Alabama Surrenders

Alabama Surrenders

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD   October 30, 2013

State officials in Alabama have agreed to throw out major provisions of that state’s unjust immigration law. The agreement, which was announced Tuesday and awaits a federal judge’s approval, resolves lawsuits brought by civil-rights groups, churches and the Justice Department against the statute, H.B. 56, the most extreme attempt by any state to harass and expel immigrants.

Under the proposed settlement, the state acknowledges, among other things, that requiring public schools to determine students’ immigration status violates equal protection and that criminalizing efforts by day laborers to look for work violates the First Amendment. It further states that making it a crime for immigrants to fail to carry their papers, making it illegal for anyone to “conceal, harbor or shield” unauthorized immigrants, and invalidating any contracts that these immigrants sign are all unlawful intrusions into federal authority over immigration.

The settlement also includes an important check on racial profiling: an acknowledgment that state and local police cannot detain anyone merely on suspicion of being in the country illegally.

The agreement is a huge setback for the hard-line strategy that emerged most notoriously in Arizona and took root in Alabama and elsewhere — the idea that states and communities can force immigrants to “self-deport” by making their lives unbearable.

Alabama’s Legislature and governor were warned, vehemently and repeatedly, that H.B. 56 was a lunatic law that would impose unfair burdens on citizens, stifle the economy and harm public safety by enlisting local police in a pointless hunt for day laborers. Farmers, clergy members and business groups raised an alarm, which the Republicans who control the state government ignored.

Whether those behind H.B. 56 will openly acknowledge the failure of their strategy is uncertain. But regret is setting in elsewhere. Stephen Sandstrom, a former legislator in Utah who sponsored that state’s hard-core immigration law, now disowns it. And other states, recognizing the benefits of immigrant inclusion and assimilation, are moving in the opposite direction. California recently enacted laws granting in-state tuition and driver’s licenses to unauthorized immigrants, and limiting its participation in federal deportation efforts.

If only Congress would see the light. House Republicans are still barreling down a dead-end road, with bills like the SAFE Act, which empowers state and local police to enforce immigration laws. It’s the same self-destructive strategy that Alabama, of all places, is abandoning.

same sex couples are treated equal as opposite sex couples for immigration law purposes

http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/08/us-to-process-same-sex-visa-applications.php

US to process same-sex visa applications

Kimberly Bennett , Saturday, August 03, 2013

[JURIST] Secretary of State John Kerry announced [transcript] Friday that the US will begin processing same-sex visa applications the same way opposite-sex visa applications are processed.  Speaking at the US embassy in London, Kerry stated, "As long as a marriage has been performed in the jurisdiction that recognizes it, then that marriage is valid under US immigration laws. Every married couple will be treated exactly the same, and that is what we believe is appropriate." US immigration officials announced [text] a similar shift in official policy last month, which allows same-sex partners to receive the same review as opposite-sex couples when filing a petition with US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) [official website].  The new visa policy will allow same-sex couples to travel to the US for work or study once one spouse is issued a visa. Kerry also added that the measure will allow even same-sex couples applying from countries that do not legally recognize their marriage to receive equal treatment as opposite-sex couples when applying for visas in the US.

Same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder] legislation has been passed in a number of states, eventually finding its way to the US Supreme Court [official website]. In June the Supreme Court ruled [JURIST report] in two landmark same-sex marriage cases. In United States v. Windsor [SCOTUSblog backgrounder], the court ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-4 that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [text; JURIST news archive] is unconstitutional. Under DOMA, couples in same-sex marriages legally recognized by a state were denied federal benefits extended to married couples.  In Hollingsworth v. Perry [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] the court ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-4 that the petitioners lacked standing to appeal the district court's order striking down Proposition 8 [text, PDF; JURIST news archive], California's same-sex marriage ban. Despite recent events, some believe [JURIST op-ed] that same-sex couples have still not reached a guarantee of marriage equality.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=2543215c310af310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=2543215c310af310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

Same-Sex Marriages

Statement from Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano on July 1, 2013:

“After last week’s decision by the Supreme Court holding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, President Obama directed federal departments to ensure the decision and its implication for federal benefits for same-sex legally married couples are implemented swiftly and smoothly. To that end, effective immediately, I have directed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to review immigration visa petitions filed on behalf of a same-sex spouse in the same manner as those filed on behalf of an opposite-sex spouse.”

http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/08/212643.htm

Secretary Kerry: August 2013 » Announcement on Visa Changes for Same-Sex Couples

Remarks

John Kerry

Secretary of State

U.S. Embassy London

London, United Kingdom

August 2, 2013

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. Well, thanks for gathering, I know on relatively short notice. I really appreciate it. One of the – first of all, it’s great to be in London, and thank you for all of you here. How many of you are Embassy? You all raise your hands. How many are consular section? A few. Most of them I left behind in the consular section now, anyway. Well, thank you for joining us.

One of the most special things that we get to do – you guys, come on in. Let’s get everybody in here before we start, whoever’s standing in. I know we have one of the largest consular sections in the world here. I think Moscow may be slightly larger. But the work that you all do here is really important, because for many people, you’re the first faces that people get to see of America and the first impression they get. And hopefully, it can be a good one. Obviously, sometimes there are visa issues and it doesn’t always turn out the way people want it to be.

But we appreciate what you do, and the fact is that one of the greatest responsibilities of the State Department is to show people who America is, who we are as people, and what we value as Americans. And that’s what every single one of you do every single day here at Embassy London, and it’s what our colleagues do at posts all around the world. I just came from addressing a very large gathering in Islamabad, Pakistan, a difficult tour of duty, but equally important in terms of our efforts to promote democracy and promote the values of human rights and so forth.

So when I first came here in my first stop, my first foreign stop as Secretary of State 27 countries ago, I said to everybody that you’re all ambassadors no matter what you’re doing here, and that is true. When you step out of the Embassy and go down the street or wherever you live, wherever you are, you’re an ambassador of our country. And when you treat people with respect and you give them the best of yourselves, you show them the best of America, and that means showing them what we believe, what we stand for, and what we share with the world.

One of our most important exports by far is America’s belief in the equality of all people. Now, our history shows that we haven’t always gotten it right. As I mentioned yesterday in Islamabad, slavery was written into our Constitution before it was written out. And we are still struggling to make equal the rights between men and women and to break the glass ceiling and to make sure that all people are created equal. That is what we try to do, I think wearing our heart on our sleeve, and sometimes our warts, more than almost any other nation on the face of the planet. We believe in working to do better and to live up to these higher values, and we try to do it in a lot of different ways.

Today is one of those days. I’m very pleased to be able to announce that effective immediately, when same-sex spouses apply for a visa, the Department of State will consider that application in the same manner that it will consider the application of opposite-sex spouses. And here is exactly what this rule means: If you are the spouse of a U.S. citizen, your visa application will be treated equally. If you are the spouse of a non-citizen, your visa application will be treated equally. And if you are in a country that doesn’t recognize your same-sex marriage, then your visa application will still be treated equally at every single one of our 222 visa processing centers around the world.

Now, as long as a marriage has been performed in a jurisdiction that recognizes it so that it is legal, then that marriage is valid under U.S. immigration laws, and every married couple will be treated exactly the same, and that is what we believe is appropriate. Starting next year, that will include same-sex couples from England and Wales, which just this year passed laws permitting same-sex marriage that will take effect in 2014.

And as you know, more than two years ago, President Obama instructed our Department of Justice to stop enforcing DOMA. Then just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court of the United States declared DOMA unconstitutional. Today, the State Department, which has always been at the forefront of equality in the federal government, I’m proud to say, is tearing down an unjust and an unfair barrier that for too long stood in the way of same-sex families being able to travel as a family to the United States.

I am proud to say that I voted against DOMA, one of 14 votes against it and the only person running for election that year who voted against it, and it’s one of the better votes that I’ve cast. It was the right vote then, it’s the right vote today. And I’m pleased to make this announcement today because this is one of those moments where policy and values join together. And I think those of you in the consular division, more than me or more than any of us back at the State Department on a daily basis, are going to bet you’d be the people who get to make this a reality for people.

So those of you working today in the consular section will make history when you issue some of the first visas to same-sex couples, and you will be some of the first faces to welcome them to the United States in an always – a country that obviously is always trying to tweak and improve and do better by the values around which we were founded. You share in the great responsibility of making our country live its values, and you make possible the journey of those who want to visit our country for that reason and many more.

I might remark that I get to sit up on the 7th floor of the State Department looking out straight at the Lincoln Memorial. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the famous march on Washington and of Martin Luther King’s unbelievably eloquent and historic plea for equality. So that is where the dream was declared, the march goes on, this is several more steps in that march. I can’t thank you enough for your hard work, and as always, I am proud to call myself your colleague. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Blocking a DREAM

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/1219_immigration_singer.aspx

Immigration

Audrey Singer, Senior Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program

The Brookings Institution

DECEMBER 19, 2010 —

The DREAM Act fell five votes short of a supermajority in the Senate on Saturday, blocking a bill that would have provided legal status to qualified children brought to the United States illegally by their parents if they attend college or join the military. It is unlikely that we will see any federal immigration legislation in the foreseeable future, since the bipartisan-backed DREAM Act was, in many ways, the bellwether that should have stood a chance.

Saturday’s vote was not about politics, even though by all accounts, politics prevented many in Congress from voting for the DREAM Act. Though advocates came out in numbers, the vote is not ultimately about the struggle of the youth who have both dreams and fears about their own well-being. They have good reason to be disappointed.

The failure to move forward with the DREAM Act is not exclusively about fairness. Opponents would like to erase this population from within our borders and fear a fresh flood of illegal immigrants. Rewarding “lawbreakers” like these youth, and by extension their parents, amounts to amnesty. Those who support the Act argue that legal status for these youth would allow them to both achieve their potential and contribute better to this country. We have invested in schooling these youth already, so why not see them through higher education or military service?

Saturday’s vote is fundamentally about the costs of marginalizing willing workers.

Recently, it’s become popular for business, education and political leaders to call for “stapling green cards to diplomas” of foreign graduates with advanced degrees from U.S. universities. We are turning away talent and skills when we should be welcoming students to stay long term and help us stay globally competitive. These leaders have a good argument about the future of the U.S. economy.

In many ways, immigrant youth parallel their more accomplished higher-ed counterparts. While many would-be “dreamers” may not go on to graduate school, why shouldn’t they have full access to the U.S. labor market too? These home-grown youth will contribute mightily to a gaping hole in our future labor force.

For the same strategic reasons that we want to open doors to high skilled immigrants trained in U.S. universities we should also ensure that immigrant students educated in U.S. public schools have an opportunity to move to the next level, whether it is a college education or a stint in the military.

We all should be concerned about overhauling our immigration system so that it is more secure, fair and economically strategic. Passage of the DREAM Act would have been a practical step in the right direction.

All in the Family?

Posted: 06 Aug 2010 03:16 AM PDT

.

Last month, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights issued a groundbreaking decision finding that some aspects of U.S. immigration law violate the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. Specifically, the Commission held that provisions requiring mandatory deportation of a non-citizen convicted of an "aggravated felony" violate the right to family life, the rights of the child, the right to a fair trial, and the right to due process. TheEuropean Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee have grounded their jurisprudence in similar cases on the right to family life, so this decision may expand the scope of human rights protections for non-citizens in the Americas.

.

While the grounding of the right to fair immigration proceedings in the right to family life and the rights of the child narrows the scope of protection, it is also, symbolically, a powerful description of the harms inflicted by harsh deportation policies. One of the petitioners in this case, Wayne Smith, moved to the United States from Trinidad and Tobago at the age 10 and had been a lawful permanent resident since 1974. Smith is married to a US citizen who survived breast cancer but lost her health insurance; they have a US citizen daughter. He and his wife owned a small business that employed over 15 people (most of whom were recovering drug addicts). Smith pled guilty to a non-violent drug offense (cocaine possession and attempted distribution) in 1990 (before such a crime was a deportable offense). He was denied a humanitarian waiver and deported in 1998; he returned in 1999 and challenged his deportation order based on a 2001 Supreme Court decision that may have made him eligible for a humanitarian waiver. He lost this challenge, and was deported again; in the meantime, his wife and child struggle to cover basic living expenses.

.
Among other arguments before the IACHR, the US government asserted its sovereign right under international law to expel criminal aliens; that the right to family life under Articles V and VI of the American Declaration protects only against state action that intends to harm family life, not secondary consequences of lawful, reasonable state actions (sound familiar?); and my personal favorite -- that because the United States is not party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, prior IACHR analysis (pertaining to a party to the CRC) on the rights of the child with respect to their parent's deportation proceeding was not relevant.

.
The IACHR was not buying any of this. It found that the United States' sovereign rights of expulsion are not absolute, but are subject to a balancing test, drawing from elements laid out by the ECHR and UNHRC, including the strength of family ties, the duration of residence, the hardship of deportation to the family, and the nature and severity of the criminal offense (including age at the time of commission, time span of the offense, and subsequent rehabilitation). While the balancing test is to be applied flexibly, the IACHR emphasized strongly the importance of the best interest of the minor child. The IACHR also rejected the "intent to harm family life" limitation suggested by the US government, and noted that the American Declaration protects against foreseeable consequences that flow from state action.

.
Because the petitioners had no opportunity to a present humanitarian defense to deportation or to have rights to family considered and because the best interests of their US citizen children were not considered by the decision maker, the IACHR found a violation of Articles V (right to private and family life), VI (right to family life), and VII (rights of the child) of the American Declaration. Notably, the Commission held that heightened due process protections apply in immigration proceedings that include the sanction of deportation, and that the petitioners' deportations violated Article XXVI (right to a fair trial) and XVII (right to an effective remedy) of the American Declaration. The IACHR recommended that the U.S. allow petitioners to return, reopen their deportation proceedings, and present humanitarian defenses, as well as to allow the immigration judge to weigh these defenses. Finally, the Commission suggested that the U.S implement laws to protect non-citizen residents' right to family life. Now those would be some solid family values.

Ruling favors gender asylum claimant

Posted: 17 Jul 2010 03:00 AM PDT

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has just issued a ruling with potentially far-reaching consequences for women seeking asylum in the United States.
The petitioner in the case, Perdomo v. Holder, is Lesly Yakayra Perdomo, a Guatemalan woman seeking asylum in the United States because she fears that she will be persecuted in Guatemala on account of her gender.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an individual may obtain asylum in the United States if she has suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Perdomo is claiming that she has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her membership in the particular social group of "all women in Guatemala."
The gravamen of her claim is that young women in Guatemala are tortured and killed at a disproportionately higher rate than men, without any response by the Guatemalan government. She citesreports by the U.S.-based Guatemala Human Rights Commission that describe the phenomenon of femicide in Guatemala. According to the Commission, in a country of 14 million, over 4,000 women were murdered between 2000 and 2008. Between January and August of 2008, 61% of those murders were the result of domestic violence, with 45% having taken place in the victim's home. Perhaps more disheartening is the Guatemalan government's lack of response -- a key element of any asylum claim -- a staggering 98% of the 4,000+ murders of women between 2000 and 2008 remain unresolved.
Both the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals considered Perdomo's definition of "all Guatemalan women" to be too broad to constitute a "particular social group" for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act. On appeal, a panel of the Ninth Circuit disagreed, finding that under Board and federal court precedent, gender alone can constitute a particular social group. Issued on Monday and written by JudgeRichard A. Paez on behalf of himself and Judges Dorothy W. Nelson and William A. Fletcher, the decision:
► Cited cases in which asylum was granted to women who had endured female genital mutilation and women who faced beating and imprisonment for refusing to wear veils;
► Cited decisions from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, all of which recognized gender as the basis for asylum; and
► Quoted from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees Guidelines on Membership within a Particular Social Group, which state that

women may constitute a particular social group under certain circumstances.

Unsurprisingly, the ruling is being portrayed as having the potential to "unleash a "wave of political asylum claims from applicants who say being a woman from Central America is reason enough to fear for their lives."
In actual fact, the Ninth Circuit remanded the matter back to the Board of Immigration Appeals to determine whether, in light Board and Ninth Circuit precedent, "all women in Guatemala" constitutes a "particular social group." Even if the Board were to so find, the case of Lesly Yakayra Perdomo and thousands like her would not be settled because, in addition to proving her membership in a particular social group, an asylum applicant must also demonstrate that:
► She has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of such membership;
► The government of her home country is unwilling or incapable of offering protection; and
► She cannot relocate safely within her home country.
Thus, while there is much to celebrate in the Ninth Circuit's analysis of gender under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the floodgates are far from open.

=========================

.

the point is not that " Both the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals considered Perdomo's definition of "all Guatemalan women" to be too broad to constitute a "particular social group" for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act "

compared with FGM and veil, FGM was even threat to life ; veil was abhorrent to a policy ; put differently, women as a whole can be a particular social group for the purpose of immigration law, but here in Guatemala case, very controversial as to disproportionate rate of torture or killing of women can constitute "persecution."

Lawyers Must Give Immigration Advice - Padilla case

SHOW: All Things Considered 9:00 PM EST NPR March 31, 2010 Wednesday
HEADLINE: Lawyers Must Give Immigration Advice

MICHELE NORRIS, host:

Now a decision that could affect tens of thousands of people. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that legal immigrants must be told by their lawyers that pleading guilty to a crime could lead to their deportation.

NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg reports.

NINA TOTENBERG: Jose Padilla, a native of Honduras and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, has lived in the United States legally for 40 years. A truck driver, he was stopped at a weigh station in Kentucky, and gave a law enforcement officers permission to search his truck. Stowed among his registered cargo were 23 Styrofoam boxes containing a half-ton of marijuana. He refused to plead guilty until the eve of trial, when his lawyer assured him that his guilty plea and a five-year prison sentence would not affect his immigration status. The lawyer was wrong.

The guilty plea triggered a mandatory deportation, and Padilla, upon learning that, tried to withdraw the plea, contending he'd been denied effective assistance of counsel. The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled against him, concluding that the constitutional right to counsel does not extend to matters that fall outside the criminal case at hand. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, by a 7-2 vote.

Writing for the court majority, Justice John Paul Stevens noted that because Congress over the last two decades has made deportation mandatory for a wide variety of crimes, the stakes have been dramatically raised for noncitizens pleading guilty. Although staying in the United States may be more important than any potential jail sentence, he said, defendants are often not advised that a guilty plea may result in their deportation. In a case like this, said Stevens, where a simple reading of the statute would've told the lawyer her client would face near certain deportation, failing to provide that information denies the defendant the effective assistance of counsel. It is our responsibility, said the court, to ensure that no criminal defendant is left to the mercies of incompetent counsel, and we now hold that counsel must inform her client whether a plea carries the risk of deportation.

Immigrant-rights advocates say today's ruling could potentially affect tens of thousands. Benita Jain is co-director of the Immigrant Rights Project based in New York.

Ms. BENITA JAIN (Co-Director, Immigrant Rights Project): I think historic is not an understatement.

Mr. STEPHEN KINNAIRD (Attorney): This is really a watershed decision in the immigration rights area.

TOTENBERG: Stephen Kinnaird represented Padilla in the Supreme Court. He notes that with nearly 13 million immigrants living legally in the United States, some of whom came here as toddlers, it's axiomatic that tens of thousands of them will have some sort of run-in with the law each year. And just like citizens who face similar charges, most agree to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence, even no jail time.

Mr. KINNAIRD: And then it would turn out that crime, you know, it might be theft or something like that, would result in their automatic deportation, and they're shocked by it because they had no idea.

TOTENBERG: The examples of such cases are legion, from the woman who stole a bottle of medicine for her sick child, to the Georgia business owner with no criminal record, pulled over by police one night and charged with a drug violation after a dollar bill found in his pocket was found to have trace amounts of cocaine. His guilty plea in exchange for no jail time and a promise to expunge his record didn't protect him from deportation proceedings. Immigrant-rights advocates say that the more minor the crime and the lighter the sentence, the greater the shock at the near-certain deportation that may follow.

Now the Supreme Court has declared that lawyers have a duty to advise their clients that a guilty plea, even with no jail time, can result in deportation.

Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.

LOAD-DATE: April 1, 2010

Pushing Back Against Italy's "Push-Back" Policy

Posted: 09 Apr 2010 03:16 AM PDT Last month, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees submitted a third-party written intervention to the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Hirsi and Others v. Italy. The case was filed last May by a group of Eritrean and Somali asylum seekers, including children and pregnant women. who attempted to reach Italy by boat from Libya. When they were thirty-five miles south of Lampedusa (pictured below left), the Italian Coast Guard and Navy interdicted these vessels and returned their passengers to the Libyan authorities in Tripoli. Italian officials made no attempt to identify, let alone interview these asylum seekers. Most remain in temporary detention centers while some are in Libyan prisons. The Italian Interior Minister confirmed that this interdiction and return was conducted pursuant to a bilateral treaty concluded with Libya aimed at reducing irregular migration. The case raises several important legal issues to which the UNHCR brief responds, namely the practice of interdiction or "push-back" on the high seas, the reception conditions and asylum process in Libya, and the scope of the principle of non-refoulement on the high seas. On the first point, to justify its interdiction practices, it was interesting to see that rather than citing sovereignty concerns, the Italian government cited international law, namely its treaty with Libya and the Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea, and Air (supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime). The UNHCR contends that neither of these treaties overrides the Italian government's duty of non-refoulement. To highlight the importance of applying this principle in the case of interdiction near Lampedusa, UNHCR noted that in 2008, 75% of sea arrivals applied for asylum and 50% of those received protection. The return to Libya is also seriously problematic under international law. Libya has not joined either the UN Refugee Convention or its Protocol, and it has no domestic asylum legislation or processes. As a result, asylum seekers who are caught in "push-back" operations are considered illegal migrants and subject to detention. The poor conditions in Libyan detention centers range from sanitation problems to sexual assault. Even worse, the Libyan government has reportedly concluded an agreement with the Eritrean government for the return of Eritrean nationals -- a guarantee of non-refoulement violations. All this of course raises the much larger question of the applicability of the non-refoulement principle on the high seas. While there is no right to asylum under international law, UNHCR notes that non-refoulement applies in any territory under a the jurisdiction of a State Party to the ICCPR and to any person within the actual control of a State Party to the ICCPR or UNCAT, irrespective of her physical location. As a result, de jure and de facto jurisdiction exist on board a boat of an intercepting state, requiring that the principle of non-refoulementbe respected on such a vessel. The Hirsi case raises enormously important questions that need thoughtful and creative solutions. Italy appears to be trying to create a legal black hole, an arena in which legal constraints can be ignored; the dangers of such an approach have been amply demonstrated in recent years. Yet the difficulties of addressing mass influxes of undocumented migrants are serious, and include not only severe administrative burdens and costs but potential risks to national security -- not to mention the risks to the migrants of attempting such journeys in less-than-seaworthy vessels. Though the "Fortress Europe" approach of building higher fences has created significant problems, the ECtHR may struggle to dismantle these policies effectively. The case poses a serious challenge to the court's ability to protect human rights while ensuring that its decision is respected and enforced by member states.