issued an Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedures Resolution after the police murder of George Floyd sparked unprecedented protests against police violence in 2020.<\/p>\n Despite warnings from the Committee and other international human rights bodies,US police agencies have failed to meet their obligations under the ICERD. The US has discussed bringing federal lawsuits against problematic police agencies and proposed some federal legislation that may (if passed) help to address some of these issues,but legislation failed in the US Senate, and the executive order President Biden passed in response does not go nearly far enough to save lives.<\/p>\n People of color continue to bear the brunt of aggressive and discriminatory policing. Estimates attribute over 1,000 killings per year to the police,and new research suggests that more than half of police killings are not reflected in official statistics.Police also continue to kill Native Americans, Latinxs and Black people at significantly higher rates\u2014as much as 350% more frequently\u2014than white people.Even greater racial disparities attend nonfatal uses of force by police, and police likewise target people of color (especially Black people) for stops and arrests at much higher rates than white people. The goal of limiting police violence in the US is linked to the need to correct imbalances between investment in services that directly address societal problems such as substance use disorders or poverty and investment in policing.<\/p>\n These substantial, persistent imbalances notwithstanding, impunity for abuse remains a widespread problem.There are over 18,000 policing agencies across the US, but the US Department of Justice opened only 70 civil investigations into police departments for the possible violation of civilians\u2019 rights between 1994 and January 2020.More broadly, police rarely face prosecution or other legal consequences after engaging in brutality.Additionally, much of the data needed to discern the extent of police compliance with the ICERD remain undisclosed. For instance, federal efforts to create a use-of-force database for police have faltered due to widespread noncooperation from police departments\u2013though President Biden\u2019s executive order on policing aims to address this problem. In many US states, the disciplinary records of abusive officers are also largely hidden from the public,and civil society groups and universities have had to take it upon themselves to cobble together a national database on police stops of civilians.<\/p>\n ICERD\u2019s prohibition of discrimination, including in Article 5(b) also bears on law enforcement at the US border and in interior immigration enforcement.The CERD has recommended that \u201call officials dealing with non-citizens receive special training, including training in human rights,\u201d to combat ill-treatment and discrimination against non-citizens by police and law enforcement agencies. In its 2008 concluding observations to the US, the CERD expressed concern over the excessive use of force against migrants, recommending that the US establish \u201cadequate systems for monitoring police abuses\u201d and develop \u201cfurther training opportunities for law enforcement officials.\u201dIn 2014, the Committee went further, reiterating concern about \u201cincreased use of racial profiling\u201d by law enforcement to determine immigration status and recommending an end to specified immigration enforcement programs,including the Secure Communities programand the INA \u00a7 287(g) program.The United States replied that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy prohibits racial profiling and that it issued new use of force policies and training.<\/p>\n Despite these policies and purported reforms, US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers continue to commit acts of violence and other serious abuses against migrants. Internal DHS reports revealed testimony regarding \u201cover 160 cases of misconduct and abuse of asylum applicants,\u201d including physical and sexual abuse. Reports and statements from former CBP agents illustrate a departmental reluctance to \u201chold agents and others within the agency accountable.\u201dFurther, reports and images emerged in 2021 of \u201chorse-mounted agents maneuvering their horses in a menacing way toward migrants, wielding lariats [whips], and using derogatory and xenophobic language\u201d against primarily Haitian migrants, \u201cincluding families with small children.\u201dACLU tracking has documented at least 230 fatal encounters with CBP since the agency was created.Finally, while President \u00a0\u00a0Biden\u2019s administration has attempted to limit deportations of people from the interior of the United States through an initial moratorium on deportations and subsequent \u201cenforcement priorities\u201d memos, it has maintained programs that facilitate racial profiling in immigration enforcement such as the 287(g) program, Operation Stonegarden and the Secure Communities program, the 287(g) program is still widespread across the country. Through these programs, the Biden administration is partnering with xenophobic, anti-immigrant law enforcement agencies across the countries, including those with extensive records of civil rights violations.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n ICERD protects non-citizens against discrimination on the basis of race, colour, descent, and national or ethnic origin, regardless of whether they are lawfully admitted to the territory of a State Party<\/i>. The text of the Convention does not explicitly prohibit differential treatment on the basis of citizenship, but the CERD has clearly stated that, \u201cdifferential treatment on the basis of citizenship or immigration status will constitute discrimination\u201d under the Convention \u201cif the criteria for such differentiation . . . are not applied pursuant to a legitimate aim, and are not proportional to the achievement of this aim.\u201dArticle 5 of ICERD further binds parties to eliminate discrimination and guarantee equality before the law in relation to several rights fundamental to non-citizens, including the right to equal treatment before tribunals, the right to freedom of movement within the borders of a state, and the right to leave any country, including one\u2019s own.Article 6 additionally requires States Parties to \u201cassure to everyone within their jurisdiction effective protection and remedies\u201d for instances of discrimination; this extends to non-citizens as well as citizens.<\/p>\n The United States has long acknowledged that \u201cdiscrimination against immigrants\u201d is one of the principal causative factors of the \u201csubtle and elusive\u201d forms of discrimination that \u201cpersist[s] in American society.\u201d Indeed, the United States\u2019 combined first, second, and third report noted that there is a long history of \u201cdiscriminatory provisions in US immigration law and policy,\u201d dating to the 19th century. Notwithstanding the passage of anti-discrimination laws protecting non-citizens in and since 1965, the government has confirmed that \u201crecent immigrants often encounter discrimination in employment, education, and housing as a result of persistent racism and xenophobia.\u201d According to the United States, discrimination against non-citizens has not meaningfully abated or diminished since it became a party to ICERD; indeed, in its combined fourth, fifth, and sixth periodic reports, the United States noted an \u201cincrease in bias crimes and related discriminatory actions against persons perceived to be Muslim, or of Arab, Middle Eastern, or South Asian descent.\u201d In its most recent report, the United States highlighted an additional threat from violent domestic extremists driven by \u201clong-standing racial and ethnic tension, including opposition to immigration.\u201d<\/p>\n The CERD has made a series of recommendations about how the United States should more effectively protect non-citizens from discrimination. In 2014, the Committee called on the United States to ensure that the rights of non-citizens, \u201care fully guaranteed in law and in practice,\u201d including by \u201cabolishing \u2018Operation Streamline\u2019 [a program of mass criminal prosecution of migrants for unauthorized entry and reentry] and dealing with any breaches of immigration law through [a] civil, rather than criminal immigration system\u201d; undertaking \u201cthorough and individualized assessment concerning detention and deportation and guaranteeing access to legal representation in all immigration-related matters\u201d; reviewing \u201claws and regulations in order to protect migrant workers from exploitative and abusive working conditions\u201d; and ratifying several International Labor Organization conventions. As set out below, the US has failed to implement these recommendations and has both failed to protect migrants from prohibited discrimination and actively contributed to worsening of the discriminatory situation since last undergoing CERD review.<\/p>\n Multiple United States federal district courts have recently deemed the racist, xenophobic history of the US criminal reentry statute (one of two laws used in Operation Streamline) as relevant in analyzing the statute\u2019s application; one judge dismissed criminal charges based on a finding that the law was originally \u201cenacted with discriminatory purpose\u201d\u2013indeed, would not have been enacted absent racial animus\u2013and \u201chas a disparate impact on Latinx persons.\u201d Despite the CERD\u2019s recommendation that the US regulate migration exclusively as a civil and not a criminal matter, the United States continues to prosecute criminal entry and reentry crimes under these laws.<\/p>\n Naked xenophobia has been a major factor in US immigration policy since the last CERD review of the United States. Most significantly, former President Donald Trump actively promoted discrimination against migrants through a range of changes to US immigration law and policy, a number of which President Biden continues to enforce. Ongoing and increased discriminatory treatment of non-citizens have taken the form of efforts to restrict access to the United States; disparate treatment of migrants in the custody of US immigration authorities and in conferring immigration benefits; and the mistreatment of non-citizens by US state and local governmental authorities.<\/p>\n Workplace protections under international human rights law apply to all workers, regardless of citizenship status. However, fear of retaliation, including deportation, causes many workers who are unauthorized, who have family members who are undocumented, or otherwise have tentative immigration status to hesitate to speak up in the workplace or report abusive employers and working conditions.These fears therefore have a massive impact on Black and brown workers\u2019 rights to fair pay and decent work conditions to the right to organize.<\/p>\n In the reporting period there have been three particularly significant policies imposing discriminatory restrictions on entry and access to territory. First, the \u201cdiscriminatory bans\u201d (often called the \u201cMuslim bans\u201d) on entry to the United States that first targeted \u201cprimarily Muslim countries\u201dand then \u201cAfrican countries.\u201d In January 2021, the United States officially acknowledged that there were \u201cdiscriminatory bans\u201d on entry to the United States, which had been implemented by former President Trump and rescinded by President Biden. Commentators have pointed to the way in which anti-Muslim animus long operated as a form of racial discrimination in the US immigration system, prior to these bans on entry. While the current administration rescinded the \u201cdiscriminatory bans,\u201d the administration has failed to adequately remedy past discriminatory exclusions implemented under the policy and the ongoing consequences of the discriminatory order for migrants currently seeking to enter the US.<\/p>\n Second, the \u201cmigrant protection protocols\u201d (MPP) (also known as \u201cRemain in Mexico\u201d) policy forces migrants and asylum-seekers attempting to enter the United States at the US-Mexico land border to remain outside the US until an administrative proceeding is held to consider their status. This results in harm in Mexico, heightened risk of refoulement to the country of origin and inadequate access to administrative proceedings including asylum hearings (in fact, in many instances, rulings by US immigration authorities occur in absentia, resulting in a denial of due process rights). The MPP mostly affects those nationalities that Mexico refused to permit the US to expel under Title 42 (see below), including Central Americans, Cubans, Ecuadorians, and Venezuelans. Additionally, human rights reporting has established that migrants subjected to this policy face discriminatory treatment in Mexico.This includes, for example, indigenous migrants who do not speak Spanish as their primary language and face mistreatment in Mexico. While the Biden administration attempted to end this policy, a lawsuit brought by conservative governors in Texas and Mississippi forced the administration to reinstate it. On June 30, 2022, the US Supreme Court\u2013which did not review how the program exposed migrants to discrimination\u2013held that the Biden Administration is able to end the program.<\/p>\n The third discriminatory policy involves the expulsion of asylum-seekers who approach the southern land border under a dated public health directive codified at Title 42 of the US Code. Title 42, when applied in this manner, conflicts with the right to seek asylum set out in Title 8; nonetheless the government continues to use this public health law to expel asylum-seekers. The United States has carried out over 1.2 million expulsions under Title 42, a practice that has disproportionately impacted Black, Indigenous, and Latinx asylum-seekers, particularly from Central America, Africa, and Haiti as these migrants typically cannot access visas to enter the US via air travel). In one high-profile instance, after a large number of Haitian asylum-seekers arrived in Del Rio, Texas in September 2021, the Biden administration sent a series of Title 42 expulsion flights to Haiti, exposing well over 10,000 asylum-seekers to conditions the US government previously recognized as being too dangerous and precarious for safe return. In 2021, CBP officers were videotaped whipping Haitian asylum-seekers from horseback. The use of Title 42 denies vast numbers of asylum-seekers arriving at the border the opportunity to demonstrate their claim of persecution and\/or challenge their refoulement. Title 42 expulsions stand in stark contrast to the actions the Biden administration has taken to grant exemptions to the application of Title 42 for the (primarily white) people fleeing from Ukraine.Aspects of Title 42 are being litigated in various cases and the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that aspects of the policy are likely unlawful, although not on the basis of disparate or discriminatory impact.<\/p>\n In addition to border policies seeking to prevent migrants and asylum-seekers from ever setting foot in the United States, US immigration enforcement at the border and in the interior of the US has a disparate impact on the basis of race. This is caused in part by the failure of US constitutional interpretation to prohibit racial profiling in immigration enforcement and the continued reliance on racial profiling in border and national security enforcement. It is also the product of the intersection between structural discrimination in the US criminal legal system and deportation law. One recent study, reviewing over 13,000 stops by law enforcement officials in the US State of Michigan, found clear evidence that CBP uses \u201cracial profiling to target immigrants from Latin America and other people of color.\u201d As Arnulfo Gomez described in relation to one such stop, \u201cthere was no reason for us to have been pulled over just because of the color of our skin. Everything that happened to us was wrong. We were being targeted just because we are Hispanic.\u201d<\/p>\n Another recent study found that Black immigrants are more likely to be detained in connection with criminal convictions than the immigration population overall and ultimately more likely to be removed due to a criminal conviction, often despite having lived in the United States for long periods and having strong community ties. Evidence demonstrates that the United States consistently returns Black and Latinx migrants to countries where they are at risk.<\/p>\n Once apprehended, asylum-seekers and other migrants are subjected to prolonged and arbitrary immigration detention, often in abusive conditions and without adequate health care. Most migrants are also forced to navigate civil proceedings related to their status without legal representation. The United States operates the largest immigration detention system in the world. On a given day, tens of thousands of immigrants are detained on the basis of their status as a migrant. US law mandates detention in many cases. Myriad reports have documented the abysmal conditions to which immigration detainees are subjected. Many detention facilities are operated by private corporations under contracts with the US government; approximately 80 percent of immigrant detainees<\/a> are held in detention facilities owned or operated by private prison companies. Research has shown that failures by ICE aggravated the risk of Covid-19 infections and that ICE transfers of detainees without prior testing effectively amplified contagion. Detainees who have protested unsafe living conditions, including through the use of hunger strikes, have been subjected to retaliation, violence, and involuntary medical procedures, including force feeding and forced urinary catheterization. While the US does not adequately make available relevant data disaggregated by race or ethnicity, Black and brown migrants are disparately impacted by the harms of immigration detention. While Black immigrants<\/a> make up only 4.8% of detained immigrants facing deportation before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), they make up 17.4% of detained immigrants facing deportation before the EOIR on criminal grounds. Data shows that ICE disproportionately places Black migrants in solitary confinement and subjects them to disproportionately long periods in detention.<\/p>\n The US represented to CERD that it had made changes in response to the Committee\u2019s 2014 recommendations regarding legal counsel and individualized status assessments, noting that ICE hired a \u201cLegal Access Coordinator\u201d who seeks to \u201cenhance detained individuals\u2019 access\u201d to legal counsel. The US, however, continues to constrain access to <\/u>legal counsel for detained migrants, requiring them to \u201csecure legal representation at their own expense, find pro bono representation,\u201d or navigate the system alone. Moreover, a recent report<\/a> found that ICE systematically restricts the most basic modes of communication, such as in-person legal visits, telephones, and legal mail, that detained people need to use to connect with legal counsel. The vast majority of detained immigrants are without counsel. This is problematic not only because those detained are disproportionately Black and brown, but also because detained immigrants who have lawyers obtain relief from removal at a rate of more than ten times higher than those who do not. Calls for universal representation have pointed out that provision of counsel can help eliminate bias and discrimination in the allocation of legal services.<\/p>\n ICERD\u2019s mandate that States Parties \u201ctake effective measures\u201d to ensure that their policies accord with the treaty cannot be accomplished without accurate data. Unfortunately, the US government does not publish or collect adequate data about border deaths, distress calls, and other border enforcement actions, nor about immigration enforcement, detention, use of force incidents, removals, or DHS civil rights and civil liberties complaints or investigations. Such information should be collected and disaggregated by race, ethnicity, nationality, immigration status, gender, age, disability, and other criteria.<\/p>\n Currently, one of the most high-profile areas of concern is immigration enforcement by certain US state and local governments. In Texas, for example, the state governor claimed that the state is under threat from migrants \u201cfrom countries you haven\u2019t even heard of before\u201d and has repeatedly used the rhetoric of \u201cinvasion.\u201d The state\u2019s Operation Lone Star, just one part of anti-immigrant actions taken by the state, has aggressively used selective enforcement of the misdemeanor offense of criminal trespass to justify the arrest and detention of thousands of alleged migrants in a newly created segregated criminal legal system with separate dockets, public defender assignments, jails, and booking facilities. As of March 2022, Texas had deployed state troopers and mass-mobilized members of the National Guard, who made at least 208,000 arrests. Affidavits of arresting officers reveal that arrests are based on racial and national origin profiling, repeatedly describing those arrested as \u201cHispanic\u201d and \u201cundocumented.\u201d These criminal proceedings have resulted in prolonged detention in egregious conditions; many cases have been dismissed for lack of probable cause. Most recently, in an aggressive escalation of these policies, the state of Texas announced it would return those suspected of being migrants to the border<\/a>, raising a host of legal concerns.<\/p>\n Article 5 of ICERD provides that \u201cStates Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone\u201d to economic and social rights, including protection against unemployment, the right to medical care, social security, social services, and education, and just conditions of work and equal pay for equal work. Article 2 of ICERD further requires concrete state action to eliminate disparities in economic rights. However, racial minorities in the United States continue to suffer a lack of economic security compared to their white counterparts.<\/p>\n The median wealth of white households in the United States is significantly higher than that of Black, Indigenous, or Latinx households. This so-called racial wealth gap has grown <\/i>since the country ratified ICERD, and the median wealth of white households is now at least ten-times that of the median Black household. A disproportionate share of people who are Black, Indigenous, Latinx, or immigrants live under the poverty line. The poverty rates of Black and Latinx people are twice as high than among white people.<\/p>\n US Census Bureau data from September 2021 found that some 19 million adults lived in households with insufficient food and 11.9 million adults were behind on rent. According to data from the US Department of Agriculture, 19.1% of Black households and 15.6% of Hispanic households experienced food insecurity in 2019, compared to 7.9% of white Americans.<\/p>\n The Covid-19 pandemic has only deepened these sharp disparities. The impacts of the pandemic and the economic fallout have been widespread, but remain particularly prevalent among Blacks, Latinx, and other people of color. Gaps in preparedness and response to the Covid-19 pandemic have disproportionately negatively burdened people of color, which has deepened existing racial injustices in health care, housing, employment, education, and wealth accumulation.<\/p>\n Over the course of the pandemic, poverty fell overall due in part to the stimulus checks and unemployment benefits received by many. But the little progress made toward economic parity over the last year has stalled, as relief measures implemented in response to Covid-19 have been reduced, ended, or struck down by the courts. Today, the Black-white wealth gap is as big as it was in 1968.<\/p>\n While the US has acknowledged these disparities, it has admitted to CERD that it has failed to invest sufficient resources to address them, leading to the persistence of deeply discriminatory health care, inadequate social safety nets, and segregated communities and schools.<\/p>\n Article 5 of ICERD provides that \u201cStates Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms\u201d in the right to \u201cpublic health\u201d and \u201cmedical care\u201dand provide equal access to healthcare services.CERD has specifically mandated that states address the disproportionate impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on racial minorities. Where there are persistent disparities, ICERD requires states to affirmatively adopt measures to address them.<\/p>\n The Committee has expressed concern over the failure of the US to address racial disparities in access to affordable health care, as many states have opted out of the Medicaid expansion program, excluding substantial numbers of racial minorities. In addition, the Committee expressed concern that many states have explicitly excluded migrants from health care. In 2014, it recommended that the US \u201ctake concrete measures\u201d to ensure individuals, \u201cin particular racial and ethnic minorities who reside in states that have opted out of\u201d the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and migrants have \u201caccess to affordable and adequate health-care services.\u201d CERD has recommended that the US eliminate steep racial disparities in sexual and reproductive health, collect data, and improve monitoring and accountability systems. In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, CERD has made clear that States are obligated to \u201censure equal access\u201d to medical care.<\/p>\n Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities continue to suffer profound disparities in rates of chronic health conditions, health outcomes, and access to quality health care. For example, these communities are disproportionately impacted both by diabetes and its negative health outcomes, and are especially vulnerable to the harmful human rights impact of insulin prices in the US. The Covid-19 pandemic has deepened existing racial injustices in health care: minorities are more likely to suffer severe illness and die from Covid-19 and face barriers to vaccine access.<\/p>\n Black people suffer from particularly acute racial disparities in maternal mortality and cervical cancer rates.The maternal mortality rate for Black women is three times higher than white women and rose further between 2019 and 2020, driven by significant increases in the maternal mortality rate of Black and Latinx women. These deaths, and those from cervical cancer, are preventable. Indeed, in 2020, 194 countries committed to eliminating cervical cancer globally. In the US, Black women are more likely than white women to have never been screened for cervical cancer, are diagnosed at a later stage, and have lower survival rates. In the state of Alabama, Black women are nearly twice as likely to die of cervical cancer as white women.<\/p>\n Given this crisis in maternal mortality and access to care for people of color, the Supreme Court\u2019s recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization<\/i> to overturn the constitutional right to access an abortion in Roe v. Wade<\/i> and related decisions will have a particularly profound and deadly impact<\/a> on people of color. Black people have higher-risk pregnancies<\/a>, are more than four times as likely to have had abortions as white pregnant people, are more likely to miscarry or have stillbirths compared to white pregnant people, and are more likely to live in states that restrict abortions.<\/p>\n Migrants also suffer from acute health disparities, and some have no access to health care at all. Although some local policies provide undocumented immigrants with health care, the federal government continues to prevent undocumented and some legal immigrants from enrolling in ACA coverage and Medicaid. The lack of access to adequate health care has exacerbated the effects of Covid-19 for immigrants, particularly undocumented populations in frontline jobs.<\/p>\n State and federal prisons have failed to offer adequate health protection generally, and specifically against Covid-19. Covid-19 incidence and mortality rates were consistently higher among the prison population than the overall US population in the first year of the pandemic, and the cumulative toll of Covid-19 has been several times greater among the prison population than the overall US population. The US\u2019s response continues to be inadequate; in immigration detention centers, COVID-19 infections have increased by more than 940 percent since January 2022<\/a>, while ICE has only administered booster shots to 671 of the 22,000 people in ICE detention. Given the rapid spread of the virus behind bars, and the racially disproportionate prison population, Black and Latinx people have been particularly vulnerable. By May 2020, Black people accounted for 60% of Covid-19 deaths in the New York State prison system, despite comprising 48% of detainees.<\/p>\n ICERD requires states to guarantee the rights to social security and social services without distinction as to race,and the Committee has made clear that States are obligated to eliminate all forms of racial inequities, whether intentional or not. Despite these protections, Black and Latinx people continue to face underinvestment in social protection, which has contributed to profound disparities in poverty and economic security. While, in the past, America\u2019s public benefits system helped reduce and prevent poverty and racial disparities by providing basic economic, food, childcare, and housing support, thereby preventing the intergenerational transmission of poverty, it has weakened substantially over the past decades.<\/p>\n The inadequate support system has been driven by racial animus, community violence, and discriminatory government policies based on racist stereotypes as well as federal delegation to states. Although most safety net programs are federally funded, state control over program design, rules, and benefit levels has resulted in inconsistent protection and racial inequalities. Similar to problematic aspects of the Medicaid provision, US regions with larger populations of color have weaker safety nets and higher rates of economic hardship. For example, workers of color have higher unemployment rates and also are more likely to reside in states with weaker unemployment insurance systems and other safety net programs.<\/p>\n The Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated the economic disparities and underlying conditions driving these inequalities, as Black and Latinx communities have experienced more job losses (and ensuing loss of health insurance), higher rates of infection and mortality, and greater likelihood of evictions and hunger than their white counterparts. Similarly, women are disproportionately impacted by the economic fallout of Covid-19 For example, 40.8 percent of Black, non-Hispanic women and 44.6 percent of Latinas faced housing insecurity in mid-July 2020 compared to 15.4 percent of white, non-Hispanic men. These rates were higher for households with children (45.2 percent for Black, non-Hispanic women with children and 48.8 percent for Latinas with children). In addition, in April 2020, less than half of the adult Black population was employed and the Black and white unemployment gap widened to 5.3 percentage points. Only 36 percent of households earning under $50,000 that lost jobs received unemployment benefits. Women, especially women of color, have disproportionately suffered from pandemic job losses. As of late 2020, Black women\u2019s employment fell 18.2 percent from its peak compared with 16.7 percent for white women. In September 2020, white women\u2019s employment recovered while Black women\u2019s employment remained low. Latina women have also experienced dramatic employment and labor force declines.<\/p>\n Although the US issued stimulus checks and other relief, these measures could not repair the social safety net shredded by decades of budget cuts and draconian rules. In addition, there were racial disparities in the provision of the Coronavirus Aid Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act economic impact payments. Undocumented immigrants were also largely left without relief during the pandemic as they and other immigrants were ineligible for pandemic-related stimulus checks, temporary family assistance (TANF), and food stamps.<\/b> Many immigrants eligible for unemployment relief were effectively denied relief because many states failed to translate application forms and other essential documents. Child poverty increased by 41 percent within a month after the US let its expanded child tax credit expire at the end of 2021, pushing 3.7 million more children into poverty. Black and Latinx children experienced the highest percentage point increases in poverty, 5.9 percent and 7.1 percent respectively.<\/p>\n Without effective social safety nets, families are also at risk of lengthy separation. Nationally, more than 75 percent of child welfare cases involve neglect, which occurs when a parent or caregiver fails to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or supervision to a child. Instead of assisting families by providing cash, food, housing, or childcare assistance, the US child welfare system uses indicators of poverty as bases for removing children from families <\/sup>while subsidizing and incentivizing foster care and adoption under the pretext of acting in the child\u2019s best interest. Due to systemic racism and other factors, this disproportionately impacts families of color.<\/p>\n Article 2(2) of ICERD provides that States Parties shall take \u201cspecial and concrete measures to ensure the adequate development and protection of certain racial groups \u2026 , for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.\u201d Quality education is central to the enjoyment of basic rights such as job procurement and political participation. The CERD has underscored that barriers in education \u201cresults in the transmission of poverty from generation to generation\u201d for people of African descent.<\/p>\n Discrimination and segregation in the education sector remain rampant across the US, driving inequality in education and in life opportunities. Although the population is increasingly diverse, racial segregation in US schools is higher now than it has been in decades. Majority-minority schools continue to be underfunded and fail to provide adequate educational opportunities to minority students. US schools are primarily funded by neighborhood-specific property taxes, meaning that schools in poorer neighborhoods generate and receive less funding and resources than those in wealthier neighborhoods with higher property values. Racial disparities in education\u2019s connection to US property tax policies built in part on racial discrimination, racial segregation, and the legacies of slavery has been widely recognized, including by some US courts. Poor conditions in these schools\u2013such as \u201cmissing or unqualified teachers, physically dangerous facilities, and inadequate books and materials\u201d\u2013correlate with lower student performance and low literacy rates, hampering minority individuals\u2019 ability to participate equally in democratic society.<\/p>\n In its 2008 and 2014 concluding observations addressed to the US, the CERD expressed concern about racial segregation in public schools, finding that prohibition of the use of race-conscious measures as a tool to promote integration inhibited progress. The Committee found that students from racial and ethnic minorities attend segregated schools with unequal facilities, noting that even when students of color attend racially diverse schools, they are often relegated to \u201csingle race\u201d classes, denied access to advanced courses, and unfairly disciplined. <\/sup>The Committee recommended that the US undertake a study to examine the reasons underlying de facto racial segregation, and \u201cadopt all appropriate measures\u201d to reduce the achievement gap between white and Black students \u201cby improving the quality of education provided to [Black] students.\u201d In 2014, the Committee recommended<\/a> that the US intensify its efforts to ensure equal access to education by taking measures including developing a concrete plan with goals and timelines to address racial segregation in schools and neighborhoods, and increasing federal funding for programs promoting racially integrated learning environments for students.<\/p>\n In its 2021 report to the CERD, the US made a number of claims regarding its efforts to promote diversity and equal opportunity in education, including 2021 American Rescue Plan\u2019s funding and other legislation, as well as efforts by the Justice Department Civil Rights Division and the Department of Education (DOE). Nonetheless, the racial disparities in educational opportunities among students resulting from ongoing ICERD violations remain persistently and disturbingly high.<\/p>\n The CERD has recommended that measures be taken to reduce the school dropout and suspension rates for children of African descent. In its 2008 concluding observations, the Committee highlighted racial disparities in suspension and expulsion rates as exacerbating high dropout rates, as well as high rates of referrals of minority youth to the justice system. The Committee expressed particular concern about school districts\u2019 use of \u201czero tolerance\u201d school discipline policies and recommended that districts review these policies and seriously consider limiting suspensions and expulsions to the most serious cases of school misconduct, and recommended special training for school officers.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, disproportionate numbers of students of color continue to enter the criminal legal system. Schools with high populations of racial minority students have higher rates of suspension and expulsion, and students of color are more likely to be arrested as adults. In addition, students of color face discriminatory discipline<\/a> and criminalization<\/a>. Black students are punished more frequently and harshly in all categories of school discipline<\/a>, even though many schools have removed the term \u201czero tolerance\u201d from their policies, driven in part by differential treatment and support at school by race. A June 2021 report from the US Department of Education found that Black students are removed from school by being suspended or expelled (long term removal), and are referred to law enforcement at rates that are more than twice their share of enrollment<\/a>. Students of color are more likely to go to a school with a law enforcement officer, more likely to be referred to law enforcement, and more likely to be arrested at school. <\/sup>In addition, students who attend schools with high percentages of Black students and students from low-income families are more likely face security measures like metal detectors, random \u201ccontraband\u201d sweeps, security guards, and security cameras, even when controlling for the level of misconduct in schools or violence in school neighborhoods.<\/p>\n Article 7 of ICERD requires states to adopt immediate and effective measures, specifically in teaching, education, culture, and information, to promote tolerance and combat prejudice against national, racial, and ethnic groups. To combat prejudice and intolerance, the CERD has urged States to develop campaigns to educate the public about the history and culture of people of African descent and the importance of building an inclusive society. The Committee has also urged affirmative efforts to ensure that textbooks contain \u201cchapters about the history and cultures of peoples of African descent,\u201d and to \u201cencourage and support the publication and distribution of books and other print materials, as well as the broadcasting of television and radio programs about their history and cultures.\u201d <\/sup><\/p>\n The US has failed<\/a> to implement these recommendations. There are no federal requirements<\/a> or standards for teaching the history or racial discrimination in the US or about the history and cultures of Black Americans and other people of color, and only a handful of states mandate that such history be taught. Even where mandates exist, each US state may teach in a way that leads to historical inaccuracies. In the absence of any federal mandate, multiple states have introduced and enacted <\/a>laws prohibiting schools from teaching about the reality of racism by banning \u201cdivisive concepts relating to race, racism and other topics.\u201d Learning Black history is beneficial to all students: While enhancing the self-esteem of Black students, it conveys historical realities to all students and encourages empathy, understanding, and efforts to avoid repeating the racist violence of the past. Further, denying the historical and contemporary realities of racial discrimination impedes not only justice and accountability for historic wrongs, but the eradication of persisting structures of racial inequality that is the core purpose of ICERD.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n This report honors the legacy of Aryeh Neier, president emeritus of the Open Society Foundations, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the creation of the Aryeh Neier Fellowship at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Human Rights Watch. As executive director of the ACLU and then of Human Rights Watch, Neier helped develop both organizations into powerful forces for justice and human rights. Every former Aryeh Neier Fellow (Anjana Malhotra, 2003-2005; Mie Lewis, 2005-2007; Alice Farmer, 2007-2009; Sarah Mehta, 2009-2011; Ian M. Kysel, 2011-2013; G. Alex Sinha, 2013-2015; Tess Borden, 2015-2017;\u00a0jasmine\u00a0Sankofa, 2017-2019; Allison Frankel, 2019-2021) contributed in some way to the conceptualization of this project. This report was\u00a0primarily authored by Anjana Malhotra, Ian M. Kysel, G. Alex Sinha,\u00a0jasmine\u00a0Sankofa, and Allison Frankel.<\/p>\n This report was edited by Alison Parker for Human Rights Watch and Jamil Dakwar for the ACLU. Jennifer Turner, Jonathan Blazer, Maribel Hernandez Rivera, Udi Ofer, Brandon Buskey, Carl Takei, Naureen Shah, Eunice Cho, Anu Joshi, ReNika Moore, Sarah Hinger, Harold Jordan, and David Fathi also provided a review of the report for the ACLU. Joe Saunders and James Ross provided program and legal review, respectively, for Human Rights Watch. Matt McConnell, Hina Naveed, Margaret Wurth, Annerieke Smaak Daniel, Amanda Klasing, Ari Sawyer, John Raphling, Laura Pitter, Dreisen Heath, Bill Frelick, Sarah Holewinski, and Brian Root also reviewed for Human Rights Watch. Rachel Levine and Thomas J. Rachko, Jr. prepared this report for publication.<\/p>\n We are also grateful for the University of Chicago Law School Global Human Rights Clinic for scoping research that contributed to the framing of the report. \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\nTo address ongoing structural racism and legacies of enslavement, the US should:<\/h3>\n
\n
Mass Incarceration<\/h2>\n
To address the discriminatory impact of mass incarceration, the US should:<\/h3>\n
\n
Youth\/Juvenile Justice<\/h2>\n
To address the discriminatory impact of policies criminalizing youth:<\/h3>\n
\n
Criminalization of Poverty \u2013 Homelessness, Bail, Fines, and Fees<\/h2>\n
To address the criminalization of poverty, US states should:<\/h3>\n
\n
Probation and Parole<\/h2>\n
To address racial disparities in probation and parole, US authorities should:<\/h3>\n
\n
Reentry Issues \u2013 Impact of Criminal Records on Housing and Unemployment<\/h2>\n
To address racial discrimination in re-entry, US jurisdictions should:<\/h3>\n
\n
Racist Drug Laws and Racism in Public Health Approaches<\/h2>\n
To make drug policy more rights-respecting, the US should:<\/h3>\n
\n
Prison Labor<\/h2>\n
To eliminate racial inequities in prison labor, the US should:<\/h3>\n
\n
Racially-Disparate Policing and Enforcement Practices<\/h2>\n
To address excessive use of force in law enforcement, the US should:<\/h3>\n
\n
Racial Bias and Abuse by Law Enforcement in Immigration Control<\/h2>\n
To address racial discrimination by law enforcement in border control and interior immigration enforcement:<\/h3>\n
\n
To address racial discrimination against migrants, the US should:<\/h3>\n
\n
Restrictions on Entry and Access to Territory<\/h2>\n
To address discriminatory restrictions on entry and access to territory, the US should:<\/h3>\n
\n
Border Enforcement, Detention, and the Granting of Immigration Benefits<\/h2>\n
To address discrimination in border and immigration enforcement, the US should:<\/h3>\n
\n
Actions by State and Local Governments<\/h2>\n
To address racial discrimination at the border, US jurisdictions should:<\/h3>\n
\n
Public Health during the Covid-19 Pandemic<\/h2>\n
To eliminate racial disparities in public health, the US should:<\/h3>\n
\n
Inadequate Social Safety Net<\/h2>\n
To eliminate racial discrimination in the social safety net, the US should:<\/h3>\n
\n
US Education Policy<\/h2>\n
To address discrimination in the US education system, the US should:<\/h3>\n
\n