WASHINGTON, D.C. – Calling the federal government’s migration protection protocols – also known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy – “baseless and immoral,” a coalition of 500 religious organizations and leaders have asked Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen for an immediate end to the policy.

In a Feb. 26 letter to Nielsen, the religious groups and individuals said the policy ” returns vulnerable asylum-seekers to Mexico and puts them at risk of further harm while they wait for their case to be processed in the United States.”

“Our diverse moral teachings find consistency in the absolute value of the human person and our obligation to protect the most vulnerable among us,” the letter said. “We call on you to uphold our country’s asylum law and respect asylum-seekers and others seeking protection as the human beings they are.”

The letter cited two main reasons for ending the policy: It “puts people fleeing danger back in harm’s way,” and it “jeopardizes access to counsel, due process and (the) overall ability for a person to find safety in the United States.”

“Our country’s asylum laws are based upon the international principle of non-refoulement – a promise that we as the United States will not send people back to countries where their lives or freedom will be at risk,” the letter said.

However, “since July 2017, the dangers facing refugees and migrants in Mexico have escalated. Asylum-seekers forced to return to Mexico face risk of homelessness, malnourishment, disease, assault, kidnapping and death,” the letter added. “Recent reports confirm that Mexican authorities continue to improperly return asylum-seekers to their countries of persecution and that the deficiencies in the Mexican asylum system have grown.”

Central American countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras – from where the bulk of many asylum-seekers have fled – “have some of the highest homicide rates in the world for countries that are not classified as being at war,” the letter said.

“Additionally, the policy has serious implications for children asylum-seekers – leaving them without access to education and other factors that will permanently affect their development, health, and well-being.”

On the access-to-counsel issue, the faith leaders’ letter said, “Asylum-seekers’ due process right to access legal counsel both during the assessment at ports of entry and while waiting in Mexico is seriously compromised by the policy.”

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced what is being called the “Remain in Mexico” policy Dec. 20, saying it is provided for under Section 235(b)(2)(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Pompeo said the U.S. government notified Mexico’s government it was invoking that section, a move he said was necessary “to confront the illegal immigration crisis facing the United States.”

“Individuals arriving in the United States from Mexico – illegally or without proper documentation – will be returned to Mexico for the duration of their immigration proceedings,” he said in a statement. “In response, the Mexican government has informed us that it will support the human rights of migrants by affording affected migrants humanitarian visas to stay on Mexican soil, the ability to apply for work, and other protections while they await U.S. proceedings.”

In a separate statement Dec. 20, Nielsen said the action was needed because some “try to game the system” by entering the U.S. without legal permission and then “disappear” into the country. “Many skip their court dates” to appear before an immigration judge, she said, but under the new policy, “they will wait for an immigration court decision while they are in Mexico.”

With regard to access to counsel for asylum-seekers, the faith leaders’ letter, their “due process right to access legal counsel both during the assessment at ports of entry and while waiting in Mexico is seriously compromised by the policy.”

“While awaiting a court date in Mexico, the ability to obtain a U.S. legal representative will be nearly insurmountable,” it added.

“In the slim chance a person is able to retain legal representation, the logistics of speaking to and providing them with the necessary documentation to support their asylum claim would be costly, confusing, and negatively impact a person’s case. Given these unnecessary barriers, the policy will prevent asylum seekers from having a fair and equitable opportunity to seek protection and find refuge.”

Dozens of religious orders and at least six Catholic Charities affiliates were among the Catholic signatories to the letter, as were the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, the Franciscan Action Center, the Catholic social justice lobby Network, the Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, and Pax Christi USA. Likewise, dozens of women and men religious were among the individual signers to the letter.

Source: https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2019/03/01/500-religious-groups-leaders-seek-end-to-remain-in-mexico-policy/

The post 500 religious groups, leaders seek end to ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

A dozen migrants traveling by foot from Honduras to the U.S. to seek asylum filed a class-action lawsuit Thursday against President Trump, the Department of Homeland Security and others, claiming a violation of their due process under the Fifth Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment states that, “no person… shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

A recent PBS report cited former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who ruled in 1993 case that “it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in a deportation proceeding.”

Twelve Honduran nationals, including six children, are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The suit, which was filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., said it is widely known that Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador are “undergoing a well-documented human rights crisis.” The lawsuit also claims that the plaintiffs’ right to the Administrative Procedures Act and the Declaratory Judgement Act were being infringed upon.

The Central American migrant caravan now numbers approximately 4,000 people, down from a high of 7,200.

The lawsuit points to Trump’s claim that he will prevent the caravan from entering the U.S. It claims that the president cannot stop asylum-seekers by employing the military — when they have a fair claim. The suit criticized the president’s alleged attempt at stoking “fear and hysteria” by claiming that criminals and gang members have joined the caravan.

The suit cited a Trump interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, where the president laid out plans to build tent cities to house migrants. The suit questioned the functionality of such a project, and asked if these living quarters would qualify under the Flores Agreement of 1997. The agreement protects asylum-seekers’ rights and limits how long minors can be held.

Earlier this summer, a federal judge in California rejected a request by the administration to modify Flores to allow for longer family detention. Administration officials say they have the authority to terminate the agreement, but that is likely to be tested in court.

The White House, Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security — which were all named as defendants — did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment.

Trump announced in a lengthy speech at the White House on Thursday afternoon that in response to what he called the “crisis at our southern border” and a surge of fraudulent asylum claims in recent years, his administration will soon require asylum-seekers to “lawfully present themselves” at a port of entry.

Asylum claims made by migrants caught crossing the border illegally would seemingly be summarily denied under Trump’s proposal.

The asylum clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act says that anyone who arrives to the U.S. may apply for asylum based on a well-founded fear of persecution, and Trump’s decision was expected to prompt immediate federal court challenges.

Nexus Services Inc. is funding the lawsuits through a civil rights law firm called Nexus Derechos Humanos (Human Rights) Attorneys Inc.

“Federal law enables migrants to apply for asylum in the United States. President Trump and his administration have used ‘increased enforcement,’ like separating families and lengthening detention to violate migrant rights,” Mike Donovan, president of Nexus Services, said in the release.

There is another legal issue at stake, according to the lawsuit. The U.S. cannot send troops into Mexico to cut off the caravan from crossing the border, it said. Even with the National Guard at the border, once an immigrant indicates an intention to apply for asylum, the suit maintained the process has begun.

Immigrants who are seeking asylum must be referred for a “credible fear interview,” for which an asylum officer would determine if the immigrant has a “credible fear of persecution,” the lawsuit said. If the officer makes that determination, then there is a significant chance for the asylum-seeker to be granted asylum, according to the suit.

Fox News’ Gregg Re and The Associated Press contributed to this report

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/migrants-traveling-to-us-sue-trump-government-claim-violation-of-constitutional-rights

The post Migrants traveling to US sue Trump, government; claim violation of constitutional rights first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The court, in a 5-4 ruling in which President Donald Trump’s conservative appointee Neil Gorsuch joined the four liberal justices, invalidated the provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act and sided with convicted California burglar James Garcia Dimaya, a legal immigrant from the Philippines.

The ruling, written by liberal Justice Elena Kagan, was decried by the administration, which had defended the provision.

Federal authorities had ordered Dimaya deported after he was convicted in two California home burglaries in 2007 and 2009. Neither burglary involved violence.

Kagan said ambiguity surrounding the crimes of violence provision created confusion in lower courts. “Does car burglary qualify as a violent felony?” Kagan wrote. “Some courts say yes, another says no.” Kagan mentioned other examples including evading arrest and trespassing in which courts have also been divided.

The court’s ruling will not affect a number of serious crimes, including murder, rape, counterfeiting or terrorism offenses, which are specifically listed in the law as grounds for deportation, several immigration attorneys said. That could limit its impact, though the government does not provide data on which crimes trigger the most deportations.

Immigration attorneys are uncertain how many pending deportations will be affected by the ruling, but “it’s certainly not a tidal wave,” said Kathy Brady, a senior staff attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

Gorsuch, in a concurring opinion, wrote that the American colonies in the 18th century cited vague English law like the crime of treason as among the reasons for the American revolution.

“Today’s vague laws may not be as invidious, but they can invite the exercise of arbitrary power all the same – by leaving the people in the dark about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up,” Gorsuch added.

It was not entirely surprising that Gorsuch would break with the four other conservatives on the court and vote to strike down the provision. Gorsuch is ideologically aligned with the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, whom he replaced on the court last year. Scalia wrote a 2015 ruling that was invoked in Tuesday’s decision that found that a similar provision in a federal criminal sentencing law was overly broad.

Gorsuch interpreted the immigration provision based on the original understanding of the Constitution, a view held by many conservative jurists.

‘SAFE HAVEN FOR CRIMINALS’

“Today’s ruling significantly undermines DHS’s efforts to remove aliens convicted of certain violent crimes, including sexual assault, kidnapping and burglary, from the United States,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security spokesman Tyler Houlton said.

“By preventing the federal government from removing known criminal aliens, it allows our nation to be a safe haven for criminals and makes us more vulnerable as a result,” Houlton added.

Trump called on Congress to pass legislation. “Today’s Court decision means that Congress must close loopholes that block the removal of dangerous criminal aliens, including aggravated felons,” Trump said on Twitter.

The Supreme Court upheld a 2015 lower court ruling that the provision requiring Dimaya’s deportation created uncertainty over which crimes may be considered violent, risking arbitrary enforcement in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The court issued the ruling at a time of intense focus on immigration issues in the United States as Trump seeks to increase deportations of immigrants who have committed crimes, though it was former President Barack Obama’s administration that sought to deport Dimaya.

Dimaya’s attorney, Joshua Rosenkranz, said the decision strikes down a law that has over decades led to the deportation of thousands of immigrants. “The Supreme Court delivered a resounding message today: You can’t banish a person from his home and family without clear lines, announced up front,” Rosenkranz said.

In 2010, the government sought to deport him and a Justice Department board refused to cancel his expulsion. In the federal criminal code, a “crime of violence” includes offenses in which force either was used or carried a “substantial risk” that it would be used.

In a dissenting opinion on Tuesday, conservative Chief Justice John Roberts said the immigration law provision at issue should have been upheld. Roberts said the ruling will have significant ramifications because the same crime of violence definition is used in numerous other laws, including using or carrying firearms during a violent crime, and could call into question convictions under them.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on Oct. 2, the first day of its current nine-month term. The court initially heard arguments in January 2017 when it was one justice short, but decided last June after Gorsuch brought the court to full strength to have the case re-argued, putting him in a position to cast the deciding vote.

The post Supreme Court restricts deportations of immigrant felons first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.