Trump’s Border Policy: Seeking Asylum Abroad

Here’s a breakdown of the key points and arguments presented in the text:

Core Issue: Removal to Third Countries

The central theme is the government’s ability to remove individuals (non-citizens) to third countries when their home countries won’t accept them.

Key Concepts and Arguments:

“visable, or impossible” Removal: This phrase seems to refer to situations where a person cannot be removed to their country of origin, making deportation “impossible” or at least very difficult. In such cases,the government might explore removal to an alternative country.
Connection to a Third Country: The text emphasizes that it’s rare and generally considered unethical to send someone to a third country to which they have no connection whatsoever. This is contrasted with situations where there is some prior link (e.g., place of birth, family ties).
Due Process: The author argues that “due process of law” in this context means:
Notice: Individuals should be informed before being ordered removed to a place they have no connection to. Opportunity to Claim Rights: They should have a chance to argue that such removal would violate their rights under immigration laws.
Protected Rights: thes protected rights include:
protection from Torture and Cruel treatment: The right not to be sent to a place where there’s a “possibility or likelihood” of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
Protection from Persecution: The right not to be removed to a country where they might face persecution (a distinct legal concept from torture).
Example of Uyghur to China: Sending a Uyghur to China, even if that specific Uyghur wasn’t originally from China, is presented as an example of removing someone to a country where they likely face persecution, violating the aforementioned rights.
government Assurances and Judicial Deference:
The Management claims to get assurances from third countries about the well-being of those transferred/removed.
The author is highly skeptical of these assurances (“absolutely no reason to trust anything they say”).
Though, the author acknowledges that courts, especially the Supreme Court, might give “deference” to these government assurances, meaning they might accept them without deep scrutiny. Distinction Between Prisoners and removable individuals: The author corrects the interviewer’s use of “prisoners,” clarifying that many individuals are being removed after serving their sentences in the US and are “eligible for removal,” not necessarily currently incarcerated. The idea of removing someone to a prison for further punishment is highlighted as “very concerning.”
Historical Precedents and Concerns:
Alien Enemies Act and Salvadoran Prison: A past example of removing individuals (who hadn’t been convicted) to a Salvadoran prison under a US agreement is mentioned, highlighting the potential for problematic transfers.
South Sudan: The uncertainty about the status (prison vs. free) and treatment of individuals removed to south Sudan raises concerns about the lack of transparency and oversight. Limits on Judicial Review:
Courts will likely have “serious limits” on their ability to intervene when the government moves people to third countries.
Courts are reluctant to “peer behind the negotiations” the government has with other countries.
The author points to the Administration’s past “misrepresentations” and unwillingness to “justify itself” as reasons why courts should scrutinize these deals, but acknowledges that deference might prevent this.
Unsafe Countries: If the destination country is one that the US itself warns is unsafe, this “might warrant scrutiny.”

In essence, the text argues that while international law and due process principles should protect individuals from being sent to places where they face severe harm (torture, persecution), the reality of government negotiations, judicial deference, and past practices creates significant challenges in ensuring these protections are upheld.

What are the key criticisms of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP)?

The Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) – Remain in Mexico

Donald Trump’s presidency saw a dramatic shift in U.S. border policy, most notably through the implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), frequently enough referred to as the “Remain in Mexico” policy. This policy fundamentally altered the asylum process for individuals seeking protection at the U.S.-Mexico border.Instead of being allowed to await their U.S. immigration court hearings within the United States, asylum seekers were returned to Mexico.

This had significant consequences for vulnerable populations. The stated goal was to reduce fraudulent asylum claims and address a backlog in the U.S. immigration court system. Critics, however, argued it violated international law and exposed asylum seekers to dangerous conditions in Mexico.

Key Features of MPP:

Asylum seekers arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border were subject to return to Mexico while their U.S. immigration cases were processed.

Individuals were generally returned to cities along the border, frequently enough with limited access to legal depiction or adequate shelter.

The policy initially applied to Central American migrants, but was later expanded.

Impact on Asylum Seekers & Humanitarian Concerns

The “Remain in Mexico” policy created a host of humanitarian challenges. Reports from organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International documented widespread violence, kidnapping, extortion, and sexual assault against asylum seekers forced to wait in Mexican border cities.

The lack of adequate legal support also hindered asylum seekers’ ability to navigate the complex U.S. immigration system. Many missed court dates due to lack of information or fear for their safety, leading to in absentia removal orders. This effectively denied them the possibility to present their asylum claims.

Specific Vulnerabilities:

LGBTQ+ Individuals: Faced heightened risk of violence and discrimination in Mexico.

Families with Children: Exposed to dangerous living conditions and separated from support networks.

Victims of Trauma: Re-traumatized by the conditions in Mexico and the asylum process.

The Biden Administration and the End of MPP – A Brief History

Upon taking office in 2021, the Biden administration attempted to end MPP, citing its inhumane conditions and legal concerns. Though, legal challenges from Texas and Missouri led to a Supreme Court ruling in June 2022 requiring the administration to reimplement the policy in good faith.

The reimplementation was limited in scope and included certain exceptions. Ultimately, the administration ended MPP again in August 2023, coinciding with the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency, which had been used to justify rapid border expulsions under Title 42.

Current Landscape: Alternatives to MPP & New Border Enforcement Measures

With MPP officially terminated, the Biden administration has focused on choice approaches to border management. These include:

1. Increased Border Patrol Resources: deploying additional agents and technology to the border.
2. Regional Migration Management: Working with countries in Central and South America to address the root causes of migration.
3. Asylum Processing Centers: Establishing centers in Mexico and Central America to pre-screen asylum claims.
4. The Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule: This rule, implemented in May 2023, substantially restricts access to asylum for those who enter the U.S. illegally, requiring them to first seek protection in another country thay transited through.

These measures have been met with mixed reactions. Supporters argue they are necessary to manage the flow of migrants and deter illegal crossings. Critics contend they further restrict access to asylum and violate international obligations.

The Impact of Trump’s Policies on Global Health – A Relevant Connection

While seemingly unrelated,the restrictive border policies enacted during the Trump administration,and the subsequent disruption of migration patterns,have had indirect consequences for global health.A report by the Deutsche Lepra- und Tuberkulosehilfe (DAHW) highlighted concerns that limiting access to healthcare for migrants and asylum seekers could hinder the global fight against diseases like tuberculosis. https://www.aerzteblatt.de/news/hilfsorganisation-trump-macht-tuberkulose-zur-globalen-gefahr-5640c8ff-043a-4142-ab27-30e2cc021434 This underscores the interconnectedness of immigration policy and public health.

Navigating the Asylum Process Today: Resources & Practical Tips

For individuals seeking asylum in the United States, understanding the current landscape is crucial. Here are some resources and practical tips:

* legal Representation: Seek legal counsel from a qualified