SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Members of Mexican National Guard detain Central American migrants trying to cross the Rio Bravo, in Ciudad Juarez, State of Chihuahua, on June 21, 2019. (Photo: Herika Martinez/AFP/Getty Images)
Claiming Trump Is Forcing Them to Commit 'Widespread Violation' of International Law, Asylum Officers Back Lawsuit Against President's Policy
The law forcing asylum seekers to return to Mexico is "fundamentally contrary to the moral fabric of our nation and our international and domestic legal obligations," officers say
Jun 27, 2019
Expressing grave objections to an immigration policy which has forced them to violate international law, U.S. asylum officers filed a federal court brief demanding an end to President Donald Trump's so-called "Remain in Mexico" policy under which asylum seekers have been turned away at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Ordering people who are exercising their legal right to seek asylum to turn back and endure a months-long or years-long wait for their applications to be processed is "fundamentally contrary to the moral fabric of our nation and our international and domestic legal obligations," wrote the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1924, the union which represents asylum officers.
"By forcing a vulnerable population to return to a hostile territory where they are likely to face persecution, the MPP abandons our tradition of providing a safe haven to the persecuted and violates our international and domestic legal obligations."
--American Federation of Government Employees Local 1924
The amicus brief was filed by the union in support of the ACLU, which is challenging the Remain in Mexico policy, officially known as Trump's Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program.
Since Trump enacted the program in January, the Mexican government says about 15,000 people have been sent to Mexico while their applications are processed. Human rights advocates have decried the policy, warning that asylum seekers may face violence in Mexico as many did in their home countries.
"By forcing a vulnerable population to return to a hostile territory where they are likely to face persecution, the MPP abandons our tradition of providing a safe haven to the persecuted and violates our international and domestic legal obligations," reads the brief.
Earlier this month, the president also reached a deal with Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrado, under which Mexico agreed to step up immigration enforcement in exchange for the cancellation of tariffs. Weeks later, police in Veracruz reportedly opened fire on a truck carrying Central American immigrants, killing a young woman.
When Trump enacted the MPP program, his administration claimed that if asylum seekers are allowed to wait in the U.S. while their applications are processed, they would "disappear into the United States."
In fact, the union noted, there is "no evidence" that asylum seekers pose any security risk.
Justice Department statistics indicate that 90 percent of people fulfill their legal obligations while awaiting asylum rulings in the United States.
"The MPP is entirely unnecessary," wrote the union. "The system has been tested time and again, and it is fully capable--with additional resources where appropriate--of efficiently processing asylum claims by those with valid claims while removing those that are not entitled to protection after they undergo the process designed to ensure that they will not be returned to a place where they will be persecuted."
By failing to adhere to the 1967 Protocol, the U.N. accord stating that participating countries including the U.S. would not "expel or return a refugee in any manner," wrote the officers, the Trump administration is compelling government employees to break international law.
"The MPP places [asylum officers] at risk of participation in the widespread violation of international treaty and domestic legal obligations," wrote the union, "something that they did not sign up to do when they decided to become asylum and refugee officers for the United States government."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Expressing grave objections to an immigration policy which has forced them to violate international law, U.S. asylum officers filed a federal court brief demanding an end to President Donald Trump's so-called "Remain in Mexico" policy under which asylum seekers have been turned away at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Ordering people who are exercising their legal right to seek asylum to turn back and endure a months-long or years-long wait for their applications to be processed is "fundamentally contrary to the moral fabric of our nation and our international and domestic legal obligations," wrote the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1924, the union which represents asylum officers.
"By forcing a vulnerable population to return to a hostile territory where they are likely to face persecution, the MPP abandons our tradition of providing a safe haven to the persecuted and violates our international and domestic legal obligations."
--American Federation of Government Employees Local 1924
The amicus brief was filed by the union in support of the ACLU, which is challenging the Remain in Mexico policy, officially known as Trump's Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program.
Since Trump enacted the program in January, the Mexican government says about 15,000 people have been sent to Mexico while their applications are processed. Human rights advocates have decried the policy, warning that asylum seekers may face violence in Mexico as many did in their home countries.
"By forcing a vulnerable population to return to a hostile territory where they are likely to face persecution, the MPP abandons our tradition of providing a safe haven to the persecuted and violates our international and domestic legal obligations," reads the brief.
Earlier this month, the president also reached a deal with Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrado, under which Mexico agreed to step up immigration enforcement in exchange for the cancellation of tariffs. Weeks later, police in Veracruz reportedly opened fire on a truck carrying Central American immigrants, killing a young woman.
When Trump enacted the MPP program, his administration claimed that if asylum seekers are allowed to wait in the U.S. while their applications are processed, they would "disappear into the United States."
In fact, the union noted, there is "no evidence" that asylum seekers pose any security risk.
Justice Department statistics indicate that 90 percent of people fulfill their legal obligations while awaiting asylum rulings in the United States.
"The MPP is entirely unnecessary," wrote the union. "The system has been tested time and again, and it is fully capable--with additional resources where appropriate--of efficiently processing asylum claims by those with valid claims while removing those that are not entitled to protection after they undergo the process designed to ensure that they will not be returned to a place where they will be persecuted."
By failing to adhere to the 1967 Protocol, the U.N. accord stating that participating countries including the U.S. would not "expel or return a refugee in any manner," wrote the officers, the Trump administration is compelling government employees to break international law.
"The MPP places [asylum officers] at risk of participation in the widespread violation of international treaty and domestic legal obligations," wrote the union, "something that they did not sign up to do when they decided to become asylum and refugee officers for the United States government."
Expressing grave objections to an immigration policy which has forced them to violate international law, U.S. asylum officers filed a federal court brief demanding an end to President Donald Trump's so-called "Remain in Mexico" policy under which asylum seekers have been turned away at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Ordering people who are exercising their legal right to seek asylum to turn back and endure a months-long or years-long wait for their applications to be processed is "fundamentally contrary to the moral fabric of our nation and our international and domestic legal obligations," wrote the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1924, the union which represents asylum officers.
"By forcing a vulnerable population to return to a hostile territory where they are likely to face persecution, the MPP abandons our tradition of providing a safe haven to the persecuted and violates our international and domestic legal obligations."
--American Federation of Government Employees Local 1924
The amicus brief was filed by the union in support of the ACLU, which is challenging the Remain in Mexico policy, officially known as Trump's Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program.
Since Trump enacted the program in January, the Mexican government says about 15,000 people have been sent to Mexico while their applications are processed. Human rights advocates have decried the policy, warning that asylum seekers may face violence in Mexico as many did in their home countries.
"By forcing a vulnerable population to return to a hostile territory where they are likely to face persecution, the MPP abandons our tradition of providing a safe haven to the persecuted and violates our international and domestic legal obligations," reads the brief.
Earlier this month, the president also reached a deal with Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrado, under which Mexico agreed to step up immigration enforcement in exchange for the cancellation of tariffs. Weeks later, police in Veracruz reportedly opened fire on a truck carrying Central American immigrants, killing a young woman.
When Trump enacted the MPP program, his administration claimed that if asylum seekers are allowed to wait in the U.S. while their applications are processed, they would "disappear into the United States."
In fact, the union noted, there is "no evidence" that asylum seekers pose any security risk.
Justice Department statistics indicate that 90 percent of people fulfill their legal obligations while awaiting asylum rulings in the United States.
"The MPP is entirely unnecessary," wrote the union. "The system has been tested time and again, and it is fully capable--with additional resources where appropriate--of efficiently processing asylum claims by those with valid claims while removing those that are not entitled to protection after they undergo the process designed to ensure that they will not be returned to a place where they will be persecuted."
By failing to adhere to the 1967 Protocol, the U.N. accord stating that participating countries including the U.S. would not "expel or return a refugee in any manner," wrote the officers, the Trump administration is compelling government employees to break international law.
"The MPP places [asylum officers] at risk of participation in the widespread violation of international treaty and domestic legal obligations," wrote the union, "something that they did not sign up to do when they decided to become asylum and refugee officers for the United States government."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.