http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/392984-an-alternative-to-trumps-family-separation-policy
Nolan writes in The Hill:
. . . .
Possible solution.
I wrote an article in July 2014 suggesting a way to deter unaccompanied alien children
from making the perilous journey from Central America to seek asylum in the United States. More than 50,000 of them had made that perilous journey and the number was growing.
Then-DHS Secretary Jeh C. Johnson posted an open letter to Central American parents on June 23, 2014, in which he advised them that:
“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. …. 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.”
I observed that the United States did not have to assume sole responsibility for helping the unaccompanied alien children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Their plight was an international problem. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) should be involved in finding a way to help them. UNHCR was established to safeguard the rights and well-being of refugees.
I proposed working with UNHCR to set up refugee centers in Central America for these children to make it unnecessary for them to travel to the United States.
A few months later, President Barack Obama announced the establishment of a Central American Minors (CAM) refugee program that would provide in-country refugee processing for qualified children in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
Ordinarily, the term “refugee” refers to aliens who are outside of their country of nationality and can’t return because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
But section 101(a)(42)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes the president to include aliens who are still in their own countries when he thinks circumstances warrant it.
The CAM program was phased out in FY 2008 because very few of the children were establishing eligibility for refugee resettlement. See page 43 of the Proposed Refugee Admissions Report for FY 2018. But that does not mean that it was a bad idea.
Trump could establish an expanded version of Obama’s CAM program now that would make it possible for adults as well as children in Central America to apply for refugee status without having to travel to the United States.
This should significantly reduce the number of asylum-seeking aliens who come here from Central America and make illegal entries that result in the separation of children from their parents.
***********************************
Go over to The Hill for Nolan’s complete article at the above link.
As someone who was extensively involved in the drafting and enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980 (during my time as INS Deputy General Counsel) I think that Nolan’s ideas are the type of creative, humane, international solution that we were hoping to achieve by enacting international refugee standards and definitions into U.S. law and by providing flexibility for “in-country” programs (with which the U.S. has some historical record of success). Also, solving problems in an orderly manner as close as possible to the area of conflict causing the flow is an important consideration in international protection. The Convention itself also encourages countries to think beyond its terms to create expanded forms of protection, some temporary, some durable. And, of course, giving some international thought, resources, and attention to what is causing the refugee flow in the first place is very important. I see all of these things in Nolan’s ideas.
Here’s what I said in a recent on alternatives to the present policies:
The real choices are 1) a dangerous 4,000 mile journey to a place where you might be able to save your life and that of your loved ones; or 2) the much more dangerous option of remaining in a place where you will likely be beaten, raped, extorted, tortured, impressed against your will, or killed by gangs, who are not just “street criminals” (as falsely portrayed by Sessions and other restrictionists) but who exercise quasi-governmental authority with the knowing acquiescence of the recognized governments.
Realistically, folks are going to opt for #1. We could recognize them as refugees; screen them abroad to weed out gang members and criminals and to take the danger out of the 4,000 mile journey; work with the UNHCR and other countries to distribute the flow; open more paths to legal immigration for those who want to leave but might not fit easily within the refugee definition; and encourage those who still arrive at our borders without documents seeking protection to go to a port of entry where they will be treated respectfully, humanely, and be given a prompt but full opportunity to present their cases for protection with access to counsel in a system that satisfies all the requirements of Constitutional Due Process, with the additional understanding that if they lose they will have to return to their home country.
While, not surprisingly, our ideas are not identical, there are some common themes that we could build upon in the future and perhaps achieve some bipartisan support. International solutions to refugee problems are preferable to each country trying to act on its own. And, by setting a good and responsible example, we could hopefully motivate other countries to follow suit. That once was a key principle of U.S. refugee policies. Sure makes lots more sense to me than sinking ungodly sums of money money into expensive (and not very effective) walls, detention centers, militarization of the border, and the inevitable barrage of lawsuits that “enforcement only” approaches generate.
PWS
06-20-18