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
u s mexico border
US Court Orders Transfer of Migrant Children From 'Profoundly Inhumane' Open-Air Sites
"But it remains a tragedy that a court had to direct the government to do what basic human decency and the law clearly require," said one advocate.
Apr 05, 2024
Migrant rights defenders on Thursday cheered a federal court ruling ordering U.S. Customs and Border Protection to stop holding undocumented minors in squalid open-air detention sites in Southern California and to transfer all children held in such locations to "safe and sanitary" spaces.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) contended that people held in the open-air detention sites (OADS) are not yet in U.S. custody. However, Judge Dolly Gee of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles issued a 12-page ruling that found migrant children are entitled to protection under the Flores Settlement Agreement, which
established national minimum standards for the treatment of detained minors.
"There are minimum standards that must be followed if CBP will be detaining families, children, and other people."
Gee found that CBP violated the 1997 agreement by detaining children in unsafe and unsanitary conditions, failing to properly feed them, and taking too long to process them at seven sites near San Diego and Jacumba Hot Springs. Migrants detained in these OADS have waited as long as five days before being transfered to indoor lockups.
"The court's decision to recognize CBP's custody of children in open-air detention sites is a crucial step towards ensuring accountability and protection for vulnerable migrants," said Lilian Serrano, director of Southern Border Communities Coalition, a case plaintiff.
"There are minimum standards that must be followed if CBP will be detaining families, children, and other people," Serrano added. "We are pleased to see the federal court acknowledge this fundamental truth. Now we expect the agency to comply with the court's order immediately."
As the number of migrants entering the United States without authorization has surged during President Joe Biden's tenure, U.S. border authorities have forced migrants—including people legally seeking asylum—into OADS, where they face what case plaintiff National Center for Youth Law (NCYL) called "profoundly inhumane conditions."
NCYL said migrant children are "forced to take shelter from harsh rain and wind in porta-potties, burn toxic brush and garbage to stay warm, and survive on nothing more than a granola bar and a bottle of water each day."
Neha Desai, NCYL's senior director of immigration, called Gee's ruling "a tremendous victory for children at open-air detention sites."
"But it remains a tragedy that a court had to direct the government to do what basic human decency and the law clearly require," Desai added. "We expect CBP to comply with the court's order swiftly, and we remain committed to holding CBP accountable for meeting the most rudimentary needs of children in their legal custody, including food, shelter, and basic medical care."
A 2023 report on conditions at the Jacumba Hot Springs site published by the U.S. Immigration Policy Center (USIPC) at the University of California San Diego found that all of the migrants held at the site said border agents did not give them enough food and over half said they did not get enough water for the day. All migrants interviewed also said they were deprived of adequate sanitation like toilets and proper shelter and shade structures.
Another report published last year revealed a "shocking pattern" of abuse of migrants and some American citizens perpetrated by Department of Homeland Security personnel at the U.S.-Mexico border in recent years under both the Trump and Biden administrations.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Border Deal Fails in Senate, Faith Groups Lead Charge for 'Just and Humane' Policy
"The cruelty at the border needs to stop," said one advocate.
Feb 07, 2024
As the U.S. Senate voted down a $118 billion bipartisan national security bill Wednesday, more than 800 faith groups and leaders called on lawmakers to completely reconsider legislation regarding the border and "pursue effective, fair, and compassionate alternatives" to the bill "that respect the sacred dignity of all people."
House Republican leaders had indicated that they would not support the legislation, claiming it would prolong a so-called "border catastrophe the president has created," while immigrant rights groups have warned that Democrats' decision to include severely weakened protections in the bill would be a "death sentence" for thousands of people seeking refuge in the United States.
Led by the Interfaith Immigration Coalition, 662 faith leaders and 155 faith-based organizations said the federal government must consider "just and humane solutions, like those offered by our faith communities" in the coalition's "priorities for [fiscal year 2024] funding legislation."
"While we recognize the need to improve the humanitarian protection system, we firmly reject the proposed measures," said the coalition, which includes Faith in Action, Hope Border Institute, and Jewish Women International. "This legislation would exacerbate the humanitarian and operational challenges at the border, place obstacles that severely restrict the right to seek protection, undermine the right to due process in immigration proceedings, and expand immigrant detention, deportations, and the militarization of the border to unprecedented levels."
The bipartisan bill included provisions that would allow President Joe Biden to effectively shut down the border if crossings by undocumented immigrants reach a certain threshold, expand capacity to detain migrants, restrict screening standards for people claiming asylum, and expede the asylum process—making it harder for refugees to seek legal counsel.
After the bill failed, the Senate moved to take up a foreign aid package that excluded border provisions, giving lawmakers a potential opportunity to reshape a border security bill.
"The cruelty at the border needs to stop. The provisions outlined in the appropriations bill, purporting to automatically shut down the border and expel individuals seeking safety, are not only a failed attempt to secure the border but are also a catalyst for increased chaos on both the U.S. and Mexican sides," said Dylan Corbett, executive director of Hope Border Institute, ahead of Wednesday's first vote. "Any policy that fails to acknowledge the complex realities of migration and prioritizes enforcement over compassion is fundamentally flawed. We call on policymakers to reject these harmful provisions and instead work towards comprehensive solutions that honor our nation's commitment to human dignity and justice."
The coalition pointed to its legislative priorities that would ensure: "safety and dignity for asylum-seekers" by recognizing that refugees have a right under international and domestic law to seek safety in the U.S.; international assistance to reduce forced migration of people affected by climate catastrophe, violence, and poverty; and refugee protection.
Specific proposals from the coalition include:
- Increasing funding and oversight of the immigration Shelter and Service Program, for which the White House requested $1.4 billion in grants for 2024;
- Funding the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for employment authorization and other application processing, backlog reduction, and integration, for which the White House requested $755 million;
- Sufficiently funding Customs and Border Protection to process asylum claims at ports of entry;
- Eliminating regulatory barriers like the "180-day asylum clock" that restricts asylum-seekers from applying for work authorization;
- Funding bilateral assistance to Latin American and Caribbean countries, the International Disaster Assistance Account, and the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Account; and
- Funding the Office of Refugee Resettlement and its programs for unaccompanied children.
"As Congress turns to funding the federal government, now is the time for Congress to invest in refugee protection and resettlement and an asylum system that is humane and orderly," said the coalition in its statement on funding priorities last year. "The budget provides a key opportunity to make sound investments that increase collective capacity, adequately meet needs, and enhance coordination at all levels."
The coalition noted that the border deal in the bipartisan package had included some protections for families who migrate to the U.S. and permanent protections for Afghans, unaccompanied children, and Ukrainians fleeing war.
"However, exchanging protections for some immigrant populations at the expense of others would ultimately harm the very people this legislation purports to protect," wrote the groups and leaders.
Susan Krehbiel, associate for migration accompaniment ministries at Presbyterian Disaster Assistance, denounced the White House and senators for supporting a provision that would have shut down asylum services at the border once crossings by undocumented immigrants surpassed 5,000 people per day over a five-day average.
"When thousands of people come to you seeking protection from danger, the moral response is not to slam the door in their faces," said Krehbiel. "There are 110 million forcibly displaced people globally, but the leaders of one of the richest countries in the world believe that taking in 5,000 asylum-seekers per day is too many. The U.S. is failing to fulfill its responsibility to accept people seeking safety from violence and persecution."
"Policymakers need to stop pretending that asylum-seekers will just disappear if they turn a blind eye," she added. "Policies of deterrence haven't worked in the past and won't work now. We urge Congress to invest in border policies that actually work on the ground and to receive families seeking asylum with justice and kindness."
As the faith leaders called for a "fair and compassionate vision for migration management," one progressive lawmaker, Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), spoke to The Intercept's Ryan Grim about "what the progressive vision truly is when it comes to immigration policy."
"There is not the flagship, all-progressive bill here in the Congress," Casar acknowledged. "There are things that we fight for, many of which are agreed to by a vast majority of the American people, like the Dream and Promise Act to give Dreamers legal status in this country. And we have bills like the registry bill that would just change a date in immigration law, that would ultimately give legal status to millions and millions of people."
"We need a broader progressive vision that actually recognizes that the working class is not just in the United States but is across the hemisphere and one that lifts up those working-class people across the United States and Latin America," he continued. "One that says, we don't want to push people out of their home country, you should be able to have a right to stay in your home country if that's where you want to stay. You should have a right to come across the border and work and lift up your economic situation."
Ahead of the Senate vote on Wednesday, Anika Forrest, legislative director for domestic policy for the Friends Committee on National Legislation, said the right to asylum must not be used as "a bargaining chip for military funding."
"Any policy that fails to safeguard respite, protection, and peace for communities fleeing violence and persecution promises tragedy and turmoil," said Forrest. "U.S. political leaders insist on chaotic and cruel policies that function as impenetrable walls and abandon asylum-seekers. Migration management as well as humane, safe, and orderly processing at the border deserve effective and modern solutions."
"Neither" was accomplished by the Senate bill, she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Justice Department Threatens to Sue Texas Over Anti-Migrant Law
"I'm relieved to see the DOJ heed our calls to act," said Rep. Joaquin Castro. "This law is unconstitutional, racist, and dangerous."
Dec 28, 2023
The Biden administration on Thursday warned it will sue Texas unless Republican Gov. Greg Abbott backs down on enforcing an anti-migrant law the U.S. Justice Department says is unconstitutional.
Earlier this month, Abbott signed a pair of bills: S.B. 3, which allocates over $1.5 billion for "border security" measures including barriers meant to stop migrants from crossing the Rio Grande from Mexico into Texas, and S.B. 4, which empowers local and state authorities to arrest and expel undocumented immigrants.
"Congress has established a comprehensive scheme governing entry and removal of noncitizens," U.S. Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton said in the letter to Abbott. "S.B. 4 effectively creates a separate state immigration scheme by imposing criminal penalties for violations of federal provisions on lawful entry and reentry into the United States... and therefore intrudes into a field that is occupied by the federal government and preempted."
The Department of Justice (DOJ) gave Texas until January 3 to announce it won't enforce S.B. 4. If the state does not comply, the agency said it will "pursue all appropriate legal remedies to ensure that Texas does not interfere with the functions of the federal government."
Abbott blasted the DOJ letter in a social media post contending that "the Biden administration not only refuses to enforce current U.S. immigration laws, they now want to stop Texas from enforcing laws against illegal immigration."
"Biden is destroying America," the governor claimed.
But migrant advocates welcomed the move, with U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) warning that "if S.B. 4 goes into effect, Latino families across Texas will be harassed and hurt for looking like immigrants."
"I'm relieved to see the DOJ heed our calls to act," the congressman added. "This law is unconstitutional, racist, and dangerous."
Another House Democrat from Texas, Rep. Greg Casar, said in a statement that "asking local police to hunt down Texans who look like immigrants doesn't make us safer: In fact, it takes police away from investigating real crime."
"The federal government must block this unconstitutional anti-immigrant policy before it takes effect," he added.
As The New York Timesreported:
The legal threat came a day after Secretary of State Antony Blinken and other top American officials met with Mexico's president, Manuel López Obrador, to discuss ways to slow illegal crossings, which have overwhelmed U.S. border towns...
The DOJ's threat is one of several challenges to the Texas law. This month, El Paso County and two immigrant rights groups, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Texas Civil Rights Project, filed a lawsuit in an effort to halt the measure, echoing the Justice Department's argument that immigration laws could be enforced only by federal agents.
For months, advocacy groups have implored the Biden administration to "take decisive action to condemn" and "cease involvement" in Operation Lone Star, Abbott's deadly anti-migrant campaign.
Earlier this month, a federal appellate panel ordered Texas to remove the Rio Grande buoy barrier placed in the river to block people from crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular