Nolan writes:
“The United States is not alone in trying to help UACs.
For example, Mexico’s Southern Border Plan has produced a sharp increase in Mexico’s apprehension and deportation of migrants from Central America, which prevents many UACs from reaching the United States.
And UNHCR convened a “Roundtable on Protection Needs in the Northern Triangle of Central America” last year in Costa Rica to formulate a regional framework for addressing the humanitarian challenges that the aliens fleeing from those countries present.
The Governments of Belize, Canada, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, and the United States vowed to work together to strengthen protections for refugees fleeing Central America.
I suggested a way to use international cooperation before the CAM program was established, but it will not be possible until congress limits the TVPRA’s UAC mandates to trafficking victims.
Move UACs who reach America to temporary locations outside of the United States where they would be screened by UNHCR to determine which ones are eligible for refugee status. UNHCR would try to resettle the ones determined to be refugees in countries throughout the region and elsewhere, including the United States.
UNHCR has a 10-Point Plan of Action for refugee protection which includes help for aliens who cannot establish eligibility for refugee status, such as assistance in obtaining temporary migration options.
This approach would help more UACs than letting them apply for asylum in the United States under the current administration, and parents of UACs would stop sending them on the perilous journey to the United States if they knew they would just be returned to Central America to be screened by UNHCR.
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.”
******************************************
Go on over to The Hill to read Nolan’s complete article, with maps and stats, at the link!
While I don’t think Congress should limit TPRVA’s UAC provisions, I think that otherwise Nolan is on the right track here. Working with the UNHCR and other countries in the region, as well as the sending countries in the Northern Triangle, to solve the problems closer to the “point of origin” and to provide a number of realistic options for temporary refuge, shared among affected countries, seems more promising and practical than expecting the Trump Administration to provide any real form of protection in the US for most of these children.
PWS
11-21-17
I’m glad that Paul agrees with where I am going with this article. He doesn’t mention the dangers of the journey from Central America to the US though, which was my main concern in writing the article. Young children are being sold into sexual slavery; young girls raped on the way to the US; and so on. We have to stop the Central American parents from sending their children here that way.
Paul doesn’t want congress to limit TPRVA’s UAC provisions to UACs who are trafficking victims, but he doesn’t explain how we can discourage UACs from coming here without taking away the magnet that draws them here.
Nolan says: “Young children are being sold into sexual slavery; young girls raped on the way to the US; and so on. We have to stop the Central American parents from sending their children here that way.”
Yes, young children are kidnapped and forced into prostitution on their way to the USA. They are also kidnapped and forced into prostitution and criminal gang membership when they remain in their countries of origin. The dissolution of the CAM program was a bad idea, and it was one that was under-utilized while it was still active.
To stop Central Americans from fleeing the violence in their countries, look to equitable trade policies and law enforcement. After all, MS-13 & Calle 18 were born in the USA, and exported to C.A.
Have you ever read the “Comments” section on The Hill articles? A real eye opener to the complete hatred many white people in the USA have towards refugees and people of color – not to mention their alarming inability to write in English.
The main concern of limiting UACs is like all other limitations on immigration: fear and misinformation. If the media would cover immigration statistics and policies for what they actually are, that might clear up a lot of the anxiety those readers have about immigration.
In the words of The Hill’s readership’s “leader” (at least the ones who comment): Sad. So Sad.
Good points, Roxanne. I agree. We should not cut UAC protections. That’s just a way of giving the Border Patrol free reign to deny more vulnerable individuals their chance for a day in court and to get due process in connection with applying for protection under US and international laws. In other words, the Sessions-GOP Restrictionist plan for turning the the US into a “rogue nation” that mocks the rule of law.
All of the reasons for enacting the Wilberforce Act apply to these kids! And, I doubt that it’s a “magnet.” While I wasn’t assigned to the UAC docket during my last few years in Arlington, plenty of “strays” came through my court. None of them had any idea what the Wilberforce Act was or indeed what their rights were generally unless or until they got legal counsel. They were just scared and happy not to be in detention. The dangers of remaining in the Northern Triangle exceeded the dangers of the journey. Neither the kids nor their relatives are “dopes;” they are undoubtedly more acutely aware of the risks than we are. That’s why repeating and even broadcasting the “it’s dangerous” message is such a waste of time (and actually demeaning to the intended audience — it’s not like they don’t know that).
I do believe it would be helpful to develop a regional approach to protection in conjunction with the UNHCR. Realistically, this Administration is going to resist protecting refugees or DP persons in the US. So, trying to work together with other countries in the Americas and the UNHCR is way of saving some lives and futures. In the end, that’s really what it’s all about.
I’m pretty aware of the alt-right neo-Nazi views on migrants. At this point, I don’t read all the negative comments any more. They don’t represent the majority of Americans any more than the “Charlottesville White Nationalist Crazies” did. We have to acknowledge that the dark side is out there nd feeling empowered by the Trump-Sessions-Miller-Bannon crowd. But, that doesn’t mean giving in to their hateful and misguided false narrative.
Happy Thanksgiving,
Paul😎🏈🍽🍻🍁
Paul says, “Good points, Roxanne. I agree. We should not cut UAC protections. That’s just a way of giving the Border Patrol free reign to deny more vulnerable individuals their chance for a day in court and to get due process in connection with applying for protection under US and international laws. In other words, the Sessions-GOP Restrictionist plan for turning the the US into a “rogue nation” that mocks the rule of law.”
The objective of my article is to give all UACs an opportunity to present their persecution claims to the UNHCR at a safe location near their home countries, so they won’t have to make the dangerous journey to the US from Central America. Paul seems to have tunnel vision on this topic. He sees a threat to their legal protections but misses the threats they face on the journey they are taking to get to the US.
Paul says, “All of the reasons for enacting the Wilberforce Act apply to these kids!”
I don’t remember which revision, but I was at the hearings and markups for this Act when I represented the democrats on the House immigration subcommittee. The Act was only intended to protect trafficking victims. The fact that other people have the same needs doesn’t change that intention.
Paul says, “And, I doubt that it’s a “magnet.” While I wasn’t assigned to the UAC docket during my last few years in Arlington, plenty of “strays” came through my court. None of them had any idea what the Wilberforce Act was or indeed what their rights were generally unless or until they got legal counsel. They were just scared and happy not to be in detention.”
I am limited to 800 words when I write an article for the Hill. It isn’t possible to elaborate fully on anything. I didn’t mean it is a magnet in that sense. I meant that the parents would stop sending their children here if they heard that they were going to be returned to a location near their homes to be processed by the UNHCR. In fact, this approach was one of Obama’s strategies. He made serious efforts to convince the parents that most of their children were not going to be allowed to stay in the United States. I mention them in my LexisNexis article.
Paul says, “The dangers of remaining in the Northern Triangle exceeded the dangers of the journey. Neither the kids nor their relatives are “dopes;” they are undoubtedly more acutely aware of the risks than we are. That’s why repeating and even broadcasting the “it’s dangerous” message is such a waste of time (and actually demeaning to the intended audience — it’s not like they don’t know that).”
I never suggested that they don’t already know the dangers.
Paul says, “I do believe it would be helpful to develop a regional approach to protection in conjunction with the UNHCR. Realistically, this Administration is going to resist protecting refugees or DP persons in the US. So, trying to work together with other countries in the Americas and the UNHCR is way of saving some lives and futures. In the end, that’s really what it’s all about.”
That is the point of my article.
Paul says, “I’m pretty aware of the alt-right neo-Nazi views on migrants. At this point, I don’t read all the negative comments any more. They don’t represent the majority of Americans any more than the “Charlottesville White Nationalist Crazies” did. We have to acknowledge that the dark side is out there nd feeling empowered by the Trump-Sessions-Miller-Bannon crowd. But, that doesn’t mean giving in to their hateful and misguided false narrative.”
I am not offended hearing Paul say something like this in comments to my article because I know he doesn’t think I am a neo-Nazi or that I share their views. But I will say that I don’t know what this comment has to do with my article.
Roxanne says, “Yes, young children are kidnapped and forced into prostitution on their way to the USA. They are also kidnapped and forced into prostitution and criminal gang membership when they remain in their countries of origin. The dissolution of the CAM program was a bad idea, and it was one that was under-utilized while it was still active.”
Roxanne didn’t read my article very carefully. I say the CAM program was inadequate because it was too restrictive, not that it should have been cancelled. And I propose a program that would allow all asylum-seeking UACs to have their persecution claims heard by UNHCR at a safe location near their home countries.
In fact, I think the CAM program was to some extent a reaction to the Lexis-Nexis article I refer to in my Hill Article, which I sent to one of Obama’s immigration advisors four months before it was announced. Someone I worked with when I was the immigration counsel for the democrats on the House Immigration Subcommittee. “Meet the Challenge of Unaccompanied Alien Children at the Southwest Border: Is there a better way?” (July 10, 2014), https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/archive/2014/07/10/nolan-rappaport-is-there-a-better-way.aspx?Redirected=true
Roxanne says, “To stop Central Americans from fleeing the violence in their countries, look to equitable trade policies and law enforcement. After all, MS-13 & Calle 18 were born in the USA, and exported to C.A.”
As I just pointed out, my article doesn’t attempt to stop UACs or anyone else from fleeing the violence in their countries. It proposes processing their applications at a safe location near their homes instead of making them come all the way to the US from Central America.”
Roxanne says, “Have you ever read the “Comments” section on The Hill articles? A real eye opener to the complete hatred many white people in the USA have towards refugees and people of color – not to mention their alarming inability to write in English.”
The main concern of limiting UACs is like all other limitations on immigration: fear and misinformation. If the media would cover immigration statistics and policies for what they actually are, that might clear up a lot of the anxiety those readers have about immigration.
In the words of The Hill’s readership’s “leader” (at least the ones who comment): Sad. So Sad.”
Roxanne, it is extremely offensive for you to suggest that those are the underlying reasons for the things I say in my article.
In my LexisNexis article, I quote the following letter than President Obama had his DHS Secretary write to discourage parents from sending their kids here from Central America:
An Open Letter to the Parents of Children Crossing Our Southwest Border
Release Date:
June 23, 2014
For Immediate Release
DHS Press Office
Contact: 202-282-8010
The following op-ed from Secretary Johnson ran in Spanish-language outlets over the weekend. Please see the English translation below.
This year, a record number of children will cross our Southern border illegally into the United States. In the month of May alone, the number of children, unaccompanied by a mother or father, who crossed our southern border reached more than 9,000, bringing the total so far this year to 47,000. The majority of these children come from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, where gang and drug violence terrorize communities. To the parents of these children I have one simple message: Sending your child to travel illegally into the United States is not the solution.
It is dangerous to send a child on the long journey from Central America to the United States. The criminal smuggling networks that you pay to deliver your child to the United States have no regard for his or her safety and well-being – to them, your child is a commodity to be exchanged for a payment. In the hands of smugglers, many children are traumatized and psychologically abused by their journey, or worse, beaten, starved, sexually assaulted or sold into the sex trade; they are exposed to psychological abuse at the hands of criminals. Conditions for an attempt to cross our southern border illegally will become much worse as it gets hotter in July and August.
The long journey is not only dangerous; there are no “permisos,” “permits,” or free passes at the end.
The U.S. Government’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, also called “DACA,” does not apply to a child who crosses the U.S. border illegally today, tomorrow or yesterday. To be eligible for DACA, a child must have been in the United States prior to June 15, 2007 – seven years ago.
Also, the immigration reform legislation now before Congress provides for an earned path to citizenship, but only for certain people who came into this country on or before December 31, 2011 – two and one half years ago. So, let me be clear: There is no path to deferred action or citizenship, or one being contemplated by Congress, for a child who crosses our border illegally today.
Rather, under current U.S. laws and policies, anyone who is apprehended crossing our border illegally is a priority for deportation, regardless of age. That means that if your child is caught crossing the border illegally, he or she will be charged with violating United States immigration laws, and placed in deportation proceedings – a situation no one wants. The document issued to your child is not a “permiso,” but a Notice To Appear in a deportation proceeding before an immigration judge.
As the Secretary of Homeland Security, I have seen first-hand the children at our processing center in Texas. As a father, I have looked into the faces of these children and recognized fear and vulnerability.
The desire to see a child have a better life in the United States is understandable. But, the risks of illegal migration by an unaccompanied child to achieve that dream are far too great, and the “permisos” do not exist.
Jeh C. Johnson
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
###
I posted the Secretary’s letter too quickly, forgetting to include a link to the letter.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2014/06/23/open-letter-parents-children-crossing-our-southwest-border
Thanks, Nolan!
We’re heading out for our vegan Thanksgiving Dinner with family!
Best,
P