More stories

  • in

    Biden to reinstate Trump-era ‘Remain in Mexico’ migrant policy

    US immigrationBiden to reinstate Trump-era ‘Remain in Mexico’ migrant policyDoJ says reinstatement depends on approval from MexicoCourt overturned Biden’s initial decision to suspend policy Amanda Holpuch@holpuchFri 15 Oct 2021 14.57 EDTLast modified on Fri 15 Oct 2021 15.55 EDTThe Biden administration said on Friday it plans to reinstate the Trump-era border policy known as Remain in Mexico, which forced at least 70,000 asylum seekers to stay in Mexico, many for extended periods and in deprived and dangerous conditions, while they waited for their cases to be considered US courts.Senior state department official calls Biden’s deportation of Haitians illegalRead moreJoe Biden suspended the policy formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) in his first days in office, but a federal judge ordered his administration to put it back into place.In a court filing late on Friday, the US justice department said the program’s reinstatement depended on approval from the Mexican government, which is asking for the asylum cases to be settled in six months and for the US to ensure the people affected have timely and accurate information as well as better access to legal counsel. The program is expected to be back in effect in mid-November.Donald Trump introduced Remain in Mexico in January 2019. From the beginning, advocates criticized the program because it put highly vulnerable migrants, mostly from Central and South America, at serious risk of physical harm and illness as they waited in some of the most dangerous cities in the world. It also fails to address the forces pushing people north to the US-Mexico border and the huge backlogs in US immigration courts.Campaign group Human Rights Watch said in a January report about the policy that affected asylum seekers it interviewed, including children, “described rape or attempted rape and other sexual assault, abduction for ransom, extortion, armed robbery, and other crimes committed against them”.The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) immigrants’ rights policy director, Omar Jadwat, said via Twitter that the news was “appalling” and acknowledged the Biden administration was required by a court order to make a “good faith” effort to restart it.“They had a lot of options here, including re-terminating MPP promptly and seeking to vacate the order,” Jadwat said.To restart the program, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plans to spend $14.1m to reopen temporary courtrooms located in tents in Laredo and Brownsville, Texas, which will cost $10.5m a month to operate, according to a court filing.In June, the DHS secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, formally put an end to the policy and in a memo said: “MPP had mixed effectiveness in achieving several of its central goals and that the program experienced significant challenges.”TopicsUS immigrationMexicoAmericasTrump administrationUS politicsBiden administrationUS-Mexico bordernewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Kamala Harris takes heat from both sides in daunting border visit

    The sun beat down on the 30ft border fence that separates El Paso, Texas from Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, as temperatures headed towards 100F on the southern border that stands as a symbol for so much in American politics.The heat was also on for Vice-President Kamala Harris, who was making her first trip to the border since being tasked with immigration policy by Joe Biden more than three months ago.It is not an easy job. She was handed one of the toughest issues in American politics and one that has plagued successive American presidents for several decades, no matter what political party was occupying the White House.Criticism for Harris came from both sides of the political aisle for the length of time it took her to make the trip on Friday. More attacks came from Donald Trump, who had accepted an offer from Texas’ rightwing governor Greg Abbott to tour the border ahead of an attempt by Republican-run Texas to fund the completion of a border wall. “If Governor Abbott and I weren’t going there next week, she would have never gone!” Trump said.But Trump’s criticism of Harris was hardly the only voice raised against her as she seeks to come to grips with immigration and border security. She was also criticized by immigration activists and many on the left of the Democratic party for the message she delivered during an early June visit to Guatemala.“Do not come. Do not come,” she said. “I believe if you come to our border, you will be turned back.”The blunt message was ill-received by those who pointed out that Harris’ parents were also immigrants.“[Her comments] reinforced the years of attacks on the rights of refugees and asylum seekers by the previous administration,” said Dylan Corbett, the director of a local non-profit organization that focuses on immigration policies and aiding migrants in El Paso and Ciudad Juárez. “The message should be: ‘How can we, together, build a future where your children don’t have to migrate?’”After touring a border patrol facility to kick off her visit, Harris made an unannounced stop at the Paso Del Norte port of entry, a busy international bridge that connects the downtown centers of El Paso and Ciudad Juárez.While there, she met with five girls detained at the bridge’s processing center, aged between nine and 16 and all from Central America. The meeting was closed to the press, but her office described the meeting as positive, with the girls calling Harris an inspiration and drawing photos for her.Approximately 1,600 children just like those girls are being housed in shelters at the US army’s Fort Bliss in El Paso, according to US media, where there are lengthy stays, poor conditions and infrequent meetings with lawyers.But a visit to the controversial shelter on Fort Bliss was not part of the vice-president’s visit, despite the announcement of an investigation of the housing for migrant children.Across the street from her meeting with the girls, a small group of immigration advocates chanted from the corner, “Si, se puede!” after Harris left. She headed back to the airport, where she met with the leaders of immigrants rights organizations. The focus of their discussion was reported as the root causes and drivers of immigration to the United States.Behind the talk, though, is a brutal reality.The trip from Central America for many immigrants is long and potentially lethal, especially for children. There are deaths from heat stroke as migrants trek through triple-digit desert heat, or fall from the 30ft high border wall already in place in high-traffic areas along the international line.Migrants who survive that fall are just a few of the people who are taken to a local non-profit organization, Annunciation House, which operates as a network of shelters, helping to connect migrants with family in the States and legal representation for asylum cases.The injuries range from fractured ankles to head injuries that have left a woman quadriplegic, according to the director of Annunciation House, Ruben Garcia.“We have such little appreciation for what they’re risking to be safe, to put food on the table,” Garcia said. “These people aren’t coming here because they want to put jacuzzis in their houses.”Nor is getting to the border, or even across it, the end of the story. Should migrants survive the trip from their home countries, through Mexico and across the border into the US, in most cases, they are not currently allowed to stay in the US, even when seeking asylum.Nearly 100,000 migrants have been expelled from El Paso, Texas, into Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, since October, according to data provided by the border patrol. The expulsions are still taking place under a policy known as Title 42, implemented by the Trump administration. Thus far, Title 42 has been kept in place by the Biden administration despite outcry from immigration organizations.“The expulsions under Title 42 are still rampant,” Garcia said.The policy falls under the umbrella of public health and was implemented as a response to Covid-19. “We all know it had nothing to do with the pandemic, it had to do with immigration control,” Garcia said. “I tell people: Donald Trump did get his wall. It’s called Title 42.”There was little sign Harris planned to end that. Nor is there much doubt that the debate over immigration and the border in the US will remain toxic after a Trump era when many Republicans – including the former president – made openly racist statements about immigrants.“In the United States, there is an incredibly significant population that doesn’t want you, they speak extremely derogatorily about you,” said Garcia. “They wouldn’t care if you die on the way, they wouldn’t care if you fell off the wall and broke your back.”Harris sought to draw a little of that poison on her trip. “Let’s not lose sight that we’re talking about human beings,” she said.After meeting with Harris, Linda Rivas, the executive director of Las Americas, a non-profit organization that provides legal representation during immigration processes, said she was grateful to share the stories of her clients with the vice-president but also called for more action. “The Biden-Harris administration must improve the asylum process and end the cruel border policies that ripped families apart,” Rivas said.But as the policy debate continues and Harris mulls her next steps, the heat is unlikely to relent – either in US politics or at the sweltering border itself.In a statement last week, US Customs and Border Protection described crossing the border in the desert in the summer. “The terrain along the border is extreme, the summer heat is severe, and the miles of desert migrants must hike after crossing the border in many areas are unforgiving,” it said.At the moment, not much looks likely to change that. More

  • in

    Kamala Harris questioned over not going to US-Mexico border – video

    US vice-president Kamala Harris has brushed off questions about her decision not to go to the US-Mexico border as part of her work to address the spike in migration. Harris, who was asked about the issue during visits to Mexico and Guatemala, said: ‘I’ve been to the border before and I will go again, but when I’m in Guatemala dealing with root causes, I think we should have a conversation about what is going on in Guatemala’, Harris said. Republican lawmakers have criticised her for not prioritising the shared frontier

    Kamala Harris takes on a new role as she heads on her first overseas trip
    AOC condemns Kamala Harris for telling Guatemalan migrants not to come to US More

  • in

    Kamala Harris tells migrants 'do not come' during talks in Guatemala – video

    The US vice-president, Kamala Harris, said she had held ‘robust’ talks with the Guatemalan president, Alejandro Giammattei, as she sought to find ways of deterring undocumented immigration from Central America to the United States. Speaking during a news conference with Giammattei, Harris delivered a blunt message to people thinking of making the dangerous journey north: ‘Do not come’

    Kamala Harris faces doubts over retooled US policy in Central America
    Kamala Harris takes on a new role as she heads on her first overseas trip More

  • in

    ¿Cuál castigo a López Obrador?

    CIUDAD DE MÉXICO — Con casi medio millón de muertes en exceso por la pandemia, un estimado de hasta 10 millones de pobres adicionales, pocos avances tangibles en la lucha anticorrupción y una violencia criminal que no cede, la elección intermedia de México debiera haber sido un fuerte golpe a Morena, el partido del presidente Andrés Manuel López Obrador. No lo fue.Los primeros conteos rápidos —que aún son preliminares— muestran que, si bien la coalición de Morena no tendrá los diputados necesarios para cambiar la Constitución (más de 333), continuará teniendo la mayoría absoluta para cambiar la legislación en el Congreso. Su coalición perderá curules (de tener 308 curules, que había ganado en la elección de 2018, ahora solo tendrá 279). Sin embargo, esta reducción es mucho menor que el promedio de 47 escaños que típicamente pierde el partido en la presidencia en una contienda intermedia.Incluso, Morena, como partido independiente, aumentará sus curules con respecto a la elección de 2018. Entonces logró obtener 191 escaños y ahorase estima que gane entre 190 y 203. Por lo tanto, probablemente Morena tenga más diputados que antes. Ningún partido en el poder en la historia democrática de México ha logrado aumentar su número de curules en una intermedia.Es por ello que, la principal lección de estos comicios es muy clara y es para los partidos de la oposición: esta es una victoria muy magra comparada con la que se debió haber tenido. Y esto se debe, en buena medida, a que la oposición ha creado una plataforma cuya única propuesta tangible es combatir a López Obrador.Pero estas elecciones son también un fuerte llamado de atención para Morena: el electorado está decepcionado de los errores de López Obrador y su partido ahora dependerá de sus aliados para aprobar modificaciones a la Constitución y perdió apoyo en Ciudad de México, uno de los grandes bastiones del obradorismo. Los votantes no les están dando un cheque en blanco.Esto, sin embargo, no debe ser motivo de triunfalismo para los grandes partidos tradicionales (PRI y PAN), que están capitalizando menos los fallos del gobierno de lo que debieran. Y la razón es una tremenda falta de propuestas.México necesita una oposición coherente, con propuestas específicas para empezar a solucionar los problemas de fondo que siguen sin solucionarse. Si en los próximos tres años que le quedan a López Obrador no lo consiguen, aumentará el malestar social que impera y no habrá ningún partido o candidatos que aprovechen los errores del gobierno de la llamada cuarta transformación. México quedará, de nuevo, sin alternativas de representación que nos ayuden a corregir el rumbo de uno de los países más desiguales y violentos del mundo.La oposición es necesaria en cualquier democracia. Y más aún con un gobierno, como el de López Obrador, que se ha mostrado muy poco abierto a hacer concesiones y a cambiar estrategias que no han funcionado (como el plan de seguridad o sus medidas económicas). Con una oposición socialmente sensible, este sexenio mejoraría: lo forzaría a gobernar para todos los mexicanos, lo obligaría a institucionalizar sus políticas y a debatir sus puntos de vista.Así que es indispensable que la oposición esté a la altura de las circunstancias. Quienes la lideren deben eliminar dejos racistas y clasistas de sus programas y agendas. Sus integrantes deben hacer política más allá de las élites y los grupos empresariales. Los resultados muestran que para que exista esa oposición, los partidos deben dejar de pretender que el votante tiene amnesia y votará por cualquier partido que se oponga a López Obrador por el simple hecho de hacerlo.Pedro Pardo/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesJose Luis Gonzalez/ReutersLa prueba de que solo aliarse contra López Obrador no funciona es el fracaso de la alianza PRI-PAN-PRD en los estados. La alianza contendió en 10 de 15 estados bajo el argumento de que solo uniendo fuerzas se podría derrotar a Morena. Fue exactamente al revés. Según la información preliminar, Morena derrotó a la alianza en los estados en los que esta contendió.Este rechazo a la alianza debería ser una señal para que los partidos eviten formar coaliciones desdibujadas en asociaciones sin fundamentos programáticos o ideológicos. De hecho, fue una alianza similar a la del PRI-PAN-PRD, la alianza del Pacto por México durante el sexenio de Enrique Peña Nieto, la que en parte originó el surgimiento de Morena. El movimiento de López Obrador se consolidó en rechazo a esa unión para la aprobación de las reformas estructurales del peñanietismo, diluyendo sus posiciones ideológicas.Otra prueba fehaciente de que la alianza PRI-PAN-PRD no puede tener por estrategia solo el rechazo a López Obrador es la gran fuerza que están cobrando los partidos considerados pequeños. Todo parece indicar que Movimiento Ciudadano gobernará en Nuevo León y el Partido Verde en San Luis Potosí.Estos partidos están logrando posicionarse precisamente porque proponen tanto una alternativa a Morena como al PRI-PAN.Independientemente de lo anterior, un aspecto prometendor de esta contienda ha sido el aumento de liderazgos de mujeres en la política. Hasta antes de esta elección solo había habido ocho gobernadoras en la historia de México. Todo parece indicar que esta elección nos dejará con entre cuatro y seis más, un incremento notable en tan solo un año. Es un avance importante porque muestra que la razón por la que no había más gobernadoras en México no era que el electorado no tuviera interés en votar por ellas, sino que los partidos no les daban oportunidad. Este año, la oportunidad se dio porque el Instituto Nacional Electoral exigió que cada partido registrara al menos siete candidatas a gobernadora.Es tiempo de nuevos liderazgos en México, de más mujeres y más políticos jóvenes, de más personas con una agenda social pero con una plataforma clara y no solo reducida a la confrontación con Morena y el presidente. Ese atajo de la oposición, comprobamos ahora, no es suficientemente efectivo. Los partidos políticos deben ponerse a trabajar más seriamente y de maneras más creativas. Es hora.Viri Ríos (@Viri_Rios) es analista política. More

  • in

    Despite It All, López Obrador Has My Vote

    MEXICO CITY — There seem to be just two types of people in Mexico: those who hate their president and those who love him.Even Andrés Manuel López Obrador himself seems to be fascinated by the division he inspires, fueling the polarization by casting Mexicans as either for the “Fourth Transformation” — the set of administrative, economic and social reforms that he promotes — or against it, with no room for nuance. Every morning the president turns his daily news conferences into a battlefield, singling out adversaries and laying the groundwork for the next 24 hours of verbal attacks.But this polarization is not new. Mexico stopped being one society a long time ago, splitting into two countries, so to speak, that struggle to coexist where they overlap. Both sides are genuinely convinced that their approach for ​​Mexico is the one that best suits the country. And they are both correct, except that they are talking about two different countries.In this Sunday’s midterm elections, these competing visions will face off in what is also a kind of plebiscite three years into the López Obrador administration. Although his Morena party appears to lead in the polls, it’s still unclear whether he can achieve a qualified majority in the legislative branch, which would allow him to modify the Constitution without negotiating with the opposition.Some believe that granting even more power to a president they consider authoritarian would endanger Mexican democracy. His supporters, for their part, are convinced that controlling Congress is necessary to undo the years of economic policies that have prevented poor Mexicans from prospering.Although I disagree with Mr. López Obrador’s personalist leadership style and some of his authoritarian actions, I believe his political aims are a legitimate attempt to afford greater representation to the Mexicans who have been left behind, many of them living in underdeveloped rural areas. More than three decades of an economic model that increased inequality has led to the fragmented and unequal Mexican society that we see today. Given that the opposition has thus far been unable to offer an alternative to this model, I am convinced that Mr. López Obrador is our only viable option.According to the National Institute of Statistics, 56 percent of Mexicans work in the informal sector and lack social security, and not by choice. Mr. López Obrador has enacted social programs that have benefited more than 20 million Mexicans, although it’s not enough for the estimated 52 million who live in poverty.So it’s no surprise that he has significant support among much of the population. That support is even easier to understand when you consider one of the milestones of contemporary Mexico: In 1992, President Carlos Salinas de Gortari signed the North American Free Trade Agreement, betting that privatizing the economy and relying on market forces would modernize and grow the country.But something went awry in the calculations. Over the past 30 years, Mexico’s G.D.P. has grown at an average annual rate of only 2.2 percent, and there are enormous internal inequalities. The 10 richest people have the same wealth as the poorest half of the country, according to a 2018 Oxfam report.Mr. Salinas was unable or unwilling to rein in the elites who benefited from a system of protected monopolies, kickbacks and extraordinary profit margins derived from corruption and inefficiency.Mexico has also modernized its electoral system and built democratic institutions to promote competition, transparency and the balance of power. To the many Mexicans who saw that these supposedly democratic and transparent norms were applied selectively, the changes did not amount to much. Again, modernization seemed to pan out for some Mexicans, but had little effect for those who couldn’t take advantage of it — a majority of the population in need. For many, “democracy” is nothing but a word wielded in elections and in the discourse of leaders who have made themselves rich at the expense of the treasury. According to Latinobarómetro, a regional polling organization, just 15.7 percent of Mexicans said they were satisfied with their country’s form of democracy, making Mexico one of the countries in Latin America with the lowest levels of confidence in government.In 2018, when Mr. López Obrador ran for the presidency for a third time, the indignation and rage of those left behind had reached a boiling point. The signs of discontent were visible: historically low approval of government performance and communities that were willing to take justice into their own hands. Mr. López Obrador offered a political pathway to dissipate this tension and won the election with more than 50 percent of the vote.Since then he has radically increased the minimum wage; established about $33 billion in annual direct transfers and handouts to disadvantaged groups; and begun ambitious projects, like the Mayan train and the Dos Bocas refinery, in regions traditionally overlooked by central governments. Mr. López Obrador’s administration’s financial policy is practically neoliberal, with its aversion to indebtedness; inflation control; austerity and balance in public spending; and rejection of private sector expropriations. During the pandemic, he has been harshly criticized across the political spectrum for his refusal to expand fiscal spending to counteract its disproportionate impact on people, especially those who did not benefit from direct Covid relief.Many describe Mr. López Obrador’s style of governance and his social and economic projects as populist in nature. In attempts to fend off criticism, he’s gone as far as attacking the independent press and anti-corruption groups. The small portion of the population that prospered these past decades has good reason to be irritated and concerned.But in short, Mr. López Obrador is a less radical politician than he’s accused of being and is more prudent with his management of government than he’s given credit for.It’s understandable how the 61 percent of the population that backs him, people belonging to groups that have the most reason to be dissatisfied with the system, assumes that the president is on their side. Mr. López Obrador is not a threat to Mexico, as his adversaries claim. The real threat is the social discontent that made him president.A failure to resolve this issue puts everyone at risk. The two Mexicos must come together. Right now, despite it all, only Mr. López Obrador is in a position to make that possible for his fellow citizens. On Sunday we will know how many of them concur.Jorge Zepeda Patterson (@jorgezepedap) is a Mexican economist and sociologist. He founded the digital daily SinEmbargo and is the author of “Los amos de México,” among other books. This essay was translated from the Spanish by Erin Goodman.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More