Category: Asylum

  • 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.

  • Asylum-seekers trying to come to the UK on small boats, and their people-smuggling enablers, will face heavier prison sentences in a bid to prevent “asylum shopping”, the Home Office has announced.

    However, despite the claim that these vulnerable people ‘shop around’, the UK actually sees considerably fewer asylum applications than neighbouring countries like France and Germany. Moreover, the support UK asylum-seekers receive is minimal.

    A “broken” system?

    The stricter enforcements form part of the Nationality and Borders Bill. The bill is due for its first reading in the House of Commons on 6 July. And it’s part of home secretary Priti Patel’s pledge to “fix” the UK’s “broken asylum system”.

    Other Conservative home secretaries have vowed to fix the asylum system in the 11 years that the party has been in power. The system seems to remain allegedly “broken” despite the party being demonstrably in charge of it for over a decade.

    A clause contained in the new Home Office legislation will broaden the offence of arriving ‘unlawfully’. If the bill passes, the offence would encompass arrival as well as entry into the UK. The move is designed to allow those who are intercepted in UK territorial seas to be brought into the country to be prosecuted, aides said.

    ‘Asylum shopping’

    The proposed legislation intends to make it a criminal offence to knowingly arrive in the UK without permission. And the maximum sentence for those entering the country ‘unlawfully’ could rise from six months’ imprisonment to four years.

    The government also plans to increase the tariff for people smugglers. And those found guilty could face a life term behind bars, up from the current maximum of 14 years. The Home Office said the sterner punishments were a bid to prevent “asylum shopping”. The department alleges some asylum-seekers are “picking the UK as a preferred destination over others” when asylum could have been claimed earlier in their journey through Europe.

    The bill’s unveiling comes after record numbers of people have made the perilous journey across the English Channel this year. Nearly 6,000 people reached the UK in small boats in the first six months of 2021. A total of 8,417 reached the UK in 2020.

    Britain as a “preferred destination”?

    Answering whether the UK has “more asylum-seekers than most countries”, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) writes:

    No, it does not. In the year ending September 2020, the UK received 31,752 asylum applications from main applicants only.

    Over the same period,  asylum applications to other EU countries have also seen a slight increase. In the year ending March 2020 (the latest period for which data is currently available), the highest number of first-time asylum applicants was registered in Germany with 155,295 first-time applicants followed by France with 129,480, Spain with 128,520 and Greece with 81,465.

    These four Members States account for around three quarters of all first-time applicants in the EU-27. These figures include  all asylum applicants, not just main applicants (i.e. including children and other dependents). World-wide  around  85%  of all refugees live in developing regions , not in wealthy industrialised countries.

    The reality

    On how many refugees live in the UK, UNHCR notes:

    According to UNHCR statistics, at the end of 2019 there were  133,094  refugees, 61,968 pending asylum cases  and  161  stateless persons  in the UK. The vast majority of refugees – 4 out of 5 – stay in their region of displacement, and consequently are hosted by  developing countries. Turkey now hosts the highest number of refugees with 3.6  million, followed by Pakistan with 1.4 million.

    As of 2020, Germany had a refugee population of 1.77 million people. In 2019, France had a refugee population of around 400,000 people.

    Writing for The Canary on the government failure to swiftly process asylum applications, Joe Glenton argued:

    Bashing poor and desperate people is what UK governments are all about. But the figures tell a story. A majority of displaced people in the EU, and many who make it to the UK, are victims of UK foreign policy. There are reasons that places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria are so well represented in refugee statistics and the UK’s ever-growing asylum-seeker backlog.

    Criminalising the refugees we helped create

    Officials said the draft law was about “sending a clear message to migrants thinking about paying people smugglers to make dangerous and illegal journeys to the UK”.

    Cabinet minister Patel said:

    The Nationality and Borders Bill contains vital measures to fix the UK’s broken asylum system.

    Our new plan for immigration is fair but firm.

    We will welcome people through safe and legal routes whilst preventing abuse of the system, cracking down on illegal entry and the criminality associated with it.

    The Conservative election manifesto promised to change the immigration system. Patel in March said she wanted to tackle “illegal migration head-on”. It came as she announced what she called the “most significant overhaul of our asylum system in decades” in a bid to “deter illegal entry into the UK”.

    But according to Refugee Council:

    There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim

    It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum

    Not our problem

    The Home Office, when announcing the bill, said it was:

    very likely that those travelling to the UK via small boat will have come from a safe European Union country in which they could have claimed asylum.

    The department added:

    Where this is the case, they are not seeking refuge at the earliest opportunity or showing good reason for seeking to enter the UK illegally but are instead ‘asylum shopping’ by picking the UK as a preferred destination over others and using an illegal route to get here.

    However, because of its geographical location, it’s incredibly unlikely that any asylum seeker could reach the UK without first passing through a “safe European country”. With this in mind, the Home Office is effectively arguing that the UK shouldn’t have to take in any refugees or asylum seekers. And that the responsibility should fall entirely on our neighbours – a situation which is largely already the case.

    According to figures the government shared in March, around 62% of all claims are from people who have entered the UK “illegally”. And 42,000 failed asylum seekers are still living in the country.

    ‘Deliberately misleading myths and untruths’

    The Home Office said changes brought about by the bill would take into account how someone entered the UK for any subsequent asylum claim. The department would consider whether the applicant’s arrival was ‘legal’ or not, and their status in the UK if that claim is successful.

    The Whitehall department added that it will also attempt to prevent individuals making repeated “meritless” asylum claims designed to delay their removal.

    Steve Valdez-Symonds, Amnesty International UK’s refugee and migrant rights director, said:

    While the Home Office continues to make no safe and legal routes to the UK available for those claiming asylum, some people will continue to be forced to risk their lives to do so – including in small boats across the Channel.

    Instead of peddling deliberately misleading myths and untruths about asylum and migration, the Home Office should be establishing safe routes for those few people escaping persecution who wish to seek asylum here.

    Divide and rule

    The truth is that Britain receives about as many refugees as you’d expect for an island at the edge of a populated continent.

    The Tories don’t want people to know that because they want people to be angry. Angry at the small number of desperate people who come here. Angry enough to ignore that the Tories have been scapegoating refugees while destroying the welfare state for over a decade.

    Imprisoning asylum seekers won’t fix a problem that doesn’t exist. It will, however, give yet another home secretary yet another chance to virtue signal to the voters who eat this stuff up.

    Featured image via Ggia/ Wikimedia

    By John Shafthauer

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • World Refugee Day (June 20) marked six months of the Biden Administration.  In that time, The Advocates and other organizations have been extremely disappointed with the President’s failure to deliver on promises for swift and bold action on immigration and human rights.  While we celebrated the first days of Administration with executive orders ending the Muslim and African Bans, laying-out plans for asylum protections, stopping harmful Trump-era regulations, pausing funding for the Border Wall, and sending comprehensive immigration reform to Congress, enthusiasm had given way to concerns as months passed with the Biden Administration failing to take decisive action, continuing the status quo, and waffling on crucial rights issues.   

    Yet, almost as if it’s awoken and decided to meet the moment, there have recently been some  exciting actions on immigration from President Biden.  The Advocates views these steps as crucial, positive, and exciting, but remains cautions that the Administration must maintain its commitment, energy and resolve in not only undoing harmful Trump-era immigration policy but leading bold and visionary change that eschews political decisions to ensure our immigration system is safe, orderly, transparent, just and protects the dignity and rights of all people.   

    The changes The Administration has recently announced  include:   

    1. Vacating harmful and illegal Attorney General decisions on asylum issued under the Trump Administration to dismantle protections for victims of gender-based, family and gang violence. 

    Attorney General Garland announced on June 16 that the Department of Justice would vacate several Trump-era decisions that resulted in the denial of thousands of claims.  Attorney General Sessions and Attorney General Barr referred the cases of Matter of A- B- and Matter of L- E- A- to themselves.  Not only is such a move by an Attorney General highly unusual, but the move made it nearly impossible for an asylum seeker to prevail on fears of persecution based on gender and family violence (Matter of A- B-) or gang violence targeted at family members (Matter of L- E- A-).  This, despite the fact that international law is clear that such claims can be sufficient to trigger obligations against removal under the Refugee Convention to which the U.S. is a party.   

    Immigration advocacy groups, including The Advocates, have been calling for the Biden Administration to vacate these decisions as well as Matter of A- C- A- A- for months, including in a recent letter signed by more than 300 organizations.  The Attorney General’s announcement, therefore, is a welcome step toward bringing U.S. asylum law in-line with international obligations and best practices.  Yet, more remains to be done not just to undo the harms of the Trump Administration but to more wholistically reform the asylum system to meet international standards and ensure protections are not eroded in the future.  The Advocates will be continuing our work to advocate for Congressional reform as well as regulations from President Biden to this effect.          

    1. Plans for a regulation  on asylum processing  

    The Advocates supports the plan to allow asylum seekers who present themselves at the U.S. border or ports and show a credible fear of persecution or torture to process their claims with the U.S. Asylum Office instead of going through immigration court. Under the current system, people presenting themselves at U.S. ports of entry (such as the border) to seek asylum must present their case in immigration court upon a showing of a credible fear of persecution.  This, despite the fact that immigration courts are facing years-long backlogs and also present an adversarial system that is inappropriate for vulnerable and trauma-impacted people.  The proposed change would increase efficiency and uphold our commitment to protecting the rights of asylum seekers. The Advocates is awaiting the text of this regulation and hopes that it reflects the newer, bolder vision the Administration has hinted.  We will look forward to submitting comments on the proposed rule. 

    1. Plans for a regulation on Particular Social Groups in asylum applications 

    The Advocates welcomes plans for rulemaking that would clarify and codify the proper standard for asylum claims based on Particular Social Group (PSG).  Under the UN Refugee Convention, parties such as the U.S. must provide asylum protections to people who have a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of their membership in a PSG.  The drafters purposely left definition of PSG undefined in recognition of the fact that the ways in which humans do harm to each other is always evolving and must be left vague so as not to foreclose valid claims in the future.  The U.S. has long used the Matter of Acosta standard, which broadly defined PSG as members sharing a characteristic that a person either cannot change or should not have to change.  Yet, under the Trump Administration, we saw attempts to severely narrow these protections—something they were able to do because of the lack of controlling guidance in legislation or precedent codifying Acosta at a higher level.  A regulatory action that codifies this standard would protect bona fide claims while increasing administrative efficiency by ensuring immigration judges and asylum officers are not left to ping pong between standards with each change of administration.  

    The Advocates further calls for ensuring that any such regulation specifically include gender-based and sex-based claims as meeting the PSG definition.  The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Guidelines on implementation and interpretation of the Refugee Convention is clear that persecution on account of someone’s gender (such as domestic violence, Female Genital Mutilation, and more) falls within the Convention’s protections.  Yet, the Trump Administration attempted to erode and foreclose those protections through the Attorneys General decisions in a number of appealed cases—decisions that must be overruled and clarified through regulation to keep US law in-line with international standards and our obligations.   

    1. Plans for regulations rescinding or modifying numerous Trump-era regulations that sought to gut asylum protections and due process in immigration proceedings 

    The Advocates welcomes the plan to rescind or modify numerous harmful Trump-era regulations on immigration.  In 2020 alone, the Administration issued more than 20 proposed regulations, which is hastily finalized before leaving office, aimed at eroding immigrant rights, and asylum in particular.  The Advocates fought against these actions by submitting extensive comments in opposition to the changes.  And, the courts agreed with the challenges, issuing injunctions in litigation brought by other groups on nearly every regulation finalized.   

    The Biden Administration must rescind these regulations to both uphold court findings on the illegality of the rules and to ensure US law meets international standards.  Further, however, The Advocates believes the Biden Administration must work to not only restore protections in U.S. law, but to push beyond them.  U.S. immigration law is outdated, unjust, and harmful.  Rooted in old concepts of nationalism and exclusion, rather than human rights and a globalized world, U.S. immigration law creates harsh lines and bars that do not allow people to move with dignity.  The law also harshly intertwines the immigration system and criminal justice systems, barring immigration options for criminal issues, including even where there is no conviction.  The Biden Administration—and the 117th Congress—have an opportunity to take bold steps on immigration reform to ensure our system fits the realities of the 21st century, adequately protects human rights in-line with our international treaty obligations and US law, and build a robust immigration system that reflects the benefits of safe, orderly and clear migration.    

    1. Plans for regulations to comprehensively address asylum  

    We look forward to seeing President Biden issue a broad, visionary and protective regulation making important changes to further—not narrow—asylum.  This is anticipated in late 2021 or early 2022.  The Advocates will be vigorously advocating to ensure any comprehensive regulation meets or exceeds international standards.   

    1. An announcement on plans for cancelling and revising use of Border Wall funding 

    President Biden issued a plan to cancel any border wall projects that involved diverted funds; end expansion to the extent permitted by law; and address safety and environmental issues resulting from construction under the Trump Administration.  Instead, it plans to use funds to address root causes of migration from Central America ($861 million), support the immigration courts and US Citizenship and Immigration Services to more fairly and effectively run ($345 million), and advance modern solutions for border management ($1.2 billion). 

    While we welcome these changes, we caution the Administration not to use these funds as an excuse to expand surveillance and harmful technologies.  The Administration has stated that it “calls on Congress to cancel any border barrier funds that remain at the end of the year so that these resources can instead be used for modern, privacy-protective, and effective border management measures like enhanced technology between points of entry and improved infrastructure at Land Ports of Entry.”  We welcome the recognition that technological approaches to border security must be “privacy-protective,” but remain concern about the proliferation of technology and enhanced surveillance in President Biden’s immigration policies.  Rather than taking a more humane and logical approach to immigration and border security, which recognizes the nature of human movement, Biden appears to be replacing the Trump-era physical barriers with technological ones.  While the Biden Administration’s more inclusive and human rights-based rhetoric is welcome, these efforts threaten to sidestep human rights around privacy, present continued barriers to meaningful access to asylum, and raise equity issues given the overwhelmingly negative impact of surveillance on BIPOC communities who are victim to technology’s failure to distinguish certain races.   

     The Advocates has also welcomed the Administration’s moves on protections for victims of crimes as well as some steps toward reducing detention and restoring immigration judicial independence.  In the past few months, President Biden issued new policies restoring Prosecutorial Discretion by DHS attorneys to dismiss, decline to prosecute, or agree to terminate certain cases in immigration proceedings.  This is welcome news as many of The Advocates clients will benefit from these actions which will allow trafficking victims and immigrant youth who have experienced abuse, abandonment or neglect—among others—time to pursue protections outside of immigration court.  Earlier, we also welcomed news that the Administration would revoke the harmful Trump-era policy of sending people to immigration court who were denied immigration benefit applications.  In addition, the new Enforcement Priorities memo should reduce backlog in immigration courts, decrease the number of people detained, and conserve government resources by targeting a narrower group of people for immigration enforcement rather than the broad groups of undocumented people sought after under President Trump.   

    While these moves and others signal intentions from President Biden to take a more humane and logical approach to migration, The Advocates is concerned about the effect in practice.  We continue to see people held in detention despite the guidance against such.  While the new prosecutorial discretion memo should help many of our clients, it may take time for the local actors to implement it without clear directives from the Administration.  And, despite the many positive actions promised on asylum and victim’s protections, we remain concerned about the expulsions under Title 42 and strong rhetoric against seeking asylum coming from the Biden Administration as it appears to remain concerned about political expediencies. 

    The Advocates has worked on immigration policy for nearly 40 years.  We fought vigorously against the harmful policies of the Trump Administration, and looked forward to the Biden Administration delivering on promises around immigration and human rights.  Yet, the first six months have been a very slow start, raising concerns about the fulfillment of those promises and any likelihood of visionary action.  The announcements last week do present some glimmers that President Biden may meet the moment, eschew political gamesmanship, and do the right thing on immigration.   


    By Lindsey Greising, Staff Attorney with The Advocates for Human Rights 

    This post was originally published on The Advocates Post.

  • Part of the Home Office’s guidance on reuniting unaccompanied child asylum seekers (UAMs) with their families in the UK is unlawful, the High Court has ruled.

    Legal action

    Safe Passage, a charity that supports child refugees, took legal action against the Home Office over how caseworkers are told to process requests for UAMs to be reunited with family members in the UK. Under European legislation, child refugees can have their asylum claims transferred to another country if they have family there. A “take charge request” can be issued so they can travel to that country to be with their family and the claim is assessed there instead.

    At a hearing in May, lawyers representing Safe Passage said the Home Office’s guidance on how officials process these requests is “causing delay and misery” for UAMs abroad and is unlawful.

    In a ruling on 2 July, the High Court found that part of the guidance requiring caseworkers to reject a request after two months “even where inquiries had not yet established whether a family link existed and/or whether it would be in the UAM’s best interests to have their claim decided in the UK” was unlawful.

    Lord justice Dingemans also ruled that previous guidance which said that “information should be obtained from a local authority only once the family link had been established was erroneous in law”.

    The judge, sitting with justice Dove, said that that guidance, which has since been replaced, “mis-stated the law” when it said that local authorities would only be asked to undertake an assessment with the UAM’s family “once the family link has been established”.

    Dingemans said:

    This advice established a bright line that the local authority should not undertake an assessment with the family or relative until the family link had been established.

    He added:

    The fact that guidance directed to caseworkers gives advice which is erroneous in law may lead to unlawful decisions. This does not assist UAMs, who may have been wrongly denied the right to re-join family members while the claim for asylum was being processed.

    It does not assist the Secretary of State, who may have acted in breach of obligations and may have made decisions which were unlawful and which are liable to be set aside.

    Unlawful

    The High Court made a declaration that “specific parts of the guidance” are unlawful, but did not overturn the guidance as a whole as “there are substantial parts of the policy guidance which are not erroneous in law”.

    In a statement after the ruling, Jennine Walker, head of UK legal and arrivals at Safe Passage, said:

    Our success in this legal challenge will offer hope to many child refugees desperate to safely reunite with their families in the UK, who were wrongly turned away by the Home Office.

    It should never have taken court action for the Home Office to decide applications fairly and lawfully, and we urge the Government to put these wrongs right by swiftly reuniting those refugee families whose applications were refused.

    Featured image by John Ranson for The Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (CGRS) at UC Hastings College of the Law protects human rights by working in the intersections of gender and migration. Karen Musalo, the founding director of GGRS, served as the lead attorney in Matter of Kasinga. In this groundbreaking 1996 legal victory, she won protection for Fauziya Kassindja, a young woman from Togo. Ms. Kassindja had fled to the United States to escape female genital mutilation (FGM) and a forced polygamous marriage to a much older man. The decision in this case established FGM as a recognized form of persecution – and it was the first time in the U.S. that asylum was granted to an asylee based on gender.  

    Since its inception in 1999, CGRS has been an important partner of The Advocates. Over the years, CGRS has provided invaluable services to support individual asylum cases, led litigation to challenge the government’s improper implementation of immigration laws, and developed innovative practices. For example, CGRS staff started to partner with psychologists in representing traumatized asylum seekers – a practice that has since become standard. CGRS has grown into an internationally respected resource for gender asylum, renowned for its knowledge of the law and ability to combine sophisticated legal strategies with policy, advocacy, training, technical assistance, litigation, and human rights interventions. Volunteer attorneys from around the country benefit from the support and resources of CGRS. 

    The Advocates’ board member and volunteer attorney Sam Myers praises the work of CGRS:  

    “In my work with The Advocates, representing Central American children seeking Special Immigrant Juvenile Status and asylum, the substantive research and tactical mentorship of the staff at CGRS has been invaluable. They are thorough, creative, and aware of the needs of volunteer lawyers. Their title understates the activist nature of their organization and their extraordinary value to volunteer lawyers.” 

    CGRS protects the fundamental human rights of refugee women, children, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others who flee persecution and gender-based violence in their home countries. In fact, CGRS has played a key role in every major precedent-setting victory in gender-based asylum claims, breaking new legal ground and dramatically expanding the availability of protection for asylum seekers. In one important case last year, CGRS and the American Civil Liberties Union successfully challenged the previous administration’s attempts to roll back asylum protections for victims fleeing domestic violence and gang brutality. 

    CGRS takes the lead on controversial issues, participates as co-counsel or amicus curiae in impact litigation, produces an extensive library of litigation support materials, maintains an unsurpassed database of asylum records and decisions, and works in coalitions with immigrant, refugee, LGBTQ+, children’s, and women’s rights networks. CGRS has been an essential ally of The Advocates and similar organizations providing life-saving legal representation to asylum seekers and working for immigration policy that reflects human rights principles.

    Sarah Brenes, the director of The Advocates’ Refugee and Immigrant Program, explains: 

    “Asylum protections took a hard blow over the past four years. The prior administration took direct aim at granting asylum for gender-based claims, trying to take back advancements in protecting domestic violence survivors and people affected by gang violence. At the same time, we saw unprecedented numbers of asylum seekers driven from their homes, seeking safety in the U.S. Coordination among agencies like CGRS and The Advocates proved critical to respond to individuals, and litigation prevented harmful regulations from going into effect.”  

    For more than 20 years, CGRS has also engaged in international human rights work to address the underlying causes of forced migrations that produce refugees – namely, violence and persecution, committed with impunity when governments fail to protect their citizens. This unwavering commitment to promoting human rights inspires us and makes us hopeful for the future. It is with great honor that The Advocates for Human Rights presents a 2021 Don & Arvonne Fraser Human Rights Award to CGRS.  

    Please join us on Thursday, June 24 for the Human Rights Awards Dinner to celebrate CGRS and all of our 2021 award recipients. RSVP on our website to receive access information. 

    This post was originally published on The Advocates Post.

  • In May, HRI celebrated a win for one of our affirmative asylum clients, a young woman from Zimbabwe who had fled her home country due to political persecution by the Zimbabwean government. She was represented by Stephanie Mistry, one of HRI’s stellar pro bono attorneys. Stephanie has been volunteering with HRI since 2009. Over the years, she has represented 13 HRI clients and their family members helping them obtain various forms of humanitarian relief. Stephanie has worked tirelessly over the years and we’re incredibly grateful for Stephanie’s dedication to our clients.

    The post Gratitude: Featuring Stephanie Mistry appeared first on Human Rights Initiative.

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

  • Photo from The Masinga Foundation: https://www.masingafoundation.org/

    In a room full of refugees and asylum seekers, Blaise Masinga is reminded of the time when he was in their shoes. He had fled from South Africa to Minnesota, leaving behind his wife and two children. Pain, trauma, and uncertainty are still on the forefront of his mind when he thinks about that time. Similar to the journeys of many other asylum seekers, Blaise’s path to safety and reunification with his family was long, unpredictable, anxiety-filled, and lonesome.

    South Africa had actually been his refuge after fleeing from his birth country, the Democratic Republic of Congo, as a teenager. He had built a life in South Africa. He attended university and received a degree in marketing from the Institute of Marketing Management. He married and welcomed the first two of his children into the world. He advanced in his professional career. By 2010, he achieved the opportunity to work as a business manager for a multinational company connected to the Democratic Republic of Congo and Central Africa. Outside work, Blaise noticed many forms of racism and discrimination. As a refugee himself, he became an activist for immigrant and refugee rights. After spotting corruption in a work project, he spoke up. For Blaise, speaking out against injustices was natural, but it also made him a wanted man and became the reason he fled from South Africa in 2012.

    With his safety compromised, Blaise left his family, his home, his career, his community, his activism, and found himself empty-handed seeking asylum in Minneapolis. He didn’t know it at the time, but it would be four long years before he was reunited with his family. Remembering these years, he said, “I should’ve known that the process to win an asylum case in the United States is a long journey that requires patience. It was a painful experience to leave my wife and kids.” At times he felt helpless and had to regain his sense of agency over his life. “Let me be honest,” Blaise says with a smile on his face, “the first good resource I found was The Advocates for Human Rights.” The Advocates staff connected Blaise with a pro bono lawyer who helped Blaise win his asylum case. Through a social work intern at the organization, he was also connected to two other important resources that helped him through this difficult time: the Center for Victims of Torture that helped him meet basic needs, and the Mennonite church that provided him with a community. All of those combined gave Blaise the right tools to begin rebuilding his life in the United States. During this time, Blaise volunteered with many nonprofit organizations, and worked as a French to English interpreter for refugees, a cashier at Target and a bank teller. Blaise’s patience, stamina, and willingness to fight for himself all played a crucial role in him reclaiming his independence.

    The Masinga Foundation https://www.masingafoundation.org/

    Blaise gained asylum and built up his independence, returning to school in 2016 for a “mini masters” in Project Management from the University of St. Thomas. Still, he faced more challenges. The racial discrimination Blaise faced was like his experiences as a refugee in South Africa. “In the United States, someone judges you for your accent, but not your brain,” he began. “Don’t let your circumstances pull you back, because otherwise you aren’t going to win.” This resilience, and his experiences as a refugee, changed his vision and plans once again. He redirected his focus in 2018 and enrolled at Metropolitan State University to earn a degree in community development. “I believe we were called to make a difference in people’s lives,” Blaise said. This dedication to honesty and helping others, which led to him being forced out of South Africa, has been a driving force behind his work in community development. Blaise recently started his own nonprofit organization, the Masinga Foundation. Their work will focus on community empowerment for immigrants, refugees, and other marginalized communities.


    By Rielle Miguel, Undergraduate Student from the University of Minnesota and Spring 2021 Development Intern.

    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.

    This post was originally published on The Advocates Post.

  • Guatemala sends more migrants to the U.S. than anywhere in Central America. What is driving so many people to leave?

    Crusading prosecutor Iván Velásquez has been called the Robert Mueller of Latin America. He’s known for jailing presidents and paramilitaries.

    But Velásquez met his match when he went after Jimmy Morales, a television comedian who was elected president of Guatemala. Morales found an ally in then-U.S. President Donald Trump.

    Like the alleged quid pro quo with Ukraine that prompted Trump’s impeachment, the details can seem confusing – but, ultimately, Velásquez says, both parties got what they wanted: Morales got Trump to pull U.S. support for an international anti-corruption force that was going after his family. And he says Trump secured Guatemala’s support for some of his most controversial policies, both in the Middle East and on immigration.

    Veteran radio journalist Maria Martin teams up with Reveal’s Anayansi Diaz-Cortes for this week’s show. Martin takes us to Huehuetenango, a province near Guatemala’s border with Mexico that sends more migrants to the U.S. than anywhere in Central America. There, she shows that Trump’s hard-line immigration policies did nothing to slow the movement of people from Guatemala to the southern border of the U.S.

    This is an update of an episode that originally aired Aug. 29, 2020.

    Don’t miss out on the next big story. Get the Weekly Reveal newsletter today.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • Much of the public discussion of our southern border today is one-sided. It is most often created by those with the most power and the loudest bullhorn; those in search of power, authority and money. So, it should come as no surprise to you that much of what we have been told about the border and of those who come to it are either not true or are highly exaggerated. It is after all the result of nearly a hundred years worth of the Border Patrol’s racist rhetoric and racist politicians creating ever more unfair and biased laws and policies. Many of which have little to do with creating an immigration system and more about scapegoating migrants for political and racist purposes while trying to make money off it. For more on this history, please take a look at this recent amicus brief on the history of our immigration laws.

    The post Changing The Border Narrative appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • People mourn during a candlight vigil

    Mexico City, Mexico Migrant justice activists are sounding the alarm bell over President Joe Biden’s handling of the arrival of thousands of migrants and asylum-seekers at the U.S. southern border and are calling on Biden to follow through on his commitment to address the root causes of migration.

    What we have here is people fleeing from conditions that they can no longer stand this is a humanitarian issue, Roxana Bendezú, executive director and founder of Migrant Roots Media, told Truthout.

    Far from treating the border crisis as a humanitarian issue, the Biden administration has continued to expel the vast majority of adult migrants through the use of the Trump-era Title 42 emergency declaration concerning COVID-19, which closed the border to “nonessential” travel under the pretext of limiting the spread of the coronavirus. Some asylum seekers have even been whisked away in the middle of the night without a hearing, leading activists to compare Biden’s treatment of asylum-seekers to Trump’s. Biden himself has even publicly boasted about the number of migrants his government is expelling. Like Trump, the Biden administration has also continued to apply diplomatic pressure on Mexico and Guatemala to use its security forces to contain the movement of migrants.

    A lack of planning and infrastructure means the U.S. has struggled to house newly arrived unaccompanied children, who are exempted from Title 42. Images of children packed in “processing centers” and families sleeping under bridges play across people’s screens on the evening news, providing fodder to anti-migrant politicians who accuse Biden of provoking the crisis. The situation has become so dire that children in immigration custody have been taken to a military base in El Paso that could be highly contaminated and potentially hazardous, according to a statement from Earthjustice.

    Following demands made by migrant justice activists, the Biden administration seemed poised to differentiate itself from Trump by addressing the “root causes” of migration.

    However, migrant justice activists say the government’s strategy will have little impact due to the emphasis on methods that have previously failed the people of Central America.

    Bendezú said Biden’s $4 billion strategy for Central America is a continuation of policies that, instead of addressing the root causes of migration, represent an effort to perpetuate a model of economic development that is responsible for the exodus of people from the region to the U.S.

    “It’s a tactic to confuse people,” said Bendezú.

    In its analysis of Biden’s proposals for Central America, Migrant Roots Media concluded that, much like 2014’s “Alliance for Prosperity,Biden’s new plan is largely centered on increasing private investment in Guatemala and Honduras.

    In a report for TomDispatch, historian Aviva Chomsky also concluded that the Biden administration’s proposal for Central America differed little from previous plans and would promote a model “that Washington has imposed on the countries of Central America over the past century, one that’s left its lands corrupt, violent, and impoverished, and so continued to uproot Central Americans and send them fleeing toward the United States.

    Roberto Lovato, a Salvadoran American writer and political analyst, said that if the U.S. is interested in tackling the root causes of the crisis, U.S. politicians need to take a look at their own policies in the region.

    “If you’re going to talk about the root causes of the crisis in Central America, you’d have to start off with U.S. economic policies of expropriation of resources and exploitation of labor, neoliberal economic policies that create mega-projects that destroy the environment and displace hundreds of thousands of people,” Lovato told Truthout.

    Lovato said U.S. policy in Central America has never been driven by a concern for the welfare of people from the region but instead by the desire of U.S. politicians from both parties to protect “U.S. interests” in the region.

    “There is a crisis in Central America, but it is not a new crisis, it’s not the crisis you see on television, it’s the crisis you see in history,” said Lovato. “And the history of U.S. policy is one of catastrophes created by U.S. economic policies that enrich the minority and impoverish the majority.”

    Biden Doubles Down

    Rather than abandon these failed economic policies, the Biden administration has instead opted to double down on efforts to dissuade people from attempting the journey, with the Department of State having placed more than 28,000 radio adson stations throughout Central America and Brazil.

    Bendezú said she considers it “dehumanizing” and “disrespectful” to think that radio ads are going to stop people from fleeing an untenable situation in their countries of origin.

    Figures reviewed by Reuters showed that in March U.S. authorities caught more than 171,000 migrants at the U.S. border with Mexico, representing the highest monthly total in two decades.

    “It’s not that they don’t know the risks that they’re taking but the desperation is so huge that they see no other option,” said Bendezú.

    In response to criticism of his handling of the immigration issue, President Biden tasked Vice President Kamala Harris as his point person on immigration and the border and also tapped Ricardo Zúñiga as his special envoy for Central America. Comments by officials suggest that neither is expected to deviate from Biden’s existing strategy.

    Lovato says Biden’s selection of Roberto Zúñiga as envoy is particularly telling.

    “Instead of sending somebody with experience doing humanitarian work to deal with the humanitarian crisis in Central America … you send somebody whose specialty is keeping U.S. economic and military policies in place, said Lovato, pointing to Zúñiga’s role on President Obama’s National Security Council.

    Zúñiga is Honduran born and comes from a long line of supporters of the National Party in Honduras, which has ruled the country since the 2009 coup against President Manuel Zelaya, which was consolidated thanks to the intervention of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

    U.S. Silence on the “Root Causes” of the Honduran Exodus

    Former National Party Congressman Tony Hernández, brother of Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, was recently sentenced to life in prison by U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel, who described the case as one of “state-sponsored” drug trafficking. The Honduran president has consistently denied any role in drug trafficking but nonetheless hired a Washington law firm to lobby U.S. prosecutors to desist in their case.

    In power since 2014, Hernández has been strongly criticized by Honduran social movements for his authoritarian rule and policies that have led to increased poverty, displacement, and marginalization of the country’s poor and working class.

    Tomás Andino Mencía, a former Honduran lawmaker and a member of the Convergence Against Reelection movement, believes that Hernández’s rule has been one of the major forces pushing people to migrate.

    The cause of the exodus is not just because of the economic or social situation, like poverty and violence that we know exists, but also because of a political cause, that is the despair that exists in the population. A lack of hope that the country’s conditions will improve. That’s also why the population flees.… They don’t want a future in Honduras with a government of drug traffickers,” Mencía told the Honduras Now podcast in a recent episode.

    Hernández was reelected to office in 2017 in a vote that was largely condemned as fraudulent. The country is due to hold general elections in November that could see the National Party remain in power. Honduras held primary elections in March in a process that observers such as Mencía claimed was rife with irregularities, a situation that does not augur well for the general elections.

    If [an electoral fraud] happens again at this moment, with the conditions brought about by the pandemic and in the conditions that two hurricanes have left us, this could mean a situation much worse than what we saw happen in 2017 and this could generate a humanitarian disaster on a national level,” said Mencía.

    Yet the U.S. Department of State, frequently vocal about allegations of corruption and fraud in Latin America, has been conspicuously silent about President Juan Orlando Hernández’s alleged ties to drug trafficking and the evidence of electoral fraud in Honduras’s primary elections.

    “If they were to talk about the corruption, drug trafficking … the fiction of their whole immigration and foreign policy in Central America would be obvious,” said Lovato. “You’re not going to see Antony Blinken, or Ricardo Zúñiga, or any of the other State Department and U.S. government operatives saying anything about Hernández.… U.S. policy helped create Hernández, beginning with the coup in Honduras that was sponsored by Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton.”

    Activists and advocates have strongly criticized Democratic politicians for refusing to acknowledge the role of Obama’s policies and pinning the crisis at the border on Trump’s policies alone, in an effort to obtain political gain, only to later implement similar plans.

    Indeed, this week it came to light that Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas reportedly told ICE staff at a recent meeting that the department is considering restarting construction on some parts of the border wall in order to plug in what he described as “gaps, despite having previously committed to halting construction of Trump’s border wall.

    Lovato, who recently published a memoir called Unforgetting: A Memoir of Family, Migration, Gangs, and Revolution in the Americas, called on the public to see the connection between the Central American exodus and U.S. foreign policies that have been enacted by politicians from both parties, saying, “you can’t just sweep everything under the rug of Donald Trump.”

    Lovato also called on the public to stop dehumanizing migrants and asylum seekers, and decried the mainstream media’s circulation of two-dimensional images of their suffering.

    “You have no Central Americans in three dimensions that’s called dehumanization and that’s what you need to sustain the policies that exist,” said Lovato. “If you actually start naming Central Americans … then you’re going to have to change the policy because those people would become human beings.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • It’s no surprise that there are claims of a new crisis on our border. A new year, a new administration, new policies in regard to who can cross and how they are processed will always bring a crisis claim from one side or the other. Depending on which side you are on politically often determines how you feel about migrants coming to our country. Conservatives usually feel we allow too many migrants to enter; liberals believe we should allow more.

    That is a generalized statement of course. There are all sorts of nuances about our immigration policies and what we believe to be the best course of action. In my activism, I have come across few who believe we should have completely closed or completely open borders. Most want humane immigration laws, but with some reasonable amount of precautions to protect Americans from truly dangerous people.

    The post The Border Patrol Is The Crisis appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Photos released by Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar's office show conditions inside a USCBP facility in Donna, Texas, over the weekend.

    As corporate media and Republicans paint the influx of unaccompanied children on the U.S.-Mexico border as a “crisis” and “surge,” advocates and attorneys tell Truthout that legal and logistical complexities are being lost in these distorted portrayals.

    The Biden administration, they say, faces the challenges of inheriting an asylum system that former President Donald Trump systematically dismantled, in addition to those posed by the ongoing global pandemic.

    The increase in crossings is happening in part because 70,000 asylum seekers were already in line, stuck in Mexico after being forced to wait there under Trump’s restrictive Migrant Protection Protocols, according to advocates. The situation is not quite a “surge,” they point out, but a regular seasonal influx of asylum-seeking children bolstered by a backlog of demand because of last year’s COVID-19 border closure.

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection has recorded a 28 percent increase in migrants apprehended from January to February 2021, from 78,442 to 100,441. But CBP’s own numbers show that undocumented immigration tends to spike in the spring. While last year’s number were down, due to the pandemic, fiscal year 2019 saw total apprehensions increase 31 percent during the same period — a bigger rise than we saw this February.

    That doesn’t mean the numbers aren’t high. While the increase in apprehensions began during the final months of the Trump administration, the numbers are on track to reach a level not seen in 20 years, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas acknowledged last week.

    Moreover, the Biden administration needs to be moving faster, immigrant rights advocates say, to make critical changes to the asylum system that would allow the administration to release more kids held in CBP, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) camps and facilities in Donna, Carrizo Springs, Dallas and other sites throughout Texas.

    Such changes, they say, are also necessary to alleviate a public relations disaster as the Biden administration scrambles to find bed space for the rising number of children crossing the border and blocks press from accessing CBP camps. A number of media outlets have published photos released by Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar revealing crowded conditions for immigrant and refugee children at the camps.

    U.S. Border Patrol overflow facility in Donna, Texas.
    U.S. Border Patrol overflow facility in Donna, Texas.

    During a press conference Thursday, President Joe Biden said officials are working to open more facilities for children currently being processed, and move them more swiftly into homes. He also said he would grant media access to the facilities but declined to give an exact date.

    “Really, what’s happening is we’re getting back online from a system that was completely trashed by Trump,” says Austin-based immigration attorney Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch. “We don’t have a ‘surge’ on the border, what we have is a legal system that is getting online after it got completely blocked.”

    Lincoln-Goldfinch tells Truthout she’s currently handling a case of a 14-year-old boy who has been held in CBP custody for days longer than the legally mandated 72-hour limit, even though his father is able to receive him. The boy has yet to be transferred to HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is tasked with providing care for unaccompanied children entering the U.S. Lincoln-Goldfinch says CBP can’t tell her or the boy’s father where he is.

    It’s just one case that reveals the administration’s broader struggle to transfer children from an agency staffed with Border Patrol officers, to an agency staffed with social workers whose job is to care for children.

    A recent Senate delegation to the border seems to confirm what Lincoln-Goldfinch is seeing, as members of the delegation reportedly witnessed overcrowded CBP camps during a recent trip to the border, while reporting that an HHS facility that could shelter up to 500 children housed just 78 kids at the time of their visit.

    The pandemic, however, complicates the picture when it comes to HHS’s shelter capacity, drastically reducing it due to the need for COVID-19 physical distancing guidelines and mandates. Still, the HHS facility Senate delegation members visited recently was far from housing even half its capacity.

    “I think they’re just sort of hot potato-ing the problem by saying, ‘Well we’ll move the kids from this tent in Donna, to this random convention center in Dallas while we figure out what to do with them.’ It’s very much a short-term solution,” says Manoj Govindaiah, director of policy and government affairs at the San Antonio-based Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES).

    Migrant justice activists, however, also point out that HHS youth shelters are increasingly mirroring detention centers. The Office of Refugee Resettlement contracts all migrant youth detention facilities and requires operators to collaborate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and CBP.

    Nonetheless, advocates say the administration needs to speed up the transfers of kids from CBP into HHS custody. Additionally, they say, it’s imperative that the Biden administration either tweak the legal definition of “unaccompanied” to include some extended family members, or co-locate HHS staffers at CBP sites to allow kids to be released with extended family members.

    “What’s disturbing to me about what the Biden administration is doing, is that they’re treating family groups — where there may not be a biological parent in the group, but let’s say, it’s an aunt and a niece — they are taking those kids in as ‘unaccompanied’ minors,” Lincoln-Goldfinch tells Truthout. “That is something that needs to shift quickly under Biden.”

    This is why it’s so critical that HHS and CBP increasingly adopt a co-location model that would reduce time children’s time in custody because HHS staffers, not CBP officers, can make more immediate determinations about who is an appropriate caregiver or sponsor to release children with or to, says Leah Chavla, a senior policy adviser at the Women’s Refugee Commission.

    U.S. Border Patrol overflow facility in Donna, Texas.
    U.S. Border Patrol overflow facility in Donna, Texas.

    Biden said Thursday that his administration is working expand facilities to accommodate unaccompanied minors, telling reporters, “We’re providing for the space, again, to be able to get these kids out of the Border Patrol facilities,” and pointing to 5,000 new beds at Fort Bliss in west Texas.

    In more than 80 percent of cases, CBP says, kids already have a relative in the U.S., and 40 percent already have a parent or legal guardian here. But while there is a complex “reality” to the need to process these children safely into home environments, Lincoln-Goldfinch says, “The Biden administration needs to be held accountable that they are doing this processing as quickly as possible and in the meantime are housing these kids, not detaining these kids, in a humane and comfortable environments.”

    Biden Doubles Down on Title 42

    Advocates and attorneys also argue the Biden administration needs completely scrap its remaining use of Title 42 of the public health code, which allows officials to use the pandemic as a reason to refuse asylum seekers entry. The American Civil Liberties Union filed lawsuits seeking to halt the Trump administration’s practice of using the code as a pretext to expel migrants.

    As the case unfolds, Biden has partially lifted Title 42 as it applies to unaccompanied minors, but continues to invoke the code to expel thousands of Central American migrant families to Mexico as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reviews health conditions on the border. Mexico, however, isn’t always willing or able to receive them.

    RAICES’s Govindaiah says the administration’s continued use of Title 42 is contributing to the uptick in border crossings. “I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility that a family attempts to enter and is expelled under Title 42, and then the desperate parents are sending the kid by him or herself and the kid is able to make it,” he says.

    But the administration appears to be doubling down on its use of the public health code. President Biden told reporters Thursday that he’s negotiating with Mexican officials in hopes of getting the country to accept all migrant families expelled from the U.S. under Title 42.

    Biden is also warning would-be migrants not to come the border while officials devise alternative means for migrants to apply for legal entry that don’t require them to show up in person.

    The administration is hardening its position as Republicans pushing even harsher immigration policies exploit the situation. Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz traveled to the border this week with more than a dozen other GOP senators. The delegation comes after Cruz sent Biden a letter Monday criticizing the administration for not allowing reporters to join the trip.

    House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and 12 other Republicans likewise toured a processing center in El Paso, Texas, this month, calling the situation a “humanitarian crisis” and urging Biden to visit the border.

    Additionally, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott also recently held a press conference across the street from the Dallas convention center that FEMA is now converting into a temporary shelter for migrant children, asking the federal government to let the Texas Department of Public Safety interview children there to investigate human trafficking. He characterized Biden’s moves as opening “the floodgates to any child who wants to come across the border,” making them more vulnerable to traffickers.

    “It’s just absolutely ridiculous, that position,” Govindaiah says of Abbott’s press conference. “This is coming from a time when we had a policy when we were turning everybody away, no matter how young, no matter who they were with. We were turning everybody away to Mexico where they were absolutely susceptible to traffickers and organized crime and gangs, and where was Abbott then? He wasn’t concerned about that. Now, he’s feigning concern about it…. All of this is just 100 percent political; it pays no attention to the needs of the kids who are really the collateral damage in this scenario.”

    The Root Causes of Migration

    Contrary to right-wing media narratives, immigration experts say migration waves like the one we’re experiencing now really aren’t about whether or not migrants perceive an administration to be more lenient at the border, and are more about the factors driving migrants out of the Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador in the first place.

    The pandemic has exacerbated such “push factors.” Virtual school is not a viable option for many kids in the Northern Triangle, and closures of businesses and subsequent job losses mean many families can no longer provide for their children. Climate change is also driving migration after Hurricanes Iota and Eta tore through Honduras, worsening living conditions there and causing more children and families to flee.

    “It’s not like people are closely paying attention to every nuance of U.S. policies — it’s really the push factors,” says the Women’s Refugee Commission’s Chavla.

    The biggest thing the administration can do to focus on the root causes, she says, is invest in Central America. The Biden administration has promised to invest $4 billion in the Northern Triangle countries and is already taking a small step in this direction: Juan Gonzalez, the National Security Council’s senior director for the Western Hemisphere, and Ricardo Zuniga, the State Department’s special envoy to the Northern Triangle, are being dispatched to Guatemala, where they will talk to officials there about how to “expand economic opportunities” in the region.

    Overall, advocates say the Biden team’s early moves on immigration are giving them mixed signals. RAICES’s Govindaiah, for instance, partially praised the Biden administration for promising to shorten migrants’ stays at family jails (which it has rebranded as “reception centers”), but warned that if the administration doesn’t permanently close family jails like the Karnes County Family Residential Center, longer-term family detention could eventually return as political winds shift.

    “To me, it very much seems like window dressing to placate those of us who have been pushing for an end to family detention forever,” Govindaiah tells Truthout. “Even if a kid is going to be at Karnes for three days instead of three weeks, that doesn’t change the physical structure of Karnes. It’s still a prison. It’s cinder block and heavy, clanging, metal doors. It is still causing harm to the kid who may be there for less time.”

    Still, Govindaiah says he’s honestly surprised by the administration’s ramping down of the “Remain in Mexico” policy, something he didn’t quite expect, least of all so soon. However, he says, advocates must push the administration to adopt progressive policies toward all immigrants — not just those who may look more sympathetic on paper.

    “It very much seems like [Biden] may be taking pretty progressive positions on things like asylum seekers, legalization, refugees and children, and abuse survivors,” Govindaiah says. “That’s wonderful. But the other spectrum is [immigrants who] have criminal histories, those that have arrests, those that get ensnared in some law enforcement thing, that he may not be moving on but are equally important.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Biden could ease the suffering inflicted by his predecessors on migrants to the United States. But his administration is unlikely to resolve the structural injustices at the root of the immigration enforcement system.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  • As the United States transitions to a new administration, The Advocates for Human Rights looks forward to a renewed commitment to human rights in our domestic and foreign policy. Human rights standards provide a foundation to ensure that policy making is just, fair, and respects human dignity. 

    Topping the list, we welcome the end of the Muslim Ban, which four years ago served as the flagship for a xenophobic administrative agenda. We welcome the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to pursue an immigration policy that takes steps to reverse the harmful and illegal actions of the past four years and to chart a new course so that people can move with dignity. The Advocates looks forward to the Administration’s commitment to provide a path to regularize status and ensure dignity for those within our communities, restore our leadership on international human rights protections for those fleeing harm, and modernize our immigration system to recognize that harsh policies serve only to harm our nation and violate human rights.

    The Advocates additionally welcomes the Biden-Harris Administration’s stated priority to improve racial equity and justice through legal reforms that address systemic injustices in our legal system. International human rights law provides important guidelines for policing and use of force that should form the basis of these reforms, along with prohibitions against all forms discrimination in policy and practice.

    The Administration has promised to re-join the Paris Climate Accord and the World Health Organization. Restoring American involvement and leadership in international organizations and mechanisms is an important first step in effectively addressing the many challenges facing the world community.

    We also welcome the new Administration’s promises to protect all persons, regardless of gender or gender identity, beginning with plans to repeal transgender military ban enacted by President Trump, restore Obama-era guidance for transgender students in schools, and push to pass the “Equality Act,” a bill to add more protections for LGBT Americans. We also anticipate a renewed focus on ending violence against women, including the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and the expansion of its essential protections.

    Through our work, we have seen the negative impact of COVID-19 on victims of domestic violence and immigrants attempting to access legal protections in our immigration courts. Economic harms from the pandemic have increased evictions and foreclosures, increasing vulnerabilities to human trafficking and exploitation. We call on the new Administration to take a wholistic approach to responding to the health needs and economic harms caused by COVID-19.

    The Advocates knows that environmental concerns have impacts on human rights—often, driving migration, increasing conflict leading to abuses, and exacerbating existing inequalities and injustices. We welcome the new Administration’s day-one efforts to address climate change and the environment.

    The first priorities of the new Administration must be met with sustained commitment to respect for human rights, including racial equality, gender equality, migration with dignity, and advancement of protections for all people as we confront challenges facing the world. 

    This post was originally published on The Advocates Post.

  • Mrs. A and her husband with Professor Steve Meili and other members of the U of M legal team in November 2019

    “We are not afraid anymore.” states Mrs. A, a client at The Advocates for Human Rights, who along with her husband and two children, recently received an asylum grant after four long years of uncertainty. 

    When Mrs. A contacted The Advocates, she and her family had been through a great deal. Mrs. A, her husband, and their two children lived in a neighborhood in Southern Mexico with a heavy cartel presence. Without sufficient finances to pay illegally demanded “rent”, the family faced life-threatening danger. Cartel members did not hesitate to show up in Mrs. A’s neighborhood, guns in hand. Open fire ensued, wounding Mrs. A in her side and causing her husband and children to have severe injuries. Afraid and desperate, Mrs. A ventured with her family to a place of safety at the home of her relatives in Minnesota. She knew the road to safety would be long and arduous, but the first step was leaving Mexico, a place where she no longer felt safe to raise her children. Over the course of the next four years, the family would have to persevere and hold on to a distant beacon of hope. Volunteer attorneys in collaboration with The Advocates for Human Rights strove to be this beacon. 

    In the US, limitations on asylum grants continue to increase, making an asylum win no small feat. According to the US Department of Homeland Security, only 3.4% of Mexican asylum seekers were granted this humanitarian protection in 2019[1].  In recent years, the federal government has dramatically increased restrictions on access to asylum protection for victims of cartel and gang violence. In 2019, the Trump administration implemented a policy that forces asylum seekers from Central America to return to Mexico for an indefinite amount of time while their claims are processed[2]. In addition to compiling evidence, volunteer attorneys must make sure clients can remain in the country during the processing of their case. Mrs. A commented how grateful she felt to be away from “the place that has caused [them] so much harm.”

    The Advocates have a deep network of volunteers willing to work pro bono on asylum cases, including immigration clinics at all three Minnesota law schools.  Professor Steve Meili, faculty director of the Immigration and Human Rights Clinic at University of Minnesota’s Binger Center for New Americans, took on Mrs. A’s case and along with his clinical students, they created a robust legal team.   

    Winning an asylum case is a collaborative effort.  Staff at The Advocates for Human Rights’ Refugee and Immigrant Program provided support to the UofM legal team, providing strategy suggestions and helping to keep the team apprised of the frequent changes in asylum law over the course of the case. Because asylum cases have become more difficult to win in the United States, it is essential that refugees feel this network of legal support within their community. Mrs. A stated that her lawyers were “kind, attentive, efficient, and all meanings of the word”. After four long years since Mrs. A and her family’s arrival to the United States, the immigration judge granted asylum to her and her family.  “Now I can see my kids run and play and know that I don’t have to worry.” 

    What does it mean to be a lawyer for an asylum seeker? As Mrs. A stated, her lawyers became her family. She states “I feel like they mix with us and live through us and are emotionally invested in the cases. I saw the lawyers as my lawyers, but also as my family. They were there for me in crisis and when I lost hope. They were always with me when I was desperate or when it was really hard for me to talk about my case and they were there to console me and say, ‘Okay you can take a break.’ Now that I am not working with them anymore, I feel like I am losing a part of me.” At The Advocates for Human Rights, volunteer attorneys work tirelessly to win cases like Mrs. A’s and in doing so incorporate themselves into the lives of clients. 

    Thank you to all our volunteer attorneys for the work you do to make refugees feel safe and free in this country. The commitment of pro bono attorneys with The Advocates makes a lasting and significant impact on the lives of people like Mrs. A, as she notes “Don’t give up. Help your lawyers as much as you can to build a strong case. Collect all the evidence you can from your country. And we can do it.”

    [1] U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (September 2020). Refugees and Asylees: 2019. Annual Flow Report. Ryan Baugh.

    [2] City News Service (December 2019) Only 0.1% Of Asylum Seekers Granted Asylum Under Trump’s Remain In Mexico Policy KPBS.org.


    By Nechelle Dias, University of Connecticut student and Communications Intern at The Advocates for Human Rights

    Nechelle Dias, UConn student and intern at The Advocates for Human Rights

    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. The Advocates represents more than 1000 asylum seekers, victims of trafficking, and immigrants in detention through a network of hundreds of pro bono legal professionals.



    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.

    This post was originally published on The Advocates Post.

  • This is a slap in the face. Today, on international Human Rights Day, the Trump Administration finalized the biggest rollback of asylum in recent history.

    You probably remember us talking about this back in July, when the regulation was proposed. You may have even submitted your own comment in opposition.

    We were hoping the nearly 87,000 comments would slow this thing down and that the Administration wouldn’t be able to finalize it before leaving office. Unfortunately, the rule is set for publication tomorrow, and will go into effect in January.

    We can counteract this rule–and so many of the other Administration’s cruel and inhumane policies–if Congress passes the Refugee Protection Act.

    This Human Rights Day, let’s rise up against this blatant rollback of human rights. Write to your Congressperson here:

     

    The post Let’s Rise Up Against the Trump Administration’s Attack on Asylum appeared first on Human Rights Initiative.

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

  • Where does America go from here? 

    We talk with an asylum-seeking family, a Georgia woman on abortion access, and West Virginians on the impact of Black Lives Matter.


    Don’t miss out on the next big story. Get the Weekly Reveal newsletter today.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • Social distancing, hand-washing and self-isolation are supposed to keep us safe from the coronavirus. But if you’re locked up in an immigrant detention center, it’s impossible to follow those rules. 


    Don’t miss out on the next big story. Get the Weekly Reveal newsletter today.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.