Category: Asylum

  • Reveal revisits a story produced in collaboration with a Guatemalan journalist who is now in prison. José Rubén Zamora was jailed last summer after his newspaper, elPeriódico, published more than 100 stories about corruption within Guatemala’s government.

    Corruption is a longstanding problem in Guatemala, and it’s intertwined with U.S. policy in Central America. At times, the U.S. has had a corrupting influence on Guatemalan politics; at others, it has supported transparency. This week’s show looks at the root causes of corruption and impunity in Guatemala and how they have prompted generations of Guatemalans to flee their country and migrate north.

    Veteran radio journalist Maria Martin takes us to Huehuetenango, a province near Guatemala’s border with Mexico. For decades, residents have been migrating to the U.S. to help support families struggling with poverty. We then connect the migration outflow to U.S. policy during the Cold War and its support of brutal dictatorships in Guatemala that were plagued by corruption.

    Then Reveal’s Anayansi Diaz-Cortes introduces us to a crusading prosecutor named Iván Velásquez. In the early 2000s, Velásquez was tasked with running an international anti-corruption commission in Guatemala, known by its Spanish acronym, CICIG. Its mandate was to root out corruption and improve the lives of Guatemalans so they wouldn’t feel compelled to leave their homes. Velásquez had a reputation for jailing presidents and paramilitaries, but met his match when he went after Jimmy Morales, a television comedian who was elected president in 2015. Morales found an ally in then-U.S. President Donald Trump, whose administration helped Morales dismantle CICIG.

    With CICIG gone, journalists were left to expose government corruption – journalists like Zamora, who was arrested last summer on trumped-up charges. Diaz-Cortes speaks with Zamora’s son about his father’s arrest and the state of journalism in Guatemala.

    This is an update of an episode that originally aired in September 2020.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg3 migrant border patrol

    A massive heat dome is starting to engulf the southern United States this week. It could grow to be one of the worst in the region’s history, breaking records for intensity and longevity and impacting some 50 million people in Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Southern California and Nevada. Heat domes are a key part of heat waves and have become hotter and longer due to climate change, making heat the leading cause of weather-related death in the United States. Along the Southwest border, more than 100 migrants have already died from heat this year amid the Biden administration’s continued crackdown on asylum seekers. We hear from Laurie Cantillo, a board member and volunteer with Humane Borders, which works to maintain water stations for migrants crossing the Sonoran Desert and Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument along the Arizona-Mexico border, as well as Eddie Canales, director of the South Texas Human Rights Center, who condemns the U.S.’s policy of migrant deterrence as inhumane and ineffective and says that “migrant deaths will continue to happen until we have a policy [to receive] workers … [and] to deal with the lack of human rights in their home [countries].”


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Human Rights Watch and was authored by Human Rights Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The last refugee, for now, has left the small, guano-producing state of Nauru.  For a decade, the Pacific Island state served as one of Australia’s offshore prisons for refugees and asylum seekers, a cruel deterrent to those daring to exercise their right to seek asylum via the sea.

    Since July 2013, 3,127 people making the naval journey to Australia to seek sanctuary found themselves in carceral facilities in Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island, told that they would never resettle on the Australian mainland.  Such persons were duly euphemised as “transitory persons” to be hurried on to third country destinations, if not returned to their country of origin, a form of vacant reasoning typical of a callous bureaucracy.

    The wisdom here was that other countries would not only be more suitable for such persons, but keener candidates to pull their weight in terms of processing and accepting refugees.  For the Australian Commonwealth, outsourcing responsibilities from protecting citizens to shielding vulnerable arrivals from harm, has become a matter of dark habit.

    Many of those remaining refugees held on the Australian mainland are the subjects of acute care, and all await transfer to third countries such as Canada under its private sponsorship program, the United States, New Zealand or other destinations.

    In the meantime, 80 remain in PNG.  The situation there is marred by a fundamental legal peculiarity.  In October 2017, the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea found the Manus Island Centre to be both illegal and unconstitutional.  (PNG, unlike Australia, has a constitution prohibiting violations of personal liberty, even for non-PNG nationals.)  Its closure led to the removal of the detainees to various transition centres devoid of basic amenities, including water, electricity and medical support.

    Both PNG and Australia proceeded to squabble over responsibility, despite the obvious fact that the latter exercises effective control over the facilities and those being held in them.  Emilie McDonnell of Human Rights Watch deems it indisputable “that Australia bears primary responsibility for those in offshore detention under its policies and has an ongoing legal duty to find a durable solution.”

    The offshore concentration camp system established and prosecuted by respective federal governments has become the envy for autocrats, populists and reactionaries the world over.  Fact-finding missions have been made by European Union member states.  The model is mesmerising officials in the UK.  Its credentials of cruelty and suffering are beyond doubt: 14 deaths since 2012, marked by gross medical neglect, suicide and murder by overly enthusiastic guards.  Spokesperson for the Refugee Action Collective, Ian Rintoul, suggested that the legacy on Nauru “will forever stain the record of both sides of Australian politics”.

    The absence of any refugee inmates in Nauru’s detention facility does not herald its closure.  Far from it: the Albanese government has, according to Federal Budget figures, promised to spend A$486 million this year on the facility.

    The Department of Home Affairs continues to tersely state that the position of the government “on maritime smuggling and irregular maritime ventures has not changed.  Any person entering Australia by boat without a valid visa will be returned or taken to a regional processing country for protection claims assessment.  Unauthorised maritime arrivals will not settle in Australia.”

    For anyone concerned about the welfare of such persons held in captivity, the department makes a feeble assurance: “All transitory persons in Nauru reside in community accommodation and have access to health and welfare services.  Transitory persons have work rights and can operate businesses.”  These people have evidently not been to the prison idyll they so praise.  But not to worry, a wounded conscience could also be put to rest by the fact that there were “currently no minors under regional processing arrangements” on the island.

    In Senate estimates, it was also revealed that the government would continue forking out A$350 million annually to maintain the Nauru facility as a “contingency” for any future arrivals.  According to a spokesperson for the Department of Home Affairs, the processing centre was “ready to receive and process any new unauthorised maritime arrivals, future-proofing Australia’s response to maritime people-smuggling”.  And so, old canards are recycled in their staleness and counterfeit quality.

    Another unsavoury aspect to this needless cost to the Australian budget is the recipient of such taxpayer largesse.  The Albanese government has an ongoing contract with the US prison company, Management and Training Corporation (MTC), which is responsible for running the facilities till September 2025 at the cost of A$422 million.

    MTC has a spotty resume, though it trumpets its record as a “leader in social impact”.  Impact is certainly not an issue, if maladministration, wrongful death, poor medical care and a failing performance in rehabilitation count in the equation.  In 2015, then Arizona governor Dough Ducey cancelled MTC’s contract after a withering state department of corrections report into a riot at Kingman prison identifying “a culture of disorganisation, disengagement and disregard for state policies”.  As a 2021 lawsuit filed in the District Court of the Southern District of California pungently alleged, MTC “is a private corporation that traffics in human captivity for profit.”

    The very fact that MTC Australia advertises itself as a provider of “evidence-based rehabilitation programs and other services to approximately 1,000 male inmates in Australia” begs that old question as to why they need to oversee refugees and asylum seekers in the first place.  But the answer is glaringly evident: anyone daring to make the perilous journey across the seas to the world’s largest island continent are seen as presumptively criminal, trafficked by actual criminals.  Such a sickness of attitude and policy continues to keep the Australian political imagination captive and defiant before law and decency.

  • Three Uyghur brothers who escaped from China’s far western Xinjiang province a decade ago – and have been detained in India ever since – are aiming to seek asylum in Canada, their lawyer said.

    After 10 years of being detained in India and unsuccessfully seeking asylum there, they face the growing prospect of being deported to China, said their lawyer, Muhammed Shafi Lassu. 

    “This (Indian) government feels threatened by China, which is why they are hesitant to release these individuals and grant them political asylum, which they are actively avoiding,” Lassu told Radio Free Asia in an interview last week. “In a way, they prefer to keep them detained.”

    Since their arrest in 2013 in the northern India-administered region of Jammu & Kashmir, the brothers – Adil, Abduhaliq and Abdusalam Tursun – have been moved around to various detention centers in Kashmir. They are now being held in a prison in Jammu city, Lassu said.

    Lassu said that if any country were to offer the three Tursun brothers political asylum, he would petition the Supreme Court of India to seek their release. 

    In February, Canada offered to resettle 10,000 Uyghur refugees, giving them new hope.

    To help people apply for asylum, a humanitarian group called the Canadian Uyghur Rights Advocate Project has set up an online application that Lassu said he plans to use on the brothers’ behalf. 

    Hopefully that will bring better results than his previous attempts to write the Canadian government to request asylum, which have not elicited any response, he said.

    Lassu said he also wrote to several Arab countries on behalf of the brothers, but said officials there “showed no concern for the violation of human rights.” 

    The United States and the United Nations have urged against the repatriation of Uyghur refugees to China, where there is a growing body of evidence documenting the detention of up to 1.8 million Uyghurs and others in “re-education” camps, torture, sexual abuse and forced labor. 

    Crossing mountains

    Facing persecution from the Chinese government in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, the three Tursun brothers in 2013 – aged 16, 18 and 20 at the time – trekked through the rugged Karakoram Mountain Range and crossed into India in the Ladakh region of Kashmir. 

    They were apprehended by the Indo-Tibetan Armed Police Force, a division of the local Indian Border Guard Forces, and detained for about two months.

    The brothers admitted to crossing the border and were transferred to a police station in Leh in Jammu, Kashmir, Lassu said. In July 2014, they were charged with illegal entry and sentenced to 18 months in prison.

    But Indian authorities later re-indicted the brothers under a special security law in Kashmir and have extended their detention every six months for the last 10 years, Lassu said. 

    “This law is exceptionally stringent, allowing the government to detain individuals without trial,” he said.

    The brothers have managed to maintain their religious worship and have learned Urdu, Hindi and English during their time in captivity, Lassu said.

    “They pray five times a day in prison and read the Quran,” he said. “They fast during Ramadan. They have always maintained their religious dedication.” 

    Risk of deportation

    They are in danger of being sent back to China, according to Akash Hassan, an independent Kashmiri journalist who has written several articles about their case.

    Hassan said the Indian government has instructed “relevant authorities to initiate the repatriation process. Therefore, there is a possibility that these individuals will be sent back to China at any moment.”

    Lassu said he has also reached out to the UN refugee agency, or UNHCR, for help with the asylum request.

    “They emphasized that if the government officially recognizes these individuals as refugees, the UNHCR will provide them with all kinds of support and assistance,” he told RFA.

    But UNHCR doesn’t have those same requirements for other refugees in India, including Rohingya refugees who began fleeing Myanmar in 2012. 

    RFA sent a list of questions to Rama Dwivedi of UNHCR’s office in India about the brothers’ case on June 13 but has not received a response.

    Even if Lassu or another lawyer is able to bring the brothers’ case to the Supreme Court of India, it is very unlikely that the court will rule in their favor, said Hassan, the journalist.

    Double standard?

    India has a double standard when it comes to treatment of Uyghur and Tibetan refugees, he said.

    “On one hand, India welcomes thousands of Tibetan refugees who have fled from the Chinese-controlled Tibet region, and a significant number of Tibetan refugees reside in India,” he said. 

    “However, the treatment of Uyghurs differs. I believe this discriminatory and disparate treatment is associated with the Muslim identity of the Uyghurs,” he said. “It appears that India, under the leadership of Prime Minister Modi, is increasingly embracing right-wing Hindu nationalism.”

    The Indian government should cease returning Uyghur individuals to China and refrain from treating them as criminals, Meenakshi Ganguly, the South Asia director of Human Rights Watch, said to RFA in a June 13 interview.

    Even though India hasn’t signed the U.N. Refugee Convention, it still has an obligation to abide by international law in cases concerning Uyghurs, she said.

    Edited by Matt Reed and Malcolm Foster.

    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Jilil Kashgary for RFA Uyghur.

  • By Lydia Lewis, RNZ Pacific journalist, and Christina Persico, RNZ Pacific bulletin editor

    As Australian protesters gathered outside the Brisbane detention centre calling for the freedom of a Nauru refugee, the man pleaded with authorities to release him.

    Hamid has been held in a hotel room and then the detention centre for months.

    “They want to kill me gradually with mental torture,” he said.

    “New Zealand government, please save me from the cruel and inhuman clutches of Australian politicians,” Hamid, an Iranian who was held on Nauru for almost a decade, told RNZ Pacific.

    He is one of hundreds of refugees who had sought asylum in Australia but was detained offshore.

    He was brought to Australia in February 2023 for medical treatment and then kept in a hotel room in Brisbane.

    “They are actually cruel. And they are actually killing me by mental torture,” Hamid said.

    Other refugees released
    Other refugees brought to Australia have been released from hotel detention within a week or two but not Hamid, who said he had been confined for weeks on end.

    “And they didn’t release me and they released everyone in front of my eyes. So what is this after 10 years? After 10 years, they are putting me in a detention centre with a lot of criminal people. What is this? It’s torture!” Hamid said.

    He was held first in the Meriton Hotel, in Brisbane, and on June 7 he was transferred to the Brisbane detention centre.

    Around 50 people held a protest at Brisbane's immigration detention centre, BITA ( Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation), yesterday Sunday, June 11 2023.
    A protester at Brisbane’s immigration detention centre, BITA ( Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation), on Sunday . . .  “Other refugees brought to Australia have been released from hotel detention within a week.” Image: Ian Rintoul/RNZ Pacific

    “I’m not a criminal . . . I didn’t come to Australia illegally.

    “But they keep me in detention,” Hamid said.

    All meals were eaten in his room, and he was sometimes taken to the BITA Detention Centre for one hour’s exercise a day.

    RNZ Pacific decided not to interview him in his fragile state while he was in isolation, but since he was moved to detention where he can exercise and walk around the compound, he wanted to speak out about his treatment.

    Wish to go to NZ
    “I’m sure the New Zealand government and people are lovely. And this is my wish. As soon as possible, go to New Zealand. And please do my process as soon as possible. Thank you so much,” Hamid said.

    He begged the New Zealand government to speed up the immigration process which he has applied for under the AUS/NZ Agreement.

    “I have to support my family — my wife and youngest daughter are in Iran. And I have to support them. They are my priority. My first priority in my life is to support them. And as they put me here I cannot,” Hamid said.

    Around 50 people held a protest at Brisbane's immigration detention centre, BITA ( Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation), yesterday Sunday, June 11 2023.
    Protesters at Brisbane’s immigration detention centre, BITA ( Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation), on Sunday . . . Hamid was promised he would be released from detention in Australia. Image: Ian Rintoul/RNZ Pacific

    Like others brought from Nauru, he was promised he would be released from detention in Australia, and was even asked whether he wanted to be released on a bridging visa or on a community detention order.

    He has been awaiting news from the New Zealand government as to whether or not he will be accepted for the freedom he has waited almost a decade for.

    Free Hamid rally
    For the last several months, the Australian Labor government has been transferring the remaining refugees and asylum seekers on Nauru to Australia, the Refugee Action Coalition said in a statement.

    In December last year there were 72 people held offshore by Australia in Nauru. As of last week, 13 refugees were left but it is understood that another transfer was to be completed at the weekend.

    Last Sunday, a “Free Hamid” rally was held outside the detention centre.

    Hamid’s son, Arman, was released from hotel detention in Victoria in 2022 and spoke at the rally.

    Ian Rintoul, spokesperson for the Refugee Action Coalition, said the Labor government has no more excuses.

    “It’s way beyond time that Hamid was freed from detention and reunited with his son,” Rintoul said.

    ‘Strong progress’ made on NZ resettlement deal
    Australia’s Department of Home Affairs (DFAT) told RNZ Pacific in a statement that while it does not comment on individual cases, it is committed to an enduring regional processing capability in Nauru as a key pillar of “Operation Sovereign Borders’.

    “The enduring capability ensures regional processing arrangements remain ready to receive and process any new unauthorised maritime arrivals, future-proofing Australia’s response to maritime people smuggling,” the statement said.

    DFAT said Australia was focused on supporting the Nauru government to resolve the regional processing caseload, and that “strong progress” had been made on the New Zealand resettlement arrangement.

    “I’m so tired of the Australian government, just the government, you know, not the people,” Hamid said.

    Immigration New Zealand has told RNZ Pacific it is working as fast as it could to get refugees to New Zealand under the AUS/NZ deal which aims to settle up to 150 refugees each year for three years.

    Year one ends this month, on June 30.

    Hamid hopes to be one of those included in this year’s intake.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    Two banners and candles at the gates of a refugee detention centre during a candlelight vigil. Asanka Brendon Ratnayake / Anadolu Agency
    Two banners and candles at the gates of a refugee detention centre during a candlelight vigil in Brisbane. Asanka Brendon Ratnayake/Anadolu Agency/AFP/RNZ Pacific

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Performance artist and social media personality Chen Shaotian, also known as Brother Tian, is hoping to apply for political asylum in the United States this week after documenting his hazardous trek through the Central American rainforest.

    “Ladies and gentlemen! I have arrived in Quito!” the bearded, cigarette-smoking Chen tells his online audience in a video clip dated May 17 as he arrived in the Ecuadorian capital to embark on the overland leg of his journey to the United States, known in China as “walking the line.” 

    Chen, who has previously served a 14-month jail term for criticizing the Chinese Communist Party on social media, proceeded to upload video clips along every stage of his trip, including a hazardous trek led by people-smugglers across a rainforest that took two days.

    “I was lucky – it took some people four-and-a-half days,” Chen, who also sports a massive medallion emblazoned with the Chinese character for “dream,” a likely satire on President Xi Jinping’s slogan “the Chinese dream,” said after emerging from the jungle. 

    “One old lady had to be carried out of there on a stretcher after paying US$120 to the snakehead [people smugglers],” he said.

    ‘From all over the world’

    Tian arrived in Quito via Turkey, joining around 200 other fellow travelers from China who had chosen to “walk the line.”

    “There were families, single people, from Fujian, Shandong … Xinjiang, people from all over [China],” he said. “There were also … people from all over the world.” 

    Chen’s trip took him through bus stations, border checkpoints, refugee camps and other facilities that have sprung up to serve the constant stream of people heading for the United States through Central America.

    “We ran into some corrupt police en route between Quito and Colombia, Nicaragua,” he said. “They wanted money from us … There were six of us Chinese, and we each gave them US$500.”

    Chen said he was offered the option to pay US$1,100 more for a “luxury” route during which horses and camps were provided, as opposed to camping in the rainforest.

    ENG_CHN_BrotherTian_05302023.2.jpg
    People make their way across a jungle river as they continue on foot to the United States. Credit: Provided by Chen Shaotian

    He said a lot of people were robbed along the way.

    “Some people had more than US$1,000 stolen,” he said. “They told me there would be more robberies in Guatemala and Honduras, and some were saying that the Chinese were partnering up with the locals to rob [Chinese refugees].”

    “They go for people with families – one guy had his credit card swiped and lost more than 200,000 yuan, (US$28,000)” he said.

    The route Chen took, flying to Turkey, then to Ecuador, then northwards along the coast through Peru and Venezuela, is a common one. Many of Chen’s videos showed long lines of people lining up for buses, or to be admitted into refugee facilities along the way.

    Freedom to speak out

    Chen said he is hoping to apply for political asylum in the United States for one reason only: to live somewhere where there is freedom of expression.

    He was jailed in March 2021 by a court in his home province of Henan after being found guilty of “picking quarrels and stirring up trouble,” a charge frequently used to target critics of the regime.

    Chen’s sentence was based on more than 50 posts he made to Twitter that were deemed to be “hype about major sensitive events in China” and “political attacks.”

    One video showed him astride a moped, speeding down a road wearing a face-mask blazoned with the words “evil” and “understand,” and yelling: “Understand this! Our evil government is far worse than any virus!”

    Chen’s tweets had “attacked China’s political system, insulted employees of the state, caused serious damage to China’s national image and endangered its national interests,” as well as “creating serious disorder in a public place,” the court judgment said.

    Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Gu Ting for RFA Mandarin.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Tory minister Robert Jenrick has confirmed plans to put thousands of asylum seekers into old military bases in Essex, Lincolnshire, and Sussex. Jenrick also said those held there would get the most basic housing possible. The move is being opposed by charities and local people.

    The Independent’s race reporter Nadine White tweeted the news on 29 March:

    Military bases

    Immigration minister Robert Jenrick deployed divisive rhetoric in his address to parliament, saying:

    We must not elevate the wellbeing of illegal migrants above those of the British people.

    This is obviously a bizarre claim considering how child poverty and homelessness have skyrocketed under the Tories.

    Typically, his report to the Commons suggested that many of the people coming to the UK were economic migrants:

    This government remains committed to meeting our legal obligations to those who would otherwise be destitute. But we are not prepared to go further. Accommodation for migrants should meet their essential living needs and nothing more. Because we cannot risk becoming a magnet for the millions of people who are displaced and seeking better economic prospects.

    Jenrick also said that boats could be used to house asylum seekers offshore, citing other countries which did the same:

    We are continuing to explore the possibility of accommodating migrants in vessels, as they are in Scotland and in the Netherlands

    Opposition

    However, some Tory MPs opposed the idea. Edward Leigh MP, whose Gainsborough constituency is home to the proposed RAF Scampton camp, said he would seek an injunction. Meanwhile, several local councils – including Tory-led councils – have said they will also seek injunctions. Concerns were raised about community safety and practicalities, and Jenrick confirmed that only single adult males would be held in the facilities.

    The Refugee Council said:

    Conditions

    It’s also essential to consider what the conditions in these bases are going to be like. The Tories have used military bases to hold asylum detainees in recent years, with some alarming reports.

    A former RAF site in Norwich temporarily housing asylum seekers has faced allegations of “poor conditions, poor food quality and mental health crises”. Moreover, the Canary has extensively documented human rights abuses at Manston in Kent, another former RAF base. And there have also been reports of appalling conditions for people living on former army barracks in Penally, Wales.

    In June 2021, a number of detainees brought a case against Napier Barracks in Kent to the high court. They won after arguing that the barracks was unfit for their needs. A judge ruled that the then-home secretary Priti Patel had acted “irrationally”. The judge also that ordered a number of asylum seekers be relocated from the squalid conditions.

    Slippery slope

    It’s likely that Jenrick is aware of these instances of the mistreatment of asylum detainees at former military barracks, yet he still chose to announce this plan. His announcement comes on top of the Illegal Migration Act and plans to deport desperate refugees to Rwanda.

    More and more, the UK’s asylum system is a playground for posturing racists playing to the very worst sections of society – and at the expense of the most vulnerable people in the world.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Harvey Milligan, cropped to 770 x 403, licenced under CC BY 4.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • In a move that critics say will push people to attempt more dangerous border crossings, the United States and Canada on Friday announced an agreement allowing both countries to block migrants from seeking asylum at unofficial points of entry. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hosted U.S. President Joe Biden Friday in Ottawa, where the leaders announced the deal. The agreement will allow…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • He was standing before a lectern at Downing Street. The words on the support looked eerily similar to those used by the politicians of another country. According to UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Stop the Boats was the way to go. It harked back to the same approach used by Australia’s Tony Abbott, who won the 2013 election on precisely that platform.

    The UK Illegal Migration Bill is fabulously own-goaled, bankrupt and unprincipled. For one thing, it certainly is a labour of love in terms of the illegal, as the title suggests. In time, the courts may well also find fault with this ghastly bit of proposed legislation, which has already sailed through two readings in the Commons and resting in the Committee stage.

    On Good Morning Britain, Home Secretary Suella Braverman had to concede she was running “novel arguments” about dealing with such irregular migration, not making mention of Australia’s own novel experiment which did, and still continues, to besmirch and taint international refugee law.

    In her statement on whether the bill would be consistent with the European Convention of Human Rights, enshrined by the UK Human Rights Act, Braverman was brazen to the point of being quixotic: “I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.”

    The long title of the bill does not even bother to conceal its purposes. It makes “provision for and in connection with the removal from the United Kingdom of persons who have entered or arrived in breach of immigration control”. It furnishes a detention regime, deals with unaccompanied children, makes some remarks about “victims of slavery or human trafficking” and, more to the point makes “provision about the inadmissibility of certain protection and certain human rights claims relating to immigration”.

    The central purpose of the bill is to destroy the very basis of seeking asylum in Britain, along with the process that accompanies it. Much of this is inspired by the fact that the United Kingdom does not do the business of processing asylums particularly well. Glorious Britannia now receives fewer applications for asylum than Germany, France or Spain. Despite having fewer numbers, its backlog remains heftier than any of those three states.

    The proposed instrument essentially declares illegal in advance any unauthorised arrival, an absurd proposition given that most asylum seekers arriving by boat will not, obviously, have the paperwork handy. (This is a nice trick borrowed from Fortress Australia.) Those seeking asylum by boat will be automatically detained for 28 days. During this time, those detained will be unable to make a legal challenge nor seek bail. After the expiration of time, a claim for bail can be made, or the Home Secretary can release them.

    In truth, the authorities can refuse to process the claim, thereby deferring responsibility to some other source or agency. Dark, gloomy detention centres are promised, as are third countries such as Rwanda or a return across the English Channel back to France or another European state. Then comes the issue of return to the country of origin, a state of affairs in gross breach of the non-refoulement obligation of international refugee law. It is fantastically crude, a declaration of savage intent.

    Even with these provisions, chaos is likely to ensue, given that the options are, as Ian Dunt points out, essentially off the table. The Rwandan solution has so far failed to materialise, bogged down in litigation. Were there to be any sent, these would amount to a few hundred at best and hardly arrest the tide of boat arrivals. The UK has also failed to secure return agreements with other European states. The most likely scenario: a large, incarcerated, miserable population housed in a burgeoning concentration camp system, a nodding acknowledgement to Australia’s own version used in the Pacific on Manus Island and Nauru.

    Even some conservative voices have expressed worry about the nature of it. Former Tory PM Theresa May has questioned the breakneck speed with which the Bill is being debated, wondering if Sunak and company are acting in undue haste to supersede fresh and as yet untested legislation. “I am concerned that the government have acted on Albania and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, when neither has been in place long enough to be able to assess their impact. I do not expect government to introduce legislation to supersede legislation recently made, the impact of which is not yet known.”

    Sadly, the entire issue of discussing the critical aspects of the bill were lost in the media firestorm caused by an innocuous tweet from England’s football darling and veteran commentator Gary Lineker. “There is no huge influx,” went the tweet. “We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?”

    According to the BBC, fast becoming a fiefdom of Tory regulation, he was. Suspension from the Match of the Day followed. Within a few days, a humiliated management had to concede defeat and accept his return to the program. Solidarity for Lineker had been vast and vocal, though much of it seemed to be focused on his shabby treatment rather than the asylum seeker issue. In terms of defeating this bill, such debates will do little to box the demons that are about to be unleashed.

    The post Trashing Asylum: The UK’s Illegal Migration Bill first appeared on Dissident Voice.

  • .The United Nations’ children’s agency on Friday joined critics of a proposed British law aimed at stopping migrants arriving by small boats, saying it was “deeply concerned” about its impact on minors.

    Jon Sparkes, head of United Nations Children’s Fund in the UK, said the bill could deny children and families the chance to seek safety:

    For almost all children fleeing conflict and persecution there is no safe and legal route into the UK.

    The bill was presented on Tuesday by PM Rishi Sunak’s Tory government. It would ban people who have arrived in the country illegally from seeking asylum. Sparkes said:

    It is not clear how this bill will be compatible with existing UK government duties to act in the best interests of the child, and it is questionable whether the removal of a child to a third country, following a perilous journey to the UK, could ever be in their best interest.

    Defending children’s rights

    Sparkes called on the British government:

    to urgently clarify how it intends to ensure the safety and well-being of children with this bill, and how it will respect its obligations regarding the defence of children’s rights.

    45,000 migrants arrived in the UK last year by crossing the English Channel on small boats.

    According to official figures, 17% of people who took the Channel route to the UK since 2018 are children and minors. Sparks said:

    UNICEF UK maintains that the creation of safe and legal routes must be part of any compassionate and effective response to reducing the use of unsafe routes

    Britain has obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It must avoid putting people at risk of torture or other forms of inhuman or degrading treatment. The UK’s own 1998 Human Rights Act also offers asylum-seekers various protections.

    In a note to MPs at the beginning of the 66-page bill, home secretary Suella Braverman herself acknowledged that she was “unable” to assess that its provisions are compatible with the ECHR.

    Now, yet again, the Tories face censure for their inhumane policies towards desperate people – this time, children.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Alisdare Hickson, cropped to 770 x 403, licenced under CC BY 2.0.

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse 

    By Joe Glenton

  • Britain’s plan to refuse to allow asylum seekers arriving in small boats the right to claim asylum may breach its international obligations. This was according to the EU’s home affairs commissioner, Ylva Johansson, on 9 March. Johansson said she had spoken to home secretary Suella Braverman to discuss the planned legislation, which may breach European and UN conventions.

    On 8 March, Braverman told ITV News that she had invited Johansson to study the UK proposal in more detail. However, she stressed:

    We are no longer members of the European Union and so we are free to determine our own borders and migration policy.

    PM Rishi Sunak also threatened to “take back control of our borders once and for all” by detaining and deporting any migrants caught crossing the Channel from France or Belgium in small boats.

    Due to the UK’s already-unfit asylum system, the backlog of asylum claims now exceeds 160,000. The crossings, many organised by smuggling gangs, are incredibly dangerous. In November 2021, at least 27 people drowned in a single incident.

    Macron-Sunak summit

    Opponents, rights groups, and the United Nations say the new draft law would turn Britain into an international pariah under European and UN conventions on asylum.

    Unperturbed, Sunak hopes to strike a deal with France to halt the asylum seekers on its coast. The PM will meet President Emmanuel Macron at a summit in Paris on Friday. An aide to the French leader told reporters the pair were working on a deal to increase the border-policing resources.

    However, arriving at the Brussels meeting, French Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin warned the proposed UK law could harm relations. He also stressed that Britain should work with the EU to better co-ordinate migrant policy.

    Darmanin said Macron and Sunak would discuss the legislation on Friday. He stressed that the goal should be a treaty between the UK and the EU to provide legal access routes for migrants. Further, Britain also needs a system to return those refused asylum.

    The EU ministers, meanwhile, were to discuss their own differences about how to better divide the task of sharing migrant arrivals and managing asylum claims

    ‘A clear breach’

    On Tuesday the UN refugee agency UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) said the plan removes:

    the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly, no matter how genuine and compelling their claim may be.

    By denying protection to asylum seekers and even the opportunity to put forward their case, the plan “would be a clear breach” of the international Refugee Convention, it said.

    Campaign group Refugee Action also pointed out that the plans are unlikely even to reduce the number of refugees. It stressed that:

    These deterrence policies will never work because a tiny minority of people fleeing war and persecution around the world will always want to come to the UK to seek safety.

    Most have powerful reasons to want to come here that we can all understand – they have family here, or friends here, or community here. The Home Office’s own research has backed this up.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via Youtube screengrab

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.



  • Amid a surge of migrants arriving at the United States’ southern border the Biden administration has announced a slate of new enforcement measures, including a new parole program that would permit thirty thousand Haitians, Cubans, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans to apply for asylum in the United States per month. But the new measure would also expel any migrants from those countries who attempt to cross the border under the controversial Trump-era policy known as Title 42.

    The new measures are meant to decrease the number of migrants at the border; Biden said most are arriving from the four countries.

    “My message is this: If you’re trying to leave Cuba, Nicaragua or Haiti … do not, do not just show up at the border,” President Joe Biden said in his January 5 announcement. “Stay where you are and apply legally from there.”

    But according to immigrant rights advocates, these new measures miss the point of what asylum is and misunderstand the realities that migrants who are seeking protection face.

    “Parole isn’t something you can exchange for asylum because asylum was designed for people who can’t wait to apply for protection from where they are but need to flee and come to the border,” Yael Schacher, an immigration historian and director for the Americas and Europe with Refugees International, tells The Progressive.

    “Parole isn’t something you can exchange for asylum because asylum was designed for people who can’t wait to apply for protection from where they are but need to flee and come to the border.”

    “You can only apply for asylum at the border or within the United States,” she explains. “And so these parole programs are a lifeline in some senses… [but] for people who are in immediate danger, that’s not possible. And asylum was designed again as a way to be able to flee your home country and go to another country, go to the border of another country, and not be returned from there, but be given a chance to seek protection there.”

    Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraugans, and Venezuelans have made up the majority of migrants seeking to reach the United States in recent months. Most of them have been forced to flee their homes due to political crises, so applying for parole from abroad is difficult and risky. Many were forced to flee their home countries years prior.

    The new measures have led to an outpouring of criticism for the Biden Administration, comparing these policies to the anti-immigrant measures of the Trump Administration.

    The Biden administration’s announcement comes after the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 on December 27 to maintain Title 42 to block some migrants’ access to asylum and to rapidly expel them from the country until at least June 2023. The continuation of the measure—a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention policy which proponents argued would slow the spread of COVID-19—led to outcry by immigration activists in the U.S.

    “It’s a political decision,” Jenn Budd, a former Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent turned immigrant rights activist, tells The Progressive. Budd detailed her experiences working for CBP in a 2022 memoir, Against the Wall.

    “There’s no health reason to have Title 42 [in place]. It’s actually an antiquated response,” she says. “It was put in place to basically not just shutter the asylum system, but to literally blow it up; so it couldn’t be easily put back together. And if Trump had won [re-election], they would have just kept it.”

    The Supreme Court’s decision to maintain Title 42 was in response to a lawsuit filed by nineteen Republican-controlled States, which challenged a lower court’s decision to lift the measure on December 21.

    “We’re at this point where any change in federal policy that can remotely be seen, portrayed, or thought of as lifting restrictions on the border or having a fiscal burden on any states somehow gives the states standing to sue and prevent immigration change,” Schacher says. “From a historical point of view, this is crazy because we elected a new president to change immigration policy, and the courts are essentially saying you cannot change that [policy].”

    She adds: “And Congress, unfortunately, is just doing nothing.”

    This challenge by Republican-controlled states comes as the controversial measure was declared unnecessary by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in April 2022. Data from the Customs and Border Protection suggests the actual application of the measure is in decline. The continuation of Title 42 and Biden’s expansion are the latest political whiplash felt by migrants at the border, who have seen U.S. policy repeatedly shift, leaving them in limbo.

    “It’s just perpetuating the confusion,” Schacher says.

    Since March 2020, migrants, largely from Mexico and Central America, were expelled 2.4 million times under Title 42. Some who managed to make it across the border were then placed on buses and transported across the country in political stunts—including on Christmas Eve 2022, when Texas Governor Greg Abbott sent multiple buses to Vice President Kamala Harris’s house.

    Yet Title 42 and other controversial measures such as the Trump Administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, have had little effect on discouraging migration.

    “It’s not really stopping the migration,” Schacher says. “None of this has ever stopped it.”

    As the United States has continued to expel migrants, makeshift migrant camps have popped up across Mexico. These measures have also forced migrants into taking more dangerous routes in the hopes of crossing the border.

    But migrants continue to arrive at the U.S. border. The U.S. embassies in Guatemala and El Salvador regularly post warnings against migrating on their Twitter accounts, but these campaigns are unlikely to be seen by those most likely to migrate. Many of these messages use problematic images from Customs and Border Protection agents that dehumanize migrants.

    “[These are] trophy shots,” Budd says. “When the U.S. Embassy is doing it, what they’re showing you is they’re condoning the violence.”

    A culture of racism permeates the Customs and Border Protection agency, Budd explains.

    “We are taught that they’re all invaders,” Budd says. “[That migrants] are coming across to take what is ours, and to do harm to our children, and our country. And we are, as the Border Patrol, the last thing defending the United States. And people who love migrants are just a bunch of idiots and don’t know the truth.”

    There is the presence of far-right elements within the Border Patrol, and a culture of impunity has spread within the agency. As Budd points out, Brandon Judd, the president of the National Border Patrol Council (the Border Patrol agent’s union) has reproduced and spread the “great replacement” theory—an anti-immigrant conspiracy theory.

    “It’s all just absolutely completely racist bullshit,” Budd says.

    But as immigrant rights groups struggle with how to move forward after the continuation and now expansion of Title 42, Budd raises an important point: the discourse has brought attention to the people seeking asylum who may have otherwise been invisible.

    “Before Title 42, before Trump, not too many people were looking at what asylum processes look like when you go through the ports of entry,” Budd explained. “So right now it looks like it’s extremely overwhelmed, but it only looks like that because they have the system closed down. [U.S. citizens] aren’t used to seeing this, and all of a sudden they see all these people.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • For the past several years, a patchwork of policies have illegally restricted people fleeing persecution from seeking safety at the U.S.-Mexico border. The ACLU recently won a critical lawsuit when a federal judge ordered an end to Title 42, one of the most restrictive policies, but multiple states and members of Congress are trying to keep the policy in place. At the same time, the federal government is reportedly considering resuscitating other inhumane Trump-era policies that would continue restricting access to asylum, rather than focusing on real solutions to a more fair and efficient immigration system.

    As we gather together with loved ones this holiday season, and as the U.S.-Mexico border continues to make headlines, this topic may come up in conversations. To restore humanity to U.S. asylum policy, we need to center human dignity, truth, and justice in our conversations. This guide will help you do just that.

    The basic facts you need to know:

    Seeking asylum is a human right protected under international and U.S. laws.

    People may come to the U.S. or the border to seek asylum and must prove their cases to be granted permanent protection.

    Many policies threaten the human and legal right to seek asylum from persecution, but none succeed in deterring people from trying to seek protection at the border.

    Despite obstacles, asylum seekers become integral members of our communities.

    Money spent policing the border can be better spent establishing a fair, orderly, and welcoming asylum process.

    First-hand stories of courage and survival

    For those who aren’t already interested in these issues, our laws might seem abstract or arcane. One of the best ways to understand and convey their importance is by sharing the stories of people who are fighting for their right to seek asylum and are directly impacted by the policies that make headlines.

    My Family Came to Seek Asylum, But Found Danger Instead

    Searching for Peace: The difficult and dangerous journey to seek asylum in the United States, Part I

    Searching for Peace: The difficult and dangerous journey to seek asylum in the United States, Part II

    The history of asylum law and why it’s still critical

    The right to seek asylum — or safety from persecution — in another country was born out of the tragedies of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. In its aftermath, dozens of nations committed to never again slam the door on people in need of protection. The right to asylum was enshrined in 1948’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and then again in the Refugee Convention of 1951 and its 1967 Protocol.

    The United States is a party to the Refugee Protocol and passed the Refugee Act of 1980 to comply with its international obligations. The Act protects people who are fleeing persecution on “account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

    The Refugee Act is meant to ensure that people who seek asylum from within the U.S. or at its border are not sent back to places where they face persecution.

    These protections are just as critical today. More people have been forcibly displaced from their homes due to conflict, violence, and human rights violations in recent years than at any other time since World War II.

    All people fleeing persecution are allowed to seek asylum under our laws. Period.

    What you need to know about policies that restrict people from seeking asylum

    The “Remain in Mexico” policy, first implemented by the Trump administration, forced people to wait in dangerous conditions in Mexico while their asylum cases proceeded in the U.S. The Biden administration attempted to end this policy, and the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that it has the authority to do so.

    Title 42, first implemented by the Trump administration under the guise of public health, has been used for more than two-and-a-half years to expel people fleeing violence and persecution, rather than considering their claims. Expulsions under Title 42 have led to more than 10,000 documented cases of violent attacks, including rape, torture, and abduction, and have subjected Black and LGBTQ asylum seekers to particular risks. A federal judge recently ordered its end, but some politicians are fighting to keep it in place.

    So-called “deterrence” policies aim to stop people from exercising the right to seek asylum through the threat of harm or punishment, such as family separation, mandatory detention, and criminalization.

    Other policies aim to prevent people from requesting asylum to begin with, such as through severe metering or unlawfully denying asylum to people entering the U.S. at the Southern border who did not first apply for asylum in Mexico or another third country they transited through.

    American Civil Liberties Union

    Five Things to Know About the Title 42 Immigrant Expulsion Policy | News & Commentary | American Civil Liberties Union

    Since March 2020, the government has misused the order to kick out people seeking asylum more than 1.7 million times.

    What you need to know about the impact of these restrictive policies

    These policies subject people who have already endured violence and persecution to further harm, including rape, torture, and abduction in many cases, by denying them the chance to seek safety and sending them back into harm’s way.

    Although elected officials have claimed these policies discourage migrants from coming to the border, evidence shows they do not stop people from seeking safety and ultimately create more disorder.

    Expulsions under Title 42, for example, have the opposite effect of deterring people. They have encouraged people seeking protection to repeatedly attempt to cross the border to find safety.

    Even after imposing the strictest and most punitive rules against asylum seekers, President Trump faced sharp increases in the numbers of migrants at the border, at that time the highest numbers in over a decade.

    How fear-mongering is used to win support for these policies

    Anti-immigrant politicians continue to peddle falsehoods and racist tropes about an “invasion” to instill fear and win support for harmful policies. Ahead of the midterms, America’s Voice, an immigration advocacy organization, identified over 3,200 different paid communications that employed anti-immigrant attacks.

    Governors of Florida, Arizona, and Texas have used asylum seekers as political props, placing them on flights and buses to communities like Martha’s Vineyard, to make headlines and perpetuate a fear-based narrative around the border.

    Despite these attacks, the vast majority of Americans support asylum rights. According to a new poll conducted by the U.S. Immigration Policy Center at the University of California, San Diego, nearly three-quarters of Americans (73.4 percent) agree that the United States should provide access to the U.S. asylum system to people fleeing persecution and/or violence.

    What we really need at the border, and how to fund it

    A group of migrant children and parents in a grassy setting.

    (Credit: John Lamparski/NurPhoto via AP)

    We need a more efficient, humane, and welcoming system at the border for people seeking asylum.

    Much of the money Congress now spends on a bloated Border Patrol police force should be spent instead on humane reception and screening of people at the border and on making sure our immigration agencies and federal courts have enough employees and judges to decide asylum claims in a fair, orderly, and timely manner.

    This money could also be used to support people in reaching family members or sponsors in the locations where they will wait for the government to decide their claims and to more quickly process work permits for asylum seekers so they can support themselves and contribute to their communities. One recent study estimated that on average, an asylum seeker contributes over $19,000 per year to the U.S. economy, and that a 25 percent reduction in the number of all people seeking asylum in the country would cause an economic loss of $20.5 billion over a five-year period.

    How you can join the fight to protect the right to seek asylum

    The policies discussed in this guide present a serious threat to the future of asylum rights, but we’ll continue to fight back through our ongoing litigation, in the halls of Congress, and through public education. And we’re not stopping there. We’re fighting for a fundamentally more humane and welcoming system at the border for people seeking asylum — and you can, too.

    Here are four ways you can join the fight to protect the right to seek asylum no matter where you live.

    Use this guide to speak to your friends and family and educate them on the importance of protecting asylum rights.

    Share why you support welcoming people with humanity and dignity on Soapbox and tag your members of Congress.

    Send a message to Congress telling them not to extend Title 42.

    Visit the ACLU Border Humanity Project — a campaign to fight for humane border policies — for other ways to get involved.

  • Refugee activists gathered on World Refugee Day to call for permanent protection for refugees and an end to the country’s racist and cruel migration policies. Andrea Bortoli reports.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Shortly after taking office, Joe Biden sought to cancel the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy (formally known as Migrant Protection Protocols, or MPP). Under the policy, asylum seekers who leave a third country and travel through Mexico to the U.S. border are forced to stay in Mexico while awaiting a court hearing on their asylum petitions. Many of the tens of thousands who have been compelled to wait in Mexico have become victims of kidnapping, sexual assault and torture as they wait in crude encampments.

    On April 27, Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee and the House Homeland Security Committee that under Trump’s Remain in Mexico program, 1,500 people were murdered, tortured, raped or were victims of other serious crimes.

    The Remain in Mexico program is basically a “sham,” Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Council, told Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!. “Less than 1% of people put into the program who were forced to have their cases heard at the border ever won, ever won their case, compared to 15 to 20% of people inside the United States.”

    But in response to a lawsuit filed by the states of Texas and Missouri, a Trump-appointed federal district court judge issued a nationwide injunction forbidding Biden from ending the Remain in Mexico program. A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district judge’s ruling, saying the Biden administration’s initial rationale for ending the program was inadequate. In August, a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court refused to suspend the injunction while it reviewed the case.

    The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Biden v. Texas on April 26. Several members of the court seemed torn about whether the Biden administration could end the program. Some said they doubted that Congress meant to permit the release of large numbers of asylum seekers into the United States. Others expressed skepticism that a federal judge could require the Biden administration to continue the program since it requires the agreement of Mexico and the Constitution reserves the conduct of foreign policy to the executive branch.

    U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the court that Mayorkas had decided to end the Remain in Mexico program after concluding that its benefits “were outweighed by its domestic, humanitarian, and foreign policy costs.” Prelogar said Mayorkas exercised “his statutory discretion to make a policy judgment.”

    The members of the court tried to reconcile language in three different sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act that were enacted at different times. One section says the Department of Homeland Security “shall detain” undocumented people (with some narrow exemptions). Another section states that the Department of Homeland Security “may” return asylum seekers to Mexico or Canada (if they arrived by land) while they wait for the processing of their asylum claim. And a third section provides for parole and bond for asylum seekers on a case-by-case basis who would be temporarily released into the United States for “urgent humanitarian reasons” or if there is a “significant public benefit.”

    Neither Texas nor the Biden administration disputed the fact that no administration has ever complied with the congressional mandate to detain all undocumented immigrants — due to a shortage of beds in detention facilities. As Prelogar told the court, 220,000 migrants were apprehended near the U.S. border in March but there were only 32,000 beds in the detention facilities. “No one disputes that the [Department of Homeland Security] does not have sufficient detention capacity” for all the migrants, she said.

    Some right-wing members of the court appeared to lean against allowing the administration to end the Remain in Mexico program. Clarence Thomas said the “shall detain” provision creates a presumption in favor of detention, meaning that the administration should detain asylum seekers rather than release them on parole or send them to Mexico. Samuel Alito pointed out that the government had argued in another case that “shall be detained” created a mandate for detention. Brett Kavanaugh was skeptical that Congress anticipated that hundreds of thousands of undocumented people would be released into the United States.

    But Kavanaugh asserted that the Department of Homeland Security has determined that permitting noncitizens who are “not too dangerous” into the U.S. to free up detention space for those with criminal records constitutes a significant public benefit. Amy Coney Barrett appeared to echo Kavanaugh’s sentiments. She told Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone that if the administration is correct in saying that the need to prioritize bed spaces in detention centers constitutes a significant public benefit, “you lose, right?”

    Sonia Sotomayor observed that the “shall detain” language had been in effect for more than a century and that no administration had ever “attempted to detain every single illegal immigrant.” She suggested that “we should accept what the practices have been through generations of presidents.”

    Elena Kagan also appeared to favor allowing the administration to end the Remain in Mexico program. She said that requiring the continuation of the program would be “to basically tell the executive how to implement its foreign and immigration policy.” Kagan told Stone, “You’re putting the secretary’s immigration decisions in the hands of Mexico” because the U.S. can only return asylum seekers to Mexico with the cooperation of the Mexican government. “What do you mean it doesn’t require negotiation with the foreign power?” Kagan asked Stone. “What are we supposed to do? Just drive truckloads of people into Mexico and leave them without negotiating with Mexico?”

    Chief Justice John Roberts did not signal how he might vote in this case. But when Stone said that requiring the continuation of the Remain in Mexico program would mean there would be fewer violations of federal immigration law, Roberts retorted, “I think it’s a bit much for Texas to substitute itself for the secretary and say that you may want to terminate this, but you have to keep it because it will reduce to a slight extent your violations of the law.”

    In her rebuttal, Prelogar commented on the “extraordinary nature of the district court’s injunction in this case and particularly with respect to its effects on foreign relations.” To return asylum seekers to Mexico pursuant to the Remain in Mexico program necessitates a “massive cross-border program,” requiring housing, work authorization, protection against predatory gang and cartel violence, and access to lawyers, she noted. “The idea that there is a single district court in Texas that is mandating those results … shows that something has powerfully gone awry here. This is not how our constitutional structure is supposed to operate and this is not the statute that Congress drafted.”

    We will know the court’s decision by the end of June.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • As reported by The Canary on 14 April, the government has announced plans to process and detain asylum seekers in Rwanda. In spite of questions surrounding the legality of the offshoring plan, prime minister Boris Johnson maintains that the government can implement it using existing legislation.

    This comes as part of the Tories’ Nationality and Borders Bill which – if passed unamended – would empower the Home Office to revoke the British citizenship of anyone who can claim citizenship in another country.

    In spite of widespread resistance to the inhumane plans, MPs voted against a House of Lords amendment that would force the government to pass any offshore detention plans through parliament at a House of Commons debate on 20 April. The bill will return to the House of Lords on 26 April.

    Now is the time to resist this draconian anti-refugee bill.

    A racist and inhumane policy

    In July 2021, the UK’s international ambassador for human rights raised concerns about Rwanda’s failure

    “to conduct transparent, credible and independent investigations into allegations of human rights violations including deaths in custody and torture.

    Stephanie Boyce, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, has questioned whether Patel’s offshore processing and detention plan complies with Britain’s human rights obligations under international law.

    More than 160 charities and campaign groups have signed an open letter urging the government to u-turn on its “shamefully cruel” plan.

    Meanwhile, the Guardian has reported that civil servants working in the Home Office may resist the unconscionable policy on ethical grounds.

    In spite of opposition to the policy, on 20 April MPs voted 303:234 against a proposed amendment that would require MPs and Lords to approve any offshore processing and detention plans. This amendment included requirements for home secretary Priti Patel to present the details and costs of her offshore detention plans before she can enforce them.

    Shocked by the vote’s outcome, Independent home affairs editor Lizzie Dearden tweeted:

     

    The anti-refugee bill will return to the House of Lords on 26 April for the last time before it passes.

    Contact your MP

    We must resist the government’s cruel and inhumane plan to send vulnerable asylum seekers to Rwanda, a much smaller and more densely populated country than the UK. This begins by putting pressure on those in power.

    Refugee rights group Safe Passage has drafted a template letter for people to put pressure on their MPs to oppose the anti-refugee bill. Ahead of the House of Commons debate, the group shared:

    Alongside this, human rights organisation Detention Action shared a link to their petition against the draconian legislation:

    Support groups working on the ground

    Grassroots groups continue to do fantastic work supporting refugees and asylum seekers, and organising against the government’s anti-refugee legislation.

    Detention Action directly supports those in detention, while also campaigning for policy and legislative change:

    Freedom From Torture provides therapy and support for torture and trafficking survivors in the UK:

    And SOAS Detainee Support is a grassroots abolitionist group working in solidarity with detained people in the UK to resist imprisonment and deportation:

    Supporters can donate to sustain their frontline work via PayPal.

    Meanwhile, Brighton-based charity The Hummingbird Project provides trauma-informed support for young refugees:

    Take to the streets

    Highlighting the vital role of protest in undermining such legislation, policy and advocacy manager for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants Zoe Gardner shared:

    Protests against government plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda are due to take place on Saturday 23 April.

    Londoners can join Stand Up To Racism in Croydon:

    According to the Bristol Defend Asylum Seekers CampaignBristolians are coming together at midday: 

    People can keep an eye on Collective Action London‘s page for the latest updates on upcoming protests in other locations this weekend.

    Now is the time to resist Britain’s outsourcing of border control, and to demand an end to its anti-refugee policies altogether. We must use our collective power to demand that our government treats refugees and asylum seekers with the dignity and respect that every human being is entitled to.

    Featured image via Philip Robins/Unsplash – resized to 770×403, via Unsplash License

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Refugees crossing the channel will be sent to Rwanda and held there while they are processed. The plan, due to be announced Thursday, is the latest cruel twist to emerge from the Tory’s racist Nationality and Borders Bill. Home secretary Priti Patel took to Twitter Wednesday 13 April to promote her vision:

    Full details are due to be announced today. However, the BBC reported that an initial £120m deal had been struck with the Rwandan government.

    The BBC said that the scheme would mostly see Rwanda:

    take responsibility for the people who make the more than 4,000 mile journey, put them through an asylum process, and at the end of that process, if they are successful, they will have long-term accommodation in Rwanda.

    The corporation added:

    The BBC has seen accommodation the asylum seekers will be housed in, thought to have enough space for around 100 people at a time and to process up to 500 a year. Nearly 29,000 migrants crossed the Channel in 2021.

    Pushback

    The plan was quickly slammed by refugee organisations, public figures and social media users. Labour MP Diane Abbot said the plan was cruel, bizarre and pandered to racists:

    Meanwhile, one law professor warned the plans were the “stuff of nightmares”:

    Torture

    Another Twitter user pointed out that, only last year, the UK criticized Rwanda’s human rights record:

    While someone else dug up the UK’s comments to the UN on the matter, which detailed concerns about deaths in custody, torture and human trafficking:

    Some think that even for this government, the plan might be a new low:

    Dead cat?

    However, context is also vital. One social media user pointed out that the ongoing row about Boris Johnson’s fine for breaking lockdown rules was probably a factor:

    The fact that parliament is in recess while Johnson’s alleged criminality is making headlines may also have informed this timing of the asylum plan announcement:

    Boris Johnson

    The BBC reported that Johnson plans to argue that the move is needed to stop “vile people smugglers” turning the channel into a “watery graveyard” and that while “our compassion may be infinite” our “capacity to help people is not.”

    But Johnson’s rhetoric certainly hasn’t convinced many. In fact, a demonstration was immediately called to take place on Thursday 14 April from 6pm outside the Home Office:

    The Tories have many motivations, none of them moral. But whatever is driving it, it is clear that Priti Patel plans to have some of world’s most vulnerable people locked up in camps in a human-rights-abusing regime. And we have to resist that every step of the way.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Care 4 Calais, cropped to 770 x 403, licenced under CC BY-SA 2.0.

     

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Home Office has failed to tackle “fundamental problems” with housing asylum seekers at Napier Barracks and the site should be shut down immediately, according to MPs and peers.

    The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Immigration Detention reiterated calls for the closure of the 130-year-old military site, which has been dogged by allegations of poor conditions, after a visit in February.

    It comes as the House of Lords is due to debate how planning permission was granted for the Home Office to use the barracks until at least 2026, despite it initially being billed as temporary accommodation during the coronavirus pandemic.

    “Filthy” and “decrepit” barracks

    APPG chairwoman Alison Thewliss, the SNP MP for Glasgow Central, said:

    Residents in the barracks are living in the most dreadful of circumstances, and this must end.

    Two watchdogs previously described parts of the barracks near Folkestone in Kent as “filthy” and “decrepit”, highlighting “fundamental failures” in housing asylum seekers there. Six of those who used to be housed there won a legal challenge against the government as a High Court judge ruled their accommodation was inadequate.

    The Home Office insisted “significant improvements” have been made and claimed it would be an “insult” to suggest the site is not fit for asylum seekers as it had been previously used to house military personnel. But during the pandemic hundreds of people at the site contracted coronavirus, leading to accusations that health advice had been ignored. The department has since declared the accommodation is safe.

    People seeking asylum – Napier Barracks
    MPs and peers have reiterated calls for the site in Kent to be closed (Gareth Fuller/PA)

    “Unsuitable for use as asylum accommodation”

    After the visit, the MPs and peers “remain deeply concerned” about the conditions and welfare of those living on the site and are

    firmly of the view that Napier and other sites like it are fundamentally unsuitable for use as asylum accommodation, and do not allow a person to engage effectively with their asylum claim,

    That’s according to the APPG’s findings.

    Their report called on the government to see that the barracks is:

    closed as asylum accommodation with immediate and permanent effect, and that people seeking asylum accommodated at Napier are moved directly to decent, safe housing in the community that allows them to live with dignity.

    The group’s report said:

    Changes introduced by the Home Office have not addressed the fundamental problems of the site. This is despite a ruling by the High Court that the site did not meet minimum standards for asylum accommodation, and numerous and repeated concerns expressed by other bodies including independent inspectors, parliamentarians, charities and residents themselves.

    Last year the Home Office confirmed it will also process and house people, including those who have crossed the English Channel to the UK, for up to five days at part of a disused Ministry of Defence (MoD) site at Manston Airport near Ramsgate.

    Featured image via – YouTube screengrab

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • On 30 March 2022, Statewatch along with 13 other human rights organisations condemned the deportation from Spain to Algeria of Mohamed Benhalima, a human rights activist who faces a serious risk of torture and other ill-treatment in the North African state.

    The organisations strongly condemn the deportation by Spain of Algerian activist Mohamed Benhalima, in the evening of 24 March 2022, despite the risks of torture and serious human rights violations he faces in Algeria, and therefore in blatant violation of Spain’s international obligations on non-refoulement. The authorities had been made aware, through civil society and legal appeals, that Mr Benhalima faces a high risk of torture, arbitrary detention and unfair trial in Algeria, where such violations are increasingly common against prisoners of opinion and peaceful activists.

    Mohamed Benhalima is an Algerian citizen and a former Army corporal turned whistleblower, who exposed corruption among Algeria’s high-ranking military officials in 2019. He left Algeria after receiving information that his name was on a list of wanted military officials at risk of detention by the Algerian army for their participation in the Hirak, a mass pro-democracy protest movement.

    He sought asylum in Spain on 18 February 2020 and again on 18 March 2022; Spain refused him asylum both times. On 14 March 2022, authorities opened an administrative file of expulsion for infringement of Art. 54.1.a. of Immigration Law 4/2000, alleging that Mr. Benhalima took part in “activities contrary to public security or which may be harmful for Spanish relationships with foreign states”.

    Spanish authorities justified the opening of an expulsion file based on Mr. Benhalima’s alleged association with political opposition group Rachad, which was listed as a terrorist group by Algeria on 6 February 2022. Spanish authorities claimed that Rachad’s objective was to infiltrate radical youth into Algerian society to protest against the Algerian government, and concluded that the activist was a member of a terrorist group.

    Authorities did not provide any proof of violent action or speech or any other action taken by the activist that would fall under a definition of terrorism in accordance with the definition proposed by the UN Special Rapporteur on the protection of human rights while countering terrorism. Authorities also do not appear to have considered a context in which Algerian authorities have been increasingly levelling bogus terrorism and state security charges against peaceful activists, human rights defenders and journalists since April 2021. On 27 December 2021, UN Special Procedures warned that the definition of terrorism in the Algerian Penal Code was too imprecise and undermined fundamental rights. They stated that the procedure for registration on the national terrorist list did not comply with international human rights standards and expressed concern that it could give rise to abuse.

    On 24 March around 7pm, Mr. Benhalima’s lawyers were notified of the resolution of expulsion and promptly filed a request for an interim suspensive measure at the National Court of Spain, which was rejected; however, it was revealed later that the activist was already on his way to Algeria at the time.

    On 21 March 2022, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) submitted a non-public report to the Spanish government stating that Mr. Benhalima’s asylum request should be studied thoroughly in a regular procedure and not rejected expediently, arguing that the fear of torture was credible and that Algeria’s criminalisation of peaceful opposition was internationally recognised.

    On 27 March, Benhalima appeared in a video broadcasted on Ennahar TV, in which he “confesses” to the crimes of conspiracy against the state, and states that he was not treated badly in custody. However, the undersigned organisations call into question the reliability of such statements which might be the result of duress. In addition, Benhalima had himself released a video from the retention centre in Valencia, before his deportation to Algeria, in which he warns that such videos would not be genuine and would show that he “was subjected to severe torture at the hands of intelligence services.”

    In January and March 2021, in Algeria, Mohamed Benhalima was sentenced in absentia to a total of 20 years in prison for charges including “participation in a terrorist group” (Article 87bis 3 of the Penal Code) and “publishing fake news undermining national unity” (Art.196 bis) among other charges. The overly broad formulation of both articles has been used by Algeria repeatedly to criminalise fundamental freedoms. In one of the verdicts, issued on 9 March 2021, the judge sentenced Benhalima to 10 years in prison for his online publications, including videos exposing corruption in the army, a form of peaceful expression, which is protected under the right to freedom of expression.

    Spanish authorities additionally motivated the expulsion based on Mr. Benhalima’s close relationship with Mohamed Abdellah, another Algerian whistleblower and former member of the military, who also sought refuge in Spain in April 2019 and was forcibly returned on 21 August 2021 using Art. 54.1.a. of Law 4/2000, in similar circumstances and for the same motives.

    Mohamed Abdellah, currently detained in the military prison of Blida, stated in court on 2 January 2022 that he had been subjected to various forms of torture and ill-treatment upon his return to Algeria, including prolonged solitary confinement in a cell with no light and physical abuse, according to a witness who attended the hearing. He was also deprived of access to a lawyer.

    Despite the strong similarities between both cases providing a compelling precedent about the actual risk of torture and ill treatment of activists and whistleblowers, notably former members of the military, in Algeria, the Spanish government showed its determination to forcibly return someone where their physical and psychological integrity was not guaranteed. In doing so, Spain flouted critical international law obligations under which nobody should be returned to a country where they would be in danger of suffering torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

    Signatures

    • MENA Rights Group
    • Justitia Center for legal protection of human rights in Algeria
    • World Organisation Against Torture
    • Red Jurídica
    • CIHRS
    • Amnesty International
    • Irídia, Center for Human Rights
    • Collectif des familles de disparus en Algérie
    • Al Karama
    • Statewatch
    • Spanish Commission for Refugees – CEAR
    • Euromed Rights
    • Alianza
    • ActionAid

    https://www.statewatch.org/news/2022/march/spain-forsakes-international-obligations-in-appalling-refoulement-of-algerian-whistleblower/

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaks during a rally outside the U.S. Capitol on December 7, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    On Tuesday night, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) argued in favor of accepting Ukrainian refugees in the United States, emphasizing that asylum seekers from other parts of the world should be treated with similar respect.

    Speaking to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow following President Joe Biden’s State of the Union Address, Ocasio-Cortez made the case for giving Ukrainian refugees Temporary Protection Status (TPS), saying that the Biden White House should make it easier for individuals with that status to eventually become citizens.

    “Now that we know a huge, new migration is going to start because of that war, do you have caution or words of advice … in terms of how to be smarter about those politics, about the inevitable demonization of those victimized people?” Maddow asked the New York congresswoman.

    “The world is watching, and many immigrants and refugees are watching,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “How the world treats Ukraine and Ukrainian refugees should be how we are treating all refugees in the United States, especially when you look at such stark juxtapositions where so many of the factors are in common.”

    Citing the Syrian refugee crisis, Ocasio-Cortez said that “the way the world treated Syrian refugees versus the way the world is greeting Ukrainian refugees is a very stark contrast.” She also condemned U.S. policy toward asylum seekers from Central America and Haiti under Biden and past administrations.

    “We really need to make sure that, when we talk about accepting refugees, that we are meaning it, for everybody, no matter where you come from,” she added.

    Ocasio-Cortez also said that the current crisis presents “an opportunity” to make things better for all future asylum seekers coming to the U.S. Ukrainian refugees should receive TPS status, she said — and Congress and the president should make it easier for individuals who receive TPS status to become citizens, if they want to do so. This should apply not only to Ukrainians but also to other asylum seekers, she went on.

    Journalist Juan Escalante, who was once himself an undocumented immigrant, said that Ocasio-Cortez “is 100% correct.”

    The crisis in Ukraine could “push Biden to grant #TPS to Ukrainians in the United States,” as well as “push Congress to deliver a path to citizenship for all TPS recipients — including Venezuela, Haiti, Honduras, etc.,” Escalante said.

    Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine will undoubtedly result in a refugee crisis. According to estimates from the United Nations, as of Tuesday, more than 874,000 Ukrainians have already fled the country, crossing their country’s border into neighboring areas.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Novak Djokovic exclaims while holding a tennis racket

    Tennis player Novak Djokovic’s refusal to get vaccinated against COVID-19 — and his subsequent efforts to manipulate Australia’s medical exemption system so as to be allowed a visa to enter the country and compete in the first Grand Slam of the year — is one of the most surreal developments in tennis history.

    As of this writing, the stubbornly unvaccinated Djokovic is still in Australia, and still slated to play in the championships starting on Monday. Yet, for days now, he’s been hanging on by a thread. On Friday evening, Australian time, Alex Hawke, the country’s immigration minister, decided, for the second time in nine days, to expel him from the country for breaking quarantine rules while infected with COVID, for misleading immigration authorities about his travels prior to entering the country earlier this month, and for becoming a focal point of anti-vaccine sentiment in the country.

    Djokovic’s team is appealing, but he is quickly running out of options. It is more than probable that the world’s best tennis player will, just before the Australian Open begins, be unceremoniously dumped onto a plane and told not to return to Australia for at least three years.

    The course of events that have unfolded since Djokovic was first detained by immigration authorities on January 5 is an extraordinary example of self-sabotage from one of the sporting world’s most famous figures, who, in recent years, acquired the media nickname “No-Vax Djokovic” for his controversial opinions regarding vaccines.

    But, by accident rather than design, Djokovic’s surreal and self-inflicted drama has also served the important purpose of turning global public attention toward the cruel treatment that Australia routinely metes out to undocumented immigrants seeking asylum in the country.

    To summarize events to date: Australia — which implemented one of the world’s strictest and longest lockdowns in an effort to emulate China’s zero-COVID stance — has a policy of only letting vaccinated travelers enter the country. Medical exemptions are allowed, but the criteria for these exemptions is narrow. A couple weeks ago, however, Djokovic, a nine-time winner of the Australian Open, boarded a plane to Australia unvaccinated, having been granted an exemption to allow him in.

    After a hullabaloo about this, the country’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, went on a very public warpath against the world’s top tennis player. As a result, when the Serbian player arrived, he was promptly detained by immigration authorities, who noted that the type of visa he had applied for didn’t allow for medical exemptions. After a night of arguing with authorities, Djokovic — who is tied with Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal for the most Grand Slam wins of any male player in history, and who was predicted by many to win the Australian Open and break the tie — was unceremoniously carted off to a detention center and locked up in a room with several other detainees.

    The hotel-cum-jail that Djokovic ended up in housed several dozen would-be refugees and asylum seekers caught up in Australia’s notoriously harsh immigration detention system. Nine years ago, the current Liberal-National governing coalition got elected on a “stopping the boats” anti-immigration policy, implementing Operation Sovereign Borders to repel boatloads of refugees. Soon afterwards, it began locking up would-be immigrants in off-shore detention sites on the islands of Nauru and Papua New Guinea, and only reluctantly let some onto mainland Australian soil when they were too sick to be kept in the island detention fortresses any longer. Once in Australia, they were housed in overcrowded and under-resourced privately run “hotels” for years at a stretch. Some of those with whom Djokovic was detained have been held for up to nine years, since the earliest days of Operation Sovereign Borders.

    Djokovic spent the weekend in the Park Hotel detention center, in a suburb of Melbourne. Those incarcerated in the detention center have to ask permission to use the bathroom, and are shackled before being moved from one part of the facility to another. They are provided with such low caloric intake that human rights activists say the food regimen amounts to near-starvation conditions — and what food there is, critics say, is sometimes filled with maggots. Sick people incarcerated at the Park Hotel continue to be provided with deeply substandard medical care despite a series of lawsuits against the agencies responsible for maintaining services in the detention sites. Djokovic’s parents, in a series of broadsides, accused the authorities of torturing him.

    On Monday, a judge ordered his release, and, in a scathing rebuke of the government, announced that Djokovic had abided by all the requirements to secure an exemption — including providing proof that he had recently tested positive for COVID — and that he should, therefore, be allowed to stay in the country.

    Despite it being late at night, the tennis player, famed for his focus and will to win, immediately headed to the practice courts.

    But, in the days since, a barrage of revelations has shattered Djokovic’s reputation and given Australia’s immigration minister, Alex Hawke, an opening to once more seek to deport the sports megastar. The German daily newspaper Der Spiegel published an investigation casting doubt on the authenticity and date of Djokovic’s supposed positive COVID test on December 16. The investigation suggested that the data had been manipulated in order to give Djokovic cover for claiming a medical exemption, open to people recently infected with, and recovered from, COVID that he otherwise would not have had access to. In quick succession, it also turned out that Djokovic had attended several indoor, unmasked events shortly after supposedly testing positive, and that he had also given an interview to a French sports journalist without letting the journalist know that he had an active case of COVID.

    Damned if he did, damned if he didn’t. Djokovic either conjured up a fake-positive test result to game the Australian immigration system, or he genuinely tested positive and didn’t care enough to abide by basic quarantine restrictions that have been in place the world over for the past two years.

    Making matters worse, it then turned out that Djokovic’s immigration forms contained a bald-faced lie. Someone on his team had ticked that he hadn’t traveled anywhere other than Spain in the 14 days prior to boarding a flight from Spain, via Dubai, to Melbourne. In fact, numerous photos soon circulated showing that the tennis superstar had also been in Serbia during this time, where he had attended a series of high-profile ceremonies in his honor. Djokovic put out a perfunctory apology on Instagram, saying his team member had simply made an honest mistake in filling out the form wrong. But the damage was done: Lying on immigration paperwork is grounds both for deportation and also imprisonment.

    As I write this, on Friday morning California time, with less than three days left before play begins at the Australian Open, Hawke has once more revoked Djokovic’s visa, and the tennis star, seeded number one in the upcoming championships, has agreed to surrender for further questioning on Saturday morning. Barring another extraordinary twist in the legal saga, Djokovic will be unable to play in the event.

    If and when “No-Vax” Djokovic is expelled from Australia, he will have no one to blame but himself. It’s a tennis tragedy with more than an absurdist tinge to it.

    Meanwhile, thousands of would-be refugees and asylum seekers continue to be held in appalling conditions in Nauru, in Papua New Guinea and in Australia itself in hotels such as the Park. Their stories are the true stories of injustice, and the conditions they are held in for years at a stretch, as a result of the Australian government’s embrace of harsh anti-immigration measures, are a human rights violation that deserves the world’s attention.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Migrants sit against a fence while waiting to board a border patrol bus after crossing the Rio Grande into the U.S. on November 17, 2021, in La Joya, Texas.

    This week, the Biden administration announced that it will restart a Trump-era anti-immigration policy designed to restrict asylum seekers from entering the United States.

    The policy is known as “Remain in Mexico” and is sometimes referred to as the Migrant Protection Protocols, or MPP. The program requires migrants coming from Mexico or Central America to stay on Mexico’s side of the U.S.-Mexico border as they wait for their asylum claims to be processed and for an immigration court date to be arranged.

    In 2019, Karen Romero of OurFuture criticized the Trump administration in an article for Truthout, saying that it “turn[ed] its back on its legal obligation to protect people fleeing persecution.” The policy was “sending vulnerable people back to some of the world’s most dangerous cities to wait indefinitely,” she added.

    As a candidate in 2020, President Joe Biden harangued former President Donald Trump about the policy. Biden ended Remain in Mexico in February 2021, shortly after he was inaugurated — but two states sued to reinstate the policy, and a federal judge ruled in August that the policy had ended improperly and had to be restored.

    Biden officials have said that the reimplementation of the policy is a consequence of that judge’s ruling. But the administration isn’t just putting the program back in place — they’re also expanding it. Now, the policy will apply to applicants coming from every country in the Western Hemisphere, far more countries than it originally applied to under the Trump administration.

    Immigration rights advocates condemned the Biden administration for expanding the program, noting that the policy would endanger the lives of thousands of asylum seekers.

    “Since its creation, the Remain in Mexico policy has subjected tens of thousands of people to grave danger and violated their fundamental right to asylum in the United States,” Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, said in a statement. “The Biden administration’s shameful regression in restarting this unlawful Trump policy flies in the face of its own determination that no number of changes could render this deadly policy more humane or provide the access to the asylum system that the law requires.”

    “The Biden administration must stop hiding behind a flawed court order to justify restarting Remain in Mexico,” she added.

    Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy counsel at American Immigration Council, also spoke out against the restarting of the program.

    “The Biden administration’s choice to expand Remain in Mexico to everyone from the Western Hemisphere — including Haitians — makes the program even broader than it ever was under the Trump administration,” Reichlin-Melnick said. “Biden didn’t just bring back Remain in Mexico. He’s made it even worse.”

    The reimplementation of the program was contingent on the agreement of Mexican officials. On Thursday, officials announced that they would support the policy if new stipulations were added, including a promise from the U.S. that no asylum applicant would have to wait longer than six months to have a court date scheduled. (Under the Trump administration, the timeline was indefinite.)

    A Biden administration official, speaking to The Washington Post about the matter, said the agreements reached with Mexico on restarting the policy “are improvements we agree with. The U.S. will assign 22 immigration judges to oversee the program in order to make the process faster.” The U.S. will also reportedly “lower the bar” for what constitutes a claim of persecution in Mexico for asylum seekers, Axios reported.

    This isn’t the first time the Biden administration has been criticized by immigration rights advocates for continuing harmful Trump-era immigration policies. Biden has also upheld Title 42, an order used throughout the coronavirus pandemic to expel migrants and asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. In fact, the Biden White House has actually outpaced the Trump administration’s use of the statute, expelling nearly 700,000 migrants in February through August alone.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Up to 2,000 people living in desperate conditions in northern France now face “very dangerous” weather as winter approaches, volunteers in Calais say.

    “Very dangerous”

    People living rough in fields and scrubland in the French port is a common sight, with settlements more temporary and dispersed in recent years following the destruction of the so-called ‘Jungle’ camp.

    Many speak of their long and difficult journeys to get to Calais after fleeing horrors of war and torture in their home countries thousands of miles away. Some spend months living there trying to cross to the UK every day, risking their lives trying to board lorries or getting into dinghies bound for the English coastline.

    Care4Calais volunteer Matt Cowling told the PA news agency:
    The people that we meet every day here all have one thing in common: they’re just trying to find safety

    Speaking at the migrant charity’s warehouse in Calais, he added:

    Unfortunately we don’t have a fair asylum system for the UK.

    These people are forced to make very dangerous journeys across the Channel… people are in really terrible conditions at the moment so it’s really important that people are coming in here to volunteer and to donate clothes and things like that.

    He warned that dropping temperatures were making conditions “very dangerous” for those sleeping rough in Calais and appealed for donations. Fellow volunteer Imogen Hardman blamed French authorities for “almost daily” evictions of migrants in Calais as well as UK asylum policy. She told PA:

    People just have nowhere to settle and people who have escaped really difficult situations are just not finding a place of safety at all.

    Volunteers go through donated clothes at the Care4Calais warehouse
    Volunteers go through donated clothes at the Care4Calais warehouse (Gareth Fuller/PA)

    Deadly travels

    While large numbers of people who pass through Calais make it safely to the UK – nearly 20,000 this year – the routes by both sea and lorry can be deadly. Since the beginning of 2019, more than a dozen people have died or gone missing while trying to cross the English Channel in small boats.

    They are among about 300 border-related deaths in and around the English Channel since 1999, according to a report by the Institute of Race Relations, the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal London steering group and French group Gisti.

    It’s feared as many as three people are missing after trying to cross from France to the UK in a dinghy last week. Two men – both Somali nationals – were rescued off the Essex coast, but searches for any remaining survivors were later called off.

    In October 2020, a boat sank off the coast of France leading to the deaths of seven people, including five from a Kurdish-Iranian family.

    The family were named as Rasoul Iran-Nejad, 35, Shiva Mohammad Panahi, 35, Anita, nine, Armin, six, and Artin, 15 months.

    For more information about Care4Calais click this link.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • PRESS STATEMENT
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    October 18, 2021
    Contact: Maryam Baig
    469-581-2518
    mbaig@hrionline.org

    DALLAS – This weekend, high-level government officials continued to be complicit in racist and cruel border policies, refusing asylum seekers their legal right for a bid for safety in the U.S.

    “President Biden should have walked into office in January by dismantling Trump’s racist and cruel policy barring asylum seekers from safety at our Southern Border,” said Emily Heger, HRI’s Staff Attorney. “But instead he doubled down on Title 42, and for nearly 2 months, has delayed the necessary steps to prevent a second round of Remain in Mexico.”

    For over seven weeks since a Supreme Court decision calling to reinstate President Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy, the Biden Administration has promised a second termination memo. To date, that promise remains unfulfilled. Meanwhile, the Administration has decided affirmatively to keep the Trump-era Title 42 policy, which expels asylum seekers from U.S. soil using a “scientifically baseless” public health pretext. Under both Title 42 and Remain in Mexico, immigrants and Black immigrants in particular, have been expelled into conditions rife with murder, rape, kidnapping, anti-Black violence and discrimination in violation of international law. For precisely these reasons, top State Department official Harold Koh resigned at the beginning of the month.

    “We need a political system that celebrates and protects every person’s basic humanity, but the President’s policies continue to dehumanize and endanger so many,” said Heger. “President Biden, stop playing politics with people’s lives.”

    About HRI

    For the past 20 years, Human Rights Initiative of North Texas has provided legal and critical social services for immigrant survivors of human rights abuses from all over the world. For more information, visit www.hrionline.org.

    ###

    The post Press Statement: Human Rights Initiative of North Texas (HRI) Statement on Biden Administration’s Plans to Reinstate Remain in Mexico / MPP appeared first on Human Rights Initiative.

    This post was originally published on Blog – Human Rights Initiative.

  • People carry their children and belongs across the rio grande while us custom and border patrol agents wait on the shore to harass them upon arrival

    “We didn’t know we were being deported,” said Cinthia* as she walked toward a bus headed to Honduras. The 24-year-old fled violence and threats in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, earlier this year. She made it 1,500 miles north through Guatemala and Mexico and across the U.S. border into Texas, where she planned to request asylum. Instead, the U.S. summarily expelled her on a flight from McAllen, Texas, to southern Mexico, and Mexico then sent her overland to El Ceibo, a remote border crossing with Guatemala.

    “They never allowed me to say why I left,” Cinthia said of U.S. border and immigration officials. “They just told us to get on.” Cinthia and other Hondurans expelled by the U.S. with whom Truthout spoke as they walked over the border from Mexico into Guatemala said they were not told where they going until they landed in Villahermosa, Mexico, the Tabasco state capital. Some had heard rumors they were being flown to a shelter in another part of the U.S.

    In the past two months, more than 14,000 Central American migrants and asylum seekers have been expelled and deported over the El Ceibo border crossing, according to the Guatemalan Immigration Institute. More than 70 percent have been Honduran, as for the past month and a half, Guatemalans have been sent back over a different border crossing. Thousands were detained in different parts of Mexico and deported via El Ceibo. Thousands of others, including Cinthia, were subject to a sort of chain expulsion: summarily expelled by the U.S. on daily flights to southern Mexico and then bused by Mexico back to Central America.

    The expulsions through Mexico are the latest iteration of U.S. policies and practices blocking people from seeking asylum that started under former President Donald Trump and have continued under President Joe Biden. Over the past three years, migrants and asylum seekers from northern Central America have been subject to diverse restrictions on asylum: expedited removals, summary expulsions, the “Remain in Mexico” policy and a so-called “safe third country” agreement with Guatemala. The expulsions through El Ceibo are carried out under Title 42, a public health order the U.S. has been using during the COVID-19 pandemic to summarily expel migrants and asylum seekers at the U.S. southern border.

    Trump’s administration invoked Title 42 last year, shortly after the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic. Based on a seldom-used part of 1940s health legislation, Title 42 confers authority for emergency action to address health risks associated with entry into the country of people, regardless of citizenship. On March 20, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an order “suspending the right to introduce certain persons where a quarantinable communicable disease exists.” The order applies to entry overland from Mexico or Canada to people “who would otherwise be introduced into a congregate setting,” and authorizes their expulsion either to the country they last transited — Mexico, in the vast majority of cases — or to their country of origin. U.S. citizens are exempt.

    In practice, the U.S. has been using the order to circumvent processing and screening, prevent asylum claims, and summarily expel migrants and would-be asylum seekers. There have been more than 1.1 million Title 42 expulsions, though some people have been expelled multiple times within that total. Migrant rights advocates had hoped the Biden administration would ditch the practice, but its use has only increased. In Biden’s first seven full months in office, from February through August 2021, the U.S. Border Patrol registered 690,209 Title 42 expulsions at the U.S. southern border — more than 1.8 times the number of expulsions in 10 months last year, from March through December 2020, under Trump.

    “It does seem like Biden’s inner circle or administration is sticking to their guns on this,” said Yael Schacher, senior U.S. advocate at Refugees International, a humanitarian and advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. “Personally, I think it’s because they don’t quite have a plan for how to process people.”

    Rights groups challenged the legality of Title 42 expulsions in court, and in late September, a federal court judge sided with them. The judge issued an injunction against the government regarding the expulsion of families with children but did not put it into effect immediately, giving the Biden administration a grace period to appeal, which it has. Then on October 2, Harold Koh, a senior State Department adviser who had already planned to leave government, used his resignation to publicly condemn the administration for its treatment of thousands of Haitian migrants and asylum seekers, calling their expulsions under Title 42 illegal. The Biden administration stood its ground in court and in public statements responding to Koh.

    “They’ve been consistently misportraying what Title 42 is,” Schacher told Truthout. “[White House Press Secretary Jen] Psaki responded to Koh’s legal rebuke of Title 42 by basically misrepresenting how many people pass through screening, saying these screenings were available, when in fact, they’re not really available to most people.”

    “So much of the focus has been on whether [the expulsions] are justified on health grounds, rather than, ‘Where are we sending people?’” she said. With Haiti, that issue has been at the forefront, given the recent Temporary Protected Status designation, massive earthquake and violent political turmoil. When the Trump administration implemented an asylum cooperation agreement with Guatemala, deporting Hondurans and Salvadorans to the country to seek asylum, there was significant U.S. attention and activism on the serious insecurity and dangers people were being sent back to, said Schacher. Thousands of Central Americans are being expelled to Guatemala now, though, and “that hasn’t gotten much attention” because of the overwhelming focus on the health grounds.

    Migrant advocacy and human rights groups throughout Guatemala and Mexico have been speaking out against Title 42 expulsions since they first began. International agencies have also condemned the phenomenon for violating international law. In May, Filippo Grandi, the United Nations high commissioner for refugees (UNHCR), called on the U.S. “to swiftly lift the public health-related asylum restrictions that remain in effect at the border and to restore access to asylum for the people whose lives depend on it.” The UN agency reiterated its appeal in August, in response to the expulsions to southern Mexico and overland into Guatemala.

    “These expulsion flights of non-Mexicans to the deep interior of Mexico constitute a troubling new dimension in enforcement of the COVID-related public health order known as Title 42,” Matthew Reynolds, UNHCR representative to the U.S. and the Caribbean, said in a public statement. “Removal from the U.S. to southern Mexico, outside any official transfer agreement with appropriate legal standards, increases the risk of chain refoulement — pushbacks by successive countries — of vulnerable people in danger.”

    Truthout asked U.S. and Mexican officials whether or not there were any written agreements or memorandums of understanding between the two countries or with Guatemala concerning the chain expulsions but was unable to obtain a response. Guatemala’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, though, confirmed Guatemala does not have any. “No document exists in this regard. Only verbal agreements,” a ministry spokesperson told Truthout.

    On the Mexican side of the El Ceibo border crossing, buses contracted by Mexico’s National Immigration Institute were already lined up waiting by midday on September 20. By mid-afternoon, immigration vans and buses began arriving from Villahermosa with the passengers of the U.S. Title 42 expulsion flight from Texas and people detained in different parts of Mexico. Once everyone had arrived to the Mexican side of the border, Guatemalan police and immigration and officials got into place. The first contracted bus in waiting was sent over, and Mexican police closed the vehicle gate across the road behind it to prevent anyone from returning to the Mexican side.

    Migrants and asylum seekers were sent back a few dozen at a time by Mexico through the passenger tunnel into Guatemala, where immigration officials ushered them in single file across the road. Another official was keeping count. A few Guatemalan border police stood spaced out off to the side, ensuring people stayed in line and did not try to climb a nearby embankment. The only assistance was provided by nuns and local migrant shelter workers and volunteers who handed people drinks, snacks, hygiene supplies and clothing donations as they boarded the bus. Once full, the bus pulled ahead to wait for the others, and the whole process was repeated. In roughly an hour, Truthout watched as hundreds of Central Americans were ushered onto eight buses that departed as a caravan, headed to Corinto, a border crossing with Honduras 280 miles away. According to the Guatemalan Immigration Institute, 278 Hondurans (including 80 minors) and 17 Salvadorans were sent back at El Ceibo that day.

    When the expulsions at El Ceibo began in August, people were sent across the border and abandoned. The Guatemalan government publicly stated it had received no prior warning from Mexico or the U.S. and pushed back. A small Guatemalan border village, El Ceibo has few services. It is in a remote area along drug trafficking routes and criminal groups on both sides of the border often prey on migrants. The local Catholic church-affiliated migrant shelter has a capacity to shelter 30 people, reduced to 15 during the pandemic. Shelter workers and volunteers scrambled to house, feed, and provide other assistance to as many of the hundreds of migrants and asylum seekers being sent back every day as they could.

    “We prioritized women and families,” said Juan Pablo Saquí, spokesperson for the local migrant shelter, Casa del Migrante del Belén. “We tried to follow biosecurity protocols but the situation was dire,” he told Truthout in the small shelter up on a steep hill. Sometimes the shelter provided aid to 200 people and no other institution, governmental or otherwise, was providing any. After the situation was covered by Guatemalan media, some institutions began showing up, said Saquí, and eventually the buses were coordinated to take people directly from El Ceibo to Honduras.

    It is unclear how many Central Americans have been subject to the U.S. Title 42 expulsions by way of the flights to southern Mexico and subsequent expulsion to Guatemala. The Guatemalan Immigration Institute has been keeping track of overall totals at El Ceibo since August 22 and frequently shares updates with journalists, but does not have disaggregated data distinguishing between people expelled by the U.S. and those detained in Mexico. Overall, 14,108 people, more than a quarter of whom have been minors, were expelled and deported over the El Ceibo crossing between August 22 and October 11, according to the Guatemalan Immigration Institute. More than 70 percent (10,276 people) were Honduran and just over 15 percent (2,210 people) were Salvadoran. Early on, 1,445 Guatemalans were sent back via El Ceibo, as were 159 Nicaraguans and 18 other people of different nationalities. Guatemala did not keep track of people expelled into the country over other border crossings from the southern Mexican state of Chiapas.

    Truthout asked Mexican and U.S. officials a series of questions with the express aim of determining how many of the people expelled and deported at the El Ceibo crossing — whether in total, in September, or even just on September 20 and 21, when Truthout was at the border — had first been flown down from the U.S. to Villahermosa. Mexico’s National Immigration Institute did not provide a response by time of publication, and neither did the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), despite follow-up emails and deadline extensions. The department presumably internally forwarded the request to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, who indicated to Truthout three days later that people were being sent back under Title 42 and the request should therefore be directed to DHS or Customs and Border Protection. (Truthout’s request was clearly and explicitly about the use of Title 42 and was directed to DHS in the first place.) Truthout then followed up October 12 directly with DHS to reiterate the request but did not receive a response by time of publication.

    Once-a-day flights from McAllen, Texas, to Villahermosa, Tabasco, Mexico, are ongoing. The expulsion flights are contracted out to World Atlantic Airlines, a Florida-based charter airline company. World Atlantic Airlines’ fleet is comprised of seven McDonnell Douglas 80 Series planes with total passenger capacities between 146 and 155, according to the company’s website. Expulsion flights from McAllen to Tapachula, Chiapas, Mexico, are less frequent, on Boeing 737s, and are contracted to iAero Airways, formerly Swift Air. For the past three weeks, there have been Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday flights on Boeing 737s from McAllen to Tapachula.

    It is unlikely flights have been at full capacity, but if they were, more than 10,000 Central Americans would have been expelled under Title 42 via southern Mexico over a span of two months. Direct flights have also skyrocketed. In September, 3,354 Guatemalans were expelled under Title 42 and/or deported on 34 U.S. flights to Guatemala City. That is more than the total from January through August, and flights are only increasing. From October 4 to 15 alone, there were 24 such flights scheduled, according to the Guatemalan Immigration Institute.

    Back at the El Ceibo border crossing, Oscar* and his partner Amy* were exhausted as they walked into Guatemala with their 1-year-old daughter on September 21. The young family left Catacamas, their hometown in eastern Honduras, in mid-August. “We didn’t have any work, and the government never does anything for the people,” Oscar told Truthout.

    The couple knew about Title 42 expulsions but had heard they were no longer happening. “We made it to Texas quite confident,” said Oscar. Once they were boarded onto the plane to Villahermosa, though, it became clear to the family they had received false information. “It wasn’t true,” said Oscar, who is unsure what he will do now. He put his home up as collateral on a loan the family used to make the journey north, and the money is long gone.

    “Now I have nothing,” he said, advancing in line to get onto the bus to Honduras. “I think I will try again.”

    * Cinthia, Oscar and Amy’s last names have been omitted to protect their identities for security reasons.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • As Haitians cope with the devastating aftermath of a 7.2 magnitude earthquake, Tropical Storm Grace and the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse in July, a coalition of over 300 rights groups is denouncing the Biden administration’s ongoing deportations to Haiti and urging it to expand temporary protected status. “How do you tell somebody not to come when they are dealing not only with man-made crisis, political crisis and violence, and on top of it dealing with natural disasters?” asks Guerline Jozef, co-founder and executive director of Haitian Bridge Alliance.

    TRANSCRIPT

    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

    AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

    Two weeks after a massive earthquake hit southern Haiti, thousands of survivors are growing desperate as they continue to face shortages of food, shelter and medicine. This is a resident of Les Cayes.

    MICHEL PIERRE: [translated] My house was destroyed by the earthquake. Several of my family members died. I had 13 goats: 11 died; I have two left. I came to the market to see if I can sell the two that remain. We have nothing. We need help.

    AMY GOODMAN: As Haitians cope with the earthquake’s aftermath and the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse in July, a coalition of over 300 rights groups here in the U.S. sent a letter Monday to the Biden administration urging it to halt all deportations to Haiti and expand TPS — that’s temporary protected status. They say more Haitians have been deported since Biden took office than during all of fiscal year 2020.

    We go right now to Guerline Jozef, co-founder and executive director of Haitian Bridge Alliance.

    Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Guerline. These are very, very dire times in Haiti. Can you explain what’s happening? Are people actually being deported to Haiti right now?

    GUERLINE JOZEF: Good morning, Amy. And thank you so much for having us back.

    We are getting a lot of calls from our clients who are in immigration detention stating that they are being told to pack their things because they are getting ready to deport them. It is extremely alarming, given the fact that, as you mentioned earlier, we are barely starting to recover from the earthquake, and the hurricane that literally ravaged the country two weeks ago, followed by the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse back in July, on July 7th. So, we are alarmed.

    We are extremely concerned, as the Biden administration did promise that they were not going to be having any deportations to Haiti. But what we are hearing from our clients is very alarming, because they are being told that they will be deported soon. And we have to be alarmed, because literally a month after the assassination and two days prior to the earthquake, they did send two planes to Haiti full of asylum seekers, including children and babies. Over 135 people were deported back to Haiti literally a few weeks after the assassination.

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And can you talk about the issue that asylum seekers are having in terms of if they attempt to come in through Mexico? That’s more recent route that Haitian asylum seekers have been taking?

    GUERLINE JOZEF: Yes. So, since 2015, we started seeing Haitian migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border. And that was under President Obama. And the majority of them were put in detention and eventually pulled in. But on August 28th, 2016, we saw a turn of events, where they were no longer given a humanitarian pull, but they being put in immigration detention and then deported. Things got really, really hard under President Trump, where, you know, the border got closed indefinitely, and the use of Title 42 starting last year, MPP literally closing the entire border.

    And what we started seeing is, because of policies enacted in the United States, the wall kept moving further, further down, all the way to Panama, all the way to Guatemala, all the way to Nicaragua, where people were blocked from continuing their journey, very deadly journey. They were blocked from continuing the journey to make it to the U.S.-Mexico border to ask for asylum. And what we continue to advocate on behalf of the people, who have found themselves at the U.S.-Mexico border since 2015, 2016, who have been waiting for over five years, is to get access to be able to come and ask for asylum. And we also see, you know, a new arrival of people coming by boat.

    And we understand how Secretary Mayorkas, Vice President Harris and President Biden keep telling on people, “Do not come. If they come, they will be intercepted and turned back.” But how do you tell somebody not to come when they are dealing not only with man-made crisis, political crisis and violence, and on top of it dealing with natural disasters like the earthquake and the storm that just devastated the country two weeks ago?

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And speaking of the earthquake, what are you hearing is the assistance that the international community is providing, especially considering the terrible scandal over the last major earthquake in Haiti of all the stolen aid and the corruption that ensued in supposed international assistance?

    GUERLINE JOZEF: We are really strongly advocating against — so that we don’t see a repeat of what happened in 2010. For example, how do we work directly with impacted community members on the ground to provide direct assistance for them? What the Haitian Bridge Alliance and many other communities within the diaspora are doing is working hand in hand with organizations, Haitian organizations on the ground, local community members to provide humanitarian assistance and see how we can help rebuild structural, sound structures, so that we can make sure that when — not “if” — now that we know how prone that Haiti is to earthquake and other natural disasters, how do we support structure that will withstand earthquakes, so that we can save lives?

    So, we are looking at now the aftermath relief, where we provide direct assistance, for the Haitian Bridge Alliance is giving direct cash assistance in the hands of the most vulnerable so that they can rebuild, so that they can be able to bury their loved ones, like the gentleman you heard earlier today speaking about him losing everything, including his goats. That is their livelihood. That’s what they use to be able to send their children to school. So, what we are doing is providing direct assistance to those people so that they can at least be able to survive the next few months. But at the same time, how do we make sure we provide assistance that will be long-lasting, make sure that we have the proper road? When something like that happens again, we are able to quickly reach the people in the remote locations. How do we make sure that we have schools, and hospital, to treat those who are unfortunately victim of both natural disasters and man-made disasters?

    AMY GOODMAN: So —

    GUERLINE JOZEF: But what we are [inaudible] right now is dire.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, Guerline, you have a country that is facing perhaps massive hunger from climate change, from the hurricane, from the disruption of people’s lives. And is there a functioning government? Because we are also coming out of the assassination of the president of Haiti, assassinated by, among them, Colombian mercenaries, some of them trained by the United States. Has that also been put on hold, that investigation, as this latest crisis has developed and, amazingly, people are being sent back into this catastrophe?

    GUERLINE JOZEF: Amy, thank you so much for bringing that up. As we’ve been pushing through recovery, rescue, search and rescue, from what we are seeing, the Haitian government is almost nonexistent. We are not getting daily briefings of what’s happening on the ground from the government. Again, once again, the country, the people on the ground are the one trying to push through and making sure that people are OK. I am not an expert on that matter. However, based on what we are seeing, we do not have a functioning government, which we all knew, after the assassination of the president. Even before that, we were —

    AMY GOODMAN: We have 15 seconds, Guerline. Sorry.

    GUERLINE JOZEF: Yes. We were struggling to recover from all the political turmoil. But right now we are asking for support on the ground to be able to move forward from those disasters, both man-made and natural disasters. But, as you mentioned, Amy, we still are not seeing the help that we need from the Haitian government right now.

    AMY GOODMAN: Guerline Jozef, we want to thank you for being with us, co-founder and executive director of Haitian Bridge Alliance.

    Democracy Now! is produced with Renée Feltz, Mike Burke, Deena Guzder, Messiah Rhodes, Nermeen Shaikh. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. Stay safe. Wear a mask.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On 16 July 2021 Reuters reported that Canada is establishing a dedicated refugee stream for “human rights defenders,” including journalists, who may need to seek asylum to escape persecution in their country,

    The stream – the first of its kind in the world, according to the UN refugee agency – will accommodate 250 people a year, plus their families, and focus on people at heightened risk, such as women, journalists and LGBTQ2 rights advocates.

    We must not overlook those who bear witness to these human tragedies, who are active through demonstration and reporting so the rest of us can be informed. But in doing so they risk persecution, arrest, torture and even death,” Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Minister Marco Mendicino said on Friday in a virtual news conference from Toronto.

    One example a spokesperson gave of a person eligible under this program is an activist against the regime in Belarus who had fled to Poland but needed permanent refuge.

    Canada aims to resettle 36,000 refugees this year, almost four times its total of 9,200 resettled in 2020. But by the end of April, only 1,630 resettled refugees had arrived in Canada, according to government figures.

    https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/28355/feds-announce-dedicated-refugee-stream-for-human-rights-defenders

    https://www.reuters.com/article/canada-refugees/canada-to-welcome-human-rights-defenders-including-journalists-as-refugees-idUSL1N2OS12Q

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Client Items Basket at The Advocates for Human Rights

    People who flee their home country seeking security and protection in the United States face a long and unpredictable asylum process, even when they’re able to access free legal services like those offered by The Advocates for Human Rights. Many countries support asylum seekers according to the human rights standards declared by the United Nations; the United States does not. Asylum seekers in the U.S. do not receive temporary housing, a living allowance, or health care. They must wait months before applying for a work permit, have no access to federally funded programs such as SNAP or Medicaid, lack local community connections, and often have little ability to connect with family left behind in dangerous situations. They are among the most vulnerable members of our community.

    When the asylum review process became longer and longer, sometimes lasting years rather than months, The Advocates decided to include Social Work Interns in our work to support our clients during this difficult process. Partnering with local universities including Augsburg, St. Catherine’s University, the University of St. Thomas and the University of Minnesota, as well as Denver University’s Online program, The Advocates has hosted over 10 social work interns since the program started in 2013. The Advocates relies on volunteer Social Work professionals to provide joint supervision for the social work students. Emily Villanueva, Almena Dees, and Rachel Amerman, our current Social Work Interns, help clients who need housing, health care, clothes, food, and other essentials by referring them to trusted community resources. For example, Emily recalled a family that couldn’t pay their energy bills but was deemed ineligible to receive energy assistance due to their immigration status. Determined to help, she utilized local social services networks, reviewed energy regulations, and soon was able to find that the family did qualify for energy assistance and assisted the family with the application process

    Emily Villanueva on the left and Rachel Amerman on the right.

    No one can do this work alone. There is a dynamic collaboration between lawyers, social service networks, and Social Work Interns. As clients meet with lawyers to build their legal case, the interns also build trusting relationships with clients and seek to connect them with communities of support to uplift and empower them. If someone enjoys playing the piano or sports, the interns work with local networks to connect clients with such opportunities. Rachel commented that “it takes a lot of research to find who can provide the rights resources.” Thankfully, “the network of service providers for immigrants and refugees within Minneapolis and Saint Paul is a very tight-knit, strong community of people who are all working hard towards the same goal.” Supporting clients does not mean taking away their agency. While asylum seekers often depend on other people’s kindness and compassion to help them navigate an unfamiliar system, it is crucial to build trust and relationships that allow space for the clients to be in control of their own lives. “One size does not fit all. When you have a client, you need to sit with the client and really listen to what they need,” explained Almena.

    The systemic racism and bias that became highly visible after George Floyd’s murder deeply affect the experiences of our clients. Recognizing that the murder by police and civil unrest would be particularly unsettling to our clients given their own personal histories of political persecution and violence, Social Work Interns and staff redoubled their outreach efforts. One of our clients said, “I am a young man who has come of age in times of great challenges mixed with great hope. As an asylum seeker in the USA, I thought I had never faced the wrath of racism and segregation

    because of my color … I realized that racism in America is much more than just physically being subjected to racial slurs.” This structural racism is deeply intertwined with white nationalism and the immigration laws to which The Advocates’ clients are subject. Social Work Interns must consider these overlapping crises in their work, as clients “take the trauma they experienced in their home country with them. When they arrive in the U.S., they’re shut out of community services, then face the backlash and hate of an anti-immigrant narrative in our society. The most important part of my work is to show each client that someone is listening, that someone cares for their well-being” said Rachel.

    Due to racism and lack of protections in our asylum system the current reality for many of our clients is that it takes a social work intern to act as an intermediary to access and meet their basic needs. Together with attorneys and service networks, The Advocates works to support and provide legal representation for clients seeking protection. By including social work interns in our work, we are addressing the crucial need of providing holistic wellbeing and support so that clients regain independence. With compassion, deep listening, and the drive to make a difference in people’s lives, Social Work Interns like Emily, Almena, and Rachel are changing the world for good at The Advocates, one client at a time.


    The Advocates for Human Rights is a nonprofit organization dedicated to implementing international human rights standards to promote civil society and reinforce the rule of law.

    Curious about volunteering? Please reach out. The Advocates for Human Rights has an opportunity for you.

    Eager to see change? Give to our mission, our vision, our work. Your gift matters.

    By Jessie Lu, 2021 Macalester Graduate and Development Intern.

    This post was originally published on The Advocates Post.