Biden Will Admit Asylum Seekers Ordered Deported Under Trump’s Migrant Protection Protocols

By Melissa Cruz - www.immigrationimpact.com/

Asylum seekers who were ordered deported for missing their U.S. court hearings under the Trump administration’s so-called Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) —informally known as the “Remain in Mexico” program—will be allowed to restart their proceedings in the United States. Thousands of others whose cases were terminated because of procedural errors before they had a chance to seek asylum will also be allowed to restart the process.

This is the second phase of the Biden administration’s winddown of MPP, following its suspension and termination. Court hearings under the program had technically been paused since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020. But the Trump administration continued to place an additional 5,500 individuals into the program during its final year in office.

Who Was Subject to MPP?

It’s estimated U.S. officials sent roughly 70,000 people who came to the United States to ask for asylum back to Mexico over the course of two years. Many were from Central American countries such as Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.
 

Continúe leyendo en https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5172-Biden-Will-Admit-Asylum-Seekers-Ordered-Deported.html

The Plan to Process Asylum Seekers Subject to the Migrant Protection Protocols

 

By: Aaron Reichlin-Melnick - www.immigrationimpact.com

The Trump administration sent over 70,000 people who came to the U.S border seeking asylum back to Mexico to wait for court hearings. This so-called “Migrant Protection Protocols” (“MPP”) program placed people in serious danger and made it nearly impossible for anyone to win protection. Court hearings under MPP were indefinitely suspended in March 2020. This left thousands of people stuck in Mexico in limbo.

One of President Biden’s first actions instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) not to put any new people into the program. Three weeks later, his administration has announced a plan to allow the thousands of people still waiting in Mexico to enter the United States.

Who will be allowed to enter?

Under the Biden administration’s plan, the only people who will be allowed to reenter the United States are the roughly 25,000 individuals who have pending MPP cases.

Importantly, far fewer people are likely still waiting at the U.S.-Mexico border. While exact figures are not available, it is likely that many have already returned to their home countries or left for safer locations in Mexico.

Those who have been waiting the longest will be prioritized for readmission. Some people have been waiting

More information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5063-Process-asylum-seekers-with-migrant-protection-protocols.html

Trump Administration Begins Sending Asylum Seekers To Guatemala

In yet another major blow to America’s asylum system, on Wednesday the Trump administration reportedly began sending some asylum seekers from Honduras and El Salvador to Guatemala rather than permit them to seek protection in the United States.

Under the “Asylum Cooperative Agreement” deal signed with Guatemala in July, the Guatemalan government will process the asylum claims of people who arrive at the U.S. border without visas.

For the first time in American history, large numbers of refugees can now be returned to a third country without their consent.

This denies them any opportunity to seek protection in the United States. Instead, people will be required to apply for asylum in Guatemala, a country with one of the highest rates of poverty and malnutrition in the entire Western Hemisphere...

 

More information: https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4632-Sending-Asylum-Seekers-to-Guatemala.html 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

Making Sense of the Rising Number of Families Arriving at the Border

Written by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

Over the past few months, a new trend has emerged at the U.S.-Mexico border: more families are crossing and presenting themselves to U.S. officials to ask for asylum. But even though the number of people crossing the border are still at historically low levels, the Trump administration alleges it is overwhelmed by the arrival of families. These changes in migration patterns have exposed Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) inability to respond in a humane and effective way. 

In February 2019, the Border Patrol apprehended 66,450 individuals after crossing the border. This number represented the largest number of arrests at the border in years. However, it was only 5,000 higher than a similar spike in overall arrivals in spring 2014. During that last spike, only 38 percent of people arriving at the border were families and unaccompanied children. Last month, that percent rose to nearly 65 percent—42,999 in total. 

This is the largest number of families apprehended at the border in one month since the government began keeping records in 2012. 

CBP border stations were originally created to receive, hold, and process single Mexican adults who were more quickly returned to their home country. In the past, many families were detained in these stations for days at a time, where they suffered freezing temperatures, lack of hygiene, and inadequate medical care. Many would then be transferred to family detention centers, where they were locked up with their children for weeks or months. 

But now that more than half of all border crossers are asylum-seeking families, in recent weeks the government has started to release families along the border, citing a lack of capacity. 

Government officials are not legally required to detain asylum-seeking families. Officials have always had the discretion to release or parole into the country those who come to the border with instructions to appear at an immigration court for a removal hearing at a later date. Yet CBP has presented its inability to hold everyone in detention as a crisis. 

Days after President Trump took office, he issued an executive order which required CBP to reduce the use of humanitarian parole. Following this executive order, CBP increased the use of detention at the border even for individuals who were not flight risks, partly to deter other families from coming. This inhumane practice caused concrete harm to those forced to remain in immigration custody for long periods of time. 

Although the agency claims to be overwhelmed, it has had to deal with large numbers of children and families in the past, including in 2014 and 2016. Instead of coming up with solutions to care for children its custody, CBP doubled down on detention and deterrence. By shifting to more readily releasing families now, the government is recognizing that it can’t detain its way out of the current situation and that release is a viable option. 

Most of the recently released families will end up appearing in immigration court and seeking protection, as is their right. By avoiding the use of detention, CBP is saving taxpayer money and choosing not to subject asylum seekers to harmful detention which deprives them of access to counsel and limits their ability to obtain relief. 

The rise in family apprehensions masks the reality that the border is more secure than ever. With Central Americans making up more than 90 percent of individuals apprehended crossing the border, the days of large numbers of Mexican immigrants coming across the border for work is almost gone. New studies show that with improving economic conditions and a resurgence in national pride, few Mexicans are interested in traveling to the United States.

Faced with these new migration patterns, the Trump administration must recognize that rising border apprehensions do not present the same challenges as in the past. To address the changes, the administration should invest in better infrastructure, including ensuring that families and children are not subjected to deplorable conditions while in CBP custody. 

Fuente: www.immigrationimpact.com/

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4086-Rising-Number-of-Families-Arriving-at-the-Border.html

Number Of Undocumented Immigrants In US At A 25-Year Low

Written by Walter Ewing

Contrary to President Trump’s claim that “large-scale unlawful migration” across the southern border constitutes a “national emergency” that requires building a wall, research suggests that undocumented immigration across the U.S.-Mexico border is actually the lowest it’s ever been in the past 25 years. The Center for Migration Studies (CMS) has issued a report with this conclusion, which reinforces the findings of a similar report released by the Pew Research Center in November 2018. 

According to CMS, the total number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has decreased by one million since 2010 and now stands at about 10.7 million. At the same time, apprehensions at the border have dropped dramatically, falling from 1.6 million in 2000 to about 300,000 in 2017—a decline of more than 80 percent. These numbers would not seem to signal an “emergency” at the border. 

CMS also reports that from 2010 to 2016, about two thirds of new undocumented immigrants became undocumented by overstaying temporary visas, while only one third entered across the southern border without authorization. A wall is clearly not going to have an impact on visa overstays. 

According to the report, the undocumented population is shrinking mostly because there are more undocumented immigrants leaving the country than coming. Undocumented arrivals fell from 1.4 million in 2000 to about 550,000 in 2007 and have continued near that level. But the number of undocumented immigrants who left the country—either of their own volition or because they were deported—kept increasing and grew from 370,000 in 2000 to 770,000 in 2016. 

This is occurring despite the fact that the U.S. labor market is in reasonably good shape, meaning that the economic “pull” factors which have traditionally drawn undocumented immigrants to the United States are not exerting nearly as much force as they once did. CMS points to heightened immigration enforcement in the United States and improved economic conditions in Mexico as likely causes of this new pattern. 

CMS points out that the official statistics they use to estimate new undocumented arrivals are likely inflated to some degree by the erroneous inclusion of Central American asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are exercising a right recognized under international and domestic law to request safe haven in another country—meaning that they are not undocumented immigrants. But in official statistics, asylum seekers and the undocumented are frequently conflated with each other. 

The declaration of a “national emergency” at our southern border may be politically expedient for the Trump administration, but it has no basis in fact. Migratory pressures along the border are at all-time lows. 

Nevertheless, the situation of asylum seekers who are being stymied by the Trump administration in their quest to seek protection in the United States is a serious problem that must be addressed. But it is a problem that a wall is not going to fix.

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4039-number-of-undocumented-immigrants-in-United-States-decreases.html

Border Towns Are Among The Safest In The United States

Written by Melissa Cruz

On Monday evening in El Paso, Texas, two very different images of the U.S.-Mexico border emerged.

President Trump held a rally to make the case for his border wall again, repeating his usual talking points on the supposed dangers lurking in the region. Just a block away, former Democratic Representative from El Paso, Texas Beto O’Rourke held an opposing rally to counter the president’s claims on immigrants, refugees, border town safety, and the need for a wall. Both events were characterized as a final attempt to sway congressional leaders, who must come to an agreement on whether to provide border wall funding by Friday.

These two demonstrations show just how easy it is to stir up the public around the issue of immigration, particularly when the backdrop is the southern border region. However, the truth is the communities along the U.S.-Mexico border are among the safest in the United States.

El Paso, the site of the two rallies, has been considered one of the safest cities in the nation for the last 20 years, long before any border fencing was built.

In fact, in the last week, two governors of border states ordered their National Guard troops to withdraw from patrolling the border, calling Trump’s recent decision to deploy troops there as nothing but “political theater.”

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham was the first to withdraw troops from her state’s southern border last week. In total, 118 National Guard troops had been called to New Mexico, traveling from Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.

In a statement announcing the withdrawal, Grisham said:

“I reject the federal contention that there exists an overwhelming national security crisis at the southern border, along which are some of the safest communities in the country. …New Mexico will not take part in the president’s charade of border fear-mongering by misusing our diligent National Guard troops.”

On Monday, California Governor Gavin Newsom also ordered troops to be withdrawn from his state’s southern border with Mexico. He echoed Grisham’s sentiment, saying the president had created “a manufactured border crisis.”

Other elected officials from border regions have opposed Trump’s rhetoric on the state of the border. Republican congressman Will Hurd, whose Texas district has the longest border with Mexico, called a concrete border wall “the most expensive and least effective way to do border security.” And Texas Representative Vincente Gonzalez recently pointed out that the border town of McAllen, Texas had zero murders in 2018 and ranks as the seventh safest city in the United States.

Government statistics back this up. FBI data shows that border towns have statistically lower violent crime rates than other parts of the country. Former Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner David Aguilar even testified that “border communities are safer than the interior locations of each of the border states.”

The reality of many of these border communities is simple—they have low crime rates, residents feel safe, and their elected officials understand border security does not mean a border wall. In making its decision on border security funding this week, Congress should take a closer look at where the real problems are.

 

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/ 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4019-Border-Towns-The-Safest-In-The-United-States.html 

Promise to ‘Build the Wall’ Hurts Businesses and Residents Along the Border

Written by Tory Johnson

As the partial government shutdown stretches on, many individuals, families, and businesses around the country are struggling. At the heart of the shutdown and budget standoff is President Trump’s promise to “build the wall.” Yet for many people and businesses along the border, this is the last thing they want. 

Ahead of President Trump’s visit to the U.S.-Mexico border last week, business owners and leaders spoke out against the president’s continued demand to build additional fencing along the border. 

Business leaders in San Diego say that President Trump hyper-focusing on the wall is bad for the local economy and also an ineffective way to use taxpayer money, in part because the wall itself and the construction process can make it harder for people to cross the border at legal ports. With an estimated 90,000 northbound daily crossings at the San Ysidro port of entry, it is vital that business employees, customers, and goods or services can cross the border smoothly and efficiently. 

Businesses and communities throughout the border region have long voiced concern about the border wall and militarization stifling cross-border commerce, literally creating barriers that cut into vital revenue and relationships. 

According to Karim Bouris, executive director of Business for Good San Diego, San Ysidro businesses lost upwards of $5 million in November when the government closed the busy border crossing for several hours to install additional security barriers. In Santa Cruz County, California, businesses near the Tumacácori National Historical Park suffered when there were fewer visitors and tourists coming to the park from the Mexican side. 

Fewer tourists and shoppers means less money for the city of Nogales in Arizona, which relies on its sales taxes to pay for important services like law enforcement and sanitation. In border towns like Nogales, thriving businesses that attract new and return customers are vital to the local economy. 

But it can be hard to do this when customers can’t get across the border—or don’t want to. City Councilmember Marcelino Varona told Arizona Public Media that because of new barbed wire fencing in Nogales, “the frontier here—the border—looks like a prison system instead of a community.” 

In addition to U.S. businesses relying on shoppers coming from the Mexican side of the border, increased military presence and border fortifications negatively impact Americans visiting Mexico. For example, the U.S. government recently purchased a public parking lot in Nogales close to the border. Rather than sitting in long car lines to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, U.S. residents have parked in the lot and gone through the pedestrian crossing into Mexico, which is often a more efficient way to cross for short trips. 

The lot is currently inaccessible. After the government bought it, they closed the lot to the public and started filling it with military equipment. Without access to the lot, border residents have to park further away or skip the trip altogether—meaning fewer dollars added to the local economy and ultimately less money for public services in Nogales. 

When it comes down to it, border businesses and residents have been dealing with the presence of military personnel, equipment, physical barriers, and yes—a wall—for years. The border wall already exists and shutting down the government in an attempt to get money to build even more is a poor economic and policy decision. 

Ask those who see and cross the border every day—taxpayer dollars should fund policies that make ports of entry more efficient, safe, and support the people and businesses that make the border a viable place to live and visit.

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/
http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3993-Build-the-Wall-Hurts-Businesses-and-Residents.html

Asylum Seeker Files Lawsuit After CBP Officers Falsify Paperwork And Then Deport Him

Written by Kristin Macleod-Ball 

Time and time again, immigrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border are never given a meaningful opportunity by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers to explain why they fear returning to their country of origin. All too often CBP officers fail to follow the rules designed to protect asylum seekers at the border, and they sometimes insert untrue and nonsensical information into their deportation paperwork. 

An immigrant who was forced through a fast-track deportation at the border involving these unlawful practices sued CBP on Thursday. His deportation was based on paperwork that included fabricated answers, and he was never given the opportunity to apply for asylum. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, seeks to hold CBP accountable for its negligence and unlawful practices. 

José Crespo Cagnant, a Mexican immigrant who has lived in the United States with his U.S.-citizen partner for more than a decade, was arrested by CBP agents after entering the United States in 2012. Although he was afraid of persecution in Mexico based on his sexual orientation, Crespo was rushed through an expedited deportation process by a Border Patrol agent who couldn’t communicate in Spanish. 

The agent never gave Crespo an opportunity to explain whether he was afraid of returning to Mexico. They also made up inaccurate information about Crespo’s reasons for coming to the United States and his family history. The agent included that fabricated information in the deportation paperwork, pretending that Crespo had provided it. As a result, Crespo was quickly deported without ever getting the opportunity to speak to an asylum officer, which is required by law. 

Still fearful of remaining in Mexico, Crespo eventually returned to his partner—now husband—and sought to legalize his status. As a result, he was arrested and criminally charged with reentering the United States after deportation. 

A federal district court judge later dismissed the criminal case against Crespo, finding that the agent who deported him did not testify credibly about his ability to communicate in Spanish and whether he meaningfully informed Crespo of the charges against him. 

Despite this finding, the Border Patrol agent remains on the job. 

Sadly, these abuses are not unique. In interviews with Mexican immigrants in 2016 and 2017, more than half of those deported from the border reported that they were never asked if they feared return, were not allowed to read their deportation documents before being forced to sign them, or both. 

With this case, Crespo seeks to hold ensure CBP is liable for its officers’ fabrication of evidence and unlawful treatment of asylum seekers. As advocates have documented , CBP rarely takes any action in response to even the most serious complaints of abuse by its officers. Those officers make life-or-death decisions when they turn away individuals seeking protection in the United States from persecution and torture, and their actions in cases like Crespo’s must not go unchecked. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3819-Asylum-seekers-file-suit-against-CPB.html