Top News
Hong Kong readies for more protests after night of clashes  ||   Nobel laureate starts fund for survivors of sexual violence  ||   Impossible to come to Houston and not talk energy!: PM Modi on 'fruitful' meeting with energy sector CEOs  ||   Winners and losers from Week 4 in college football, led by Central Florida and Auburn  ||   Three takeaways from No. 3 Georgia's defeat of No. 7 Notre Dame  ||   PM Modi's 'down to earth' gesture at Houston airport leaves netizens impressed!  ||   Howdy, Modi: PM Modi shows he practises what he preaches on cleanliness  ||   2019 Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series race winners  ||   Indian origin teen to sing national anthem at 'Howdy Modi'  ||   NHL preseason 2019  ||   ‘Storm Area 51’: How a small Nevada town prepared for the worst  ||   Attack us, become a battlefield, Iran warns as US deploys troops to Saudi  ||   PM Modi's meeting with CEOs from energy sector 'fruitful': MEA  ||   Biden accuses Trump of ‘abuse of power’ as Ukraine denies whistleblower reports  ||   Change is coming whether you like it or not: Greta  ||   Elizabeth Warren leads Iowa Poll for the first time, besting Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders  ||   Police suspect longstanding 'beef' led to deadly shooting at South Carolina bar  ||   BJP banking on ‘Mano’ magic in Haryana  ||   How Khattar became Haryana’s ‘fourth Lal’  ||   INLD vs JJP: It’s a battle without any winners  ||            

Immigration lawyers: We saw what's happening at the US-Mexico border. It's a tragic farce.  1 Month ago

Source:   USA Today  

In January 2019, the Trump administration implemented the “Migrant Protection Protocols,” also known as “Remain in Mexico,” which forces most Spanish-speaking asylum seekers to be briefly screened at the border and then returned to Mexico to wait for their court date. This applies to nearly all asylum applicants, whether they are at a port of entry or enter the United States between ports of entry. So far, some 40,000 asylum seekers have been sent back to Mexico to wait, or kept there awaiting their first try.

We went to El Paso and Ciudad Juarez to help asylum seekers caught in this program and it was immediately clear: MPP is designed to give the appearance of due process — a day in court where they can ask for asylum — but in reality due process is nowhere to be found. 

In Juarez, they’re dropped off at a facility on the Mexico side of the Paso del Norte bridge and then simply released onto the street. They lean on the assistance of non-profit and faith-based groups, but there are a finite number of shelters. We spent four days drafting asylum applications with families who had no other access to attorneys. We sat, sometimes on the floor and sometimes in the dark as power faltered, listening to the horrific tales of the dangers they fled in Central America and the danger they faced in Mexico. 

It is nearly impossible for these families to find an attorney. Since they are not permitted to stay in the United States, any attorney willing to take these cases would have to prepare an asylum case entirely by phone or enter Juarez to meet with clients in conditions that lack space for confidential discussions and any guarantee of safety. According to a recent Syracuse University study, only 1.3% of asylum applicants in the MPP program have attorneys.  

Many of the asylum seekers we met with had been kidnapped (some had been kidnapped multiple times) or had managed to escape attempted kidnappings as cartels, gangs, and corrupt government officials easily target them. Multiple women have reported being sexually assaulted and raped upon their return to Mexico. Some of the families stated they had even seen their kidnappers circling the neighborhood. They now refuse to leave the shelter, except for their court dates, some of which are set three to four months into the future. This court date is the first time they have an opportunity to ask for an interview with an asylum officer. 

Things are not much better when they finally arrive in immigration court in El Paso. Immigration court hearings are open to the public, but the government has limited the number of observers, making transparency a joke. We refused to take no for an answer and were able to observe hearings on the MPP docket.

Of 93 individuals listed for hearings on the first docket, only five were able to present themselves at the port of entry successfully and get into court. Four others had tried but Customs and Border Protection had deemed them “medically inadmissible.” The five that appeared in court beat the odds: they had survived three months in Mexico and found their own food and shelter, transported themselves to the port of entry in Juarez, avoided kidnapping on the way to court, got through the Mexican immigration side, and presented themselves to CBP at the bridge over the Rio Grande sometime around 4 a.m. for their 1 p.m. hearing.

The remaining 84 people were ordered removed from the United States for failing to appear in court without regard to the endless obstacles they faced. One man was with his 12-year-old daughter. A grandmother cried as she told the judge she had entered the United States with her daughter and three grandchildren and had been separated from them. Another man said he had been separated from his partner and his partner hadn’t come back from his hearing the previous day — was his partner okay?  

The judge asked if any of the individuals had fears of returning to Mexico and all five raised their hands. Not surprising. In 2018, Juarez was one of the most dangerous cities in the world, with 1,247 murders. The judge assured all of the individuals that the ICE attorney in the room would make sure they were screened for their fear of returning to Mexico, but didn’t mention that nearly everyone is sent back to Mexico at the end of this screening.

Because none of the applicants had legal representation, they had many questions: why weren’t they staying in the United States? Could the immigration judge release them? Were they eligible for a bond? Could they have a work permit? When was the next hearing? Why couldn’t they be reunited with their family members? Most of their questions went unanswered.

We ventured to another courtroom with about 20 immigrants, none represented by an attorney. All were women. Hearings in that courtroom took less than 2 minutes each (one hearing was as short as 36 seconds) and the asylum process was not explained at all. They were asked if they wanted time to find an attorney. If they said yes, the judge barked a date and time like “September 12th at 8:30 a.m. Do you understand?” but didn’t explain further. Many of the applicants asked if their cases could be combined with their spouse and the judge merely told them to talk to the government.  At the end of each “hearing,” the applicants politely thanked the judge. 

One woman told the judge she had been assaulted in Juarez and had proof — she began to get emotional and she asked to not be sent back to Mexico. She was clearly not understanding the process and as it became clear to her the judge did not care, she said “panic!” in Spanish. 

The immigration judge responded, “Thank you and have a good day.” Case closed — for now.

More News
About Us Terms & Conditions Disclaimer
Advertise Contact
register and win

NRIS.COM is one of the premier NRI website that provides a range of resourceful services to Indian expats residing in the USA. Visiting the site you will find comprehensive information related to restaurants, casinos, pubs, temples, carpool, movies, education, real estate, and forums. The simple and easy to navigate format allows NRIs to gain information within a fraction of a second. Moreover, advertising through its column of Indian free classifieds in USA allow businesses to improve visibility of their brand.

NJ NRI's Chat (0 Users Online)