U.S. Department of State – Page 4 – immigrationcourtside.com

THE VOICE OF REASON: ANGELINA JOLIE @ TIME ON WHY THE U.S. SHOULD NOT BE ABANDONING OUR TRADITIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LEADERSHIP ROLE! — “It is troubling to see our country backing away from these, while expecting other countries, who are hosting millions of refugees and asylum seekers, to adhere to a stricter code. If we go down this path, we risk a race to the bottom and far greater chaos. An international rules-based system brings order. Breaking international standards only encourages more rule-breaking.” — Advocates Independent Article I Immigration Court For Fair & Impartial Adjudication Of Asylum Claims!

https://apple.news/ARnAxuYYATOy78Bq8BYOy7g

Angelina Jolie writes in Time:

Angelina Jolie: The Crisis We Face at the Border Does Not Require Us to Choose Between Security and Humanity

Angelina Jolie

Jolie, a TIME contributing editor, is an Academy Award–winning actor and Special Envoy of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees

We Americans have been confronted by devastating images from our southern border and increasingly polarized views on how to address this untenable situation.

At times I wonder if we are retreating from the ideal of America as a country founded by and for brave, bold, freedom-seeking rebels, and becoming instead inward-looking and fearful.

I suspect many of us will refuse to retreat. We grew up in this beautiful, free country, in all its diversity. We know nothing good ever came of fear, and that our own history — including the shameful mistreatment of Native Americans — should incline us to humility and respect when considering the question of migration.

I’m not a lawyer, an asylum seeker, or one of the people working every day to protect our borders and run our immigration system. But I work with the UN Refugee Agency, which operates in 134 countries to protect and support many of the over 70 million people displaced by conflict and persecution.

We in America are starting to experience on our borders some of the pressures other nations have faced for years: countries like Turkey, Uganda and Sudan, which host 6 million refugees between them. Or Lebanon, where every sixth person is a refugee. Or Colombia, which is hosting over 1 million Venezuelans in a country slightly less than twice the size of Texas. There are lessons — and warnings — we can derive from the global refugee situation.

The first is that this is about more than just one border. Unless we address the factors forcing people to move, from war to economic desperation to climate change, we will face ever-growing human displacement. If you don’t address these problems at their source, you will always have people at your borders. People fleeing out of desperation will brave any obstacle in front of them.

Second, countries producing the migration or refugee flow have the greatest responsibility to take measures to protect their citizens and address the insecurity, corruption and violence causing people to flee. But assisting them with that task is in our interest. Former senior military figures urge the restoration of U.S. aid to Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, arguing that helping to build the rule of law, respect for human rights and stability is the only way to create alternatives to migration. The UN Refugee Agency is calling for an urgent summit of governments in the Americas to address the displacement crisis. These seem logical, overdue steps. Our development assistance to other countries is not a bargaining chip, it is an investment in our long-term security. Showing leadership and working with other countries is a measure of strength, not a sign of weakness.

Third, we have a vital interest in upholding international laws and standards on asylum and protection. It is troubling to see our country backing away from these, while expecting other countries, who are hosting millions of refugees and asylum seekers, to adhere to a stricter code. If we go down this path, we risk a race to the bottom and far greater chaos. An international rules-based system brings order. Breaking international standards only encourages more rule-breaking.

Fourth, the legal experts I meet suggest there are ways of making the immigration system function much more effectively, fairly and humanely. For instance, by resourcing the immigration courts to address the enormous backlog of cases built up over years. They argue this would help enable prompt determination of who legally qualifies for protection and who does not, and at the same time disincentivize anyone inclined to misuse the asylum system for economic or other reasons. The American Bar Association and other legal scholars and associations are calling for immigration court to be made independent and free from external influence, so that cases can be fairly, efficiently and impartially decided under the law.

There are also proven models of working with legal firms to provide pro-bono legal assistance to unaccompanied children in the immigration system without increasing the burden on the U.S. taxpayer. Expanding these kinds of initiative would help to ensure that vulnerable children don’t have to represent themselves in court, and improve the effectiveness, fairness and speed of immigration proceedings. Approximately 65% of children in the U.S. immigration system still face court without an attorney.

We all want our borders to be secure and our laws to be upheld, but it is not true that we face a choice between security and our humanity: between sealing our country off and turning our back to the world on the one hand, or having open borders on the other. The best way of protecting our security is by upholding our values and addressing the roots of this crisis. We can be fearless, generous and open-minded in seeking solutions.

TIME Ideas hosts the world’s leading voices, providing commentary on events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.

********************************************

Wow! Great thoughts on how caring people might actually help to constructively address human migration issues rather than cruelly making them worse through “malicious incompetence.”

It’s painfully clear that we have the wrong “celebrity” leading our nation. But, Jolie wasn’t on the ballot (not will she be). Nevertheless, in a saner and more law-abiding Government, there should be a place for ideas and leadership from Jolie and others like her.

HISTORICAL NOTE: If my memory serves me correctly, Angelina Jolie once appeared before my esteemed retired colleague U.S. Immigration Judge M. Christopher Grant, as an expert witness in an asylum case before the Arlington Immigration Court.

PWS

08-02-19

FRAUD & ABUSE: TRUMP SEEKS DEATH AND DISRUPTION FOR REFUGEES: Claims To Have Duressed Guatemala, One Of The, Poorest, Most Corrupt, Most Dangerous REFUGEE SENDING Countries Into Outrageously Illegal “Safe Third Country” Agreement! — “Big Mac With Lies” Says Guatemala Not Much Different From U.S.!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-he-has-agreement-with-guatemala-to-help-stem-flow-of-migrants-at-the-border/2019/07/26/23bf0cba-afe3-11e9-b071-94a3f4d59021_story.html

Seung Min Kim
White House Reporter
Washington Post

Kevin Sieff
Latin American Correspondent, Washington Post

Abigail Hauslohner
National Immigration Reporter, Washington Post

From the Washington Post:

By Seung Min Kim ,

Kevin Sieff and

Abigail Hauslohner

July 26 at 6:45 PM

President Trump on Friday said he has struck a deal that would designate Guatemala as a safe third country for people seeking asylum in the United States — a plan that is facing significant legal hurdles in the Central American country as the Trump administration continues to struggle with the high number of migrants arriving at the southern U.S. border.

The White House did not immediately release details of the agreement, and it is unclear how it would be implemented considering Guatemala’s constitutional court has ruled any safe third country agreement would require legislative approval and the proposal has been widely criticized there.

Trump announced the arrangement in a previously unscheduled appearance in the Oval Office with Enrique Degenhart, the Guatemalan minister of government, and acting homeland security secretary Kevin McAleenan.

“We’ve long been working with Guatemala, and now we can do it the right way,” Trump said Friday. He claimed the agreement will put “coyotes and the smugglers out of business.”

He added: “These are bad people.”

Trump said the agreement will offer safe harbor for asylum applicants deemed legitimate, and that he plans to sign agreements with other countries soon.

The announcement comes just days after Trump threatened retaliation against Guatemala as discussions stalled over designating the Central American nation as a safe third country, which means migrants traveling through the country on their journey to the United States would be directed to first seek protection there.

The Trump administration has been seeking to sign these agreements to cut down on the number of Central American migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border, which officials say is overwhelming the U.S. immigration system. The administration has come under heavy criticism from Democrats and immigration advocates who argue asylum seekers and other migrants face inhumane conditions in the U.S. facilities where they are being housed.

On a call with reporters Friday, McAleenan said the agreement with Guatemala would “be up and running in August,” after the two governments had completed several steps to ratify the deal. Under the agreement, Salvadorans and Hondurans would need to seek asylum in Guatemala, McAleenan said.

“If you have, say, a Honduran family coming across through Guatemala to the U.S. border, we want them to feel safe to make an asylum claim at the earliest possible point,” he said. “If they do instead, in the hands of smugglers, make the journey all the way to the U.S. border, [they would] be removable back to Guatemala.”

Guatemala’s only public statement about the agreement did not explicitly say it would serve as a safe third country, but alluded vaguely to “a plan that will be applied to Salvadorans and Hondurans.”

The statement said the United States would allocate temporary agricultural work visas to Guatemalans, adding that country’s president, Jimmy Morales, negotiated the deal “to counter grave economic and social repercussions.”

A proposal to designate Guatemala as a safe third country is already facing significant legal and logistical challenges. For one, the deal would force thousands of Hondurans and Salvadorans to apply for asylum in Guatemala, one of the region’s poorest countries, which has in some cities struggled to defeat transnational gangs, including MS-13.

Last year, Guatemala received 259 asylum applications, a tiny number compared with the United States and even Mexico. Of those, not a single application was approved, in part because the country is still building institutions to review those cases.

“Guatemala’s asylum system isn’t prepared to increase its capacity to 50,000 in less than a year,” said one United Nations official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which currently supports Guatemala’s fledgling asylum system, was not consulted as part of the negotiations, officials said. McAleenan also likened the third party agreement to arrangements between European countries and Turkey to stem the Syrian migrant crisis in 2015. He declined to say whether the U.S. government would be providing any assistance to Guatemala to improve safety and security for Honduran and Salvadoran refugees.

When read the State Department’s description of the security situation in Guatemala, which includes notations that murder is “common,” gang activity is “widespread” and police are ineffective, McAleenan, the Homeland secretary, said one should not “label an entire country as unsafe,” and likened Guatemala to parts of the United States.

The announcement prompted immediate backlash from Democratic lawmakers and human-rights groups who warned that Guatemala did not have the capacity to accept all the migrants who would now be required to apply for asylum there, nor is such an arrangement legal.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who along with Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) toured Border Patrol facilities in El Paso on Friday, noted that Guatemala has one of the world’s highest homicide rates and that they had visited with families earlier in the day who said they had fled the country because of the danger.

“It’s just Kafkaesque to say about that country, ‘Oh, safe third country,’ ” Kaine said. “You can’t just attach a label of safe third country and make it so.”

The Trump administration has taken a variety of unilateral actions to address the challenges at the border, and it has also received an additional $4.6 billion from Congress to deal with the crisis.

In June, Customs and Border Protection apprehended 94,000 migrants at the southern border, a 29 percent drop from the 133,000 who were detained in May. Border crossings tend to drop as the temperature rises in the summer, but administration officials have pointed to the lower figures as a sign that Trump’s border plan is working.

For months, Morales dispatched members of his administration from Guatemala to Washington to negotiate a safe third country agreement with the United States. But earlier this month, shortly before Morales was scheduled to sign the agreement in the White House, Guatemala’s constitutional court ruled he did not have the authority to sign the deal without legislative approval.

The meeting with Trump was canceled. In a statement, Morales then denied he had ever attempted to negotiate such an agreement. He is in the twilight of his scandal-ridden presidency, with elections scheduled for Aug. 11.

But when Trump threatened to impose tariffs on Guatemala and tax remittances, Morales resumed negotiations. Members of the country’s business community urged him on, raising alarm about the impact of tariffs, but most Guatemalans believe the country is wildly unprepared to offer asylum to thousands of Central Americans.

A number of Guatemalan congressmen and human rights officials said they would soon challenge the legality of Friday’s agreement in the country’s courts.

Jordán Rodas, Guatemala’s human rights prosecutor, said the country’s interior minister, who signed the deal on Friday, “does not have the power to sign an agreement of this nature.”

He said he was analyzing the agreement, and if he determined it was illegal, he would demand the constitutional court suspend its implementation.

“We are two weeks from an election,” said Edgar Gutierrez, one of five Guatemalan ex-foreign ministers who had earlier filed a petition in the court to block the signing of the agreement. “The signing of this accord will destabilize the country.”

Some Guatemalan analysts said the timeline for the agreement made it even more unrealistic.

“One month to be a safe country,” said Pedro Pablo Solares, a leading Guatemalan columnist who frequently writes about migration. “It couldn’t be more absurd.”

This year, for the first time in history, more Guatemalans have been apprehended at the U.S. border than citizens of any other country. It remains one of the region’s poorest countries, where migration is seen by many as the only way into a tiny middle class. In 2017, Guatemalans received a total of $8.2 billion in remittances, 11 percent of Guatemalan GDP.

Guatemalan politicians and analysts were taken aback by the agreement, which most discovered through a White House tweet.

“One characteristic of this government is that it does whatever it wants, in spite of what the law says. This is another example,” said Sandra Morán Reyes, a congresswoman from the Convergencia party.

Sieff reported from Mexico City. Mary Beth Sheridan in Mexico City and Bob Moore in El Paso contributed to this report.

**********************************

Wow! Talk about turning the law, logic, and human morality on its head! “Safe Third Country” agreements are supposed to be between countries with fair, due process oriented asylum systems, like the existing agreement between the U.S. and Canada. They are not a gimmick for dishonest officials like Trump and McAleenan to “outsource” legal protection responsibilities to dangerous, poor, REFUGEE SENDING countries like Guatemala that can’t possibly live up to their international obligations under the U.N Convention.

This is nothing short of high level fraud that will result in death, torture, and abuse of asylum seekers! Not to mention that the presence of lots of deported asylum seekers will further destabilize the already unstable country of Guatemala. Trump is about to create an unmitigated international disaster by grossly unlawful conduct. Will we be able to stop him before it’s to late for us and for the rest of humanity?

PWS

07-27-19

SPRINT TO THE BOTTOM: Trump Administration Trashes Refugees & Human Rights In A Despicable Return To “1939-Style Fascism Lite!” — America’s Rancid Conduct & Negative Leadership Presages Another Worldwide Refugee Tragedy — This Time The Blood Will Be Directly On Our Hands!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-in-an-age-of-impunity-it-will-have-consequences-for-us-all/2019/07/07/8ff2d894-9f2b-11e9-9ed4-c9089972ad5a_story.html

E.J. Dionne, Jr. writes in the Washington Post commenting on a recent speech by David Miliband, Chief Executive of the International Rescue Committee:

. . . .

“A new and chilling normal is coming into view,” Miliband concluded. “Civilians seen as fair game for armed combatants, humanitarians seen as an impediment to military tactics and therefore unfortunate but expendable collateral, and investigations of and accountability for war crimes an optional extra for state as well as nonstate actors.”

But these evils cannot be isolated from the larger political corrosion in the rest of the world — and this includes the long-standing democracies themselves. “The checks and balances that protect the lives of the most vulnerable people abroad,” he said, “will only be sustained if we renew the checks and balances that sustain liberty at home.”

This isn’t simply about aligning principle and practice. More fundamentally, when governments abandon a commitment to accountability domestically, they no longer feel any obligation to insist upon it internationally. It’s no accident, as Miliband noted, that under President Trump, the United States “has dropped the promotion of human rights around the world from its policy priorities.”

He pulled no punches: “The new order is epitomized in the photo of Russian President [Vladimir] Putin and Saudi Crown Prince [Mohammed bin] Salman high-fiving each other at the G-20 meeting in Argentina in November last year. With Syria in ruins, Yemen in crisis, and political opponents like Boris Nemtsov and Jamal Khashoggi dead, theirs was the embrace of two leaders unencumbered by national institutions or by the fear of international law.”

Miliband acknowledged the mistakes of an earlier era (including the Iraq War) but argued that “accountability, not impunity” was on the rise in the 1990s, when there was “an unusual consensus across the left-right divide” about “the need for global rules.” We have said goodbye to all that.

In 2002, Samantha Power, later the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, published “ ‘A Problem from Hell’: America and the Age of Genocide,” a book that stirred consciences about the world’s obligations to helpless people unprotected — and often targeted — by sovereign governments.

Nearly two decades on, we are numb, distracted and inward-looking.

Miliband understands that democratic citizens, grappling with their own discontents, will be inclined to look away from the travails of others “until there is a new economic and social bargain that delivers fair shares at home.”

But an Age of Impunity not only poses immediate dangers to millions confronting violence far away. It also corrodes the sense of obligation of the privileged in wealthy nations toward those left behind. When anything goes, no one is safe.

********************************************

Read the complete article at the above link.

The key point here for Americans who have been “tone deaf” to Trump’s (and his toadies at DHS, DOJ, DOS, and elsewhere) gross abuses of the rule of law, human rights, and human dignity is the following: “When anything goes, no one is safe.”

PWS

07-08-19

THE DOWNSIDE OF KAKISTOCRACY: Trump Has Neither The Interest Nor Talent To Successfully Address The Problem Of Forced Migration From The Northern Triangle!

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-theres-a-migrant-crisis-at-the-us-border-and-theres-only-one-way/

From The Globe & Mail:

EDITORIALS

There’s a migrant crisis at the U.S. border. And there’s only one way to end it

The image of a father and his two-year-old daughter, their corpses face down in the mud on the banks of the Rio Grande, illustrates one part of the crisis on the southern border of the United States. The nightmarish conditions for migrants, with many held in severely overcrowded U.S. detention facilities, are another chapter. And then there’s how the U.S. Congress, paralyzed by distrust between Democrats and Republicans, waited until last week to vote additional funding aimed at improving life in those holding pens.

But the most revealing thing about the migration issue, and its solution, are the words of Nayib Bukele, the President of El Salvador.

On Monday, the same day funerals were held for Oscar Alberto Ramirez and his daughter Valeria, Salvadorans who drowned while trying to ford the river that marks the border into the promised land, Mr. Bukele was asked about the reason for the tragedy.

“People don’t flee their homes because they want to,” he said in English. “People flee their homes because they feel they have to. Why? Because they don’t have a job, because they are being threatened by gangs, because they don’t have basic things like water, education, health.

“We can spit blame to any other country but what about our blame? I mean, what country did they flee? Did they flee the United States? They fled El Salvador. They fled our country. It is our fault.”

And also: “If people have an opportunity of a decent job, a decent education, a decent health-care system and security, I know forced migration will be reduced to zero.”

That’s the issue, in a nutshell. Problem and solution.

If President Donald Trump was serious about fixing the crisis on his country’s southern border, instead of playing it for political advantage, he’d be listening to Mr. Bukele.

The people of El Salvador are hardly to blame for what has happened to their homeland. The Central American country and neighbouring Honduras and Guatemala are corrupt, economically depressed and violent. In 2016, El Salvador had the world’s highest murder rate. Honduras was second. It’s why so many feel they have no choice but to leave.

In May, U.S. authorities took more than 144,000 migrants into custody at the southern border. That means more people crossed from Mexico to the United States in one month than have crossed into Canada at the Roxham Road unofficial crossing point in three years. The vast majority crossing the U.S.-Mexico border did so between official posts, as Mr. Ramirez and his daughter attempted to do. Most came to make a refugee claim.

The flow of migrants entering the United States in May was roughly three times as high as it was during the Obama administration. The surge is driven by people from the so-called Northern Triangle of El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. As Mr. Bukele correctly described it, misery spurs migration.

But El Salvador is not doomed to forever be a land of misery. Consider that nearby Costa Rica has long been peaceful, democratic and relatively prosperous. And Panama, a dictatorship just a generation ago, has made big strides and is now level with Costa Rica. The United Nations Human Development Index ranks both countries ahead of Brazil, Mexico, China and nearly all of Latin America and the Caribbean. El Salvador is far behind. But change is always possible.

In 2018, Mr. Trump famously said he wanted fewer immigrants from “shithole countries.” To put it in words Mr. Trump can understand, the way to stop people from fleeing crappy countries is to make them less, you know, crappy.

Mr. Bukele, the son of Palestinian immigrants, has a dream of turning El Salvador into a place that draws investment and people, rather than chasing them away. It’s part of the reason why he said what he said about his country’s responsibility for migration. He wants and needs Washington’s help.

If the United States were serious about stemming the flow of migrants, it would be crafting a Marshall Plan for Central America. It would be helping the Northern Triangle achieve better government and more development and investment.

Instead, Mr. Trump earlier this year announced that, as punishment for sending so many migrants, he would cut aid to the Northern Triangle. His administration quietly backed away from the pledge, but the message has been sent. Enlightened self-interest is not on this President’s menu.

***************************************************

The real problem here is that solutions to forced migration issues:

Take time;
Require knowledge and intellectual sophistication;
Require international cooperation; and
Aren’t in the White Nationalist “playbook” from which Trump gets all of his failed ideas on migration.

PWS

07-05-19

FOUR TODDLERS RESCUED BY PRO BONO LAWYERS FROM DEADLY SITUATION IN CBP CUSTODY — Putrid, Unsanitary, Repressive Conditions Causing Lifetime Harm To Other Traumatized Kids — But, Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost Wants You To Know That She’s Not Taking Responsibility For The Humanitarian Disaster Intentionally Engineered On Her Watch!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/four-severely-ill-migrant-babies-hospitalized-after-lawyers-visited-border-patrol-facility_n_5d0d3bbce4b07ae90d9cfe4f

Angelina Chapin reports for HuffPost:

Four toddlers were so severely ill and neglected at a U.S. Border Patrol facility in McAllen, Texas, that lawyers forced the government to hospitalize them last week.

The children, all under age 3 with teenage mothers or guardians, were feverish, coughing, vomiting and had diarrhea, immigration attorneys told HuffPost on Friday. Some of the toddlers and infants were refusing to eat or drink. One 2-year-old’s eyes were rolled back in her head, and she was “completely unresponsive” and limp, according to Toby Gialluca, a Florida-based attorney.

She described seeing terror in the children’s eyes.

“It’s just a cold, fearful look that you should never see in a child of that age,” Gialluca said. “You look at them and you think, ‘What have you seen?’”

Another mother at the same facility had a premature baby, who was “listless” and wrapped in a dirty towel, as HuffPost previously reported.

The lawyers feared that if they had not shown up at the facility, the sick kids would have received zero medical attention and potentially died. The Trump administration has come under fire for its treatment ― and its alleged neglect ― of migrants who have been crossing the southern border in record numbers. The result is overcrowded facilities, slow medical care and in some instances, deaths.

Immigration authorities say they’re overwhelmed; activists say they’re not trying hard enough.

“It’s intentional disregard for the well-being of children,” Gialluca said. “The guards continue to dehumanize these people and treat them worse than we would treat animals.”

U.S. Customs and Border Protection declined to respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.

The Associated Press reported this week that children in border facilities don’t have adequate access to food, water, soap or showers. On Tuesday, a Justice Department attorney argued in court that the government should not have to provide detained children with soap, toothbrushes or beds.

The AP report is based on interviews a group of lawyers conducted with hundreds of children in three Texas-based Border Patrol stations last week as part of the Flores settlement ― an agreement that outlines conditions for detained children. The lawyers say children are also being held in these facilities for longer than the 72-hour limit the settlement specifies, and in some cases up to three weeks.

Lawyers are particularly concerned about the spread of illness inside Border Patrol facilities, which can sometimes turn fatal. Five children have died in Border Patrol custody since December, some of whom were initially diagnosed with a common cold or the flu. The processing center in McAllen, known as Ursula, recently quarantined three dozen migrants who were sick after a 16-year-old died of the flu at the same facility.

Children and their parents told lawyers that in some cases they didn’t have any access to medical treatment in Border Patrol facilities despite being visibly ill. Gialluca spoke with one 16-year-old mother whose toddler had the flu, but was told by a guard the child “wasn’t sick enough to see a doctor.” She said others also reported being denied medical attention despite having critically sick babies.

Medical experts say that because children have less developed immune and respiratory systems, their symptoms can escalate quickly if they aren’t properly treated.

Dr. Julie Linton, the co-chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics, previously told HuffPost that children can’t recover from illnesses in Border Patrol facilities. These centers are described as “hieleras” ― Spanish for iceboxes ― because of their freezing temperatures, and migrants describe sleeping on floors under bright lights that shine 24/7, with nothing but Mylar blankets to keep warm.

Gialluca met one 16-year-old mother whose 8-month-old baby was sick with the flu and forced to sleep outside for four days at the McAllen Border Patrol station. The mother said the guards took the clothing off the baby’s back, leaving her in a diaper, and forced them to sleep on concrete without a blanket.

A sick 2-year-old girl was shivering in a T-shirt and had shallow breathing, according to Mike Fassio, a Seattle-based immigration attorney who visited Ursula.

“I was very, very concerned,” he said, adding lawyers spoke with immigrants in a room outside of the facility. “When she left us, I knew she was going back to a place that was cold, crowded and unsanitary.” Fassio noted that guards referred to the children as “bodies.”

Some children were so exhausted they fell asleep during the interviews, said Clara Long, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch who spoke with kids at a facility in Clint, Texas. Long met a 3-year-old boy who was dirty with matted hair and was being taken care of by his 11-year-old brother. She said that more than 10 sick children were being quarantined in cells.

While the group of roughly eight lawyers and interpreters at Ursula were supposed to be interviewing children about conditions in the facilities, they also ended up asking guards and government officials to bring kids to the hospital because they were so worried about their state. Gialluca added that she and her colleagues interviewed only a small portion of migrants in the facility, which is the largest processing center in the U.S. and can hold up to 1,000 people. She believes the number of migrants in need of hospitalization is likely much higher.

Government officials have blamed horrific conditions at detention facilities on the fact that Congress has not yet passed an emergency funding package that would include almost $3 billion to help care for unaccompanied migrant children. But Gialluca says border officials shouldn’t need more resources to treat immigrants like human beings.

“Money isn’t keeping guards from allowing people to access toilets,” she said. “Money isn’t causing guards to take clothing and medicine away from children.”

********************************************

Here’s Another report from Nicole Goodkind at Newsweek on the “malicious incompetence” and intentional misallocation of resources by Trump and his DHS sycophants that is willfully endangering kids’ lives as part of a cheap White Nationalist political stunt:

8-YEAR-OLD MIGRANTS BEING FORCED TO CARE FOR TODDLERS IN DETENTION CAMPS

A team of lawyers conducted 60 interviews with migrant children being held in an El Paso, Texas, detention camp and found conditions to be dismal.

Fifteen of those in the holding center had the flu and 10 more are quarantined with illness, according to the lawyers, who first gave the data to the Associated Press. Three infants are being detained alongside their teenage mothers, and many children are under the age of 12.

“A Border Patrol agent came in our room with a 2-year-old boy and asked us, ‘Who wants to take care of this little boy?’ Another girl said she would take care of him, but she lost interest after a few hours and so I started taking care of him yesterday,” one teenaged girl told the lawyers in an interview. The boy was not wearing a diaper and his shirt was covered in mucus, she said.

Law professor Warren Binford, who aided in the interviews, said she witnessed an 8-year-old girl caring for a 4-year-old child who was very dirty, the girl was unable to get the boy to take a shower. She also described the children she interviewed as sleep-deprived, often falling asleep while speaking with her.

“In my 22 years of doing visits with children in detention, I have never heard of this level of inhumanity,” said Holly Cooper, co-director of the University of California, Davis’ Immigration Law Clinic, to the AP.

The lawyers were inspecting the facility as part of the Flores agreement, which resulted from a landmark 1985 case that established that facilities where minor migrants are held must be kept “safe and sanitary.”

A representative of the Trump administration, the Justice Department’s Sarah Fabian, argued Tuesday that safe and sanitary conditions don’t necessarily have to include toothbrushes, soap or towels for children.

Nicole Goodkind is a political reporter at Newsweek. You can reach her on Twitter @NicoleGoodkind or by email, N.Goodkind@newsweek.com.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PLANS MAJOR ICE RAIDS FOR SUNDAY

U.S. immigration authorities plan to raid Miami, Houston, Chicago and Los Angeles and other cities. They intend to arrest up to 2,000 families, three U.S. officials with knowledge of the plans told The Washington Post. The orders reportedly come directly from President Donald Trump.

On Monday, the president tweeted: “Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States. They will be removed as fast as they come in.”

Officials told The Washington Post that the Department of Homeland Security agency plans to hold families in hotel rooms until they are deported. Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan is allegedly targeting families that have completely dropped out of the court process, but has warned that the operation could lead to further cases of families being separated.

Los Angeles Police Department Chief Michel Moore confirmed the raids on Friday, saying that about 140 families in southern California will be targeted in pre-dawn raids early next week. The chief also made clear that the raids are done on a federal level and that the police department will not be involved.

On Thursday, Carla Provost, chief of the United States Border Patrol argued that the Department of Homeland Security was not receiving enough money to properly care for migrants on the southern border, and that was leading to terrible conditions in detention centers. On Wednesday, the Senate Appropriations Committee agreed to $4.6 billion in emergency funds for what the Trump administration has referred to as a “border crisis.”

Texas Congressman Joaquin Castro questioned how the agency could afford mass raids while asking for more money Friday. “The Trump Administration says it needs more money (supplemental bill) for the situation at the border yet they may be starting massive immigration raids next week. So how do you have the money for that if you’re running out of money ICE?” he tweeted.

“These potential raids are a disgusting political ploy to stoke fear and rile up Trump’s base for 2020,” wrote Sandra Cordero, Director of Families Belong Together, an immigration advocacy group, in a statement. “Past raids have left children alone and afraid in empty homes, praying they won’t be left to care for younger siblings by themselves, with no idea if they’ll see their parents again. This is yet another flagrant disregard for the welfare of children on behalf of a cruel administration bent on fomenting fear and creating chaos.”

********************************

Come on, Carla, cut the BS and butt covering. The “mix” of arrivals at the Southern Border began to shift to refugee families from the Northern Triangle back in the summer of 2014. So, CBP and DHS have had five years to prepare for this “change” which is actually “old news.”

More “old news” is the increased flow of asylum seekers with kids which began back before Thanksgiving. Plenty of time for CBP and DHS to bring back retired asylum officers and adjudicators and reassign other adjudicative personnel to the border to insure prompt, orderly, safe, and efficient processing of asylum applicants at ports of entry, thus eliminating the incentive (or necessity) for folks to turn themselves in after crossing the border between ports.

Also, plenty of time to work with NGOs, pro bono groups, states, and communities to insure representation and proper placement of family groups in various locations throughout the country without panic or “dumping.”

Another bogus claim spread by Trump, Provost, and the rest of the sycophants: that the prevalence of kids among new asylum arrivals is somehow totally a response to the Flores settlement (which actually has been in effect for decades).

Undoubtedly, with the Trump Administration’s active assistance, unscrupulous smugglers and coyotes are encouraging some folks to bring children as the only way to have a shot at fair processing under the tilted U.S. asylum system promoted by Trump. Indeed, as I have observed before, the Trump Administrations has consistently been a “best friend” to gangs, smugglers, traffickers, cartels, and druggies seeking to “jack up” profits by further exploiting the human misery caused by the Trump Administration’s “maliciously incompetent “ approach to immigration, effective law enforcement, and humanity generally. https://apple.news/AFQw_eqcHSZCYxUznmP0wpQ

Undoubtedly, some of these unscrupulous individuals are telling families to travel with kids. But, the truth is that according to the UNHCR, over one-half of today’s refugees are children. https://www.unhcr.org/children-49c3646c1e8.html.

So, the prevalence of children among new arrivals should properly been seen as part of a sad worldwide trend that Trump and his cronies disgustingly have done everything possible to encourage, exploit, and aggravate. It most certainly is not primarily caused by the Flores settlement or by giving soap, toothbrushes, blankets, or medical care to children being abused in the “DHS Gulag” administered in part by disingenuous folks like Provost.

Any honest observer of what’s going on knows that the majority of the asylum applications that passed credible fear probably could have been granted (or given protection under the Convention Against Torture — “CAT”) by the Asylum Office without even going to Immigration Court under the proper generous interpretation of our asylum laws, an honest interpretation of CAT that reflects the true conditions in the Northern Triangle, and a very “doable” change in procedures.

Only dishonest fools in the Trump Administration (and a few from the Obama Administration) would maintain that gender isn’t a social group subject to widespread persecution in the Northern Triangle, deny that gangs have assumed the role of quasi-governmental entities thus making most of the harm they inflict on resisters “political persecution,” and make the beyond ludicrous claim that the corrupt failed states of the Northern Triangle have either the ability or much real interest in protecting those subject to persecution.

And, Carla, why aren’t you out there today registering a public protest of the waste of time and funds in ICE going after families with ridiculously inappropriate “raids” when every resource could and should be focused instead on providing humanitarian assistance to asylum seekers arriving at the Southern Border?

This racist-inspired “Sunday Morning Reign of Terror” directed at U.S. ethnic communities is specifically designed to return helpless families to the very dangerous countries from which they originally fled! Thus, Trump and his phony DHS are intentionally feeding “fresh meat” to gangs and cartels and insuring that the cycle of northward migration, no matter how dangerous, will continue until everyone who needs to leave its either gone or dead (the latter apparently the “solution” favored by Provost, Trump, Morgan, McAleenan, Miller, and others).

Provost, McAleenan, Morgan, and their co-conspirators are all participants in a cynical scheme to intentionally “crash” the asylum system, rather than competently administering it. They are intentionally endangering the lives of children and other vulnerable asylum seekers, many entitled to legal protections, to promote, along with GOP restrictionists, totally bogus, dishonest, and completely unnecessary and unwarranted restrictions of the precious, life-saving right of refugees to seek asylum in the U.S.

It’s an unbelievably dishonest and cowardly scheme, and a complete breach of both oaths of office and public trust. It might be that those who long ago abandoned American values will lap up this insult to human values and human dignity.

But, there are plenty of us out here who know and understand exactly what you are doing. We will not only resist it, but will be historical witnesses to your cruel, inhuman, and unlawful schemes and gimmicks to “abuse and kill the innocent.” And, we’ll be keeping count.

PWS

06-22-19

DON’S KILLER DEAL: Salvadoran Teenage Girl First Casualty Of Trump’s “Make ‘Em Die In Mexico” Deal — As Investigation Continues, One Thing Is Clear: This Is Just The First Of Many Deaths & Human Tragedies That Will Result From Trump’s “Malicious Incompetence” & Unwillingness To Comply With Asylum Laws!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/world/americas/mexico-migrant-death.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

By Kirk Semple and Paulina Villegas

June 21, 2019

MEXICO CITY — The Mexican authorities are investigating the death of a teenage migrant from El Salvador who was shot and killed after the truck she was in ran a government checkpoint.

Witnesses have told investigators in the state of Veracruz, where the shooting happened last Friday, that a truck carrying the 19-year-old woman and other migrants bound for the United States border passed through a government checkpoint and that people wearing police uniforms gave chase in a police car and shot at the truck, said Jorge Winckler Ortiz, the attorney general of Veracruz.

Two other migrants in the truck were wounded in the shooting, officials said.

The incident occurred amid a Mexican government deployment of security forces to assert greater control of migration toward the United States, part of a dealthat President Andrés Manuel López Obrador struck with President Trump earlier this month to fend off a threat of tariffs.

The possibility that the Mexican police may have killed the teenager has reaffirmed the fears of migrants’ advocates and human rights experts, who worry that the security forces, being rushed into migration control, are ill-prepared for the task.

“To give a green light to any police force to detain or chase migrants opens up many more dangers and increases the risks migrants face, like grave human rights violations, horrible accidents or crimes like this,” said Ruben Figueroa, an activist with the migrant rights’ group Movimiento Migrante Mesoamericano, in an interview Friday.

Mexico’s security secretary, Alfonso Durazo, has also confirmed that his ministry was investigating the shooting.

In a news conference this week, Mr. Winckler said that according to testimony from witnesses, 17 migrants from El Salvador were traveling in a four-door pickup truck through the state of Veracruz when they encountered the checkpoint.

The driver slowed down as he passed through the checkpoint, but hearing sirens, he sped away. A high-speed chase ensued, lasting 20 minutes, Mr. Winckler said, according to the preliminary investigation based on interviews with witnesses.

After shots were fired from the police vehicle, the truck pulled to a stop and three men “dressed as police” stepped out of the police vehicle, Mr. Winckler recounted.

His language allowed for the possibility that the assailants were not legitimate police officers. In Mexico, criminals have been known to disguise themselves in the uniforms of the nation’s security forces to conduct crimes, though corruption also permeates Mexico’s police forces, and some police personnel have developed close ties with organized crime.

As the three men beat up the driver of the truck, the other migrants ran away, Mr. Winckler said. The men in police uniforms hauled the driver away, leaving behind the dead migrant and her two wounded companions, one of whom had been shot in a hand and the other in his leg, Mr. Winckler said, citing witness testimony.

One of the wounded migrants told The Washington Post that the occupants of the patrol car had first shot at the migrants’ vehicle from behind, before pulling ahead and shooting through the windshield. The wounded migrant, who was recovering in a hospital in Veracruz, said he saw all three men wielding weapons.

The deployment of security forces by the Mexican government, after the deal announced on June 7 with the Trump administration, was supposed to be concentrated in Mexico’s southern states. Officials initially promised to send 6,000 members of the newly formed National Guard to the southern border region to help migration officials intercept undocumented migrants entering from Guatemala.

But the mobilization has been halting at best. In recent days, officials said that only a portion of those 6,000 would be members of the National Guard, with the rest drawn from other security forces, and that only about 40 percent of them would be sent to the southern region.

Still, the deal has already resulted in more government checkpoints along major roadways leading from the border with Guatemala into the interior of the country, and more aggressive patrols.

Human rights experts, migrants’ advocates and security analysts have warned about possible hazards, such as human rights violations, that could be caused by the quick deployment of the security forces, which may not have received proper training in migration enforcement.

***********************************

Trump likely figures that the dead bodies he is responsible for will stay in Mexico (or Guatemala) and thus below the radar screen. So, it’s important for reporters to keep focusing on the body count so that he can be held accountable for the deaths and tragedies he is causing with his incompetent, racist, anti-refugee policies.

READ ERIC POSNER: The Right’s “New Human Rights” Incorporates Hate, Intolerance, Fear Of Others!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-administrations-plan-to-redefine-human-rights-along-conservative-lines/2019/06/14/5e456caa-8def-11e9-b162-8f6f41ec3c04_story.html

Posner writes in the WashPost:

The State Department recently published a brief, enigmatic notice announcing the formation of a new Commission on Unalienable Rights. With a modest budget of $385,074 and merely advisory powers, the commission received little attention beyond head-scratching over its strange name. Yet the significance of the endeavor should not be overlooked. It puts the government’s imprimatur on an assault upon one of the cornerstones of modern liberalism: international human rights.

According to the commission’s draft charter, its job will be to explore “reforms of human rights discourse where it has departed from our nation’s founding principles of natural law and natural rights” — rights of the sort that Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. upheld as ideals, the charter says.

This language may sound unusual to a modern ear, but it is easily translated. Start with that ungainly name of the commission. If “unalienable” sounds anachronistic, that’s because it is. Today, we normally use the word “inalienable.” But in the 18th century, the more common term was “unalienable.” The Declaration of Independence refers to “unalienable rights,” and there is little doubt the commission’s name is meant to recall that, in the words of the Declaration, the people are endowed with those rights “by their Creator.”

The State Department recently published a brief, enigmatic notice announcing the formation of a new Commission on Unalienable Rights. With a modest budget of $385,074 and merely advisory powers, the commission received little attention beyond head-scratching over its strange name. Yet the significance of the endeavor should not be overlooked. It puts the government’s imprimatur on an assault upon one of the cornerstones of modern liberalism: international human rights.

According to the commission’s draft charter, its job will be to explore “reforms of human rights discourse where it has departed from our nation’s founding principles of natural law and natural rights” — rights of the sort that Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. upheld as ideals, the charter says.

This language may sound unusual to a modern ear, but it is easily translated. Start with that ungainly name of the commission. If “unalienable” sounds anachronistic, that’s because it is. Today, we normally use the word “inalienable.” But in the 18th century, the more common term was “unalienable.” The Declaration of Independence refers to “unalienable rights,” and there is little doubt the commission’s name is meant to recall that, in the words of the Declaration, the people are endowed with those rights “by their Creator.”

This supposition is reinforced by the references to “natural law” and “natural rights,” terms that have also fallen out of fashion. In the 18th century, educated people used the phrases to refer to universal moral laws that transcended national boundaries and that generally (though not always) were thought to reflect God’s will. With the rise of nationalism in the 19th century, these abstractions lost much of their grip on people’s loyalties.

Finally, there is “human rights discourse.” Normally, we refer to “human rights law,” embodied in numerous treaties that were negotiated and (mostly) ratified after World War II. With names like the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, these treaties purport to bar governments from mistreating their citizens. Yet “discourse” means “talk.” The implication here is that the human rights that people talk about are not, despite the treaties, actually law. They’re something else — advocacy. And this advocacy is wrong: It has “departed from . . . natural law and natural rights.”

The protections offered by modern “human rights law” differ from those of the “natural rights” regime of the 18th century. Those were (more or less) embodied in the British constitutional tradition, the common law, and the U.S. Bill of Rights: rights to political participation — freedom of speech, for example — and protection of person and property. Modern human rights are both broader and narrower, encompassing “economic rights” (for example, rights to work, to health care and to education), rights to not be discriminated against on the basis of race or ethnicity, and, according to some interpreters, expansive rights to reproductive freedom. Modern human rights law de-emphasizes property rights and, to some extent, speech rights. In a word, it’s lefty.

Modern human rights have also morphed into something like a system of universal moral values that transcends specific treaties. The United States, virtually alone among nations, has refused to ratify most of these treaties and accordingly is technically not bound by them. But much “human rights discourse” rejects the notion that countries can opt out of the rights system. Quite a few scholars and an occasional U.S. Supreme Court justice believe, to the intense irritation of conservatives, that left-leaning human rights treaties that the United States has never ratified nonetheless override American law. The influence of “foreign law” — including “human rights discourse” — has been apparent in Supreme Court opinions limiting the death penalty and striking down the criminalization of same-sex “sodomy.” Most of the offending decisions were written by the court’s most enthusiastic proponent of foreign law, then-Justice Anthony Kennedy. As the late justice Antonin Scalia put it : “The Framers would, I am confident, be appalled by the proposition that, for example, the American peoples’ democratic adoption of the death penalty . . . could be judicially nullified because of the disapproving views of foreigners.”

But today, other conservatives see an opportunity, and the Commission on Unalienable Rights is their declaration of intent. Its plainly stated goal is not just to wipe away the baleful foreign influence of human rights “discourse” but to revive (conservative) 18th-century natural law.

What does natural law require? Liberals, already dimly perceiving that they are about to be hoisted with their own petard, worry that natural law, in the hands of conservatives — specifically, Catholic conservative intellectuals, who kept alive the academic tradition of natural law long after mainstream secular intellectuals forgot what it was — means goodbye to reproductive rights and protections for sexual minorities. (ABC News reported that the Princeton professor Robert George, a prominent Catholic intellectual, natural-law theorist, and opponent of abortion rights and same-sex marriage, played a role in the creation of the commission; George did not respond to requests for comment from ABC or from The Washington Post.) The Commission on Unalienable Rights will, in other words, provide the ideological justification for the antiabortion foreign policy that the Trump administration has undertaken.

Natural law can also be used by conservatives to argue for expanded religious freedoms that override statutes with secular goals, and to push back against progressive government programs like universal health care. The “right to health,” a centerpiece of “human rights law,” is firmly rejected by natural-law theorists like George.

But the mission of the commission may be even bolder. If we take the idea of natural law seriously, it not only overrides statutes in foreign countries that protect abortion rights and respect same-sex marriage. It also overrides American laws that protect abortion rights and respect same-sex marriage. One can imagine a day when a Supreme Court justice, taking a page from Kennedy, invokes natural law — supposedly endorsed by the founders, after all, and embodied in the sacred Declaration — to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and to prepare the path for an even holier grail, the abolition of state laws that grant abortion rights.

Liberals hoped that human rights, sanctified by the sacrifices of the victims of totalitarianism, would provide common ground in a world of competing ideologies. But what human rights actually helped produce was a liberal international order that has offended a great many people who do not share liberal values. The backlash began years ago in authoritarian countries, in developing countries that saw human rights as an affront to their traditions and as a mask for imperialist goals, and in highly religious countries. These countries advanced interpretations of human rights law that conform with their values or interests but made little headway against dominant elite opinion. What is new is that the government of the world’s most powerful nation, long acknowledged (if grudgingly) as the leader of the international human rights regime, has officially signed on to that backlash. Most of the offending decisions were written by the court’s most enthusiastic proponent of foreign law, then-Justice Anthony Kennedy. As the late justice Antonin Scalia put it : “The Framers would, I am confident, be appalled by the proposition that, for example, the American peoples’ democratic adoption of the death penalty . . . could be judicially nullified because of the disapproving views of foreigners.”

But today, other conservatives see an opportunity, and the Commission on Unalienable Rights is their declaration of intent. Its plainly stated goal is not just to wipe away the baleful foreign influence of human rights “discourse” but to revive (conservative) 18th-century natural law.

But the mission of the commission may be even bolder. If we take the idea of natural law seriously, it not only overrides statutes in foreign countries that protect abortion rights and respect same-sex marriage. It also overrides American laws that protect abortion rights and respect same-sex marriage. One can imagine a day when a Supreme Court justice, taking a page from Kennedy, invokes natural law — supposedly endorsed by the founders, after all, and embodied in the sacred Declaration — to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and to prepare the path for an even holier grail, the abolition of state laws that grant abortion rights.

Liberals hoped that human rights, sanctified by the sacrifices of the victims of totalitarianism, would provide common ground in a world of competing ideologies. But what human rights actually helped produce was a liberal international order that has offended a great many people who do not share liberal values. The backlash began years ago in authoritarian countries, in developing countries that saw human rights as an affront to their traditions and as a mask for imperialist goals, and in highly religious countries. These countries advanced interpretations of human rights law that conform with their values or interests but made little headway against dominant elite opinion. What is new is that the government of the world’s most powerful nation, long acknowledged (if grudgingly) as the leader of the international human rights regime, has officially signed on to that backlash.

*******************

Professor Posner confirms what folks like me have been saying for some time now: under Trump and his version of the GOP, America aspires to go from being a defender of human rights to being a leading abuser of those rights.

Forget the attempted “slight of hand” redefinition of human rights by a White Nationalist minority who has seized control of our Government. Kids in cages, abusing women, enabling gangs and cartels, suspending due process, blocking access to voting, dehumanizing the Hispanic and LGBTQ communities, greed, selfishness, grift, undermining the hard earned rights of African Americans, and promoting and protecting religious bigotry, among other disreputable developments, neither conforms to any version of human rights nor represents the views of the majority of Americans.

Make no mistake about it. No matter how flawed , the human rights instruments crafted as a result of “liberal Western democracy” in the post-World War II era have saved millions of human lives and prevented unfathomable additional human carnage. Undoubtedly, that makes Trump and some of his supporters supremely unhappy.

Those of us who continue to maintain the “quaint” view that all persons are entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (no matter how imperfectly conceived and disingenuously implemented by our Founding Fathers) had better wake up and join the battle! For, Trump and his far right minority zealots have every intention of reversing the results of World War II and making the hate, bias, disregard for truth, toxic nationalism, and contempt for the majority of the world’s humans exhibited by the “the then losers” the new international norm.

Don’t let them turn back the clock to 1939 in 2019!

PWS

06-18-19

HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST: Trump/Pence Scheme To Declare Guatemala A “Safe Third Country” Is “Ludicrous” – An Affront To Human Rights & Honest Government!

https://reut.rs/2Kk259M

Eleanor Acer
Senior Director for Refugee Protection, Human Rights First

Sophia Menchu reports for Reuters:

GUATEMALA CITY (Reuters) – A U.S. plan to make asylum seekers from Honduras and El Salvador seek refuge in Guatemala instead of the United States would endanger, not protect, refugees, a prominent rights group said on Friday as U.S. negotiators met Guatemalan officials.

U.S. rights group Human Rights First said it was “simply ludicrous” for the United States to assert that Guatemala was capable of protecting refugees, when its own citizens are fleeing violence.

“The Trump administration is doubling down on its efforts to block, bar and punish refugees for attempting to seek asylum in the United States,” said Eleanor Acer, senior director for refugee protection at Human Rights First.

“These policies put the lives of refugees in great danger.”

Guatemala, like its neighbors Honduras and El Salvador, suffers high levels of violence, driven largely by transnational street gangs including MS-13, which operate across borders in all three countries. Many asylum seekers cite gang threats as the reason they come to the United States for refuge.

Tens of thousands of people have left Guatemala to seek U.S. asylum this year. Nearly 150,000 undocumented Guatemalan families have reached the U.S. border since October, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, many of them citing fear of violence in their home country for seeking asylum.

U.S. Vice President Mike Pence said this week the two nations had a deal under which Guatemala would take asylum seekers from neighbors. “They ought to be willing to apply for asylum in the first safe country in which they arrive,” he said.

Details of the plan have not been made public, and Guatemala has not publicly confirmed talks that the U.S. State Department said were taking place in Guatemala on Friday.

The talks were about a range of initiatives aimed at reducing illegal immigration, including “improved asylum processing,” a State Department spokeswoman said on Friday in response to a Reuters question about the Guatemala asylum plan.

The emerging plans flow from a U.S.-Mexican deal struck to avert tariffs threatened by U.S. President Donald Trump to push Mexico to do more to stem immigration through its territory.

That deal included sending 6,000 members of Mexico’s National Guard to the border and expanding a separate asylum program under which U.S. asylum seekers are sent back to Mexico to await U.S. court hearings.

If those measures fail, Mexico has agreed to consider becoming a “safe third country” where all asylum seekers passing through the country would have to apply for refuge, instead of the United States

Mexico’s Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said other countries should share the load, including Guatemala.

Guatemala, one of the poorest countries in the Americas, has little experience receiving large numbers of asylum seekers and a large wave of refugees would strain limited resources. Just 262 people applied for refugee status in Guatemala between January and November 2018, according to data from the U.N. rights agency UNHCR.

By comparison, nearly 155,000 families from El Salvador and Honduras have been apprehended at the U.S. border since October, with many of them requesting asylum.

Guatemala holds presidential elections on Sunday, after a campaign that has highlighted the lack of rule of law in the country, including the influence of drug traffickers on politics in the country.

Trade and immigration between Mexico and the United States – tmsnrt.rs/2Khd82D

Editing by Bill Berkrot

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

*****************************************

As pointed out in the article, Guatemala is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for its own citizens. It doesn’t even have a functioning asylum system. So, how could it provide access to a “full and fair” asylum adjudications to non-citizens as required by our law. The answer is simple – it can’t, by any stretch of the imagination. After all, living long enough to apply, even if there were a functional asylum adjudication system, would be a prerequisite to a legitimate “Safe Third Country” process.

Seems like clear abuses of authority like this by Trump and Pence that should be enough to remove both of them from office forthwith in a functioning democracy. But, that’s not going to happen before 2021, if then.

In the meantime, Dems should make a note that when responsible Government returns at some point in the future, the law should be amended to require at least Senate ratification of any future “Safe Third Country Agreement” to prevent future Executive abuses like this. Indeed, the failure of this Congress to revoke Trump’s authority to enter into these clearly bogus and ill-intended “Safe Third Country” agreements is an indelible stain upon its reputation.

“Safe Third Country” was intended to be about refugee burden sharing among countries with substantially comparable due process systems for adjudicating claims under the Refugee Convention. It was never intended to allow the U.S. to “outsource” asylum adjudication to dangerous, major human rights violators with dysfunctional asylum adjudication systems. What Trump and Pence are proposing is little more than outright murder and human rights abuses inflicted on asylum seekers in violation of both international and U.S. laws.

PWS

06-17-19

ANALYSIS: Trump Lays Another Egg On Immigration — Everybody Loses, But It Could Have Been Much, Much Worse

By Paul Wickham Schmidt for immigrationcourtside.com

Alexandria, VA, June 9, 2019. After a week of petulance, threats, and self-created drama, Trump produced a resounding trade and immigration dud. Faced with advisors telling him that he was endangering the economy, the only thing propping up his sagging popularity, a potential rebellion among GOP legislators, and an unexpectedly tough and resolute Mexico, Trump backed off of his insane and blatantly illegal plan to ignore U.S. asylum obligations and thereby rocket the U.S. to the upper echelons of international scofflaws and human rights violators.

The latter scheme, known as “safe third country,” would have mis-designated Mexico and, incredibly, Guatemala, two clearly “unsafe” countries to do the U.S.’s job by processing tens of thousands of asylum applications from those fleeing the Northern Triangle. Neither of the two countries has a viable, fair, and effective asylum adjudication system and both have major safety and human rights issues.

Instead, Trump accepted a vague compact by which Mexico and the U.S. basically agreed to do what they had already been doing without taking any decisive or effective action to address the actual humanitarian crisis in the Northern Triangle that Trump and his flunkies have consistently mischaracterized as a “law enforcement emergency.” Indeed, the New York Times reported that most of Mexico’s “unprecedented steps” had already been worked out in secret with deposed DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen months ago. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/08/us/politics/trump-mexico-deal-tariffs.html. Those interested can read the summary of the agreement prepared by Trump’s own State Department here. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-us-mexico-tariffs-declaration-20190607-story.html.

To be sure, desperate and vulnerable asylum seekers, particularly women and children, will continue to abused, raped, beaten, extorted, obscenely tortured, and killed with impunity and little if any recourse as a result of this week’s actions. But, at least for now, the U.S. and Mexico are maintaining much of the basic framework of domestic and international protection laws.

Contrary to the lies and false narratives spread by Trump and his DHS cronies, U.S. law is not filled with “loopholes.” Rather, it is a fairly straightforward implementation of the international protection regime and treaties that have been in effect since World War II to prevent another holocaust from occurring on our watch.

If anything, since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.S. has watered down its asylum commitment somewhat by adding a legally tenuous “credible fear” process to “pre-screen” arriving asylum applicants in mass migration situations. However, to date, the DHS under Trump has been too incompetent, misdirected, and frankly downright stupid to utilize this streamlined screening process fairly and efficiently.

By treating a somewhat predictable humanitarian refugee flow as a bogus “law enforcement problem” and mindlessly shoving cases into a “captive” court system that they already had abused, mismanaged, and destroyed, the Administration lost effective control. In panic, they have tried to blame the refugees, Democrats, Mexico, Obama, judges, the media, and even the truly hapless failed states of the Northern Triangle for their largely self-created human and operational disaster.

The first of the “unprecedented steps,” involves Mexico sending approximately 6,000 National Guard troops to the Guatemalan border to control illegal crossings. Never mind that the Mexican National Guard is a recent creation that exists largely on paper. Also, forget that Mexico has a questionable record of controlling corruption and systematic human rights abuses among its existing police and military forces.

The U.S., a much larger, better organized, and more prosperous country than Mexico, has resorted to militarizing the border, mass incarceration, family concentration camps, kids in cages, malicious criminal prosecutions, family separations, walls, fences, overt political interference in the asylum adjudication system, and violating international protection norms. These “gonzo” enforcement efforts not only failed to stem the tide, but have actually aided smugglers and traffickers and increased the flow of migrants.

Will newly minted, untrained Mexican troops succeed where the might of the U.S. has failed miserably? Don’t count on it.

Also, the last time I checked, it appeared that most of the Mexican coast and some parts of the U.S. are reasonably accessible by boat from the Northern Triangle. So, assuming that the Mexicans could “shut down” their land border with Guatemala, why wouldn’t smugglers “take to the sea?” How’s that Mexican Navy?

The second “unprecedented step,” is a continuation and expansion of the existing “Remain in Mexico Program.” This toxic gimmick punishes those who have been legally determined to have a “credible fear” of persecution by making them remain in some of the most dangerous locations in the world where they are intentionally and illegally impeded in many ways from pursuing their U.S. asylum claims from Mexico. To date, this program has only been implemented in a few locations, like San Diego where it has been an unmitigated failure according to a report from Kate Morrissey of the San Diego Union-Tribune. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/06/06/cruel-yet-really-stupid-trumps-remain-in-mexico-policy-denies-due-process-while-creating-court-chaos-enfeebled-judges-fume-as-aimless-docket-reshufflin/.

The results of this ill-advised effort by Trump to circumvent U.S. asylum laws reads like a “legal toxicology report:” “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” mass confusion, lack of information, insufficient and deficient hearing notices, massive violations of the statutory right to be represented by counsel, no opportunity to fairly prepare, document, and present asylum claims, interference with the attorney-client relationship by DHS, and few actual case completions to name just a few of the many abuses. And, how will an already dysfunctional EOIR deal with yet another round of “new priorities” and more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling?”

A Federal District Judge actually enjoined this circus before it could get rolling. But, a “tone-deaf panel” of the Ninth Circuit allowed Trump’s assault on the rule of law to go forward, at least for now.

Nevertheless, the case remains pending with the Ninth Circuit. As EOIR’s rushed and sloppy work product starts to accumulate on their docket and the bodies and horror stories start to pile up in Mexico, more responsible Circuit Judges might actually force the Administration to comply with the law and the Constitution, not to mention simple human decency.

Mexico has pledged to “accept and protect” those sentenced to remain there. But, the Mexican border locations to which individuals are forced to return are dangerous for a reason. Presumably, if Mexican can’t maintain safety and order for its own citizens, it won’t do any better for vulnerable asylum seekers.

Finally, in third “unprecedented step,” Mexico and the U.S. agreed to promote the “Comprehensive Development Plan launched by the government of Mexico in concert with the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras” to create “prosperity, good governance and security in Central America.” This part of the agreement makes the most sense. But “promoting” in this case appears limited to using development funds that were “already in the pipeline” in both countries. In other words, nothing really new here.

This was a golden opportunity for the U.S. to show real leadership by dramatically increasing its investment in bringing stability and prosperity to Mexico and Central America. Additionally, we could have created incentives (rather than threats) and benchmarks for Mexico to improve its asylum adjudication system and human rights performance. Partnering with non-governmental-organizations and legal assistance groups on both sides of the border also would bring much needed expertise in resolving asylum issues to the table.

But, that would have taken a President with vision, empathy, compassion, courage, competency, intelligence, and creative problem solving ability. Trump is the exact antithesis of all of these qualities.

Consequently, sooner or later we can expect Trump’s “latest egg” to fail, like all of his other gimmicks and maliciously incompetent schemes on immigration. Our “child president” will undoubtedly then embark on a new barrage of lies, false narratives, idiotic tweets, idle threats, blame shifting, insults, racist dog whistles, and general nonsense aimed at diverting attention from his own failures as a leader and more critically, as a human being.

Innocent people will be harmed and die, America and Mexico will be embarrassed and diminished, and the world will be a worse place. But, until America figures out how to use its democratic institutions to remove the kakistocracy, the disaster will continue. That it could have been worse, is only small consolation.

Why not strive to be the “best that we can be,” rather than just “not as bad as we might have been?”

ABUSE OF POWER: Eleanor Acer Of Human Rights First Blasts Administration’s Latest Scheme Promoting A Massive Hemispheric Violation Of Human Rights!

https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/mexico-border-deal-avoid-tariffs-would-endanger-lives

June 06, 2019

Mexico Border Deal to Avoid Tariffs Would Endanger Lives

Share

RELATED CAMPAIGNS & TOPICS

Refugee Protection

New York City—In response to reports that the Mexican government is planning to make a deal with the United States to avoid tariffs threatened by President Trump, Human Rights First’s Eleanor Acer issued the following statement:

President Trump is trying to bully another country into endangering the lives of vulnerable men, women, and children, who want nothing more than to live in freedom and safety. Mexico and Guatemala are not—in a legal or practical sense—safe countries for many refugees. In Mexico too many refugees face kidnapping, assault, and murder.

People seeking refuge are not required to seek asylum in the first country they set foot in. In fact, many face grave dangers in neighboring countries, as well as serious risks that they will be returned to their country of persecution.

Such a plan would not only makes a mockery of U.S. law and treaty commitments, but would also return refugees to places where their lives are in danger. It is yet another abdication of leadership, setting an abysmal example for other countries around the world.

Instead of more attempts to block and punish people seeking refuge, the United States needs real solutions that restore order and uphold America’s refugee laws and treaty commitments, including:

Tackle the root causes pushing people to flee the Northern Triangle countries through a targeted strategy that leverages both diplomacy and aid, focusing on effective programs that reduce violence, combat corruption, strengthen rule of law, protect vulnerable populations and promote sustainable economic development.

Launch a major initiative to enhance the capacity of Mexico and other countries—which are already hosting growing numbers of refugees—to provide asylum, host, protect, and integrate refugees, along with a robust regional resettlement initiative that provides orderly routes to the United States and other countries while safeguarding asylum.

Immediately end the dysfunction at the border, and instead launch a public-private humanitarian initiative and a long overdue case management system to actually manage asylum cases.

Fix the asylum and immigration court adjudication systems to provide fair, non-politicized and timely decisions.

For more information see Human Rights First’s blueprint: The Real Solution: Regional Response Rather than Border Closures, Mass Incarceration, and Refugee Returns. To speak with Acer contact Corinne Duffy atDuffyC@humanrightsfirst.org or 202-370-3319.

***************************************

As usual, Trump’s outrageously illegal and immoral proposal relies on:

Bullying weaker countries;
A gullible public;
A cowardly GOP Congress;
Complicit courts.

A simple perusal of the country condition materials publicly available on the EOIR and Department of State websites shows that the idea that either Mexico or Guatemala are “safe” countries where refugees “would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection,” as required by U.S. law, is preposterous.

Mexico’s asylum adjudication system is plagued by bribery, corruption, and incompetence. It adjudicated only about 10, 000 cases in the last reported period, denying the overwhelming majority. Moreover, gangs and cartels operate freely throughout the Northern Triangle countries and Mexico. Our State Department Report acknowledges that the same organized gangs who force people to leave the Northern Triangle can also harm them in Mexico.

Guatemala is a highly corrupt country basically without a functioning asylum adjudication system. It is a major sender of asylum applicants to other countries. The Guatemalan Government is unable to maintain order and protect its own citizens, let alone refugees from nearby countries.

Also, we are encouraging Mexico and Guatemala to use troops and military force against asylum seekers — something our own laws do not permit.

Essentially, the Trump Administration seeks to “get away with murder.” In two years they have turned the U.S. from a leading defender of human rights to a major international human rights violator. So, why are we allowing our Government to get away with such dishonest, morally bankrupt, and illegal proposals?

Even if these corrupt proposals go into effect, it seems doubtful that they will stem the follow of refugees in the long run. While there might be a short term downturn, eventually smugglers will adjust to the new policies and desperate individuals will find different routes to the United States. They will be more dangerous, so more will die.

Perhaps we will see “Central American Boat People” and more deaths at sea. Maybe there will be more “Golden Ventures.” More deaths at the border will be inevitable as smugglers seek to evade the Border Patrol and get to the interior. Perhaps the human smuggling action will switch to the even longer U.S. Canada border. How about a “Northern Wall” from the Atlantic to the Pacific?

As long as the U.S. stubbornly refuses to acknowledge and address the causes of migration it will continue, in extralegal channels as necessary and as the market “push pull factors” determine. More focus on barring refugees means less focus on drug smugglers and others who present a real threat to our safety and security.

Also, smugglers will be able to change a premium — so those who are willing to take the risk and outsmart the new system will reap even higher profits than the increased ones Trump has already conferred upon them with his maliciously incompetent policies to date. Finally, walls, jails, cages, abuses, family separations, prosecutions, racist rhetoric, armed violence, tariffs, exploitation, massive violations of our Constitution and international laws, or whatever won’t stop desperate refugees from coming. But we will eventually convince refugees to give up on the U.S. legal system and just find ways to get beyond the border and lose themselves in the interior. No enforcement system, no matter how cruel, repressive, expensive, and lawless will be able to get rid of more than a fraction of those who don’t want to be found after reaching the interior.

Moreover, if Trump’s actions succeed in destabilizing Mexico, then Mexican migration, which has actually been a negative flow recently, will resume in large numbers, also adding to the pressure on our borders. The worse things get in Mexico, the less likely that the Mexican Government will stop their citizens from heading north. So, there is every reason to believe that Trump’s “malicious incompetence” will make things even worse for everyone — but particularly for those who are most vulnerable — desperate asylum seekers!

Another future possibility to ponder: Tired of being publicly bullied, humiliated, and dealing with a dishonest unreliable idiot and his incompetent sycophants, Mexico and Canada will “wise up” and cut a trade deal with China that really gives them leverage and puts the squeeze on the U.S. And, why wouldn’t China love a chance to establish factories just across our Northern and Southern borders that could also serve as “listening posts” and repositories for hijacked U.S. technology? Maybe the EU and India could also be cut into the deal.

We are diminishing ourselves as a nation, but it won’t stop human migration!

PWS

06-07-19

BLOWN OPPORTUNITY: THE GLOBAL COMPACT FOR SAFE, ORDERLY & REGULAR MIGRATION WAS AMERICA’S BEST CHANCE TO LEAD ON A GLOBAL PHENOMENON THAT ISN’T GOING AWAY — Trump’s Mindless White Nationalism Made The U.S. Walk Away From A Deal We Probably Need More Than Any Other Country!

http://www.afsa.org/immigration-debate

Former U.S. diplomat David Robinson writes in The Foreign Service Journal:

Closing the distance between legal requirements and humanitarian instincts is a global, rather than national, enterprise.

BY DAVID ROBINSON

Thirty-two years of diplomatic service taught me a number of things. One is that wherever politics and society seem irredeemably dysfunctional, it is not an accident. It is, at some level, intentional. Someone has a vested interest in continuing the chaos. Someone is getting rich, or powerful, or both; and even the most zealous reform efforts will likely fail unless those interests are mollified or neutralized.

The immigration debate follows that lesson. It is shrill, jumbled, disjointed, often illogical—and largely irrelevant to the reality it claims to address. A big, beautiful wall across our southern border may do little to stem the flow of drugs, criminals, terrorists and even unauthorized migrants into the United States—but its promise is pure gold. Like all the other sharp notes in this performance—including the travel ban, chain migration and anchor babies—the cacophony surrounding the wall helps both supporters and opponents puff out their chests and strut their virtue.

The only losers are those who have more than a partisan or emotional interest in resolving the conflict, including actual immigrants and the communities that receive them. They should not expect a resolution to their real and pressing concerns anytime soon.

Yet the scope of irregular migration today—with upward of 65 million people on the move—is such that it cannot be pushed aside. At the same time, no single country can respond adequately on its own. Diplomacy in the interest of fashioning international agreements to manage the problem is the only viable approach.

Legal Requirements vs. Humanitarian Instincts

Public talk about immigration reminds me of every discussion I ever heard in a Bosnian coffee shop during my 2014-2015 tenure as principal deputy high representative, and earlier as a refugee officer. It invariably begins and ends with an impassioned reference to some horrific event that obscures rather than illuminates the issue at hand. Both sides illustrate strongly held opinions with graphic examples excoriating the other point of view. Anti-immigrant zealots demonize immigrants as rapists and murderers; the other extreme sanctifies them as innocent victims of circumstance or malice. Both points of view are dehumanizing. They rely on stirring but distorted images to carry their arguments rather than on real people with complex motives and histories. Their aim is to capture the moral high ground, not to solve the problem.

Focusing on national immigration reform as a response to that wave is neither comprehensive nor realistic.

But manipulating imagery does not change the facts. Immigration has no inherent moral value, and immigrants are neither more nor less virtuous than anyone else. They were pushed or pulled from their homes by a host of different reasons from personal ambition to cataclysmic disaster. Some are victims, some are opportunists; some should be welcomed, some rejected. What separates migrants and non-citizen immigrants from their citizen neighbors is vulnerability. Regardless of wealth, stature or origin, immigrants are at the mercy of authorities and systems over which they have little or no influence. Their voices and images may be emotionally affecting, but their future is beyond their control.

That dependency drives the conflict about immigration reform, setting the rule of law against humanitarian impulse. It also opens the door to diplomacy. National laws deciding who may and may not enter a country always produce inequities; they always leave on the outside someone who has a legitimate need for entry but lacks the appropriate legal category or political timing to gain it. Visa classifications, refugee protocols and asylum guidelines cannot keep pace with global trends—from criminal violence and global warming to new definitions of marriage and family composition. Immigration liberalizers point to the law’s deficiencies and appeal to values over statutes, while build-the-wall advocates tout the law as the final, unyielding authority. The debate has turned into a name-calling melee as the number of migrants and intending immigrants continues to grow.

My own views on migration evolved in two parts. As a junior consular officer in the Dominican Republic, I scrupulously followed the rules and kept away from America’s shores the “wretched refuse” desperate enough to believe our own mythology. Years later, as a refugee officer, I met humanity’s outcasts in the makeshift places they sought shelter. The memory of a refugee child from Kosovo haunts me still. Who had the right to confine a 10-year-old boy behind a chain link fence? Legally, the government of Macedonia, whose border he had crossed; morally, nobody. It is shocking to me that I may now encounter that same scenario in the United States: legally permitted, morally repugnant.

Unproductive Approaches to Irregular Migration

Erasing that image and closing the distance between legal requirements and humanitarian instincts is a global, rather than national, enterprise. No single country has the political or social bandwidth to respond adequately to the growing demands and pressures of irregular migration. Sixty-five million people on the move do not fit into existing categories, either legal or humanitarian. Neither will they be deterred by piecemeal border controls. Focusing on national immigration reform as a response to that wave is neither comprehensive nor realistic. It is akin to promoting air conditioners as the answer to climate change. The problem will just continue to grow until it overwhelms efforts to avoid it.

Equally unproductive is treating irregular migration as principally a development challenge. Initiatives to reduce poverty or end conflict may have merit in their own right, but they are a long-term gamble, at best, and seldom include migrants in their plans and programs. The Dadaab complex in Kenya, a “temporary” shelter to hundreds of thousands of refugees for three decades, is a case in point. By any rational measure, Dadaab is a development challenge rather than a humanitarian crisis, but that transition never happened. In the meantime, its occupants remain in limbo, deprived of relatively normal and productive lives. Those who are able will continue to migrate and seek their futures elsewhere, including in the United States.

The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, though nonbinding, marks the first comprehensive effort to address human mobility at the global level.

Sidestepping the challenge of irregular migration leads nowhere. The only realistic starting point for effective, palatable reform is to accept shared responsibility for managing migration in the first place. We cannot eliminate the reasons large numbers of people move unexpectedly, nor can we isolate ourselves from their impact. We can, however, build agreements and networks across borders that establish the norms and rules for their treatment and that address the concerns of the communities that encounter them. We can, through diplomatic agreements, impose a semblance of order on what has become chaos.

There is precedent for this approach. The 1951 Refugee Convention and the subsequent regional agreements it prompted have created a durable framework for the protection of people fleeing persecution and seeking asylum in other countries. They make refugee protection a duty under international law and prohibit forcible return home. The agreements also establish common criteria for adjudicating refugee claims. The regime is imperfect and under stress, but it works. It measures progress, clarifies disputes and assigns responsibility. It is also the basis for a web of public and private, national and international agencies working to implement and improve it. Until recently, the United States was its most generous and reliable supporter.

A Necessary First Step

Extending the principles of protection and due process beyond refugees to all vulnerable migrants seemed within reach as recently as the United Nations General Assembly in 2016. All 193 member-states approved the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants that, among other actions, called for a Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. The compact was approved in December 2018. Although nonbinding, it marks the first comprehensive effort to address human mobility at the global level. It extends human rights norms and development goals to previously disregarded people while reaffirming the prerogative of every country to enforce its own laws. While not a permanent solution to runaway migration, the compact is a necessary first step toward diplomatic problem-solving. It is a meeting place, not a traffic cop, and shifts the needle away from blame toward shared responsibility.

Predictably, however, storm clouds gathered early. The United States was the first to jump ship, citing the paper-thin excuse that the compact interfered with sovereign law enforcement even though it explicitly reaffirms state sovereignty on all immigration decisions. A transparently flimsy excuse made even before the document had been fully drafted, it nevertheless emboldened others to follow. By the time the compact came to a vote, 29 countries had abandoned the effort, leaving 164 to endorse it.

Washington’s position on almost any significant issue signals either permission or caution; and at best, when directed skillfully, it compels action.

This backtracking is significant because it reflects pernicious nationalism as much as supposed flaws in the compact itself— such as signaling climate change as a trigger for migration and encouraging the use of detention only as a last resort. Politically manipulated fear of migrants from “shithole countries” (as our president has called them) and Muslim refugees from war zones had advanced a narrative that facts, no matter how twisted, simply did not support. Yet while the threat may be fake news, proclaiming it worked to the advantage of politicians and pundits who trade on isolationism, supremacy and ignorance.

It may not be unusual for countries to walk away from nonbinding agreements, and often their absence goes unnoticed. The United States is an exception to that rule; its absence is always felt and its presence is almost always required for meaningful international agreements to take root. An ambassador from a Middle Eastern country sitting next to me in Geneva in December 2011 groaned and shook his head when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared to the packed audience that gay rights are human rights. I asked him why he had come, knowing the direction of the speech in advance. He smiled, shrugged and said: “The American Secretary of State. Of course I’m here. But I don’t like it.” He didn’t have to like it, but he did have to deal with it—as long as the United States and its allies continued to press the point.

Diplomatic Leadership

While a Secretary of State’s moral and diplomatic authority may be less compelling today than it was then, it still matters. Influence is not optional for the United States. Washington’s position on almost any significant issue signals either permission or caution; and at best, when directed skillfully, it compels action. Not supporting the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration is a missed opportunity to set a global agenda that is too complex and ambitious to thrive without U.S. diplomatic and financial support. There are signs of hope, mainly in Africa, in countries that have embraced the compact and are building the legal and humanitarian framework it promotes. They may have some regional success; but globally their influence is no match for the challenge they face.

So the question remains: Where will the global leadership come from? Humanitarian imperatives and rule of law requirements are still on a collision course. The administration apparently hopes the problem will go away if we hide behind a wall. It will not. The rational choice is to join ranks with those seeking a coordinated response to the challenge. That is the direction American diplomacy should take and American diplomats should endorse.

David Robinson retired as a career member of the Senior Foreign Service in 2017, after a 32-year career. In addition to serving as ambassador to Guyana from 2006 to 2008, he served as assistant secretary for the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations and coordinator for reconstruction and stabilization from 2016 to 2017. Ambassador Robinson was also a deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration from 2009 to 2013, and special coordinator for Venezuela in the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs from 2008 to 2009. He previously served as principal deputy high representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, implementing the Dayton Peace Agreement; as assistant chief of mission in Kabul; and as deputy chief of mission in La Paz and Asunción. Currently he is associated with the Keough School of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame.

*************************************

The total failure of Trump’s arrogantly ignorant White Nationalist immigration policy is a great illustration of the truth of what Robinson says. Without “regime change” and a smarter, more courageous, leader willing to cooperate with other nations in addressing migration in a humane, realistic, and mutually beneficial manner, our immigration and refugee policies will continue to founder and fail.

PWS

06-05-19

TRUMP UNINTERESTED IN SOLVING CENTRAL AMERICAN MIGRATION ISSUES: While Mexico & Others Propose Regional Effort To Improve Conditions, Trump Responds With Racist Rants & “Guaranteed To Fail” Enforcement!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/31/trumps-mexico-tariffs-show-he-has-no-interest-solving-immigration-crisis/

Leon Krauze writers in the Washington Post:

Even by President Trump’s pyrotechnic standards, his announcement on Thursday that he will impose a sweeping 5 percent tariff on all Mexican goods coming into the United States unless Mexico stops the flow of illegal immigration is unprecedented. The threat is unjustifiably heavy-handed and will further erode cooperation in bilateral relations as the contentious debate over immigration spills into areas that had been successfully compartmentalized.

Above all, Trump’s threat illustrates his absolute disinterest in reaching a sensible understanding.

The government of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has shown unparalleled compliance with the White House’s punitive demands. It has increased the number of agents at its southern border, agreed to hold asylum seekersand dramatically increased deportations of potential asylum seekers.

Late on Thursday, López Obrador answered Washington with a long letter that included a lecture on American history, a brief declaration of discrepancy with Trump’s methods and a mellifluous plea for productive and urgent dialogue. Good luck with that.

Trump’s latest salvo also illustrates the profound rift in the different approaches to solve the humanitarian crisis that first began in Central America’s “Northern Triangle” of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

Early last week in Mexico City, Alicia Bárcena, head of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, revealed an ambitious development project for Mexico’s southeast and the troubled Northern Triangle.

“Why do people choose to leave?” Bárcena asked. “The lack of a basic source of income and economic opportunity is one of the main reasons.” She went on to explain how inequality, violence and global warming have also fueled the emergency. Bárcena then suggested what she called an “innovative” solution to the problem: Rather than focus on punishing measures to deter immigration, the region should instead emphasize growth through cooperation. López Obrador, sitting a few feet away, nodded. “This plan is important because it goes to the heart of the matter,” López Obrador later added. “People emigrate out of necessity. There’s no other way but to cooperate in search of development.”

But López Obrador’s words belied his own government’s actions.

Contrary to Trump’s unfounded complaints, Mexico has actually implemented myriad other, more bruising ways to try to stem the flow of immigrants toward the United States. In a somewhat schizophrenic policy, it has simultaneously slashed funding for the agencies assigned to handle refugees within the country while executing some of the most punitive schemes put in place by the Trump administration. Not exactly development-oriented actions.

Still, López Obrador insists that the only long-term solution to the current immigration crisis lies in opening new areas of opportunity for the hundreds of thousands of Central Americans who decide to migrate. All three Northern Triangle countries seem to agree: Diplomats for Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador surrounded López Obrador for Bárcena’s presentation in Mexico City.

The problem, of course, is the one country missing from this seemingly unanimous show of goodwill: the United States.

For six months now, López Obrador has tried to persuade the Trump administration to invest billions in Central America rather than just focus on enforcement. Just a few days after Bárcena’s impassioned announcement, López Obrador dispatched Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard to sell Trump’s team on regional development. Ebrard didn’t go far. While he did meet with acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin K. McAleenan and Jared Kushner, he was snubbed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who canceled a previously scheduled meeting with his Mexican counterpart. Ebrard flew back empty-handed.

Is Mexico being naive? Clearly. To acquiesce to an investment project for Central America would require a complete about-face in Trump’s hostility toward the region. Before Trump announced that he will suspend all aid to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador as punishment for their supposed inaction to prevent the migrant exodus, the United States had assigned slightly more than $180 million in funding for the three countries combined in 2019, less than 2 percent of the amount Mexico would like to see the United States provide the area through aid and investment in the coming years.

Getting Trump to invest seems like a long shot. Just how long? The White House isn’t exactly masking his invective.

Aside from the drastic imposition of tariffs, the Trump administration is also apparently considering limiting the ability of potential migrants to request asylum in the United States if they have traveled by land through Mexico, a radical change that could create an unmanageable bottleneck and humanitarian crisis of catastrophic proportions for Mexico’s unprepared and underfunded government agencies.

As if that weren’t enough, consider McAleenan’s visit to Central America this week. McAleenan did indeed carry with him a message of collaboration, but certainly not in the areas Ebrard and Bárcena might have hoped for.

On Wednesday, McAleenan met with the Guatemalan Ministry of Government to sign a formal memorandum of cooperation that focuses almost exclusively on enforcement. “Both countries have agreed to take concrete actions necessary to combat the scourge of human trafficking and smuggling, interdict illicit drug trafficking, and target illegal trade and financial flows,” the Department of Homeland Security explained in a statement. “This will include law enforcement training and collaboration to improve criminal investigations.”

The region’s long-term development merited only the vaguest of mentions. In theory, DHS said, the agreement will “improve the ability of both countries to identify and better understand” the root causes of immigration. That’s a long way from the kind of commitment needed to rebuild an impoverished, violent and drought-stricken region.

On Wednesday, I asked a spokesman for Mexico’s foreign ministry about the development plan’s outlook if the Trump administration ultimately declines to join. “Their support is important,” he told me. “But we don’t need the United States. This is our plan.”

This bravado is misguided. The United States is not just another actor in the current drama. Without it — or worse, with the Trump administration as rabid antagonist — a regional bet on Central America’s future will face impossible odds.

**************************************

The issue can’t be solved without addressing the forces that are sending migrants north;
The U.S. bears considerable responsibility for Central America’s current problems;
Therefore, U.S. acceptance of responsibility and meaningful participation in the solution is essential;
Any solution will require the U.S. to accept a robust number of those forced to flee the Northern Triangle;
A solution will take time; the longer the Trump Administration dawdles, the more the problems leading to forced migration will fester and grow;
Unilateral law enforcement, gimmicks, and threats can’t solve the problem and are in fact proving to be counterproductive;
The Trump Administration’s current approach is not only spectacularly unsuccessful, but will sow regional resentment against the U.S. for decades to come.

PWS

06-03-19

CHIEF CLOWN VOWS TO “MAKE AMERICA PAY” FOR HIS FAILURES: With His “Maliciously Incompetent” Immigration Policies in Shambles, Trump Promises To Punish American Consumers & Businesses With Tariffs On Mexico Having Nothing to Do With Trade!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/us/politics/trump-mexico-tariffs.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Annie Karni and Ana Swanson report for the NY Times:

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Thursday that he planned to impose a 5 percent tariff on all imported goods from Mexico beginning June 10, a tax that he said would “gradually increase” until Mexico stopped the flow of undocumented immigrants across the border.

The announcement, which Mr. Trump hinted at on Thursday morning and announced on his Twitter feed, said the tariffs would be in place “until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP.”

In a presidential statement that followed, he said that tariffs would be raised to 10 percent on July 1 “if the crisis persists,” and then by an additional 5 percent each month for three months.

“Tariffs will permanently remain at the 25 percent level unless and until Mexico substantially stops the illegal inflow of aliens coming through its territory,” the statement said.

Mr. Trump’s anger over undocumented immigrants has been steadily increasing since January, after he failed to force Democrats to give him billions of dollars to build his long-promised wall along the southwestern border. Since then, he has moved to cut off all foreign aid to countries like Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, and threatened to completely seal off the border with Mexico, in an attempt to punish countries he blames for the flow of undocumented immigrants into the United States.

His growing frustration of his own administration’s handling of immigration issues this year led to a purge of the top officials at the Department of Homeland Security, including its secretary, Kirstjen M. Nielsen.

Mr. Trump has previously threatened to tax cars flowing across the border with Mexico, saying in April that he would take such action if Mexico did not stop the flow of migrants and drugs into the United States.

“If the drugs don’t stop, or largely stop, we’re going to put tariffs on Mexico and products, in particular cars — the whole ballgame is cars. And if that doesn’t stop the drugs, we close the border,” he said at the time.

Mr. Trump’s announcement of tariffs came the same day that his administration told Congress it planned to seek congressional approval of the new trade pact with Mexico and Canada, known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

The president has used the threat of tariffs to try to pressure foreign leaders into taking a wide array of actions, like renegotiating trade deals as well as limiting the amount of metal or cars they ship to the United States.

In April, he threatened to place a 25 percent tariff on Mexican cars if the country would not take action to stem the flow of migrants through the southwestern border, walking back a promise he had made in the revised North American trade agreement to exempt Mexico from such a measure.

The president has told his advisers that he likes tariffs because they can be done immediately and unilaterally. But tariffs are typically used to counter trade-related violations.

Such a move would also risk derailing relations with Mexico and Mr. Trump’s revised North American trade pact, which preserves the ultralow tariffs the original deal put into place.

The announcement comes as the Trump administration started a congressional process on Thursday that both clears a procedural hurdle toward having Congress vote on the agreement and ramps up pressure on Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats who have called for substantial changes to the pact before it is ratified.

The White House sent a draft “Statement of Administrative Action” to Congress on Thursday. Under congressional rules, that clears the way for the administration to submit an enforcement bill to Congress after 30 days, which in turn starts a 90-day clock for an up-or-down vote on the pact.

That is likely to come as a challenge to Ms. Pelosi, who has recently told other lawmakers and union officials that Democrats are planning a study of the pact that could drag on well into the fall. In a statement, Ms. Pelosi described the move as “not a positive step. It indicates a lack of knowledge on the part of the administration on the policy and process to pass a trade agreement.”

*************************************

Wow! Just think of how far we have fallen as a nation. Let’s imagine that Obama, Bush, or Clinton proposed such idiotic, incoherent, nonsense, blatantly exhibiting something between total derangement and gross incompetence.

Journalists would be stunned, economists horrified. Politicians of both parties would be “talking 25th Amendment!”

Yet with Trump, it’s merely “ho hum, another day in nut-land” with only our country’s and the world’s future at stake. After all, he’s always threatening to take utterly insane, totally illegal actions. And, he only follows through about half the time.

Can we really survive this type of Clown Kakistocracy? Why won’t Mexico, China, Canada, India, and the EU just get together, negotiate some sound trade agreements based on real economics and sane diplomacy, and let the U.S. wander off into never-never land?

Yeah, I know, the economy continues to blaze away, markets are high, and unemployment low. But, remember the little warning line at the bottom of the prospectus of your most successful financial investment: Past results are not a prediction of future returns.

Well, there is some good news. At least there won’t be any suspense on who gets the “Courtside Five Clown Award” for this week. Who else but the Chief Clown! He’s earned it, and you can’t say that about much else in his tawdry life.

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

PWS

05-31-19

THE GIBSON REPORT — 05-13-19 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group

THE GIBSON REPORT — 05-13-19 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group

TOP UPDATES

Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy Can Continue, the Ninth Circuit Rules

Lawfare: On May 7, the Ninth Circuit stayed an injunction against the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy. That policy, officially called the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), requires the return of certain migrants to Mexico pending a full immigration court hearing.

More Immigrants Are Giving Up Court Fights and Leaving the U.S.

Marshall Project: Last year, voluntary departure applications reached a seven-year high of 29,818 applications. In the Atlanta court, which hears cases of Irwin detainees like Zamarrón, the applications grew nearly seven times from 2016 to 2018.

De Blasio Defends Expanded Cooperation With ICE For ‘Serious Crimes’

Gothamist: Under a local law, the police and jails will already cooperate with ICE if they’ve detained someone convicted of any these 170 violent crimes. De Blasio said it’s appropriate to add seven more to that list because of state legislation since the 2014 law went into effect.

ICE announces program to allow local law enforcement to make immigration arrests

The Hill: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Monday announced a new program that would allow local law enforcement officers to start arresting and temporarily detaining immigrants on behalf of the agency, even if established local policies prevent them from doing so.

U.S. asylum screeners to take more confrontational approach as Trump aims to turn more migrants away at the border

WaPo: The Trump administration has sent new guidelines to asylum officers, directing them to take a more skeptical and confrontational approach during interviews with migrants seeking refuge in the United States. It is the latest measure aimed at tightening the nation’s legal “loopholes” that Homeland Security officials blame for a spike in border crossings.

HUD Says Its Proposed Limit on Public Housing Aid Could Displace 55,000 Children

NYT: Thousands of legal residents and citizens, including 55,000 children who are in the country legally, could be displaced under a proposed rule intended to prevent undocumented immigrants from receiving federal housing assistance, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Pentagon Shifts $1.5 Billion to Border Wall From Afghan War Budget and Other Military Projects

NYT: The acting defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan, notified Congress on Friday that he intended to shift $1.5 billion that had been designated for the war in Afghanistan and other projects to help pay for work on President Trump’s border wall. See also Shanahan says military won’t leave until border is secure.

White House launches new uphill bid to overhaul immigration

AP: Though similar efforts have failed to garner anywhere near the support necessary, Trump hopefully invited a dozen Republican senators to the White House to preview the plan, which was spearheaded by senior adviser and presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner. See also White House may include mandatory E-Verify in immigration proposal.

Fact-checking the Trump administration’s immigration fact sheet

WaPo: The five-page document, released this month, attempts to debunk 18 claims about immigration to the United States. In some cases, it seems more as though EOIR officials are misusing the fact-checking format to make a point about issues that no one is mischaracterizing. See also HRF Notice of Rejection of EOIR Factsheet (attached).

Trump administration makes a mockery of asylum system

The Hill: The Trump administration has been contemptuous of refugees and asylum seekers from its earliest days. In recent weeks, as White House adviser Stephen Miller has reportedly exerted greater influence in the White House, we have witnessed a dismantling of protections our country has held dear for decades.

Border detention cells in Texas are so overcrowded that U.S. is using aircraft to move migrants

WaPo: Overcrowding at Border Patrol stations in South Texas has become so acute in recent days that U.S. authorities have taken the rare step of using aircraft to relocate migrants to other areas of the border simply to begin processing them, according to three Homeland Security officials. See also Inside Texas’ New Migrant Tent Facility.

Pediatrician Who Treated Immigrant Children Describes Pattern of Lapses in Medical Care in Shelters

ProPublica: How prepared is the Trump administration for an influx of unaccompanied minors at the border? A new complaint shows shelters in New Jersey were already failing to respond when kids got hurt or sick.

Feds in Southern Arizona turn attention to family fraud at border

Tuscon: Last week, the Border Patrol’s Yuma Sector reported more than 700 fraudulent family claims since October. Homeland Security Investigations sent a team of special agents to Yuma in late April to investigate those claims. See also ICE Reallocates Resources to Investigate Use of Fraudulent Documents at Southwest Border.

Who Killed Claudia Gomez?

Marie Claire: A year ago this month, a 20-year-old Guatemalan woman seeking opportunity in the U.S. was shot dead by a Border Patrol agent in Texas. A video of the killing went viral on Facebook and spurred a media outcry, yet neither the agent’s name nor why he opened fire has ever been made public. In the first of our series on women and migration, we ask, will her family ever get justice?

How Has Immigration Changed in the Last 100 Years?

AIC: 21st century immigrants tend to be more educated, have a more diverse range of skills, and know more English than those in previous generations.

Federal Court Stops USCIS Policy Harmful to Students and Exchange Visitors

AIC: The policy could radically changed how the agency determines when a foreign student or exchange visitor is “unlawfully present” in the United States.

She Stopped to Help Migrants on a Texas Highway. Moments Later, She Was Arrested.

NYT: As the Trump administration moves on multiple fronts to shut down illegal border crossings, it has also stepped up punitive measures targeting private citizens who provide compassionate help to migrants — “good Samaritan” aid that is often intended to save lives along a border that runs through hundreds of miles of remote terrain that can be brutally unforgiving.

Democrats ask federal watchdog to examine ‘unprecedented’ immigration backlog

WaPo: More than 80 Democratic members of Congress have asked the Government Accountability Office to conduct an investigation into the “record-breaking” backlog of immigration cases pending under the Trump administration.

Mayor de Blasio Unveils NYC Care Card, Details Progress Toward Launch of Guaranteed Health Care

NYC: When NYC Care launches in the Bronx on August 1, residents will be able to use their NYC Care Card to receive their own doctor, get preventative screenings and tests, and connect to a 24/7 service to help make appointments. An estimated 300,000 New Yorkers are currently ineligible for health insurance, including people who can’t afford insurance and undocumented immigrants, and will be able to enroll in NYC Care.

Trump taps Mark Morgan, former Obama official who supports border wall, to head ICE

WaPo: At DHS, Morgan is viewed as a capable and hard-charging law enforcement official, but he was widely resented during his Border Patrol tenure by the agency’s senior officials and union chief Brandon Judd.

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

As Trump continues to push deportations, a fight over data goes to court

LA Times: The class-action lawsuit, which represents broad categories of people who have been or will be subjected to detainers, alleges the databases that agents consult are so badly flawed by incomplete and inaccurate information that ICE officers should not be allowed to rely on them as the sole basis for keeping someone in custody.

Post Acosta BIA Decision (attached)

Listservs: The government argued that, because the client’s convictions were on appeal pursuant to a late filed notice of appeal – that per Acosta we needed to rebut the finality presumption by providing evidence that the client’s appeal related to the merits or a ‘substantive defect’ in the proceedings. We provided an affidavit from the criminal appeal attorney stating that she “expected to challenge the client’s case on the merits”. At the BIA, we argued that a NY late-filed notice of appeal is essentially a direct appeal because under NY Criminal Procedure – it becomes a direct appeal once it is granted. We also argued that even if it wasn’t a direct appeal, we had rebutted the presumption of finality with our affidavit from the criminal appeal attorney. The BIA punted on the first issue and decided that the presumption of finality had been rebutted sufficiently in this case.

Court rules immigrants can be deported for marijuana crime

AP: A federal appeals court has ruled that California’s legalization of marijuana doesn’t protect immigrants from deportation if they were convicted of pot crimes before voters approved the new law in 2016.

Justice Department’s Four-Year Effort To Strip Citizenship From Kansas Man Flops In Federal Court

Intercept: In a 17-page order, U.S. District Judge Carlos Murguia of the District of Kansas wrote that the federal government failed to meet the high burden of proof required to strip citizenship. “The overriding issue with plaintiff’s case is a lack of reliable, clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence about what happened during defendant’s immigration-related interviews and what information was material to the interviewers,” Murguia wrote.

Presidential Proclamation 9880 Extending Proclamation 9822 for 90 Days

President Trump issued a proclamation extending the suspension and limitation from Proclamation 9822 for an additional 90 days, which would begin running if the injunction against the interim final rule at 83 FR 55934 were to be lifted. (84 FR 21229, 5/13/19) AILA Doc. No. 19051300

USCIS Notice on Continuation of Documentation for Beneficiaries of TPS Designations for Nepal and Honduras

USCIS notice that DHS will not terminate TPS for Honduras or Nepal pending final disposition of the appeal in Ramos v. Nielsen. The notice further announces that DHS is extending the validity of TPS-related documentation for Nepalese TPS beneficiaries through 3/24/20. (84 FR 20647, 5/10/19) AILA Doc. No. 19051033

DHS Final Rule Exempting “Criminal History and Immigration Verification” System of Records from Privacy Act

DHS final rule exempting portions of the “DHS/ICE–007 Criminal History and Immigration Verification (CHIVe)” System of Records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act. The final rule is effective 5/9/19. (84 FR 20240, 5/9/19) AILA Doc. No. 19051034

HUD Proposed Rule on Verification of Immigration Status of Recipients of Public Housing Assistance

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) proposed rule which would require the verification of the eligible immigration status of all recipients of assistance under HUD’s public housing programs who are under the age of 62. Comments are due 7/9/19. (84 FR 20589, 5/10/19) AILA Doc. No. 19051030

USCIS Updates Policy Manual Guidance Regarding Services USCIS Provides to the Public

USCIS issued PA-2019-03, updating policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual regarding services USCIS provides to the public, including general administration of certain immigration benefits, online tools, and up-to-date information. Guidance is effective immediately and comments are due by 5/24/19. AILA Doc. No. 19051031

EOIR 60-Day Notice and Request for Comments on Form EOIR-26

EOIR 60-day notice and request for comments on proposed revisions to Form EOIR-26, Notice of Appeal From a Decision of an Immigration Judge. Comments are due 7/8/19. (84 FR 19960, 5/7/19) AILA Doc. No. 19050730

DOS Final Rule on Requests for Waivers of Inadmissibility

DOS final rule modifying the non-statutory requirement for consular officers to refer §212(d)(3)(A)(i) waiver requests to the Department of State for consideration based on an applicant’s request by limiting the requirement to certain specified circumstances. Effective 5/6/19. (84 FR 19712, 5/6/19) AILA Doc. No. 19050601

USCIS 60-Day Notice and Request for Comments on Proposed Revisions to Form N-648

USCIS 60-day notice and request for comments on proposed revisions to Form N-648, Medical Certification for Disability Exceptions. Comments are due 6/25/19. (84 FR 17870, 4/26/19) AILA Doc. No. 19050632

RESOURCES

CBP Releases Officer’s Reference Tool Documents

ICE Issues Guidance on Investigating the Potential U.S. Citizenship of Individuals Encountered by ICE

Eight Key U.S. Immigration Policy Issues: State of Play and Unanswered Questions

Immigration-Related Policy Changes in the First Two Years of the Trump Administration

Self-Deportation Nation

EVENTS

5/13/19 ACS New York: “Twelve Patients: Life and Death at Bellevue Hospital” with Eric Manheimer

5/15/19 Federal Court Litigation Section Call (5/15/19)

5/21/19 Admissibility, Revocation, and Public Health: “Risky” Business

5/21/19 The Pseudoscience of Xenophobia: Eugenics and Immigration in America

5/30/19 Understanding Denaturalization and its Impact on Your Clients

6/2/19 Introduction to Immigration Law Practice: A Course for New Practitioners

6/17/19 2019 AILA/GMS Annual Global Immigration Forum

6/19/19 teach-in on the idea of universal representation in immigration proceedings

7/2/19 Introduction to Immigration Law Practice: A Course for New Practitioners

8/4/19 Legal, Cultural, & Historical Approach to Understanding the Complex and Controversial Issue Dominating Our National Dialogue

ImmProf

Monday, May 13, 2019

New study confirms well-established findings that there is no connection between crime and undocumented immigration

Mandatory E-Verify to be Proposed by Trump Administration?

Sunday, May 12, 2019

From the Bookshelves: Last Boat Out of Shanghai by Helen Zia

Happy Mother’s Day!

Democrats ask federal watchdog to examine ‘unprecedented’ immigration backlog

From the Bookshelves: Ghosts of Gold Mountain: The Epic Story of the Chinese Who Built the Transcontinental Railroad by Gordon H. Chang

Saturday, May 11, 2019

From the Bookshelves: Call Me American: A Memior by Abdi Nor Iftin

Friday, May 10, 2019

Hot Off the Presses: Self-Deportation Nation by K-Sue Park

Thursday, May 9, 2019

Where the Nation’s Foreign-Born Live Has Changed Over Time

Notes from the AALS Clinical Conference

Is History Repeating Itself? Eugenics, Anti-Immigration Laws Of The Past Still Resonate Today

Trump jokes after rally attendee’s suggestion to ‘shoot’ migrants at the border

More Immigrants Are Giving Up Court Fights and Leaving the U.S.

Wednesday, May 8, 2019

“Myths vs. Facts” Document from EOIR: A Teaching Goldmine

White House releases immigration plan, little hope for a comprehensive deal without north star

Trump Administration Issues New, Get Tough Guidelines for Asylum Officers

Ninth Circuit Stays Injunction of Migrant Protection Protocol

Tuesday, May 7, 2019

New Tent City for Incoming Migrants in Donna, Texas

In Two Reports, MPI Sketches Immigration Policy Areas That Merit Review & Changes That Have Occurred Under Trump Administration

The Economic Costs of the US-Mexico Border Slowdown

From the Bookshelves: The Border and Its Bodies: The Embodiment of Risk Along the U.S.-México Line by Thomas E. Sheridan and Randall H. McGuire, editors

Immigration Exceptionalism for Nick Parillo’s ACUS Report on Guidance

President Nominates New ICE Director

Monday, May 6, 2019

Immigration Article of the Day: Sara Deutch Schotland, Finding a Home for Immigrant Stories: A Plea to Include Fiction Involving Immigrant Women in Law and Literature and Immigration Policy Courses

****************************************

There is plenty of stuff about our evil, immoral, scofflaw Administration in this edition of Elizabeth’s report that ought to make us sick to our collective stomachs.

I strongly recommend that you read my choice for “Article of the Week” — “Trump Administration makes a mockery of our asylum system” in The Hill, written by my friends Anna Gallagher and Victoria Nielson of CLINIC. Here’s an excerpt:

For an administration that claims to believe in the rule of law, it has shown little interest in following domestic and international asylum law. If Border Patrol agents are willing to slam the door on asylum seekers, where asylum officers would not, the administration may win political points with its base. In the end, the United States loses, as our executive branch simply stops following laws it doesn’t like. As the number of displaced persons around the world rises to its highest levels since World War II, if the United States finds ways to sidestep its obligations under international law, other countries will do the same. With each new affront to our moral obligations as a nation, the “lamp beside the golden door” held high by the Statue of Liberty fades towards darkness.

Anna Gallagher is the executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.

Victoria Neilson is managing attorney in CLINIC’s Defending Vulnerable Populations Program.

PWS

05-16-19

THE ASYLUMIST WEIGHS IN ON EOIR’S “FACT SHEET:” “Sometimes, myths and facts get mixed up, especially in the Trump Administration, which has redacted human rights reports to show that countries are safe, buried other reports that don’t say what they like, and claimed that asylum lawyers are making up cases to get their clients across the border. It’s all in the grand tradition of the merchants of doubt, men and women who know better, but who obfuscate the truth–about tobacco, global warming, vaccines, whatever–to achieve a political goal (or make a buck). Why shouldn’t EOIR join in the fun?”

http://www.asylumist.com/2019/05/15/the-myths-and-facts-that-eoir-does-not-want-you-to-see/

Earlier this month, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”)–the office that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts–issued a Myths vs. Facts sheet, to explain that migrants are bad people and that most of them lose their asylum cases anyway.

I am always suspicious of “myths vs. facts” pronouncements, and to me, this one from EOIR seems particularly propaganda-esque (apparently the Washington Post Fact Checker thinks so too, as they gave the document two Pinocchios, meaning “significant omissions and/or exaggerations”). In terms of why EOIR created this document, one commentator has theorized that the current agency leadership is tired of answering the same questions and justifying its actions, and so they created a consolidated document that could be used whenever questions from the public or Congress come up.

EOIR has released a new “Myths vs. Facts” brochure.

This is a plausible enough explanation, but I wanted to know more. Lucky, I have a super-secret source inside EOIR itself. I met up with my source in a deserted parking garage, where he/she/it/they (I am not at liberty to say which) handed me a sealed envelope containing an additional sheet of myths and facts. These myths and facts didn’t make it into EOIR’s final draft. But now, for the first time, in an Asylumist exclusive, you can read the myths and facts that EOIR did not want you to see. Here we go:

Myth: Aliens who appear by video teleconferencing (“VTC”) equipment get just as much due process as anyone else. Maybe more.
Fact: The video camera makes aliens who appear by VTC look 20% darker than their actual skin tone (the skill level of EOIR’s make-up crew leaves something to be desired). Since dark people are viewed as less credible and more dangerous, this increases the odds of a deportation order. Another benefit of VTC is that Immigration Judges (“IJ”) can turn down the volume every time an applicant starts to cry or says something the IJ doesn’t want to hear. This also makes it easier to deny relief. Fun fact: Newer model VTC machines come with a laugh track, which makes listening to boring sob stories a lot more pleasurable.

Myth: Immigration Judges don’t mind production quotas. In fact, most IJs keep wall charts, where they post a little gold star every time they complete a case. At the end of the month, the IJ with the most stars gets an ice cream.
Fact: While some IJs relish being treated as pieceworkers in a nineteenth century garment factory, others do not. Frankly, they shouldn’t complain. EOIR recently commissioned a study, which found that a trained monkey could stamp “denied” on an asylum application just as well as a judge, and monkeys work 30% faster. Even for human judges, EOIR has determined that it really shouldn’t take more than 10 minutes to glance at an asylum case and write up a deportation order. At that rate, an IJ can deny six cases an hour, 48 cases per day, and 12,480 cases per year. Given these numbers, even IJs who insist on some modicum of due process should easily complete 700 cases per year (as required by the new production quota). And they better. Otherwise, it’s good bye homo sapien, hello pan troglodyte.

Myth: Aliens who participate in Legal Orientation Programs (“LOP”) spend an average of 30 additional days in detention, have longer case lengths, and add over $100 million in detention costs to DHS.
Fact: Knowing your rights is dangerous. It might cause you to exercise them. And people who exercise their rights are harder to deport. EOIR is working on a new LOP, which will teach aliens how to properly respond to a Notice to Appear (“Guilty, your honor!”), how to seek asylum (“I feel totally safe in my country!”), how to seek relief (“I don’t need any relief – please send me home post haste!”), and how to appeal (“Your Honor, I waive my appeal!”). EOIR estimates that aliens who follow this new ROP will help reduce detention time and save DHS millions. The new ROP will help Immigration Judges as well. It’s a lot easier to adjudicate an asylum case where the alien indicates that she is not afraid to return home. And faster adjudications means IJs can more easily meet their production quotas – so it’s a win-win!

Myth: EOIR Director James McHenry got his job based on merit. He has significant prior management experience, and he is well-qualified to lead an agency with almost 3,000 employees and a half-billion dollar budget.
Fact: James McHenry’s main supervisory experience prior to becoming EOIR Director comes from an 11th-grade gig stage-managing “The Tempest,” by William Shakespeare. In a prescient review, his school paper called the show “a triumph of the Will.” More recently, Mr. McHenry served as an attorney for DHS/ICE in Atlanta, and for a few months, as an Administrative Law Judge for the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer. In those positions, he gained valuable management experience by supervising a shared secretary and a couple of interns. When asked for a comment about her boss’s management skills, Mr. McHenry’s former intern smiled politely, and slowly backed out of the room.

Myth: In the EOIR Myths vs. Facts, the myths are myths and the facts are facts. That’s because the Trump Administration is always honest and credible when it comes to immigration.
Fact: [Sounds of screeching metal and explosions]. Uh oh, I think we just broke the myths and facts machine…

So perhaps all is not as it seems. Sometimes, myths and facts get mixed up, especially in the Trump Administration, which has redacted human rights reports to show that countries are safe, buried other reports that don’t say what they like, and claimed that asylum lawyers are making up cases to get their clients across the border. It’s all in the grand tradition of the merchants of doubt, men and women who know better, but who obfuscate the truth–about tobacco, global warming, vaccines, whatever–to achieve a political goal (or make a buck). Why shouldn’t EOIR join in the fun? But to return to our friend William Shakespeare, I have little doubt that, eventually, the truth will out. The question is, how much damage will we do to migrants and to ourselves in the meantime?

**************************************

Jason is absolutely correct. Truth eventually will win out.

But, some have already died or been irreparably harmed, and other migrants will be needlessly sacrificed on the alter of nativist White Nationalism before this corrupt Administration eventually is removed.

We have already diminished ourselves as a nation. Will we ever recover? Will those responsible at EOIR, DOJ, DHS, Congress, the Article III Courts, and elsewhere ever be held fully accountable for their lies and corrupt roles in trashing human rights and our Constitution?

PWS

05-17-19

Angelina Jolie: The Crisis We Face at the Border Does Not Require Us to Choose Between Security and Humanity

Angelina Jolie

Related posts:

Related posts:

The key point here for Americans who have been “tone deaf” to Trump’s (and his toadies at DHS, DOJ, DOS, and elsewhere) gross abuses of the rule of law, human rights, and human dignity is the following: “When anything goes, no one is safe.”

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

ANALYSIS: Trump Lays Another Egg On Immigration — Everybody Loses, But It Could Have Been Much, Much Worse

Related posts:

Mexico Border Deal to Avoid Tariffs Would Endanger Lives

We are diminishing ourselves as a nation, but it won’t stop human migration!

Related posts:

Legal Requirements vs. Humanitarian Instincts

Unproductive Approaches to Irregular Migration

A Necessary First Step

Diplomatic Leadership

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: