Lawmakers in the House of Representatives passed two bills that would establish paths to citizenship or legal status for millions of undocumented immigrants in the United States.

US lower house passes two bills to protect migrants

A Malaysian court ordered a temporary halt to a controversial plan to deport 1,200 Myanmar detainees to their homeland Tuesday weeks after a coup, following a last-ditch legal challenge.

The migrants, including members of vulnerable minorities, had already been taken in buses and trucks to a military base on Malaysia's west coast to be loaded onto waiting Myanmar navy ships.

The United States and the United Nations had criticised the plan, while rights groups said there were asylum seekers among those due to be repatriated.

Rights groups Amnesty International and Asylum Access had lodged a court challenge, arguing Malaysia would be in breach of its international duties by sending vulnerable people back to a country where they could be in danger.&nbsp;

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-imposes-sanctions-on-two-more-military-leaders-in-myanmar-amid-protests-365549" hreflang="en">US imposes sanctions on two more military leaders in Myanmar amid protests</a>

The Kuala Lumpur High Court ordered a halt to the repatriation to allow a hearing to take place on Wednesday into the groups' bid to stop the deportations, their lawyer New Sin Yew told AFP.

Amnesty International Malaysia's executive director, Katrina Jorene Maliamauv, said that "the government must respect the court order and ensure that not one of the 1,200 individuals is deported today".

She called on authorities to grant the UN refugee agency access to the migrants set to be deported, so they can assess whether any should be granted refugee status.

"It's important to note that the stay of execution granted by the court does not mean the 1,200 are safe from being deported. They are facing life-threatening risks," she added.&nbsp;

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/un-chief-antonio-guterres-tells-myanmar-military-to-stop-the-repression-365471" hreflang="en">UN chief Antonio Guterres tells Myanmar military to stop the repression</a>

"We urge the government to reconsider its plans to send this group of vulnerable people back to Myanmar."

'Could be tortured'

Earlier, dozens of buses and trucks carrying the migrants and escorted by police cars arrived at the naval base in Lumut, according to AFP journalists at the scene.&nbsp;

The Myanmar military seized power at the start of February and detained civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi, triggering a series of massive protests.

Malaysia initially expressed "serious concern" at the coup -- but just days later, news emerged it had accepted an offer from the Myanmar junta to send warships to repatriate the detainees.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/myanmar-protesters-defy-militarys-lethal-warning-to-take-to-streets-again-365417" hreflang="en">Myanmar: Protesters defy military's lethal warning to take to streets again</a>

Officials insist those being sent back have committed offences such as overstaying their visas and no members of the persecuted Rohingya minority -- not recognised as citizens in Myanmar -- are among them.

But the detainees include members of the Christian Chin minority and people from conflict-riven Kachin and Shan states, according to Lilianne Fan, international director of the Geutanyoe Foundation, which works with refugees.

Malaysian authorities have blocked the UN refugee agency from immigration detention centres since late 2019, meaning they have not been able to determine who should be granted refugee status.

James Bawi Thang Bik, chairman of the Malaysia-based Alliance of Chin Refugees, said he was "shocked" to learn Chin were among those to be deported.

"They are refugees who came from a conflict area," he told AFP.

Malaysia is home to millions of migrants from poorer parts of Asia who work in low-pay jobs such as construction. As well as Myanmar, they come from countries including Bangladesh and Indonesia.

A Malaysian court ordered a temporary halt to a controversial plan to deport 1,200 Myanmar detainees to their homeland Tuesday weeks after a coup, following a last-ditch legal challenge.

A Malaysian court ordered a temporary halt to a controversial plan to deport 1,200 Myanmar detainees to their homeland Tuesday weeks after a coup, following a last-ditch legal challenge. The migrants, including members of vulnerable minorities, had already been taken in buses and trucks to a military base on Malaysia's west coast to be loaded onto waiting Myanmar navy ships. The United States and the United Nations had criticised the plan, while rights groups said there were asylum seekers among those due to be repatriated. Rights groups Amnesty International and Asylum Access had lodged a court challenge, arguing Malaysia would be in breach of its international duties by sending vulnerable people back to a country where they could be in danger. Also read| US imposes sanctions on two more military leaders in Myanmar amid protests The Kuala Lumpur High Court ordered a halt to the repatriation to allow a hearing to take place on Wednesday into the groups' bid to stop the deportations, their lawyer New Sin Yew told AFP. Amnesty International Malaysia's executive director, Katrina Jorene Maliamauv, said that "the government must respect the court order and ensure that not one of the 1,200 individuals is deported today". She called on authorities to grant the UN refugee agency access to the migrants set to be deported, so they can assess whether any should be granted refugee status. "It's important to note that the stay of execution granted by the court does not mean the 1,200 are safe from being deported. They are facing life-threatening risks," she added. Also read| UN chief Antonio Guterres tells Myanmar military to stop the repression "We urge the government to reconsider its plans to send this group of vulnerable people back to Myanmar." 'Could be tortured' Earlier, dozens of buses and trucks carrying the migrants and escorted by police cars arrived at the naval base in Lumut, according to AFP journalists at the scene. The Myanmar military seized power at the start of February and detained civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi, triggering a series of massive protests. Malaysia initially expressed "serious concern" at the coup -- but just days later, news emerged it had accepted an offer from the Myanmar junta to send warships to repatriate the detainees. Also read| Myanmar: Protesters defy military's lethal warning to take to streets again Officials insist those being sent back have committed offences such as overstaying their visas and no members of the persecuted Rohingya minority -- not recognised as citizens in Myanmar -- are among them. But the detainees include members of the Christian Chin minority and people from conflict-riven Kachin and Shan states, according to Lilianne Fan, international director of the Geutanyoe Foundation, which works with refugees. Malaysian authorities have blocked the UN refugee agency from immigration detention centres since late 2019, meaning they have not been able to determine who should be granted refugee status. James Bawi Thang Bik, chairman of the Malaysia-based Alliance of Chin Refugees, said he was "shocked" to learn Chin were among those to be deported. "They are refugees who came from a conflict area," he told AFP. Malaysia is home to millions of migrants from poorer parts of Asia who work in low-pay jobs such as construction. As well as Myanmar, they come from countries including Bangladesh and Indonesia.

Malaysian court halts Myanmar deportation after outcry

Democrats introduced a bill based on the Biden administration’s immigration priorities that would provide a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants. Meanwhile, officials will begin processing Central American asylum-seekers who were turned back and forced to remain in Mexico under a controversial Trump-era policy that has been revoked.

Biden administration’s immigration policy and recent attacks on the Asian-American communities

Guatemalan police fired tear gas Sunday to disperse thousands of migrants headed for the United States on foot, and soldiers beat back a group that tried to push through barriers, AFP journalists witnessed.

Security forces surrounded the migrant caravan on a road in the town of Vado Hondo, near the border with Honduras where they came from, and fired tear gas.

Also read|&nbsp;U<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-bound-migrant-caravan-in-guatemala-swells-to-over-8000-people-357193">S-bound migrant caravan in Guatemala swells to over 8,000 people</a>

Police say at least 6,000 people had arrived in the town, out of some 9,000 who left Honduras in recent days in the hopes of making it to the United States to start a new life there.

The deafening explosions of gas and smoke cannisters caused thousands of the migrants to turn back, while others fled into nearby mountains. Many dropped their sparse belongings in their haste to get out of harm's way.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/thousands-of-us-bound-honduran-migrants-cross-border-into-guatemala-357082">Thousands of US-bound Honduran migrants cross border into Guatemala</a>

Some who tried to break through a fence were beaten back by uniformed personnel kitted out with clubs and plastic shields.

A health official from the region, who did not give their name, said several of the migrants were injured after being struck.

Some in the police contingent were carrying firearms.

Guatemalan police fired tear gas Sunday to disperse thousands of migrants headed for the United States on foot, and soldiers beat back a group that tried to push through barriers, AFP journalists witnessed.

Guatemalan police fired tear gas Sunday to disperse thousands of migrants headed for the United States on foot, and soldiers beat back a group that tried to push through barriers, AFP journalists witnessed. Security forces surrounded the migrant caravan on a road in the town of Vado Hondo, near the border with Honduras where they came from, and fired tear gas. Also read| US-bound migrant caravan in Guatemala swells to over 8,000 people Police say at least 6,000 people had arrived in the town, out of some 9,000 who left Honduras in recent days in the hopes of making it to the United States to start a new life there. The deafening explosions of gas and smoke cannisters caused thousands of the migrants to turn back, while others fled into nearby mountains. Many dropped their sparse belongings in their haste to get out of harm's way. Also read| Thousands of US-bound Honduran migrants cross border into Guatemala Some who tried to break through a fence were beaten back by uniformed personnel kitted out with clubs and plastic shields. A health official from the region, who did not give their name, said several of the migrants were injured after being struck. Some in the police contingent were carrying firearms.

Guatemala police fire tear gas at US-bound migrant caravan

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Donald Trump will soon be gone from the White House. But in the millions of homes where Latino immigrants live, the questions that have dominated the past four years will not soon go away: Will I ever see my mother again? Will there be a time where I won’t live with the fear of disappearing on my way to work, never to be seen again by my neighbors? Will I be able to go to college? Will my parents ever escape the nightmare of immigration bureaucracy?

There are 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country, and millions who are the children, siblings and spouses of the undocumented; they live in the uneasy cultural and legal limbo of the “mixed status” family. And even if you’re a U.S. citizen who’s never met or worked alongside an undocumented immigrant, the fate of the democracy you cherish is tied to theirs.

This summer I traveled to central Pennsylvania to meet a family friend who is undocumented. She and my aunt and uncle were once neighbors in Guatemala City. Now she lives with her husband and children in a mixed-race neighborhood of wood-frame houses and aging front stoops that looks like the set of an August Wilson play.

Since arriving in Pennsylvania as undocumented immigrants 16 years ago, she and her husband have supported their family with jobs in construction and factories. One of their adult children now holds a white-collar office job. Their mixed-status family includes a college graduate who is a recipient of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the program that grants temporary status to those who crossed the border as children. The couple recently purchased a home, and their first grandchild, a U.S. citizen, was born a few months ago.

The re-election of Donald Trump would have preserved a status quo in which all their American accomplishments could be wiped out at any moment. And yet, Joe Biden’s narrow victory and the Republicans’ unexpectedly strong showing in congressional races might leave much of that status quo intact.

When my family friend’s mother died recently, in Guatemala City, the friend attended the funeral services via a telephone video from Pennsylvania, since leaving the country puts her at risk of being permanently separated from her children. The family’s DACA recipient has permission to work in this country, but remains, in the eyes of the law, an undocumented immigrant. The Trump administration worked to dismantle DACA, and there is no guarantee the incoming Congress will move to rescue it. They all live with the fear that something as simple as a traffic stop could cause them to be deported.

The labor of undocumented workers sustains this country. During the pandemic, they perform essential tasks in hospitals, farm fields, grocery stores and other places. They feed this country, clean our homes and help raise our children. Their daily anxieties and their frustrations are a central element in the emotional landscape of this country.

Thirteen years have passed since the failed efforts to legislate comprehensive immigration reform during the administration of George W. Bush. Many members of the “dreamer” generation are now in their mid-30s. And there is an older generation of undocumented immigrants — people who arrived here as adults in the 1990s — now approaching retirement age. I recently met an elected official whose aging parents, longtime farmworkers in the Pacific Northwest, are undocumented.

We are slowly creating a caste of permanently undocumented Latino people in the United States. Politicians like Mitch McConnell helped kill immigration reform efforts when Barack Obama was president. He was also an ally of the Trump administration as it used immigrants as props in a theater of cruelty, from the Muslim ban to the attempt to kill DACA that reached the Supreme Court this spring.

During the Trump presidency, various federal agencies have taken more than 400 executive actions that restrict immigration and punish immigrants. Mr. Trump and his team took special delight in tormenting the undocumented because doing so made the otherwise feckless president look macho. That’s how we arrived at Jeff Sessions infamously declaring, “We need to take away children.” It’s likely that Mr. McConnell will remain the Senate majority leader after Mr. Biden takes office.

History has shown that accepting the existence of widespread, legal forms of inequality can undermine a society from within, undoing its sense of right and wrong. In the early 21st century, the growing caste of permanently undocumented people became a target of right-wing national and local media. Radio shock jocks and television commentators characterized these immigrants as inherently “criminal” people and stoked prejudice against them. This intolerance in turn helped fuel Mr. Trump’s political rise.

I’ve met undocumented business owners and Harvard graduates. For four years, they have endured an endless stream of attacks by Mr. Trump. When the American electorate ousted him from office, it gave them some breathing room and a moment to celebrate. But what will the future hold for them? The answer to this question could determine whether the great democracy founded by American rebels in the 18th century will survive the 21st.

(Héctor Tobar, an associate professor at the University of California, Irvine, is the author, most recently, of “The Last Great Road Bum” and a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times.)

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Donald Trump will soon be gone from the White House. But in the millions of homes where Latino immigrants live, the questions that have dominated the past four years will not soon go away: Will I ever see my mother again?

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Donald Trump will soon be gone from the White House. But in the millions of homes where Latino immigrants live, the questions that have dominated the past four years will not soon go away: Will I ever see my mother again? Will there be a time where I won’t live with the fear of disappearing on my way to work, never to be seen again by my neighbors? Will I be able to go to college? Will my parents ever escape the nightmare of immigration bureaucracy? There are 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country, and millions who are the children, siblings and spouses of the undocumented; they live in the uneasy cultural and legal limbo of the “mixed status” family. And even if you’re a U.S. citizen who’s never met or worked alongside an undocumented immigrant, the fate of the democracy you cherish is tied to theirs. This summer I traveled to central Pennsylvania to meet a family friend who is undocumented. She and my aunt and uncle were once neighbors in Guatemala City. Now she lives with her husband and children in a mixed-race neighborhood of wood-frame houses and aging front stoops that looks like the set of an August Wilson play. Since arriving in Pennsylvania as undocumented immigrants 16 years ago, she and her husband have supported their family with jobs in construction and factories. One of their adult children now holds a white-collar office job. Their mixed-status family includes a college graduate who is a recipient of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the program that grants temporary status to those who crossed the border as children. The couple recently purchased a home, and their first grandchild, a U.S. citizen, was born a few months ago. The re-election of Donald Trump would have preserved a status quo in which all their American accomplishments could be wiped out at any moment. And yet, Joe Biden’s narrow victory and the Republicans’ unexpectedly strong showing in congressional races might leave much of that status quo intact. When my family friend’s mother died recently, in Guatemala City, the friend attended the funeral services via a telephone video from Pennsylvania, since leaving the country puts her at risk of being permanently separated from her children. The family’s DACA recipient has permission to work in this country, but remains, in the eyes of the law, an undocumented immigrant. The Trump administration worked to dismantle DACA, and there is no guarantee the incoming Congress will move to rescue it. They all live with the fear that something as simple as a traffic stop could cause them to be deported. The labor of undocumented workers sustains this country. During the pandemic, they perform essential tasks in hospitals, farm fields, grocery stores and other places. They feed this country, clean our homes and help raise our children. Their daily anxieties and their frustrations are a central element in the emotional landscape of this country. Thirteen years have passed since the failed efforts to legislate comprehensive immigration reform during the administration of George W. Bush. Many members of the “dreamer” generation are now in their mid-30s. And there is an older generation of undocumented immigrants — people who arrived here as adults in the 1990s — now approaching retirement age. I recently met an elected official whose aging parents, longtime farmworkers in the Pacific Northwest, are undocumented. We are slowly creating a caste of permanently undocumented Latino people in the United States. Politicians like Mitch McConnell helped kill immigration reform efforts when Barack Obama was president. He was also an ally of the Trump administration as it used immigrants as props in a theater of cruelty, from the Muslim ban to the attempt to kill DACA that reached the Supreme Court this spring. During the Trump presidency, various federal agencies have taken more than 400 executive actions that restrict immigration and punish immigrants. Mr. Trump and his team took special delight in tormenting the undocumented because doing so made the otherwise feckless president look macho. That’s how we arrived at Jeff Sessions infamously declaring, “We need to take away children.” It’s likely that Mr. McConnell will remain the Senate majority leader after Mr. Biden takes office. History has shown that accepting the existence of widespread, legal forms of inequality can undermine a society from within, undoing its sense of right and wrong. In the early 21st century, the growing caste of permanently undocumented people became a target of right-wing national and local media. Radio shock jocks and television commentators characterized these immigrants as inherently “criminal” people and stoked prejudice against them. This intolerance in turn helped fuel Mr. Trump’s political rise. I’ve met undocumented business owners and Harvard graduates. For four years, they have endured an endless stream of attacks by Mr. Trump. When the American electorate ousted him from office, it gave them some breathing room and a moment to celebrate. But what will the future hold for them? The answer to this question could determine whether the great democracy founded by American rebels in the 18th century will survive the 21st. (Héctor Tobar, an associate professor at the University of California, Irvine, is the author, most recently, of “The Last Great Road Bum” and a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times.)

OPINION | What the future holds for undocumented immigrants

Bangladesh's Foreign Minister AK Abdul Momen has announced that the country will be extending visas and&nbsp;residency permits for the migrant workers whose documents have expired.

The announcement was made in a press conference on Wednesday night after hundreds of migrant workers in Bangladesh launched a protest asking their government to intervene and initiate talks with Saudi Arabia.

The migrant workers will be allowed to get their visas and permits extended from Sunday when the&nbsp;Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Bangladesh reopens.

The permits which will be expiring from September 18 to October 17 will also be extended under the same new rule announced on Wednesday.

In addition to this, the Biman Bangladesh Airlines have also been asked to resume their services between the two countries, weeks after the Saudi officials had asked the airlines to stop their commercial flight services.

The airlines has announced special flights on September 26 and 27 to Jeddah and Riyadh for those who had booked return tickets for March 16 and 17. There will be more soecial flights till the end of the month, and normal operations will commence from next month.

The decision was taken after hundreds of protestors took to streets outside the&nbsp;Ministry of Expatriates' Welfare and Overseas Employment in Dhaka's Eskaton.

However, Momen has warned the migrant workers to pratice patience and has warned of strict actions if the Saudi government took offence to the ongoing protests which saw various slogans against the Saudi government and Kingdom.

Bangladesh's Foreign Minister AK Abdul Momen has announced that the country will be extending visas and residency permits for the migrant workers whose documents have expired.

Bangladesh's Foreign Minister AK Abdul Momen has announced that the country will be extending visas and residency permits for the migrant workers whose documents have expired. The announcement was made in a press conference on Wednesday night after hundreds of migrant workers in Bangladesh launched a protest asking their government to intervene and initiate talks with Saudi Arabia. The migrant workers will be allowed to get their visas and permits extended from Sunday when the Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Bangladesh reopens. The permits which will be expiring from September 18 to October 17 will also be extended under the same new rule announced on Wednesday. In addition to this, the Biman Bangladesh Airlines have also been asked to resume their services between the two countries, weeks after the Saudi officials had asked the airlines to stop their commercial flight services. The airlines has announced special flights on September 26 and 27 to Jeddah and Riyadh for those who had booked return tickets for March 16 and 17. There will be more soecial flights till the end of the month, and normal operations will commence from next month. The decision was taken after hundreds of protestors took to streets outside the Ministry of Expatriates' Welfare and Overseas Employment in Dhaka's Eskaton. However, Momen has warned the migrant workers to pratice patience and has warned of strict actions if the Saudi government took offence to the ongoing protests which saw various slogans against the Saudi government and Kingdom.

Saudi Arabia to extend visas and permits for Bangladeshi workers: Reports

Germany wants to take in about 1,500 migrants stranded on Greek islands after a fire destroyed an overcrowded camp, government sources said on Tuesday, in a gesture of solidarity with its fellow European Union member state.

The decision by Chancellor Angela Merkel follows a rise in opinion polls by her conservative party, at the expense of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, after what is widely seen as her steady handling of the coronavirus crisis.

More than 12,000 people, mostly asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Africa and Syria, were left without shelter, proper sanitation or access to food after a fire destroyed the Moria migrant camp on the island of Lesbos last week.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/teargas-fired-during-migrant-protests-on-greek-island-of-lesbos-327068" hreflang="en">Teargas fired during migrant protests on Greek island of Lesbos</a>

The German government sources told Reuters that Germany would house migrants whose asylum applications have already been accepted and had been on Lesbos.

An interior ministry spokesman said a proposal had been made which conservative members of parliament would discuss later on Tuesday, and sources in their Social Democrat coalition partners later said they had agreed to the plan.

Greece has long been burdened by the number of migrants arriving by sea, and there are around 30,000 refugees and migrants on the Greek islands.

The issue of migration continues to divide the EU, which has failed to craft a common asylum policy five years after Merkel opened Germany's doors to 1.2 million people seeking protection.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/did-refugees-set-moria-camp-ablaze-over-covid-19-quarantine-greek-minister-thinks-so-326698" hreflang="en">Did refugees set Moria camp ablaze over COVID-19 quarantine? Greek minister thinks so!</a>

The AfD entered German parliament for the first time two years later, and is the main opposition party.

Newspaper Bild reported that Germany would take 408 families from the Greek islands, most of them parents with children, from Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, making a total of 1,552 people. They are in addition to the 100-150 children Germany has already agreed to take.

Polls show a majority of Germans favour welcoming migrants who need protection, and she and Interior Minister Horst Seehofer have faced calls from regional and local politicians to ease the burden on Greece by taking in migrants.

Germany wants to take in about 1,500 migrants stranded on Greek islands after a fire destroyed an overcrowded camp, government sources said on Tuesday, in a gesture of solidarity with its fellow European Union member state.

Germany wants to take in about 1,500 migrants stranded on Greek islands after a fire destroyed an overcrowded camp, government sources said on Tuesday, in a gesture of solidarity with its fellow European Union member state. The decision by Chancellor Angela Merkel follows a rise in opinion polls by her conservative party, at the expense of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, after what is widely seen as her steady handling of the coronavirus crisis. More than 12,000 people, mostly asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Africa and Syria, were left without shelter, proper sanitation or access to food after a fire destroyed the Moria migrant camp on the island of Lesbos last week. Also read: Teargas fired during migrant protests on Greek island of Lesbos The German government sources told Reuters that Germany would house migrants whose asylum applications have already been accepted and had been on Lesbos. An interior ministry spokesman said a proposal had been made which conservative members of parliament would discuss later on Tuesday, and sources in their Social Democrat coalition partners later said they had agreed to the plan. Greece has long been burdened by the number of migrants arriving by sea, and there are around 30,000 refugees and migrants on the Greek islands. The issue of migration continues to divide the EU, which has failed to craft a common asylum policy five years after Merkel opened Germany's doors to 1.2 million people seeking protection. Also read: Did refugees set Moria camp ablaze over COVID-19 quarantine? Greek minister thinks so! The AfD entered German parliament for the first time two years later, and is the main opposition party. Newspaper Bild reported that Germany would take 408 families from the Greek islands, most of them parents with children, from Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, making a total of 1,552 people. They are in addition to the 100-150 children Germany has already agreed to take. Polls show a majority of Germans favour welcoming migrants who need protection, and she and Interior Minister Horst Seehofer have faced calls from regional and local politicians to ease the burden on Greece by taking in migrants.

Germany to take in about 1,500 migrants from Greek islands

Thousands of asylum seekers on the Greek island of Lesbos were camping on roadsides on Thursday after the country's largest camp burnt down, with officials racing to find them shelter and avert a health crisis.

Desperate families, many with young children, spent a second night in the open, some without tents or basic bedding.

Some of the homeless trekked to the nearest villages for water and other supplies.

The fire late on Tuesday at Moria camp, Greece's most notorious migrant facility, sent thousands fleeing for safety into surrounding olive groves.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/fire-destroys-europes-largest-migrant-camp-on-lesbos-326306#thousands-of-asylum-seekers-left-homeless-326287">Have a look:&nbsp;Fire 'destroys' Europe's largest migrant camp on Lesbos</a>

While nobody was seriously hurt, the blaze destroyed the official part of the camp, which housed 4,000 people, ministers said.&nbsp;

A second fire late on Wednesday destroyed most of the remaining camp where another 8,000 lived in tents and makeshift shacks around the perimeter, the migration ministry said in a statement on Thursday.

The ministry said a ferry had been sent to accommodate hundreds of people ahead of the expected arrival of European Commission vice-president Margaritis Schinas to inspect conditions on the island.

"Today all necessary actions will be taken to immediately shelter families and vulnerable persons to begin with," the ministry said.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/fire-breaks-out-at-overcrowded-moria-migrant-camp-in-greece-326137">Also read:&nbsp;Fire breaks out at overcrowded Moria migrant camp in Greece</a>

Two Greek navy vessels would provide additional sleeping space, the ministry said.

The government also said it had sent three flights to remove 406 unaccompanied minors from the island.

The children have been tested for the novel coronavirus, and will be housed in "safe" facilities in northern Greece.

Migration minister Notis Mitarachi on Wednesday said asylum seekers had started the fire because of quarantine measures imposed after 35 people at the camp tested positive for coronavirus.

Officials have declared a four-month emergency on Lesbos and flown in additional riot police.

Greece's public health authority EODY said eight of the 35 positive cases had been located and isolated along with a significant number of their close contacts.

Medical staff from the World Health Organization are expected in Lesbos on Thursday to begin tests on asylum seekers and locals, EODY chief Panagiotis Arkoumaneas told reporters on Wednesday.

European countries from Germany to Norway -- along with EU chiefs -- have responded with offers of help as calls intensify for urgent reform of the bloc's asylum system.

Since becoming one of the main gateways into Europe for migrants and asylum-seekers in 2015, Greece has built dozens of detention centres around the country.

But with other European nations accepting only a small trickle of refugees, thousands remain trapped in the Greek camps in usually dismal health conditions.

Greece's conservative government has also toughened its asylum restrictions, slashing cash benefits and accommodation provisions to discourage further migration.

Thousands of asylum seekers on the Greek island of Lesbos were camping on roadsides on Thursday after the country's largest camp burnt down, with officials racing to find them shelter and avert a health crisis.

Thousands of asylum seekers on the Greek island of Lesbos were camping on roadsides on Thursday after the country's largest camp burnt down, with officials racing to find them shelter and avert a health crisis. Desperate families, many with young children, spent a second night in the open, some without tents or basic bedding. Some of the homeless trekked to the nearest villages for water and other supplies. The fire late on Tuesday at Moria camp, Greece's most notorious migrant facility, sent thousands fleeing for safety into surrounding olive groves. Have a look: Fire 'destroys' Europe's largest migrant camp on Lesbos While nobody was seriously hurt, the blaze destroyed the official part of the camp, which housed 4,000 people, ministers said. A second fire late on Wednesday destroyed most of the remaining camp where another 8,000 lived in tents and makeshift shacks around the perimeter, the migration ministry said in a statement on Thursday. The ministry said a ferry had been sent to accommodate hundreds of people ahead of the expected arrival of European Commission vice-president Margaritis Schinas to inspect conditions on the island. "Today all necessary actions will be taken to immediately shelter families and vulnerable persons to begin with," the ministry said. Also read: Fire breaks out at overcrowded Moria migrant camp in Greece Two Greek navy vessels would provide additional sleeping space, the ministry said. The government also said it had sent three flights to remove 406 unaccompanied minors from the island. The children have been tested for the novel coronavirus, and will be housed in "safe" facilities in northern Greece. Migration minister Notis Mitarachi on Wednesday said asylum seekers had started the fire because of quarantine measures imposed after 35 people at the camp tested positive for coronavirus. Officials have declared a four-month emergency on Lesbos and flown in additional riot police. Greece's public health authority EODY said eight of the 35 positive cases had been located and isolated along with a significant number of their close contacts. Medical staff from the World Health Organization are expected in Lesbos on Thursday to begin tests on asylum seekers and locals, EODY chief Panagiotis Arkoumaneas told reporters on Wednesday. European countries from Germany to Norway -- along with EU chiefs -- have responded with offers of help as calls intensify for urgent reform of the bloc's asylum system. Since becoming one of the main gateways into Europe for migrants and asylum-seekers in 2015, Greece has built dozens of detention centres around the country. But with other European nations accepting only a small trickle of refugees, thousands remain trapped in the Greek camps in usually dismal health conditions. Greece's conservative government has also toughened its asylum restrictions, slashing cash benefits and accommodation provisions to discourage further migration.

Greece races to shelter thousands after Lesbos migrant camp fire

Malaysian government is deporting an immigrant from Bangladesh who was last spotted in a documentary that highlighted the ill treatment of undocumented foreign workers in Malaysia.

“This Bangladeshi national will be deported and blacklisted from entering Malaysia forever,” Immigration Director General Khairul Dzaimee Daud said, without disclosing the reason behind this deportation.

An arrest warrant was issued for the Bangladesh national&nbsp;Mohammad Rayhan Kabir after a documentary, that released on July 3, showed him complaining&nbsp;Malaysia’s treatment of undocumented foreign workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Qatar-based media house Al Jazeera came forward and said that many of the people who took a part in the documentary, including participants and staff, were facing&nbsp;abuse, death threats and the disclosure of their personal details on social media.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/at-least-24-rohingya-migrants-feared-drowned-off-malaysia-316077">Also read:&nbsp;At least 24 Rohingya migrants feared drowned off Malaysia</a>

When Daud announced deportation of Rayhan, the human rights activists came forward and called these arrests inhumane, but in vain. There has been no reason given by the immigration department or Rayhan's employers. Whethere Rayhan was involved in a crime or not is still unclear.

Calling it a disturbing move, Al Jazeera said it firmy believes that Rayhan was arrested&nbsp;“for choosing to speak up about some of the experiences of the voiceless and the vulnerable.”

Malaysia has been facing criticism for arresting immigrants,&nbsp;including children and Rohingya refugees, during the lockdown claiming it to be an important step to contain the spread of the coronavirus.

Malaysian government is deporting an immigrant from Bangladesh who was last spotted in a documentary that highlighted the ill treatment of undocumented foreign workers in Malaysia.

Malaysian government is deporting an immigrant from Bangladesh who was last spotted in a documentary that highlighted the ill treatment of undocumented foreign workers in Malaysia. “This Bangladeshi national will be deported and blacklisted from entering Malaysia forever,” Immigration Director General Khairul Dzaimee Daud said, without disclosing the reason behind this deportation. An arrest warrant was issued for the Bangladesh national Mohammad Rayhan Kabir after a documentary, that released on July 3, showed him complaining Malaysia’s treatment of undocumented foreign workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Qatar-based media house Al Jazeera came forward and said that many of the people who took a part in the documentary, including participants and staff, were facing abuse, death threats and the disclosure of their personal details on social media. Also read: At least 24 Rohingya migrants feared drowned off Malaysia When Daud announced deportation of Rayhan, the human rights activists came forward and called these arrests inhumane, but in vain. There has been no reason given by the immigration department or Rayhan's employers. Whethere Rayhan was involved in a crime or not is still unclear. Calling it a disturbing move, Al Jazeera said it firmy believes that Rayhan was arrested “for choosing to speak up about some of the experiences of the voiceless and the vulnerable.” Malaysia has been facing criticism for arresting immigrants, including children and Rohingya refugees, during the lockdown claiming it to be an important step to contain the spread of the coronavirus.

Malaysia to deport Bangladeshi worker who participated in anti-government documentary

A statue of US first lady Melania Trump near her hometown in Slovenia was set on fire the night of July 4, according to the artist who commissioned the piece.&nbsp;

The wooden sculpture was taken down the day after it was set on fire.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/melania-trumps-former-aide-to-publish-book-report-311288">Also read: Melania Trump's former aide to publish book</a>

Brad Downey, the American artist who commissioned the sculpture of Melania Trump had it removed over the weekend after it was burned.

“I want to know why they did it,” said Downey, who had hoped the statue would foster a dialogue about the political situation in the United States, highlighting Melania Trump’s status as an immigrant married to a president sworn to reduce immigration.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/melania-trump-visits-delhi-government-school-sits-in-happiness-class-initiative-282599">Also read: Melania Trump visits Delhi government school; sits in "Happiness Class" initiative</a> 
 
In Washington, the office of Melania Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/donald-trump-in-india-us-president-gets-guard-of-honour-and-visits-raj-ghat-with-first-lady-melania-trump-282353#bilateral-talk-underway-282580">In Pics: Donald Trump in India — US President gets guard of honour and visits Raj Ghat with first lady Melania Trump</a>

Melania is a former model, businesswoman, and the current first lady of the United States, as the wife of the 45th president of the United States Donald Trump. At first, young Melania wanted to study architecture, but she was persuaded that modelling was a better option, and she found success doing mostly print work in Europe and, later, in New York City.&nbsp;

She married Donald Trump in 2005; became a US citizen in 2006. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

A statue of US first lady Melania Trump near her hometown in Slovenia was set on fire the night of July 4, according to the artist who commissioned the piece. The wooden sculpture was taken down the day after it was set on fire.

A statue of US first lady Melania Trump near her hometown in Slovenia was set on fire the night of July 4, according to the artist who commissioned the piece. The wooden sculpture was taken down the day after it was set on fire. Also read: Melania Trump's former aide to publish book Brad Downey, the American artist who commissioned the sculpture of Melania Trump had it removed over the weekend after it was burned. “I want to know why they did it,” said Downey, who had hoped the statue would foster a dialogue about the political situation in the United States, highlighting Melania Trump’s status as an immigrant married to a president sworn to reduce immigration. Also read: Melania Trump visits Delhi government school; sits in "Happiness Class" initiative In Washington, the office of Melania Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In Pics: Donald Trump in India — US President gets guard of honour and visits Raj Ghat with first lady Melania Trump Melania is a former model, businesswoman, and the current first lady of the United States, as the wife of the 45th president of the United States Donald Trump. At first, young Melania wanted to study architecture, but she was persuaded that modelling was a better option, and she found success doing mostly print work in Europe and, later, in New York City. She married Donald Trump in 2005; became a US citizen in 2006. (With inputs from agencies)

Statue of US first Lady Melania Trump set on fire near her hometown in Slovenia

Immigration is a hot and contentious topic in the rich Western world. The multiculturalisation of Western societies has generated and bred fear and anger not only giving ammunition to populists of assorted types but also changing the political dynamics and colouration of many of these societies. The thrust of the fear around immigration revolves around identity and jobs. In terms of the former, it is held or believed that the immigrant cohort, its arrival on Western shores will change the nature and complexion of Western societies and that this is not necessarily for the good. This is overlaid by fears of job takeovers by immigrants. While both these fears have some merit, but in the main, they are overblown. It is not just the ‘irrational’ fear of the ‘other’ that informs these fears. It is fundamentally about a given or certain identity being swamped by difference; prosaically but potently about economic uncertainty and thereby insecurity generated by immigration that is, at the risk of repletion, that breeds anger and fear.&nbsp;

All this is well known. But, lost in the immigration and immigrant debate is the nature and breakdown of the immigrant cohort that arrives on Western shores, so to speak. Barring refugee flows, which states usually accept on humanitarian grounds and their commitments to international covenants and agreements, mostly, the immigrant flows into the West comprise the already well off and the privileged. The most egregious of these flows are twofold: skill-based immigration and the one mediated through the university systems of some Western countries. In both instances, it is self-evident that the immigrant cohort is well off and not underprivileged.

Consider the doctors that have become part of the NHS in the UK: they are professionals who have been welcomed into the country, have, more often than not, become citizens; in the process, their life chances and the prospect of the ‘good life’ have considerably improved. Another example worth citing is that of Australia: a country that was perhaps a pioneer in granting permanent residency to students graduating from its university system. Here too, the students in contention were from privileged grounds: it takes a lot of financial wherewithal to enrol and study in Western universities; living expenses are another factor to consider. While some students from underprivileged backgrounds sneaked through these systems by paying the initial outlay of fees and then survived on part-time jobs but in the main the gravamen of the student cohort is from privileged grounds.

Is this a problem? Yes and No.

Yes, because it leaves a vast cohort of underprivileged young people from poor countries in the cold. It is to state the obvious that the public education systems in poorer countries are not great; the provision of public goods like education is shoddy and sub-par and access to even these is uneven. Conditions of poverty are another factor that precludes millions from going to school let alone even think of higher education. This, however, does not and should not mean bias and prejudice toward those who can afford the pastures of the West.

But, if education and immigration are to be a tool for development then the immigration policy that underpins the approach in vogue is flawed. Both can catalyze development not merely through and by remittances but also through human capital formation. There is an extant vast pool of human capital in the world that remains untapped because of poverty and deprivation. This is besides being a utilitarian problem one that is also a moral issue. Why should a place of birth or station in society determine the life chances of a given individual? Should not universal education be an intrinsic good or a global public good?

The answer is yes, but in an ideal world. We live in an imperfect world. Given this can the Western education system and its immigration corollary rise to the occasion? Probably not. The reason is that most Western universities are now for profit. But, it might be argued here that there are scholarships available. The commonsense critique of this is that even to access these scholarships, a person needs resources that he or she might not have. Is this condition irremediable?

Not necessarily. The world’s development institutions must see higher education as a tool of development and progress. They can enter into alliances with Western universities, fund partly and cross-subsidize the education of the deserving poor. This approach might not only redeem these institutions given their political predilections and ideological proclivities that they have been accused of but also constitute a catalytic spur to development. &nbsp;This aid can be tied to returning home. But, if then a given poor student has the skill and gumption, let the global labour markets determine his or her choice of home!

&nbsp; 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Immigration is a hot and contentious topic in the rich Western world. The multiculturalisation of Western societies has generated and bred fear and anger not only giving ammunition to populists of assorted types but also changing the political dynamics and colouration of many of these societies.

Immigration is a hot and contentious topic in the rich Western world. The multiculturalisation of Western societies has generated and bred fear and anger not only giving ammunition to populists of assorted types but also changing the political dynamics and colouration of many of these societies. The thrust of the fear around immigration revolves around identity and jobs. In terms of the former, it is held or believed that the immigrant cohort, its arrival on Western shores will change the nature and complexion of Western societies and that this is not necessarily for the good. This is overlaid by fears of job takeovers by immigrants. While both these fears have some merit, but in the main, they are overblown. It is not just the ‘irrational’ fear of the ‘other’ that informs these fears. It is fundamentally about a given or certain identity being swamped by difference; prosaically but potently about economic uncertainty and thereby insecurity generated by immigration that is, at the risk of repletion, that breeds anger and fear. All this is well known. But, lost in the immigration and immigrant debate is the nature and breakdown of the immigrant cohort that arrives on Western shores, so to speak. Barring refugee flows, which states usually accept on humanitarian grounds and their commitments to international covenants and agreements, mostly, the immigrant flows into the West comprise the already well off and the privileged. The most egregious of these flows are twofold: skill-based immigration and the one mediated through the university systems of some Western countries. In both instances, it is self-evident that the immigrant cohort is well off and not underprivileged. Consider the doctors that have become part of the NHS in the UK: they are professionals who have been welcomed into the country, have, more often than not, become citizens; in the process, their life chances and the prospect of the ‘good life’ have considerably improved. Another example worth citing is that of Australia: a country that was perhaps a pioneer in granting permanent residency to students graduating from its university system. Here too, the students in contention were from privileged grounds: it takes a lot of financial wherewithal to enrol and study in Western universities; living expenses are another factor to consider. While some students from underprivileged backgrounds sneaked through these systems by paying the initial outlay of fees and then survived on part-time jobs but in the main the gravamen of the student cohort is from privileged grounds. Is this a problem? Yes and No. Yes, because it leaves a vast cohort of underprivileged young people from poor countries in the cold. It is to state the obvious that the public education systems in poorer countries are not great; the provision of public goods like education is shoddy and sub-par and access to even these is uneven. Conditions of poverty are another factor that precludes millions from going to school let alone even think of higher education. This, however, does not and should not mean bias and prejudice toward those who can afford the pastures of the West. But, if education and immigration are to be a tool for development then the immigration policy that underpins the approach in vogue is flawed. Both can catalyze development not merely through and by remittances but also through human capital formation. There is an extant vast pool of human capital in the world that remains untapped because of poverty and deprivation. This is besides being a utilitarian problem one that is also a moral issue. Why should a place of birth or station in society determine the life chances of a given individual? Should not universal education be an intrinsic good or a global public good? The answer is yes, but in an ideal world. We live in an imperfect world. Given this can the Western education system and its immigration corollary rise to the occasion? Probably not. The reason is that most Western universities are now for profit. But, it might be argued here that there are scholarships available. The commonsense critique of this is that even to access these scholarships, a person needs resources that he or she might not have. Is this condition irremediable? Not necessarily. The world’s development institutions must see higher education as a tool of development and progress. They can enter into alliances with Western universities, fund partly and cross-subsidize the education of the deserving poor. This approach might not only redeem these institutions given their political predilections and ideological proclivities that they have been accused of but also constitute a catalytic spur to development. This aid can be tied to returning home. But, if then a given poor student has the skill and gumption, let the global labour markets determine his or her choice of home! (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Immigration panic in the western countries revolves around identity and jobs

Quebec has introduced 'values test' for immigrants seeking permanent residency in the Canadian province before their application continues through the process.

According to the provincial government, this test is to ensure that they understand its new secularism law.

Quebec is the largest province in the country, occupying 15.4% of the country's total area. Its land area is 523,603.95 square miles while its water area is 71,787.2 square miles and its total area is 595,442.88 square miles.&nbsp;

Displaced people and those going to the region through family reunification programs are excluded from the test since they are under government purview.

According to the authorities, "it's important that we understand the values and the society where you want to live,".

Those include support for democracy, gender equality and a new secularism law that prohibits some public servants from wearing religious symbols such as veils or turbans. The aim is to ensure better integration.

“Effective January 1, 2020, a new selection condition related to the learning of democratic values and Québec values expressed in the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms will come into effect to promote better integration of immigrants into Québec society,” a statement issued by Quebec’s immigration department said.

Features of the 'values test'

1: The values test comprises 20 Multiple Choice Questions that covers “democratic values and the Québec values expressed by (Quebec’s) Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

2: The candidate will need to secure 75 per cent marks to pass.&nbsp;

3: The unsupervised test will last 90 minutes and candidates can take it remotely even from their homes.

Quebec has introduced 'values test' for immigrants seeking permanent residency in the Canadian province before their application continues through the process. According to the provincial government, this test is to ensure that they understand its new secularism law.

Quebec has introduced 'values test' for immigrants seeking permanent residency in the Canadian province before their application continues through the process. According to the provincial government, this test is to ensure that they understand its new secularism law. Quebec is the largest province in the country, occupying 15.4% of the country's total area. Its land area is 523,603.95 square miles while its water area is 71,787.2 square miles and its total area is 595,442.88 square miles. Displaced people and those going to the region through family reunification programs are excluded from the test since they are under government purview. According to the authorities, "it's important that we understand the values and the society where you want to live,". Those include support for democracy, gender equality and a new secularism law that prohibits some public servants from wearing religious symbols such as veils or turbans. The aim is to ensure better integration. “Effective January 1, 2020, a new selection condition related to the learning of democratic values and Québec values expressed in the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms will come into effect to promote better integration of immigrants into Québec society,” a statement issued by Quebec’s immigration department said. Features of the 'values test' 1: The values test comprises 20 Multiple Choice Questions that covers “democratic values and the Québec values expressed by (Quebec’s) Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. 2: The candidate will need to secure 75 per cent marks to pass. 3: The unsupervised test will last 90 minutes and candidates can take it remotely even from their homes.

No veils, no turbans: Canada's new 'values test' immigrants need to pass

A former military camp on the outskirts of Athens is now reaching full capacity as it serves as a temporary home to almost 1,000 asylum seekers, with many facing an <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/greece-approves-controversial-migration-law-259324">uncertain and prolonged wait</a> while their asylum status is determined.

As numbers at the camp have swelled in recent months, dozens of new containers have been added to accommodate the new additions, the majority of whom are families hailing from Afghanistan.

Camps like this provide a stop-gap where asylum seekers are transferred from Greek islands and wait for months for a decision on their application.

Gazal Tajik arrived here with her husband and three children in 2018, but will be stuck until May 2021 for a final outcome on their status.

"I want to leave, [and with] my child go to another country and I [hope to] have one house, my child could go to school and university and I find a good job and my husband finds one. I just want a normal life. I don't want to live in a camp," said Tajik.

Most of the asylum seekers arrive in Greece in an attempt to move onwards to a northern European country.

The Greek government says the asylum system has been strained by a backlog of some 68,000 requests, and as the country slowly recovers from a devastating economic crisis, unemployment figures remain high.

With asylum seekers spending months or even years in camps, integration for many remains a distant option.

"The more we develop the possibility for them to access the labour market, to learn Greek, the more we create the conditions for them to really have a choice. If we don't provide these basic tools, then it's very difficult to make a choice. You don't have much of a choice." said Gianluca Rocco, International Organization for Migration (IOM) Chief of Mission in Greece.

The government says accelerating asylum procedures is the main aim of legislation that was approved on Thursday, which would expedite the return of people whose asylum claims are rejected.

The new bill also sets stricter criteria for <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/greece-steps-up-migrant-transfers-after-lesbos-clashes-252825">asylum seekers</a>, a move the government hopes will deter those who are not entitled to asylum from trying to reach Greece.

According to the U.N. Refugee Agency, over 25,000 migrants and refugees have reached the Greek islands since August, with this number accounting for over half of the total sea arrivals in Greece since the beginning of the year.

Europe's Human Rights Watch (HRW) warned that camps on the Greek islands are on the edge of catastrophe as numbers continue to increase.

Several Greek and international humanitarian groups, including the U.N. Refugee Agency, have criticized the new law, warning it could lift some of the protections which are in place for asylum seekers.

A former military camp on the outskirts of Athens is now reaching full capacity as it serves as a temporary home to almost 1,000 asylum seekers, with many facing an uncertain and prolonged wait while their asylum status is determined.

A former military camp on the outskirts of Athens is now reaching full capacity as it serves as a temporary home to almost 1,000 asylum seekers, with many facing an uncertain and prolonged wait while their asylum status is determined. As numbers at the camp have swelled in recent months, dozens of new containers have been added to accommodate the new additions, the majority of whom are families hailing from Afghanistan. Camps like this provide a stop-gap where asylum seekers are transferred from Greek islands and wait for months for a decision on their application. Gazal Tajik arrived here with her husband and three children in 2018, but will be stuck until May 2021 for a final outcome on their status. "I want to leave, [and with] my child go to another country and I [hope to] have one house, my child could go to school and university and I find a good job and my husband finds one. I just want a normal life. I don't want to live in a camp," said Tajik. Most of the asylum seekers arrive in Greece in an attempt to move onwards to a northern European country. The Greek government says the asylum system has been strained by a backlog of some 68,000 requests, and as the country slowly recovers from a devastating economic crisis, unemployment figures remain high. With asylum seekers spending months or even years in camps, integration for many remains a distant option. "The more we develop the possibility for them to access the labour market, to learn Greek, the more we create the conditions for them to really have a choice. If we don't provide these basic tools, then it's very difficult to make a choice. You don't have much of a choice." said Gianluca Rocco, International Organization for Migration (IOM) Chief of Mission in Greece. The government says accelerating asylum procedures is the main aim of legislation that was approved on Thursday, which would expedite the return of people whose asylum claims are rejected. The new bill also sets stricter criteria for asylum seekers, a move the government hopes will deter those who are not entitled to asylum from trying to reach Greece. According to the U.N. Refugee Agency, over 25,000 migrants and refugees have reached the Greek islands since August, with this number accounting for over half of the total sea arrivals in Greece since the beginning of the year. Europe's Human Rights Watch (HRW) warned that camps on the Greek islands are on the edge of catastrophe as numbers continue to increase. Several Greek and international humanitarian groups, including the U.N. Refugee Agency, have criticized the new law, warning it could lift some of the protections which are in place for asylum seekers.

Greek camps near capacity as refugees face long wait for asylum

The anti-government protest in Hong Kong has entered 22nd week. The Hong Kong protesters extended support for immigrant groups

Hong Kong: Immigrants hold back on Protests

The Mexican government protested and Central American migrants feared deportation back to their violent homelands on Thursday after the US Supreme Court allowed President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-allows-trump-to-deny-asylum-to-many-central-americans-249093">to slam the door on asylum-seekers at the US-Mexican border</a>.

The court on Wednesday found that Trump`s restrictive asylum rule could go into effect nationwide while a lawsuit challenging its underlying legality proceeds, handing the president a victory as he brandishes his anti-immigration credentials for the November 2020 presidential election.

The rule requires<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/migrants-will-pay-the-price-of-mexicos-tariff-deal-with-trump-226455"> immigrants who want asylum </a>to first seek safe haven in a third country through which they travel on the way to the United States, enabling the United States to combat a record surge in Central American asylum-seekers.

Trump`s immigration crackdown has animated his base of supporters while immigrant advocates in the United States fear the court decision will endanger the lives of migrants, many of them fleeing poverty, street gangs and domestic violence in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

With the threat of automatic rejection hanging over the most recent arrivals, thousands of migrants are cramped into shelters or sleeping in the streets of Mexican border cities in places such as the state of Tamaulipas, where the US State Department has placed a "do not travel" advisory due to violent crime similar to its warnings against visiting war-torn Sudan or Syria.

One asylum-seeker from El Salvador who staying in a Tijuana shelter while awaiting her immigration hearing in San Diego said she could only hope to God she would not be sent back.

"I`m very scared, I hope this won`t affect me. I cannot return to my country, they tried to rape me there twice because I am a lesbian and the last time I ended up in a hospital in intensive care," said Veronica Martinez, 23. "I trust in God that the court`s decision does not affect me."

The Mexican government also pushed back against the US high court`s action, one that could create a new headache for Mexico.

"This is the ruling by the court, it`s a US issue, and obviously we don`t agree with it, we have a different policy," Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard told a news conference.

Tense relations

The court`s decision comes at a delicate time for Mexican-US relations.&nbsp;

Under Trump`s threat of imposing tariffs, Mexico has agreed to house many of the surging number of Central American asylum-seekers south of the border pending their US hearings.

That gesture has led to a sharp decline in US apprehensions and rejections of migrants at the border, winning Mexico praise from Trump following a White House meeting on Tuesday.

But Mexico has resisted US pressure to sign a formal "safe third country" agreement that would commit it to hearing the asylum cases of migrants from Central American and elsewhere, a move that would take even more pressure off the US border.

The downside for Mexico is that the buildup of migrants at the northern border is putting stress on schools, health clinics and housing.

"We have seen outbreaks of acts of xenophobia in Mexico that did not exist before, mainly in the north of the country," said Israel Ibarra, an immigration expert with the Continente Movil consultancy in Tijuana.

Francisco Gallardo, director of the Casa de Migrantes shelter in Reynosa, said migrants are sleeping in tents beside a bridge linking the two countries and are sure to grow more discouraged by the Supreme Court decision.

"We`ll see what measures can be taken because there are about 500 people next to the bridge," Gallardo said.

Under the so-called Migrant Protection Protocols, the US government built temporary, soft-sided courthouses near the border ports of entry in Laredo and Brownsville, Texas, and started hearing cases this week.

In Harlingen, Texas, Judge Delia Gonzalez took the bench Thursday, linked by video conference to a courtroom 30 miles (50 km) away in Brownsville.

She heard the cases of two Salvadorans who crossed from Mexico into south Texas in August, were arrested by US officers, and returned to the Mexican border town of Matamoros.

A Salvadoran woman said she had received cruel threats from gangs, and Gonzalez asked if she feared returning.

"Yes, a lot," the woman said.

After brief hearings, she and a Salvadoran man were given court dates to appear again in October.

The Mexican government protested and Central American migrants feared deportation back to their violent homelands on Thursday after the US Supreme Court allowed President Donald Trump to slam the door on asylum-seekers at the US-Mexican border.

The Mexican government protested and Central American migrants feared deportation back to their violent homelands on Thursday after the US Supreme Court allowed President Donald Trump to slam the door on asylum-seekers at the US-Mexican border. The court on Wednesday found that Trump`s restrictive asylum rule could go into effect nationwide while a lawsuit challenging its underlying legality proceeds, handing the president a victory as he brandishes his anti-immigration credentials for the November 2020 presidential election. The rule requires immigrants who want asylum to first seek safe haven in a third country through which they travel on the way to the United States, enabling the United States to combat a record surge in Central American asylum-seekers. Trump`s immigration crackdown has animated his base of supporters while immigrant advocates in the United States fear the court decision will endanger the lives of migrants, many of them fleeing poverty, street gangs and domestic violence in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. With the threat of automatic rejection hanging over the most recent arrivals, thousands of migrants are cramped into shelters or sleeping in the streets of Mexican border cities in places such as the state of Tamaulipas, where the US State Department has placed a "do not travel" advisory due to violent crime similar to its warnings against visiting war-torn Sudan or Syria. One asylum-seeker from El Salvador who staying in a Tijuana shelter while awaiting her immigration hearing in San Diego said she could only hope to God she would not be sent back. "I`m very scared, I hope this won`t affect me. I cannot return to my country, they tried to rape me there twice because I am a lesbian and the last time I ended up in a hospital in intensive care," said Veronica Martinez, 23. "I trust in God that the court`s decision does not affect me." The Mexican government also pushed back against the US high court`s action, one that could create a new headache for Mexico. "This is the ruling by the court, it`s a US issue, and obviously we don`t agree with it, we have a different policy," Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard told a news conference. Tense relations The court`s decision comes at a delicate time for Mexican-US relations. Under Trump`s threat of imposing tariffs, Mexico has agreed to house many of the surging number of Central American asylum-seekers south of the border pending their US hearings. That gesture has led to a sharp decline in US apprehensions and rejections of migrants at the border, winning Mexico praise from Trump following a White House meeting on Tuesday. But Mexico has resisted US pressure to sign a formal "safe third country" agreement that would commit it to hearing the asylum cases of migrants from Central American and elsewhere, a move that would take even more pressure off the US border. The downside for Mexico is that the buildup of migrants at the northern border is putting stress on schools, health clinics and housing. "We have seen outbreaks of acts of xenophobia in Mexico that did not exist before, mainly in the north of the country," said Israel Ibarra, an immigration expert with the Continente Movil consultancy in Tijuana. Francisco Gallardo, director of the Casa de Migrantes shelter in Reynosa, said migrants are sleeping in tents beside a bridge linking the two countries and are sure to grow more discouraged by the Supreme Court decision. "We`ll see what measures can be taken because there are about 500 people next to the bridge," Gallardo said. Under the so-called Migrant Protection Protocols, the US government built temporary, soft-sided courthouses near the border ports of entry in Laredo and Brownsville, Texas, and started hearing cases this week. In Harlingen, Texas, Judge Delia Gonzalez took the bench Thursday, linked by video conference to a courtroom 30 miles (50 km) away in Brownsville. She heard the cases of two Salvadorans who crossed from Mexico into south Texas in August, were arrested by US officers, and returned to the Mexican border town of Matamoros. A Salvadoran woman said she had received cruel threats from gangs, and Gonzalez asked if she feared returning. "Yes, a lot," the woman said. After brief hearings, she and a Salvadoran man were given court dates to appear again in October.

Mexico pushes back after top US court favours Trump on shunning migrants

Greece is to step up border patrols, move asylum-seekers from its islands to the mainland and speed up deportations in an effort to deal with a resurgence in migrant flows from neighbouring Turkey.

The government`s Council for Foreign Affairs and Defence convened on Saturday for an emergency session after the arrival on Thursday of more than a dozen migrant boats carrying around 600 people, the first simultaneous arrival of its kind in three years.&nbsp;

The increase in arrivals has piled additional pressure on Greece`s overcrowded island camps, all of which are operating at least twice their capacity.

Arrivals - mostly of Afghan families - have picked up over the summer, and August saw the highest number of monthly landings in three years.&nbsp;

Greece`s Moria camp on the island of Lesbos - a sprawling facility where conditions have been described by aid organisations as inhumane - is also holding the largest number of people since the deal was agreed.

On Saturday, the government said it would move asylum-seekers to mainland facilities, increase border surveillance together with the European Union`s border patrol agency Frontex and NATO, and boost police patrols across Greece to identify rejected asylum seekers who have remained in the country.

It also plans to cut back a lengthy asylum process, which can take several months to conclude, by abolishing the second stage of appeals when an application is rejected, and deporting the applicant either to Turkey or to their country of origin.

"The asylum process in our country was the longest, the most time consuming and, in the end, the most ineffective in Europe," Greece`s deputy citizen protection minister responsible for migration policy, Giorgos Koumoutsakos, told state television.

Responding to criticism from the opposition that the move was unfair and unlawful, Koumoutsakos said, "Asylum must move quickly so that those who are entitled to international protection are vindicated ... and for us to know who should not stay in Greece."

The government was "determined to push ahead with a robust returns policy because that is what the law and the country`s best interest impose, in accordance with human rights," he said.

Greece was the main gateway to northern Europe in 2015 for nearly a million migrants and refugees from war-torn and poverty-stricken countries in the Middle East and Africa.&nbsp;

A deal between the EU and Turkey in March 2016 reduced the influx to a trickle, but closures of borders across the Balkans resulted in tens of thousands of people stranded in Greece.

Humanitarian organisations have criticised Greece for not doing enough to improve living conditions at its camps, which they have described as "shameful".

 
&nbsp;

Greece is to step up border patrols, move asylum-seekers from its islands to the mainland and speed up deportations in an effort to deal with a resurgence in migrant flows from neighbouring Turkey.

Greece is to step up border patrols, move asylum-seekers from its islands to the mainland and speed up deportations in an effort to deal with a resurgence in migrant flows from neighbouring Turkey. The government`s Council for Foreign Affairs and Defence convened on Saturday for an emergency session after the arrival on Thursday of more than a dozen migrant boats carrying around 600 people, the first simultaneous arrival of its kind in three years. The increase in arrivals has piled additional pressure on Greece`s overcrowded island camps, all of which are operating at least twice their capacity. Arrivals - mostly of Afghan families - have picked up over the summer, and August saw the highest number of monthly landings in three years. Greece`s Moria camp on the island of Lesbos - a sprawling facility where conditions have been described by aid organisations as inhumane - is also holding the largest number of people since the deal was agreed. On Saturday, the government said it would move asylum-seekers to mainland facilities, increase border surveillance together with the European Union`s border patrol agency Frontex and NATO, and boost police patrols across Greece to identify rejected asylum seekers who have remained in the country. It also plans to cut back a lengthy asylum process, which can take several months to conclude, by abolishing the second stage of appeals when an application is rejected, and deporting the applicant either to Turkey or to their country of origin. "The asylum process in our country was the longest, the most time consuming and, in the end, the most ineffective in Europe," Greece`s deputy citizen protection minister responsible for migration policy, Giorgos Koumoutsakos, told state television. Responding to criticism from the opposition that the move was unfair and unlawful, Koumoutsakos said, "Asylum must move quickly so that those who are entitled to international protection are vindicated ... and for us to know who should not stay in Greece." The government was "determined to push ahead with a robust returns policy because that is what the law and the country`s best interest impose, in accordance with human rights," he said. Greece was the main gateway to northern Europe in 2015 for nearly a million migrants and refugees from war-torn and poverty-stricken countries in the Middle East and Africa. A deal between the EU and Turkey in March 2016 reduced the influx to a trickle, but closures of borders across the Balkans resulted in tens of thousands of people stranded in Greece. Humanitarian organisations have criticised Greece for not doing enough to improve living conditions at its camps, which they have described as "shameful".

Greece to increase border patrols and deportations to curb migrant influx

By Kevin Johnson 
 
The Trump administration is trying to terminate the Flores settlement, a legal agreement that determines how immigrant children are treated in US immigration detention.

The 1997 settlement established basic standards for the treatment of unaccompanied minors who were in the custody of federal authorities for violating immigration laws.

It requires the federal government to place children with a close relative or family friend “without unnecessary delay,” rather than detaining them, and to keep immigrant children who are in custody in the “least restrictive conditions” possible. Generally speaking, this has meant migrant children can be kept in federal immigrant detention for only 20 days.

But a new regulation, originally proposed by the Trump administration in 2018 and finalised on August 21, would remove the requirements of the Flores settlement.

Case took years

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration aggressively used detention of Central Americans as a device to deter migration from that region, where violent civil wars had caused tens of thousands to flee.

Central Americans arrested at the US-Mexico border were held in custody – including many who sought asylum in the US because they feared persecution if returned home.

Immigrant rights groups filed a series of lawsuits challenging various aspects of the detention policies, including denying migrants access to counsel, taking steps to encourage them to “consent” to deportation and detaining them in isolated locations far from families and attorneys.

One suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in 1985 on behalf of Jenny Lisette Flores, a 15-year-old from El Salvador. She had fled violence in her home country to live with an aunt who was in the US.

But Flores was detained by federal authorities at the US border for not having proper documentation permitting her to stay in the US.

The American Civil Liberties Union charged that holding Flores indefinitely violated the US&nbsp;Constitution and immigration laws. The Flores case slowly made its way to the US Supreme Court.

In its 1993 ruling in the case, the court held that a regulation allowing the government to release a migrant child to a close family member or legal guardian in the United States was legal.

But the primary legacy of the case was the subsequent settlement, to which both the Clinton administration and the plaintiffs agreed in 1997.

The Flores settlement is a landmark agreement in no small part because Central Americans continue to flee violence in their homelands and the US government has responded with mass detention of immigrant children.

Although the settlement was agreeable to the Clinton administration, the Trump administration strongly desires to detain families, including children, for periods longer than permitted by the Flores settlement – in fact, indefinitely.

Longtime contentious issue

Litigation over enforcement of the Flores settlement has exploded during the Trump administration, which has detained migrant children in poor conditions along the US-Mexico border since soon after taking office.

The lawsuits include a court case brought by immigrants’ rights and civil liberties groups in response to what they called the “imminent threat to the health and welfare” of migrant children in detention. US border officials should have “promptly released children to their relatives and provided safe and sanitary detention conditions for all children in its custody,” said an attorney representing the groups that brought the action.

Similarly, in the summer of 2018, based on the Flores settlement, a federal court barred immigration authorities from giving children psychotropic drugs without consent of parents or legal guardians.

Conditions apparently have not improved in detention centers across the country. Several children have died while in custody since January, and public outcry over the conditions of detention for the migrants have led to numerous court fights.

During recent litigation seeking to enforce the Flores settlement, the Department of Justice made headlines for its defense of the detention conditions of migrant children. The judges of the court of appeals were incredulous at the government’s claim that soap and a toothbrush were not necessarily required for detained migrant children. Not surprisingly, the court flatly rejected the government’s claim.

Last year, the Trump administration requested to amend the settlement to allow it to indefinitely detain migrant children.

The courts consistently have denied these requests and have continued to monitor the detention of migrant children, as the Flores settlement requires them to do.

Importantly, the new rule will allow the Department of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services to respond to significant changes that have occurred since the Flores settlement agreement has been in place, including dramatic increases in the numbers of unaccompanied children and family units crossing into the United States.

The rule is slated to take effect on October 23. But immigration and civil liberties advocates have vowed to challenge the rule in court, which will put the proposed change in front of US District Judge Dolly M. Gee. Gee is the judge who denied the administration’s request last year to extend family detentions. 
 
(Kevin Johnson is Dean and Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, University of California, Davis)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/changes-for-a-landmark-agreement-mean-immigrant-children-face-harsher-treatment-in-us-122282">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.) &nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

By Kevin Johnson The Trump administration is trying to terminate the Flores settlement, a legal agreement that determines how immigrant children are treated in US immigration detention.

By Kevin Johnson The Trump administration is trying to terminate the Flores settlement, a legal agreement that determines how immigrant children are treated in US immigration detention. The 1997 settlement established basic standards for the treatment of unaccompanied minors who were in the custody of federal authorities for violating immigration laws. It requires the federal government to place children with a close relative or family friend “without unnecessary delay,” rather than detaining them, and to keep immigrant children who are in custody in the “least restrictive conditions” possible. Generally speaking, this has meant migrant children can be kept in federal immigrant detention for only 20 days. But a new regulation, originally proposed by the Trump administration in 2018 and finalised on August 21, would remove the requirements of the Flores settlement. Case took years In the 1980s, the Reagan administration aggressively used detention of Central Americans as a device to deter migration from that region, where violent civil wars had caused tens of thousands to flee. Central Americans arrested at the US-Mexico border were held in custody – including many who sought asylum in the US because they feared persecution if returned home. Immigrant rights groups filed a series of lawsuits challenging various aspects of the detention policies, including denying migrants access to counsel, taking steps to encourage them to “consent” to deportation and detaining them in isolated locations far from families and attorneys. One suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in 1985 on behalf of Jenny Lisette Flores, a 15-year-old from El Salvador. She had fled violence in her home country to live with an aunt who was in the US. But Flores was detained by federal authorities at the US border for not having proper documentation permitting her to stay in the US. The American Civil Liberties Union charged that holding Flores indefinitely violated the US Constitution and immigration laws. The Flores case slowly made its way to the US Supreme Court. In its 1993 ruling in the case, the court held that a regulation allowing the government to release a migrant child to a close family member or legal guardian in the United States was legal. But the primary legacy of the case was the subsequent settlement, to which both the Clinton administration and the plaintiffs agreed in 1997. The Flores settlement is a landmark agreement in no small part because Central Americans continue to flee violence in their homelands and the US government has responded with mass detention of immigrant children. Although the settlement was agreeable to the Clinton administration, the Trump administration strongly desires to detain families, including children, for periods longer than permitted by the Flores settlement – in fact, indefinitely. Longtime contentious issue Litigation over enforcement of the Flores settlement has exploded during the Trump administration, which has detained migrant children in poor conditions along the US-Mexico border since soon after taking office. The lawsuits include a court case brought by immigrants’ rights and civil liberties groups in response to what they called the “imminent threat to the health and welfare” of migrant children in detention. US border officials should have “promptly released children to their relatives and provided safe and sanitary detention conditions for all children in its custody,” said an attorney representing the groups that brought the action. Similarly, in the summer of 2018, based on the Flores settlement, a federal court barred immigration authorities from giving children psychotropic drugs without consent of parents or legal guardians. Conditions apparently have not improved in detention centers across the country. Several children have died while in custody since January, and public outcry over the conditions of detention for the migrants have led to numerous court fights. During recent litigation seeking to enforce the Flores settlement, the Department of Justice made headlines for its defense of the detention conditions of migrant children. The judges of the court of appeals were incredulous at the government’s claim that soap and a toothbrush were not necessarily required for detained migrant children. Not surprisingly, the court flatly rejected the government’s claim. Last year, the Trump administration requested to amend the settlement to allow it to indefinitely detain migrant children. The courts consistently have denied these requests and have continued to monitor the detention of migrant children, as the Flores settlement requires them to do. Importantly, the new rule will allow the Department of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services to respond to significant changes that have occurred since the Flores settlement agreement has been in place, including dramatic increases in the numbers of unaccompanied children and family units crossing into the United States. The rule is slated to take effect on October 23. But immigration and civil liberties advocates have vowed to challenge the rule in court, which will put the proposed change in front of US District Judge Dolly M. Gee. Gee is the judge who denied the administration’s request last year to extend family detentions. (Kevin Johnson is Dean and Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, University of California, Davis) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Changes for a landmark agreement mean immigrant children face harsher treatment in US

Considering the Citizenship Act and rules, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the Centre to maintain Aadhaar-like secrecy for the data in Assam's <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/over-41-lakh-found-ineligible-under-draft-nrc-government-informs-rajya-sabha-238218">National Register of Citizens (NRC).</a>

In an interim order, a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman said, "Only hard copies of lists of inclusions and exclusions to be provided at district offices. The NRC to be updated according to the law laid down in the Section 66A judgment."

In its 2015 judgement, the court had struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to restrictions on online speech, as unconstitutional on the ground it violated freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

On July 23, the apex court had extended the deadline for the final publication of the NRC in Assam from July 31 to August 31.

Justices Gogoi and Nariman had passed the order on a plea filed by the Centre and Assam government for <a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../deadline-for-finalisation-of-assam-nrc-will-not- be-extended-supreme-court-216925">extension of the deadline</a>.

The court had, however, refused to allow a plea for 20 per cent sample re-verification of those included and excluded from the NRC.

The court is monitoring the NRC exercise aimed at identifying illegal immigrants in Assam, which has been facing an influx of people from Bangladesh for decades.

The NRC containing the names of Indian citizens was first prepared in 1951.

When the draft NRC was published on July 30, 2018, there was a huge controversy over the exclusion of 40.7 lakh people from it.

The draft NRC included the names of 2.9 crore people out of the total 3.29 crore applications.

Considering the Citizenship Act and rules, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the Centre to maintain Aadhaar-like secrecy for the data in Assam's National Register of Citizens (NRC).

Considering the Citizenship Act and rules, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the Centre to maintain Aadhaar-like secrecy for the data in Assam's National Register of Citizens (NRC). In an interim order, a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman said, "Only hard copies of lists of inclusions and exclusions to be provided at district offices. The NRC to be updated according to the law laid down in the Section 66A judgment." In its 2015 judgement, the court had struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to restrictions on online speech, as unconstitutional on the ground it violated freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. On July 23, the apex court had extended the deadline for the final publication of the NRC in Assam from July 31 to August 31. Justices Gogoi and Nariman had passed the order on a plea filed by the Centre and Assam government for extension of the deadline. The court had, however, refused to allow a plea for 20 per cent sample re-verification of those included and excluded from the NRC. The court is monitoring the NRC exercise aimed at identifying illegal immigrants in Assam, which has been facing an influx of people from Bangladesh for decades. The NRC containing the names of Indian citizens was first prepared in 1951. When the draft NRC was published on July 30, 2018, there was a huge controversy over the exclusion of 40.7 lakh people from it. The draft NRC included the names of 2.9 crore people out of the total 3.29 crore applications.

Supreme Court asks Centre to maintain Aadhaar-like secrecy for Assam NRC data

Oscar-winning director Guillermo Del Toro said lies being told about immigrants are being used to create divisions that are "complete fantasies" and that they should be soundly rejected. Del Toro spoke Tuesday at a ceremony where he received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, using his platform to encourage other immigrants to follow their dreams.

Guillermo Del Toro: ‘Do not believe the lies’ about immigrants

A judge on Friday blocked a move by US President Donald Trump's administration to stop <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/mexico-opens-new-migrant-shelter-as-us-continues-to-send-back-asylum-seekers-240177">migrants from claiming asylum</a> unless they had entered the country at an official border crossing, news outlets reported.

The policy, enacted by Trump last year, is among a host of measures his government has taken against the movement of hundreds of thousands of migrants from Central America and elsewhere who have recently tried to cross into the US from <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/mexico-says-migrant-numbers-at-us-border-down-40-since-may-239609">Mexico</a> and request asylum.

Federal judge Randolph Moss, sitting in Washington, ruled that the policy was "in excess of statutory... authority," ABC News reported.

Moss said it contradicts standing US immigration law, which allows undocumented people who are physically present in the country to apply for asylum even if they did not enter at an official port of entry, The Hill newspaper said.

The policy had earlier been blocked by a judge in San Francisco, a ruling the government is appealing.

Watch: The immigration debate: seesaws placed at US-Mexico border

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-the-immigration-debate-seesaws-placed-at-us-mexico-border-240019/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Trump's immigration policy has been the subject of numerous court challenges.

Last week, a federal judge in California issued a preliminary injunction blocking the administration's new rule barring most immigrants from obtaining asylum in the US if they transit through Mexico.

That policy would have effectively prevented most Central American asylum seekers from gaining entry into the United States at the southern border, as the majority come through Mexico.

Day later, Guatemala signed an agreement with the US that, according to Washington, makes it a "safe third country," meaning migrants who want to seek asylum in the United States but travel through Guatemala must request asylum in the Central American country.

The number of border-crossers detained by the US Border Patrol surged to a 13-year high of more than 144,000 in May before easing to 104,000 in June -- still up 142 per cent from a year earlier.

Most are families from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

A judge on Friday blocked a move by US President Donald Trump's administration to stop migrants from claiming asylum unless they had entered the country at an official border crossing, news outlets reported.

A judge on Friday blocked a move by US President Donald Trump's administration to stop migrants from claiming asylum unless they had entered the country at an official border crossing, news outlets reported. The policy, enacted by Trump last year, is among a host of measures his government has taken against the movement of hundreds of thousands of migrants from Central America and elsewhere who have recently tried to cross into the US from Mexico and request asylum. Federal judge Randolph Moss, sitting in Washington, ruled that the policy was "in excess of statutory... authority," ABC News reported. Moss said it contradicts standing US immigration law, which allows undocumented people who are physically present in the country to apply for asylum even if they did not enter at an official port of entry, The Hill newspaper said. The policy had earlier been blocked by a judge in San Francisco, a ruling the government is appealing. Watch: The immigration debate: seesaws placed at US-Mexico border × Trump's immigration policy has been the subject of numerous court challenges. Last week, a federal judge in California issued a preliminary injunction blocking the administration's new rule barring most immigrants from obtaining asylum in the US if they transit through Mexico. That policy would have effectively prevented most Central American asylum seekers from gaining entry into the United States at the southern border, as the majority come through Mexico. Day later, Guatemala signed an agreement with the US that, according to Washington, makes it a "safe third country," meaning migrants who want to seek asylum in the United States but travel through Guatemala must request asylum in the Central American country. The number of border-crossers detained by the US Border Patrol surged to a 13-year high of more than 144,000 in May before easing to 104,000 in June -- still up 142 per cent from a year earlier. Most are families from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

Judge blocks Trump asylum restriction: Reports

Every once in a while, a photograph of a migrant’s tragic death (usually that of a child) catches the public’s imagination. The 2015 image of three-year-old Alan Kurdi, fleeing from the Syrian civil war, dead face down in the surf on a Turkish beach, triggered a wave of sympathy that ended with Germany opening its borders to 900,000 refugees that year; and Hungary building a border fence to keep them out.

And now, here we are again. A picture of 23-month-old Valeria Martinez, tucked into her father Oscar’s T-shirt, both dead face down on the banks of the Rio Grande, has unleashed a similar wave of sympathy in the United States, although it certainly hasn’t reached the White House yet. And once again, most of the migrants are claiming to be refugees.

In fact, few migrants fit the legal definition of refugees in either case. The Arabs and Afghans trying to get into Europe had fled genuine wars, but they were already in Turkey, which is quite safe. They just wanted to move on to somewhere with better job opportunities and a higher standard of living. That’s understandable, but it doesn’t get you the right of asylum as a refugee.

The same applies to migrants crossing the Mediterranean from Africa to Europe, even though thousands of them are drowning in the attempt. They are fleeing poverty, or dictatorial regimes, or even climate change, but they are not fleeing war.

Neither do they have a “well-founded fear” of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. That is the language of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951, so they don’t qualify as refugees. You may feel sorry for them, but there is no legal duty to let them in.

The Refugee Convention was incorporated into the US law in the Refugee Act of 1980, so few of the people now seeking entry at the Mexican border qualify either. This matters, because while 20 years ago, 98% of the people crossing the border were Mexican young men seeking work, more than half are now entire families from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras — and most of them claim to be refugees.

They are not, and that is why US courts are rejecting at least three-quarters of the applications for refugee status. You may wish that the law took a more generous and humanitarian view, but it does not. And if you think things are bad now, they will be ten times worse in 20 years’ time.

Global warming is starting to bite. We’re still on the learner slopes, but the onslaught of droughts and floods, and then the crop failures that they cause, are multiplying, especially in the tropics and the sub-tropics where temperatures are already high.

In the worst-hit areas, family farms are failing, some people are going hungry, and the number of people on the move is starting to soar. This is precisely what unpublished, in-house government studies were predicting 20 years ago in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. Now it’s here.

As the number of migrants goes up, the willingness of host populations to receive them will inevitably go down. That’s human nature. You may deplore it, but it’s not going to change. And behind uncomfortable considerations of what the politics will permit, lies the even starker reality that they can’t all come.&nbsp;

Twenty years from now there will be far more people who desperately want to move than the destination countries could possibly accommodate.

So, the borders will start slamming shut in the countries, mostly in the temperate zone of the planet, where the climate is still tolerable and there is still enough food to eat. And don’t believe the myth that you cannot really shut a border. You can do so quite easily if you are willing to kill the people who try to cross it illegally, and the governments of the destination countries will probably end up doing just that.&nbsp;

Their military and their civil servants, if not their politicians, were already having grim internal debates about it 15 years ago. 
 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-few-immigrants-fit-the-legal-definition-of-global-refugees-2777770">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Every once in a while, a photograph of a migrant’s tragic death (usually that of a child) catches the public’s imagination. The 2015 image of three-year-old Alan Kurdi, fleeing from the Syrian civil war, dead face down in the surf on a Turkish beach, triggered a wave of sympathy that ended with Germany opening its borders to 900,000 refugees that year; and Hungary building a border fence to keep them out.

Every once in a while, a photograph of a migrant’s tragic death (usually that of a child) catches the public’s imagination. The 2015 image of three-year-old Alan Kurdi, fleeing from the Syrian civil war, dead face down in the surf on a Turkish beach, triggered a wave of sympathy that ended with Germany opening its borders to 900,000 refugees that year; and Hungary building a border fence to keep them out. And now, here we are again. A picture of 23-month-old Valeria Martinez, tucked into her father Oscar’s T-shirt, both dead face down on the banks of the Rio Grande, has unleashed a similar wave of sympathy in the United States, although it certainly hasn’t reached the White House yet. And once again, most of the migrants are claiming to be refugees. In fact, few migrants fit the legal definition of refugees in either case. The Arabs and Afghans trying to get into Europe had fled genuine wars, but they were already in Turkey, which is quite safe. They just wanted to move on to somewhere with better job opportunities and a higher standard of living. That’s understandable, but it doesn’t get you the right of asylum as a refugee. The same applies to migrants crossing the Mediterranean from Africa to Europe, even though thousands of them are drowning in the attempt. They are fleeing poverty, or dictatorial regimes, or even climate change, but they are not fleeing war. Neither do they have a “well-founded fear” of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. That is the language of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951, so they don’t qualify as refugees. You may feel sorry for them, but there is no legal duty to let them in. The Refugee Convention was incorporated into the US law in the Refugee Act of 1980, so few of the people now seeking entry at the Mexican border qualify either. This matters, because while 20 years ago, 98% of the people crossing the border were Mexican young men seeking work, more than half are now entire families from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras — and most of them claim to be refugees. They are not, and that is why US courts are rejecting at least three-quarters of the applications for refugee status. You may wish that the law took a more generous and humanitarian view, but it does not. And if you think things are bad now, they will be ten times worse in 20 years’ time. Global warming is starting to bite. We’re still on the learner slopes, but the onslaught of droughts and floods, and then the crop failures that they cause, are multiplying, especially in the tropics and the sub-tropics where temperatures are already high. In the worst-hit areas, family farms are failing, some people are going hungry, and the number of people on the move is starting to soar. This is precisely what unpublished, in-house government studies were predicting 20 years ago in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. Now it’s here. As the number of migrants goes up, the willingness of host populations to receive them will inevitably go down. That’s human nature. You may deplore it, but it’s not going to change. And behind uncomfortable considerations of what the politics will permit, lies the even starker reality that they can’t all come. Twenty years from now there will be far more people who desperately want to move than the destination countries could possibly accommodate. So, the borders will start slamming shut in the countries, mostly in the temperate zone of the planet, where the climate is still tolerable and there is still enough food to eat. And don’t believe the myth that you cannot really shut a border. You can do so quite easily if you are willing to kill the people who try to cross it illegally, and the governments of the destination countries will probably end up doing just that. Their military and their civil servants, if not their politicians, were already having grim internal debates about it 15 years ago. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Few immigrants fit the legal definition of global refugees

Asylum seekers have installed see-saw across U.S-Mexico border. Immigrants playful yet serious protests against divide. $2.5 Bn being redirected for the wall at U.S-Mexico border. Over 20,000 immigrants sent back to Mexico this year.

See-Saw Border: Unique way of protest at U.S-Mexico border

India on Thursday deported 30 Bangladeshi nationals, including three women, who had illegally entered India without valid documents.

The Bangladeshi nationals were kept in various detention centres in Assam after a local court convicted them of illegal immigration. Officials in Karimganj district of Assam deported them through the Kalibari Ghat checkpoint.

Karimganj Superintendent of Police Manabendra Debroy said, "A total of 30 people were deported back to Bangladesh. They were sent back in groups of five after completion of formalities and handed over to the Bangladesh authorities."

"Illegal Bangladeshi immigrants are different from 'declared foreigners'&nbsp;who are kept in detention centres for their inability to prove that they are Indian citizens. Those deported today were 'convicted foreigners'&nbsp;who had entered India without valid documents," Debroy added.

The immigrants belonged to Chittagong, Comilla, Pabna, Sylhet and other districts of Bangladesh.

India on Thursday deported 30 Bangladeshi nationals, including three women, who had illegally entered India without valid documents. The Bangladeshi nationals were kept in various detention centres in Assam after a local court convicted them of illegal immigration.

India on Thursday deported 30 Bangladeshi nationals, including three women, who had illegally entered India without valid documents. The Bangladeshi nationals were kept in various detention centres in Assam after a local court convicted them of illegal immigration. Officials in Karimganj district of Assam deported them through the Kalibari Ghat checkpoint. Karimganj Superintendent of Police Manabendra Debroy said, "A total of 30 people were deported back to Bangladesh. They were sent back in groups of five after completion of formalities and handed over to the Bangladesh authorities." "Illegal Bangladeshi immigrants are different from 'declared foreigners' who are kept in detention centres for their inability to prove that they are Indian citizens. Those deported today were 'convicted foreigners' who had entered India without valid documents," Debroy added. The immigrants belonged to Chittagong, Comilla, Pabna, Sylhet and other districts of Bangladesh.

30 Bangladeshi nationals lodged in Assam jail for illegally entering India; deported

India on Thursday deported 30 Bangladeshi nationals, including three women, who had illegally entered India without valid documents.

The Bangladeshi nationals were kept in various detention centres in Assam after a local court convicted them of illegal immigration. Officials in Karimganj district of Assam deported them through the Kalibari Ghat checkpoint.

Karimganj Superintendent of Police Manabendra Debroy said, "A total of 30 people were deported back to Bangladesh. They were sent back in groups of five after completion of formalities and handed over to the Bangladesh authorities."

"Illegal Bangladeshi immigrants are different from `declared foreigners` who are kept in detention centres for their inability to prove that they are Indian citizens. Those deported today were `convicted foreigners` who had entered India without valid documents," Debroy added. The immigrants belonged to Chittagong, Comilla, Pabna, Sylhet and other districts of Bangladesh.

India on Thursday deported 30 Bangladeshi nationals, including three women, who had illegally entered India without valid documents. The Bangladeshi nationals were kept in various detention centres in Assam after a local court convicted them of illegal immigration. Officials in Karimganj district of Assam deported them through the Kalibari Ghat checkpoint. Karimganj Superintendent of Police Manabendra Debroy said, "A total of 30 people were deported back to Bangladesh. They were sent back in groups of five after completion of formalities and handed over to the Bangladesh authorities." "Illegal Bangladeshi immigrants are different from `declared foreigners` who are kept in detention centres for their inability to prove that they are Indian citizens. Those deported today were `convicted foreigners` who had entered India without valid documents," Debroy added. The immigrants belonged to Chittagong, Comilla, Pabna, Sylhet and other districts of Bangladesh.

Supreme Court on Tuesday extended the deadline for the final publication of National Register of Citizens (NRC) from July 31 to August 31, 2019.

On July 19, the top court had deferred the hearing in NRC matter to fixed July 23. 
 
Solicitor General (SG) and senior Supreme Court lawyer, Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Assam Government, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-hear-nrc-matter-on-july-23-india-cant-be-refugee-capital-of-the-world-says-government-237043">pleaded the Supreme Court to extend</a> the July 31 deadline for finalisation of NRC in Assam.

Mehta told the SC, "There is a growing perception that lakhs of illegal migrants have been included in the NRC list in alleged collusion with local NRC officials in the state of Assam. Illegal immigrants have to be dealt severely. India cannot be the refugee capital of the world."

Last week, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/will-identify-deport-illegal-immigrants-from-every-inch-of-india-says-amit-shah-236665">Union Minister Amit Shah had said</a> that the government is determined to identify all the illegal immigrants and infiltrators living on every inch of this country and deport them as per the international law.

Responding to a supplementary query by Samajwadi Party member Javed Ali Khan in the Rajya Sabha, Shah said: "It is a very good question. The NRC is part of the Assam Accord and was also in (BJP's) election manifesto based on which the government has came to power. The government will identify illegal immigrants living on every inch of the country's soil and will deport them as per international law."&nbsp;

The NRC aims to separate "genuine" citizens from "illegal immigrants". The government has maintained that its intention is to ensure no illegal immigrant is registered under the NRC and no genuine citizen is left out of it. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court on Tuesday extended the deadline for the final publication of National Register of Citizens (NRC) from July 31 to August 31, 2019. On July 19, the top court had deferred the hearing in NRC matter to fixed July 23.

Supreme Court on Tuesday extended the deadline for the final publication of National Register of Citizens (NRC) from July 31 to August 31, 2019. On July 19, the top court had deferred the hearing in NRC matter to fixed July 23. Solicitor General (SG) and senior Supreme Court lawyer, Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Assam Government, pleaded the Supreme Court to extend the July 31 deadline for finalisation of NRC in Assam. Mehta told the SC, "There is a growing perception that lakhs of illegal migrants have been included in the NRC list in alleged collusion with local NRC officials in the state of Assam. Illegal immigrants have to be dealt severely. India cannot be the refugee capital of the world." Last week, Union Minister Amit Shah had said that the government is determined to identify all the illegal immigrants and infiltrators living on every inch of this country and deport them as per the international law. Responding to a supplementary query by Samajwadi Party member Javed Ali Khan in the Rajya Sabha, Shah said: "It is a very good question. The NRC is part of the Assam Accord and was also in (BJP's) election manifesto based on which the government has came to power. The government will identify illegal immigrants living on every inch of the country's soil and will deport them as per international law." The NRC aims to separate "genuine" citizens from "illegal immigrants". The government has maintained that its intention is to ensure no illegal immigrant is registered under the NRC and no genuine citizen is left out of it. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court extends deadline for final publication of NRC to August 31

Union Minister Amit Shah on Wednesday said that the government is determined to identify all the illegal immigrants and infiltrators living on every inch of this country and deport them as per the international law.

Responding to a supplementary query by Samajwadi Party member Javed Ali Khan in the Rajya Sabha, Shah said: "It is a very good question. The NRC is part of the Assam Accord and was also in (BJP's) election manifesto based on which the government has came to power. The government will identify illegal immigrants living on every inch of the country's soil and will deport them as per international law."&nbsp;

On Tuesday, the government said that it has adopted a multi-pronged approach to ensure effective surveillance and domination of international borders to check infiltration of illegal immigrants.

The Ministry of Home Affairs said in a written reply to Parvesh Sahib Singh in Lok Sabha said that physical infrastructure like border fencing, floodlighting, construction of border roads and establishment of border outposts have been created.

Currently, the National Register of Citizens (NRC) is being updated under the direct monitoring of the Supreme Court. The apex court has fixed July 31 as the deadline for finalisation of the NRC in Assam.

The NRC aims to separate "genuine" citizens from "illegal immigrants". The government has maintained that its intention is to ensure no illegal immigrant is registered under the NRC and no genuine citizen is left out of it. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

Union Minister Amit Shah on Wednesday said that the government is determined to identify all the illegal immigrants and infiltrators living on every inch of this country and deport them as per the international law.

Union Minister Amit Shah on Wednesday said that the government is determined to identify all the illegal immigrants and infiltrators living on every inch of this country and deport them as per the international law. Responding to a supplementary query by Samajwadi Party member Javed Ali Khan in the Rajya Sabha, Shah said: "It is a very good question. The NRC is part of the Assam Accord and was also in (BJP's) election manifesto based on which the government has came to power. The government will identify illegal immigrants living on every inch of the country's soil and will deport them as per international law." On Tuesday, the government said that it has adopted a multi-pronged approach to ensure effective surveillance and domination of international borders to check infiltration of illegal immigrants. The Ministry of Home Affairs said in a written reply to Parvesh Sahib Singh in Lok Sabha said that physical infrastructure like border fencing, floodlighting, construction of border roads and establishment of border outposts have been created. Currently, the National Register of Citizens (NRC) is being updated under the direct monitoring of the Supreme Court. The apex court has fixed July 31 as the deadline for finalisation of the NRC in Assam. The NRC aims to separate "genuine" citizens from "illegal immigrants". The government has maintained that its intention is to ensure no illegal immigrant is registered under the NRC and no genuine citizen is left out of it. (With inputs from agencies)

Will identify, deport illegal immigrants from every inch of India, says Amit Shah

US President Donald Trump backed down Thursday from a push to force a controversial question on citizenship onto the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/worried-about-undercount-states-and-cities-spend-promote-2020-census-168774">2020 census</a> following a backlash by civil rights campaigners.

Critics said the administration wanted to add the question to suppress participation by immigrant communities in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/lawmaker-aims-to-get-citizenship-question-removed-from-us-census-181537">once-a-decade survey</a> that helps officials determine where to allocate federal resources.&nbsp;

"We are pursuing a new option to ensure a complete and timely count of the non-citizen population," the president told a news conference at the White House.

Two weeks ago, the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-blocks-trumps-census-citizenship-question-for-now-230965">Supreme Court seemingly ended a legal and political battle</a> over the issue. It concluded that the Trump administration's stated reasons for including the question were "contrived," and blocked the move.

Stung by the conservative-majority high court's 5-4 decision, Trump raised the possibility of forcing the issue with an executive order or even postponing the census.

The stakes are immense,&nbsp;the census helps determine the disbursement of $675 billion in federal subsidies and the number of seats in the US House of Representatives allocated to each state.

A question on citizenship, which was dropped more than 60 years ago, could stop between 1.6 and 6.5 million immigrants from participating or answering truthfully, according to census officials.

Immigrants living in the country illegally would especially be reticent, out of fear that they would be identified for deportation.

As he announced the U-turn, Trump said he would sign an executive order requiring federal agencies to provide the Commerce Department with immigration information from their existing databases.

"It is essential that we have a clear breakdown of the number of citizens and non-citizens that make up the US population. Imperative," he said.

Rights groups and Democrats hailed Trump's climb-down.

"President @realDonaldTrump's census defeat is a significant victory for democracy and fair representation. Every person must be counted, and no one should be intimidated by the president and his capricious behaviour," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on Twitter.&nbsp;

"His retreat on adding the misguided citizen question to the census was long overdue."

The American Civil Liberties Union added that it will continue to monitor the Trump administration's efforts to count immigrants.

"When the details of Trump's new plan to compile citizenship data outside of the census come out -- and his plans for using that data -- we will scrutinise them closely and assess their legality."

US President Donald Trump backed down Thursday from a push to force a controversial question on citizenship onto the 2020 census following a backlash by civil rights campaigners.

US President Donald Trump backed down Thursday from a push to force a controversial question on citizenship onto the 2020 census following a backlash by civil rights campaigners. Critics said the administration wanted to add the question to suppress participation by immigrant communities in the once-a-decade survey that helps officials determine where to allocate federal resources. "We are pursuing a new option to ensure a complete and timely count of the non-citizen population," the president told a news conference at the White House. Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court seemingly ended a legal and political battle over the issue. It concluded that the Trump administration's stated reasons for including the question were "contrived," and blocked the move. Stung by the conservative-majority high court's 5-4 decision, Trump raised the possibility of forcing the issue with an executive order or even postponing the census. The stakes are immense, the census helps determine the disbursement of $675 billion in federal subsidies and the number of seats in the US House of Representatives allocated to each state. A question on citizenship, which was dropped more than 60 years ago, could stop between 1.6 and 6.5 million immigrants from participating or answering truthfully, according to census officials. Immigrants living in the country illegally would especially be reticent, out of fear that they would be identified for deportation. As he announced the U-turn, Trump said he would sign an executive order requiring federal agencies to provide the Commerce Department with immigration information from their existing databases. "It is essential that we have a clear breakdown of the number of citizens and non-citizens that make up the US population. Imperative," he said. Rights groups and Democrats hailed Trump's climb-down. "President @realDonaldTrump's census defeat is a significant victory for democracy and fair representation. Every person must be counted, and no one should be intimidated by the president and his capricious behaviour," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on Twitter. "His retreat on adding the misguided citizen question to the census was long overdue." The American Civil Liberties Union added that it will continue to monitor the Trump administration's efforts to count immigrants. "When the details of Trump's new plan to compile citizenship data outside of the census come out -- and his plans for using that data -- we will scrutinise them closely and assess their legality."

Donald Trump backs down on including citizenship question in 2020 census

A 17-year-old Honduran <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/migrants-describe-overcrowded-mexican-detention-centers-as-trump-ratchets-up-pressure-229762">migrant</a> described babies sleeping on a cold floor. A teen mother said her sick baby was unable to open her eyes for two days but no one responded to her pleas for help. Another teenager took charge of a 5-year-old stranger because the small child was very upset and had no one else after being separated from her father.

In filings in federal court in Los Angeles late on Wednesday, attorneys for <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/images-of-drowned-salvadoran-migrant-and-2-year-old-child-stir-outrage-230639">migrant children</a> asked a federal judge to hold the US government in contempt of court for "flagrant and persistent" violations of the terms of a 1997 agreement that governs the treatment of children in immigration detention. They requested immediate action be taken to remedy the "deplorable" conditions.

The filings, which include dozens of declarations from the children, come after attorneys and doctors last week visited Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facilities in South Texas to monitor compliance with the settlement, known as the Flores agreement.

CBP and Justice Department officials declined to comment on the filings. The visitors to the facilities found children held for weeks without access to soap, clean water, showers or even a change of clothes, the attorneys wrote. The unhygienic conditions led the flu to spread among the children, who they said were not receiving prompt medical treatment.&nbsp;

The court filings noted that at least six children have died while in US immigration custody or shortly after being released over the past year.&nbsp;

"With each passing day, more hospitalizations are occurring and more lives are at risk," the attorneys wrote.

"Immediate judicial intervention is necessary to compel immediate compliance with the Agreement, end this health and welfare crisis, and prevent more illness and child deaths at the border," the filings said.

The attorneys requested an immediate inspection of the facilities in the Rio Grande Valley and El Paso sectors by a public health expert. They also requested independent medical professionals be given access and that an emergency case management team be dispatched to speed release of children to parents and close relatives.

Broader concerns

Conditions at the Clint Border Patrol Station outside El Paso, Texas, sparked public outrage last week after the attorneys spoke out about conditions there. The documents filed late Wednesday highlight that their concerns are much broader.&nbsp;

Unaccompanied children - who cross the border alone or who have been separated from an adult they were travelling with - are supposed to be transferred quickly out of border patrol holding facilities and into the care of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which runs shelters for migrant children.

But there are now 178 children in border patrol facilities who have been there longer than the limit of 72 hours, US Rep. Diana DeGette said she was told by HHS on Wednesday.&nbsp;

At the Clint facility, the average length of time children are spending in custody is between six and 10 days, Station Chief Matthew Harris told reporters on Wednesday. Teen mothers often stay longer, up to two weeks, because they are harder to place in HHS shelters, he said.&nbsp;

President Donald Trump has made cracking down on immigration a centerpiece of his administration, arguing that the nation`s policies are too lax and filled with loopholes. But officials have struggled to handle a surge in mostly Central American families and unaccompanied children arriving at the US-Mexico border, many of them claiming asylum.&nbsp;

The administration is working on a regulation that would supersede the Flores settlement, which puts restrictions on the length of time children can be detained and the conditions they can be held in.

Migrant advocates say in their filings that the government already is breaching the settlement.

One 16-year old mother from Honduras described her 8-month-old baby vomiting and suffering diarrhoea while not being taken to see a doctor.&nbsp; 
"My baby daughter has not had medicine since we first arrived," she said in her declaration.

Many babies were not provided with appropriate food, while&nbsp;parents of infants drinking formula "reported having no ability to wash the bottles," wrote Dr. Dolly Sevier, who visited the Ursula border processing facility in McAllen, Texas.

Children described inconsolable younger children who were separated from parents or other caregivers at the border.&nbsp;

"There are little kids here who have no one to take care of them, not even a big brother or sister," one 11-year old boy said. "Some kids are only 2 or 3 years old and they have no one to take care of them."

A 17-year-old Honduran migrant described babies sleeping on a cold floor. A teen mother said her sick baby was unable to open her eyes for two days but no one responded to her pleas for help.

A 17-year-old Honduran migrant described babies sleeping on a cold floor. A teen mother said her sick baby was unable to open her eyes for two days but no one responded to her pleas for help. Another teenager took charge of a 5-year-old stranger because the small child was very upset and had no one else after being separated from her father. In filings in federal court in Los Angeles late on Wednesday, attorneys for migrant children asked a federal judge to hold the US government in contempt of court for "flagrant and persistent" violations of the terms of a 1997 agreement that governs the treatment of children in immigration detention. They requested immediate action be taken to remedy the "deplorable" conditions. The filings, which include dozens of declarations from the children, come after attorneys and doctors last week visited Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facilities in South Texas to monitor compliance with the settlement, known as the Flores agreement. CBP and Justice Department officials declined to comment on the filings. The visitors to the facilities found children held for weeks without access to soap, clean water, showers or even a change of clothes, the attorneys wrote. The unhygienic conditions led the flu to spread among the children, who they said were not receiving prompt medical treatment. The court filings noted that at least six children have died while in US immigration custody or shortly after being released over the past year. "With each passing day, more hospitalizations are occurring and more lives are at risk," the attorneys wrote. "Immediate judicial intervention is necessary to compel immediate compliance with the Agreement, end this health and welfare crisis, and prevent more illness and child deaths at the border," the filings said. The attorneys requested an immediate inspection of the facilities in the Rio Grande Valley and El Paso sectors by a public health expert. They also requested independent medical professionals be given access and that an emergency case management team be dispatched to speed release of children to parents and close relatives. Broader concerns Conditions at the Clint Border Patrol Station outside El Paso, Texas, sparked public outrage last week after the attorneys spoke out about conditions there. The documents filed late Wednesday highlight that their concerns are much broader. Unaccompanied children - who cross the border alone or who have been separated from an adult they were travelling with - are supposed to be transferred quickly out of border patrol holding facilities and into the care of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which runs shelters for migrant children. But there are now 178 children in border patrol facilities who have been there longer than the limit of 72 hours, US Rep. Diana DeGette said she was told by HHS on Wednesday. At the Clint facility, the average length of time children are spending in custody is between six and 10 days, Station Chief Matthew Harris told reporters on Wednesday. Teen mothers often stay longer, up to two weeks, because they are harder to place in HHS shelters, he said. President Donald Trump has made cracking down on immigration a centerpiece of his administration, arguing that the nation`s policies are too lax and filled with loopholes. But officials have struggled to handle a surge in mostly Central American families and unaccompanied children arriving at the US-Mexico border, many of them claiming asylum. The administration is working on a regulation that would supersede the Flores settlement, which puts restrictions on the length of time children can be detained and the conditions they can be held in. Migrant advocates say in their filings that the government already is breaching the settlement. One 16-year old mother from Honduras described her 8-month-old baby vomiting and suffering diarrhoea while not being taken to see a doctor. "My baby daughter has not had medicine since we first arrived," she said in her declaration. Many babies were not provided with appropriate food, while parents of infants drinking formula "reported having no ability to wash the bottles," wrote Dr. Dolly Sevier, who visited the Ursula border processing facility in McAllen, Texas. Children described inconsolable younger children who were separated from parents or other caregivers at the border. "There are little kids here who have no one to take care of them, not even a big brother or sister," one 11-year old boy said. "Some kids are only 2 or 3 years old and they have no one to take care of them."

Attorneys ask court to intervene against US over migrant kids' detention conditions

Mexico's immigration centers are becoming increasingly squalid and overcrowded as authorities step up the detention of migrants headed for the United States, with inmates languishing for weeks amid medical neglect, according to detainees, lawyers and rights groups. 
&nbsp; 
Reuters spoke to more than a dozen recent detainees at the Siglo XXI detention center, the country`s largest. They described being held in the facility in Chiapas state on Mexico`s southern border for long periods without information about their cases.

The detainees reported severe overcrowding, sparse water and food, and limited healthcare.&nbsp;

Their accounts were supported by two lawyers representing 26 other inmates, as well as the migration ombudsman at Mexico`s National Human Rights Commission and reports from two migrant rights groups: Fray Matias de Cordova and the Human Rights Observation Mission for the Refugee and Humanitarian Crisis in Southeast Mexico, a collective of 24 aid groups.&nbsp;

&nbsp;Twelve of the detainees told Reuters they were held for at least three weeks in the center, meant to hold people for a maximum of 15 days until their cases are processed.

&nbsp;Mexico`s National Immigration Institute (INM), which runs Siglo XXI, did not respond to repeated requests for comment on conditions at the center. 
&nbsp;&nbsp; 
Asked about the extended detentions, an INM official, who asked not to be identified, said migrant cases were complex and needed to be analyzed on an individual basis.&nbsp;

&nbsp;Guards at the gates of the center declined to answer questions or to allow a Reuters reporter to speak with its director.

Detention numbers triple

US President Donald Trump made a crackdown on illegal migration the flagship policy of his 2016 election campaign. Struggling to get the funds from Congress to build a border wall, and with a significant uptick in Central Americans seeking asylum, he threatened trade tariffs unless Mexico plugged leaks south of the US border.

In response, Mexico has increased detentions. During the first five months of this year, it has tripled the number of migrants it detained monthly to reach 23,679 in May, according to unpublished government data seen by Reuters.&nbsp;

That has strained its underfunded network of centers, which already had a reputation for poor conditions.

Foreigners stopped by Mexican authorities without valid documents can be held in detention while they await transit visas or regularization of their situation. Edgar Corzo, the migration ombudsman, said that process is meant to take no more than 15 days.&nbsp;

Thousands have passed this year through the gates of Siglo XXI, which Corzo and the migrant rights groups said had been at or near double its 970-person capacity for months.

All the people spoken to for this story said detainees slept on thin mattresses or none at all in corridors and bathrooms because of lack of space in cells.&nbsp;

Corzo said that INM had failed to alleviate the overcrowding despite repeated requests from the human rights commission, which he attributed partly to a lack of resources.

Inmates said children older than 13 years were separated from parents and lights were kept on all night, disrupting sleep – claims supported by a May 31 report from the migrant aid collective and the migration rights ombudsman.

They also told Reuters about unsanitary conditions that led to mass outbreaks of diarrhea among child detainees.

Overflowing toilets

Hundreds of detainees have broken out of Siglo XXI in recent weeks after disturbances that inmates told Reuters were triggered by squalid conditions. INM acknowledged one breakout.&nbsp;

Photographs and videos shared with Reuters by one inmate at Siglo XXI purported to show lavatories blocked and overflowing with filth as well as dozens of semi-naked men sprawled on black mattresses in a corridor.&nbsp;

&nbsp;Reuters was not able to confirm their accuracy.

&nbsp;Mavi Cruz Reyes, spokeswoman for Fray Matias de Cordova, said the group has documented multiple cases of detention lasting weeks at Siglo XXI.&nbsp;

Detainees frequently are given no access to information about why they are detained, the group said.

The rights ombudsman told Reuters that some smaller centers among Mexico`s 58 immigrant detention facilities were even more overcrowded than Siglo XXI, holding up to four times capacity.&nbsp;

Lisdybi Garcia Aguilar, 26, from Cuba, was four months pregnant when migration officials pulled her out of a taxi on April 5 to check her papers, she said. Garcia was on her way to the immigration office in Tapachula to seek a visa as instructed by migration officials at the border, she added.&nbsp;

Instead, they took her to Siglo XXI, where her phone and other belongings were confiscated, she said.

"They told me it was to `regularize` my status, that all would be well and that this wasn`t a prison, it was a lodging area," Garcia told Reuters after she was freed. "It was a prison: a prison in every sense of the term."

Garcia said her pregnancy is high risk due to endometriosis - a uterine condition - but she was ignored when she pleaded for help during an episode of fainting and acute abdominal pains. When detainees took her to the clinic, she said the nurse gave her a pill without explaining what it contained.&nbsp;

Reuters was not able to independently confirm Garcia`s account. Four other inmates told Reuters they did not receive treatment for episodes that ran from fever to abdominal pains.&nbsp;

Garcia said she was held at the center for three weeks. On April 13, she filed for asylum in Mexico with an official from the United Nations Refugee Agency, UNHCR. She showed Reuters an asylum application with that date.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 
UNHCR declined to comment on her case but confirmed it had assisted some Siglo XXI detainees with asylum applications. It said in a statement to Reuters it was concerned about conditions at the site and that detention of asylum seekers should be an exceptional practice as it could lead to their deportation, in violation of international law. &nbsp;

Cuban asylum applicant Yildiz Gomez, 22, attempted suicide by swallowing a bottle of pills used to treat ear infections after she was hauled back into Siglo XXI, having been about to be freed after three weeks in detention, according to her husband and two inmates. Detainees forced her to throw up.

On May 8 - after 47 days in detention - Gomez gave up on a legal solution. Along with dozens of other detainees, she escaped, becoming a fugitive in Mexico.

Mexico's immigration centers are becoming increasingly squalid and overcrowded as authorities step up the detention of migrants headed for the United States, with inmates languishing for weeks amid medical neglect, according to detainees, lawyers and rights groups.

Mexico's immigration centers are becoming increasingly squalid and overcrowded as authorities step up the detention of migrants headed for the United States, with inmates languishing for weeks amid medical neglect, according to detainees, lawyers and rights groups. Reuters spoke to more than a dozen recent detainees at the Siglo XXI detention center, the country`s largest. They described being held in the facility in Chiapas state on Mexico`s southern border for long periods without information about their cases. The detainees reported severe overcrowding, sparse water and food, and limited healthcare. Their accounts were supported by two lawyers representing 26 other inmates, as well as the migration ombudsman at Mexico`s National Human Rights Commission and reports from two migrant rights groups: Fray Matias de Cordova and the Human Rights Observation Mission for the Refugee and Humanitarian Crisis in Southeast Mexico, a collective of 24 aid groups. Twelve of the detainees told Reuters they were held for at least three weeks in the center, meant to hold people for a maximum of 15 days until their cases are processed. Mexico`s National Immigration Institute (INM), which runs Siglo XXI, did not respond to repeated requests for comment on conditions at the center. Asked about the extended detentions, an INM official, who asked not to be identified, said migrant cases were complex and needed to be analyzed on an individual basis. Guards at the gates of the center declined to answer questions or to allow a Reuters reporter to speak with its director. Detention numbers triple US President Donald Trump made a crackdown on illegal migration the flagship policy of his 2016 election campaign. Struggling to get the funds from Congress to build a border wall, and with a significant uptick in Central Americans seeking asylum, he threatened trade tariffs unless Mexico plugged leaks south of the US border. In response, Mexico has increased detentions. During the first five months of this year, it has tripled the number of migrants it detained monthly to reach 23,679 in May, according to unpublished government data seen by Reuters. That has strained its underfunded network of centers, which already had a reputation for poor conditions. Foreigners stopped by Mexican authorities without valid documents can be held in detention while they await transit visas or regularization of their situation. Edgar Corzo, the migration ombudsman, said that process is meant to take no more than 15 days. Thousands have passed this year through the gates of Siglo XXI, which Corzo and the migrant rights groups said had been at or near double its 970-person capacity for months. All the people spoken to for this story said detainees slept on thin mattresses or none at all in corridors and bathrooms because of lack of space in cells. Corzo said that INM had failed to alleviate the overcrowding despite repeated requests from the human rights commission, which he attributed partly to a lack of resources. Inmates said children older than 13 years were separated from parents and lights were kept on all night, disrupting sleep – claims supported by a May 31 report from the migrant aid collective and the migration rights ombudsman. They also told Reuters about unsanitary conditions that led to mass outbreaks of diarrhea among child detainees. Overflowing toilets Hundreds of detainees have broken out of Siglo XXI in recent weeks after disturbances that inmates told Reuters were triggered by squalid conditions. INM acknowledged one breakout. Photographs and videos shared with Reuters by one inmate at Siglo XXI purported to show lavatories blocked and overflowing with filth as well as dozens of semi-naked men sprawled on black mattresses in a corridor. Reuters was not able to confirm their accuracy. Mavi Cruz Reyes, spokeswoman for Fray Matias de Cordova, said the group has documented multiple cases of detention lasting weeks at Siglo XXI. Detainees frequently are given no access to information about why they are detained, the group said. The rights ombudsman told Reuters that some smaller centers among Mexico`s 58 immigrant detention facilities were even more overcrowded than Siglo XXI, holding up to four times capacity. Lisdybi Garcia Aguilar, 26, from Cuba, was four months pregnant when migration officials pulled her out of a taxi on April 5 to check her papers, she said. Garcia was on her way to the immigration office in Tapachula to seek a visa as instructed by migration officials at the border, she added. Instead, they took her to Siglo XXI, where her phone and other belongings were confiscated, she said. "They told me it was to `regularize` my status, that all would be well and that this wasn`t a prison, it was a lodging area," Garcia told Reuters after she was freed. "It was a prison: a prison in every sense of the term." Garcia said her pregnancy is high risk due to endometriosis - a uterine condition - but she was ignored when she pleaded for help during an episode of fainting and acute abdominal pains. When detainees took her to the clinic, she said the nurse gave her a pill without explaining what it contained. Reuters was not able to independently confirm Garcia`s account. Four other inmates told Reuters they did not receive treatment for episodes that ran from fever to abdominal pains. Garcia said she was held at the center for three weeks. On April 13, she filed for asylum in Mexico with an official from the United Nations Refugee Agency, UNHCR. She showed Reuters an asylum application with that date. UNHCR declined to comment on her case but confirmed it had assisted some Siglo XXI detainees with asylum applications. It said in a statement to Reuters it was concerned about conditions at the site and that detention of asylum seekers should be an exceptional practice as it could lead to their deportation, in violation of international law. Cuban asylum applicant Yildiz Gomez, 22, attempted suicide by swallowing a bottle of pills used to treat ear infections after she was hauled back into Siglo XXI, having been about to be freed after three weeks in detention, according to her husband and two inmates. Detainees forced her to throw up. On May 8 - after 47 days in detention - Gomez gave up on a legal solution. Along with dozens of other detainees, she escaped, becoming a fugitive in Mexico.

Migrants describe overcrowded Mexican detention centers as Trump ratchets up pressure

U.S has planned to deport illegal immigrant families from Sunday, they will specifically target the recently arrived families in America. Watch this video to know more.

U.S to act against illegal immigrants

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is celebrating an agreement avoiding US tariffs as a major political and diplomatic triumph for his government.

“We didn’t win everything, but we were able to claim a victory with there being no tariffs,” said chief negotiator Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico’s foreign affairs secretary, on June 9.

The two neighbours have been at odds since United States President Donald Trump on May 30 threatened to hit all Mexican imports with steadily rising tariffs unless Mexico successfully halted the northward flow of Central American migrants fleeing extreme poverty and violence through Mexico toward the United States.

Approximately 80 per cent of Mexican exports are destined for the United States. Tariffs would have devastated Mexico’s economy.

To keep its goods untaxed, Mexico had to convince President Trump that it was serious about stopping migration. After a week of frantic negotiations, Mexico said it would deploy up to 6,000 National Guard troops to its southern border with Guatemala to stop migrants from entering Mexico.

As part of the agreement, a Trump administration program known as “Remain in Mexico,” which forces some migrants to wait in Mexico while their asylum claims are processed in the US, will also be expanded.

At a June 8 rally “for the dignity of Mexico and friendship with the US” held in the border city of Tijuana, López Obrador pledged that Mexico will reinforce its southern border while still “applying the law and respecting the human rights” of migrants.

Ebrard added at the rally that Mexico had emerged from a near trade war with its “dignity intact.”

Doing the dirty work 
 
As a law professor who teaches human rights, I believe that dignity will come at great cost to both Mexico and to the migrants fleeing extreme poverty and violence in Central America.

Many Mexican lawmakers, including allies of the president, have expressed outrage that their immigration policy is now bound by an “immoral and unacceptable” deal that effectively turns Mexico itself into Trump’s border wall.

The agreement violates the campaign promises of López Obrador, who took office in December promising to protect migrants’ rights and pledging not to do the U.S.‘s “dirty work” on border enforcement.

It also violates the Mexican Constitution and international law.

According to international refugee law asylum-seekers with demonstrable fear of persecution in their home countries are entitled to seek protection in the place of their choosing. Mexican law goes further. As of 2011, legitimate asylum-seekers are entitled not just to seek but to be granted asylum in Mexico.

Trump’s economic threats against Mexico may not even have been legal. Both the current North American Free Trade Agreement and the newly signed – but not yet ratified – United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement require most trade between North American countries to be tariff-free.

Even before the recent negotiations, López Obrador was already quietly complying with US demands to do more to prevent migrants from reaching the US.

Between January and May of this year, Mexico detained 74,031 migrants – a 36 per cent increase compared to the same period last year under former Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto. The number of migrants deported from Mexico tripled from 5,717 in December 2018 to 15,654 in April 2019, government statistics show.

Sending troops out to target migrants, as Mexico has now promised to do, will almost certainly result in the excessive use of force against these migrants.

The Mexican National Guard is an untested new military police force with immigration enforcement powers. Its creation in early 2019 was highly controversial in Mexico given the Mexican military’s extraordinarily violent law enforcement record.

Between 2007 and 2017, when troops were helping police fight Mexican drug cartels, the National Human Rights Commission received over 13,700 complaints of human rights violations committed by soldiers against civilians. These included accusations of arbitrary arrests, torture and extrajudicial killings.

Mexico is not a safe country 
 
Beyond avoiding tariffs, Mexico’s main victory in its negotiations with the United States appears to be having resisted pressure to sign a “safe third country” agreement.

Under such an agreement, refugees are required to apply for asylum in the country where they first land and not the country where they ultimately want to settle. This means that one country can reject a person’s asylum application if they have already been granted asylum by another country.

Canada and the US&nbsp;signed such an agreement in 2002, and Trump has been pushing Mexico to do the same since spring 2018. Under this proposal, thousands of migrants in Mexico who have already applied for asylum in the United States and are now waiting for an answer would see their applications invalidated.

Foreign Secretary Ebrard consistently rejected that proposal. He insisted that a safe third country arrangement would violate the Mexican Constitution and Mexico’s international human rights agreements.

But it is not actually clear how the newly expanded “Remain in Mexico” program – the details of which have not yet been released – will differ in practice from a safe third country agreement.

Migrants may end up staying in Mexico for years while they await their asylum hearing in the United States. During that period, Mexico will be responsible for housing, feeding and protecting refugees.

Jorge Castañeda, Mexico’s secretary of foreign affairs from 2000 to 2003, has derided Mexico’s commitment as a “light” safe third country agreement.

The mere idea that Mexico is safe is “a particularly cynical bout of wishful thinking,” as Mexican journalist León Krauze put it in a recent Washington Post op-ed.

Mexico is one of the world’s most dangerous places. An estimated 33,000 people were murdered there last year – twice the average annual homicides in the United States in a country with less than half the population.

Dozens of Central Americans have disappeared from migrant caravans journeying northward in Mexico. Over 90 per cent of migrants say they do not feel safe in Mexico, according to a survey of 500 Central American asylum-seekers conducted in February 2018.

Mexico must do more with less

The “Remain in Mexico” policy is likely to result in a significant increase in claims filed for asylum in Mexico, where the immigration system is already under enormous strain.

Around 29,000 people applied for asylum in Mexico in 2018, according to United Nations data. This year, between January and March, Mexico received 12,716 asylum applications – 43 per cent of last year’s total in just three months.

The Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance, which processes asylum claims, currently has a two-year backlog.

It will now have to do more with less.

Under López Obrador’s austerity policies, the commission’s 2019 budget was cut 20 per cent, to about $1 million – its lowest budget since 2011.

More migrants, less money, extreme violence and a recalcitrant, unpredictable northern neighbour – these are the ingredients of a refugee crisis, not a diplomatic victory. 
&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/migrants-will-pay-the-price-of-mexicos-tariff-deal-with-trump-118269">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp;

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is celebrating an agreement avoiding US tariffs as a major political and diplomatic triumph for his government. “We didn’t win everything, but we were able to claim a victory with there being no tariffs,” said chief negotiator Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico’s foreign affairs secretary, on June 9.

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is celebrating an agreement avoiding US tariffs as a major political and diplomatic triumph for his government. “We didn’t win everything, but we were able to claim a victory with there being no tariffs,” said chief negotiator Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico’s foreign affairs secretary, on June 9. The two neighbours have been at odds since United States President Donald Trump on May 30 threatened to hit all Mexican imports with steadily rising tariffs unless Mexico successfully halted the northward flow of Central American migrants fleeing extreme poverty and violence through Mexico toward the United States. Approximately 80 per cent of Mexican exports are destined for the United States. Tariffs would have devastated Mexico’s economy. To keep its goods untaxed, Mexico had to convince President Trump that it was serious about stopping migration. After a week of frantic negotiations, Mexico said it would deploy up to 6,000 National Guard troops to its southern border with Guatemala to stop migrants from entering Mexico. As part of the agreement, a Trump administration program known as “Remain in Mexico,” which forces some migrants to wait in Mexico while their asylum claims are processed in the US, will also be expanded. At a June 8 rally “for the dignity of Mexico and friendship with the US” held in the border city of Tijuana, López Obrador pledged that Mexico will reinforce its southern border while still “applying the law and respecting the human rights” of migrants. Ebrard added at the rally that Mexico had emerged from a near trade war with its “dignity intact.” Doing the dirty work As a law professor who teaches human rights, I believe that dignity will come at great cost to both Mexico and to the migrants fleeing extreme poverty and violence in Central America. Many Mexican lawmakers, including allies of the president, have expressed outrage that their immigration policy is now bound by an “immoral and unacceptable” deal that effectively turns Mexico itself into Trump’s border wall. The agreement violates the campaign promises of López Obrador, who took office in December promising to protect migrants’ rights and pledging not to do the U.S.‘s “dirty work” on border enforcement. It also violates the Mexican Constitution and international law. According to international refugee law asylum-seekers with demonstrable fear of persecution in their home countries are entitled to seek protection in the place of their choosing. Mexican law goes further. As of 2011, legitimate asylum-seekers are entitled not just to seek but to be granted asylum in Mexico. Trump’s economic threats against Mexico may not even have been legal. Both the current North American Free Trade Agreement and the newly signed – but not yet ratified – United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement require most trade between North American countries to be tariff-free. Even before the recent negotiations, López Obrador was already quietly complying with US demands to do more to prevent migrants from reaching the US. Between January and May of this year, Mexico detained 74,031 migrants – a 36 per cent increase compared to the same period last year under former Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto. The number of migrants deported from Mexico tripled from 5,717 in December 2018 to 15,654 in April 2019, government statistics show. Sending troops out to target migrants, as Mexico has now promised to do, will almost certainly result in the excessive use of force against these migrants. The Mexican National Guard is an untested new military police force with immigration enforcement powers. Its creation in early 2019 was highly controversial in Mexico given the Mexican military’s extraordinarily violent law enforcement record. Between 2007 and 2017, when troops were helping police fight Mexican drug cartels, the National Human Rights Commission received over 13,700 complaints of human rights violations committed by soldiers against civilians. These included accusations of arbitrary arrests, torture and extrajudicial killings. Mexico is not a safe country Beyond avoiding tariffs, Mexico’s main victory in its negotiations with the United States appears to be having resisted pressure to sign a “safe third country” agreement. Under such an agreement, refugees are required to apply for asylum in the country where they first land and not the country where they ultimately want to settle. This means that one country can reject a person’s asylum application if they have already been granted asylum by another country. Canada and the US signed such an agreement in 2002, and Trump has been pushing Mexico to do the same since spring 2018. Under this proposal, thousands of migrants in Mexico who have already applied for asylum in the United States and are now waiting for an answer would see their applications invalidated. Foreign Secretary Ebrard consistently rejected that proposal. He insisted that a safe third country arrangement would violate the Mexican Constitution and Mexico’s international human rights agreements. But it is not actually clear how the newly expanded “Remain in Mexico” program – the details of which have not yet been released – will differ in practice from a safe third country agreement. Migrants may end up staying in Mexico for years while they await their asylum hearing in the United States. During that period, Mexico will be responsible for housing, feeding and protecting refugees. Jorge Castañeda, Mexico’s secretary of foreign affairs from 2000 to 2003, has derided Mexico’s commitment as a “light” safe third country agreement. The mere idea that Mexico is safe is “a particularly cynical bout of wishful thinking,” as Mexican journalist León Krauze put it in a recent Washington Post op-ed. Mexico is one of the world’s most dangerous places. An estimated 33,000 people were murdered there last year – twice the average annual homicides in the United States in a country with less than half the population. Dozens of Central Americans have disappeared from migrant caravans journeying northward in Mexico. Over 90 per cent of migrants say they do not feel safe in Mexico, according to a survey of 500 Central American asylum-seekers conducted in February 2018. Mexico must do more with less The “Remain in Mexico” policy is likely to result in a significant increase in claims filed for asylum in Mexico, where the immigration system is already under enormous strain. Around 29,000 people applied for asylum in Mexico in 2018, according to United Nations data. This year, between January and March, Mexico received 12,716 asylum applications – 43 per cent of last year’s total in just three months. The Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance, which processes asylum claims, currently has a two-year backlog. It will now have to do more with less. Under López Obrador’s austerity policies, the commission’s 2019 budget was cut 20 per cent, to about $1 million – its lowest budget since 2011. More migrants, less money, extreme violence and a recalcitrant, unpredictable northern neighbour – these are the ingredients of a refugee crisis, not a diplomatic victory. (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Migrants will pay the price of Mexico’s tariff deal with Trump

immigrants

Immigrants, News on Immigrants, stories on Immigrants, articles on Immigrants, Immigrants stories at Wion, Immigrants news, Immigrants latest news