Migration

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Help us fight’: California farmers ask for more aid after deadly storms

      by

      ‘Help us fight’: California farmers ask for more aid after deadly stormsDespite a new relief fund in Sonoma county, farm workers face economic catastrophe when storms and fires strikeAs a series of deadly storms whipped through California’s wine country, liquefying fields and turning vineyards into wading pools, thousands of farm workers in the region were forced to stay home. Though the power has been long since restored and roads reopened – many of them are still confronting an economic catastrophe.For Isidro Rodriguez, the storms caused him to lose half his monthly income – about $1,100.TopicsCaliforniaClimate crisisWorkers’ rightsFarmingMigrationUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Arizona improves college access for undocumented students. Activists say it’s a ‘first step’

      by

      Arizona improves college access for undocumented students. Activists say it’s a ‘first step’Proposition 308 now makes higher education more affordable for undocumented immigrantsAndrea Vasquez, a social worker at a high school in Tucson, Arizona, was approached by a student in her senior year. She was asked how difficult it would be to attend college as an undocumented immigrant.Vasquez, 29, immediately flashed back to a younger version of herself, studying at the school where she now works, Palo Verde Magnet high school, and remembering her own struggle to get to college while being undocumented.More than a decade later, she has better news for the latest generation.“Her dream is going to a four-year university,” Vasquez said.In last November’s elections, voters in Arizona, who typically support anti-immigrant policies, narrowly approved ballot measure Proposition 308 to make undocumented immigrants eligible for the same fees and state financial aid at state universities and community colleges as local US citizens.Previously, despite growing up in Arizona’s state public school system, undocumented youth wouldn’t have been able to apply for state aid for higher education and would be classed as out-of-state students, who pay much higher fees. This was the fate imposed on Vasquez when she was graduating high school.Vasquez recalled that as a teen applying for college, the base out-of-state tuition at the time could exceed $16,000 annually at a state university. That made financial means rather than academic performance the gateway to higher education for people like her.Vasquez, who was brought to the US from her native Mexico as a migrant at the age of two, said: “I was fourth in my graduating class, I played sports, did community service [but] I couldn’t afford a four-year university.”Revealed: Trump secretly donated $1m to discredited Arizona election ‘audit’ Read moreShe cleaned houses with her mother to pay for two years at Tucson’s Pima Community College.“I wish this Proposition [308] happened when I graduated high school,” she said.In 2011, when she was in high school, Arizona adopted the strictest anti-immigration state law in the country. It allowed local law enforcement to ask anyone suspected of being in the country unlawfully to present proof of legal immigration status during routine traffic stops. It made it an offense to be caught without those papers.Arizona’s large Hispanic communities effectively lived under siege, with the law championed by hard-right Republican governor Jan Brewer, notorious Maricopa county sheriff Joe Arpaio and the late state senator, Russell Pearce.Then, in 2012, US president Barack Obama turned Vasquez and other migrants brought to the US as minors into Dreamers – the scheme now under threat because of legislative inertia and legal fights that started during the Trump administration.Dreamers became eligible for work permits and renewable protection from deportation under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca) program. Nevertheless, higher education barriers persisted nationwide – especially in Arizona.Until Proposition 308, Arizona was one of three states, alongside Georgia and Indiana, that barred undocumented immigrants from in-state tuition.In her first State of the State speech last month, Katie Hobbs, the first Democratic governor elected in Arizona in 16 years, celebrated Proposition 308 and pledged to expand opportunities by allocating $40m to a new fund, the Promise for Dreamers Scholarship Program.“I was so pleased that the governor and her budget included the program, which wouldn’t even ask for a citizenship requirement,” said Raquel Terán, an Arizona state senator and a proponent of Proposition 308.“It’s unfair that many of the students who have been part of our education system, part of our communities, had to pay three times the in-state tuition,” she added.The American Immigration Council advocacy group issued a report supporting Proposition 308, noting: “The state is facing critical workforce shortages across the skills spectrum … Arizona will need … global talent to complement US-born workers [and to] build career pathways for immigrants already living in the state.”At her high school, Vasquez tells undocumented students about Proposition 308 but adds that they’re still ineligible for federal aid. Every year, more than 3,600 undocumented students graduate high school in Arizona.Ex-Arizona governor’s illegal makeshift border wall is torn down – but at what cost?Read moreMeanwhile, another hurdle faces Fernando Contreras, 19, as he aspires to become a doctor. Arizona is struggling with critical healthcare staff shortages exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. But when he was still a senior at Mountain View high school in Mesa, he found out most medical internships that he would need on the way to getting licensed require a social security number. He doesn’t have one: he arrived from Mexico at the age of 12 without documentation.For now, Contreras is studying at Pima Community College and is enrolled at Grand Canyon University, a private Christian school where Proposition 308 doesn’t apply, while working numerous jobs including babysitting.“The biggest downside is knowing you have to work twice as hard as anybody else to achieve what you want,” he said.Since the ballot measure passed, fees have dipped at the community college and he’s looking into whether it would be possible to transfer to Arizona State University.Jose Patiño, a 33-year-old Daca recipient and vice-president of education and external affairs at Aliento, a youth-led organization that advocated for the passing of Proposition 308, said that Contreras and many like him need a law like HB2796. It’s a bill that was introduced recently by Democratic state representative Flavio Bravo, allowing undocumented students to get licensed in the medical field by submitting a federal tax identification number in lieu of a social security number.But the bill never made it out of committee and died in the state legislature.“It’s unfortunate but there is very little understanding of the urgency of a bill like this one,” Bravo said.Patiño is still encouraged by Proposition 308, however.“The change in Arizona is partly because many of us were afraid for so long and now we are fighting back,” said Patiño, who was born in Guanajuato, Mexico in 1990 and brought to the US six years later.“Proposition 308 is the first step, but we have to keep fighting. We have learned from this country that nothing is going to be given to you.”TopicsArizonaMigrationMigration and developmentUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US turns back growing number of undocumented people after arduous sea journeys

      by

      US turns back growing number of undocumented people after arduous sea journeysBiden shifts toward political center as likely presidential rival Ron DeSantis calls out national guard Authorities in Florida have been turning back growing numbers of undocumented Cubans and Haitians arriving by sea in recent weeks as more attempt to seek haven in the US.Local US residents on jet skis have been helping some of the migrants who attempted to swim ashore after making arduous, life-threateningand days-long journeys in makeshift vessels.Joe Biden’s turn to the center over immigration comes as Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, attempts to plot his own strategy for handling a sensitive situation in the south of his state, calling out national guard troops in a hardline approach.Last Thursday, the US Coast Guard returned another 177 Cuban migrants to their island nation, while scores of Haitians who swam ashore in Miami were taken into custody by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP).As the Cuban exodus continues, Biden adjusts immigration policyRead moreThe coastguard says that since 1 October, it has intercepted and returned more than 4,900 Cubans at sea, compared with about 6,100 in the 12 months to 30 September.DeSantis, seen as a likely contender for his party’s 2024 presidential nomination, has taken swipes at the White House for what he claims are Biden’s “lawless” immigration policies and perceived open borders.The Biden administration has hit back, accusing DeSantis of “making a mockery” of the immigration system by staging his own series of political stunts, including an episode last year in which he sent a planeload of mostly Venezuelan migrants to Massachusetts, flying them from Texas at Florida taxpayers’ expense.The governor is under criminal investigation in Texas and defending a separate lawsuit over the flight, and another to Biden’s home state of Delaware that was canceled, which reports said involved covert operatives linked to DeSantis recruiting migrants at a San Antonio motel with false promises of housing and jobs.In the latest incidents of migrants attempting to land in south Florida, the TV station WPLG spotted city of Miami marine patrol jet skis rescuing at least two people found swimming in the ocean, and a CBP spokesperson, Michael Selva, said beachgoers on Virginia Key had helped others ashore on Thursday using small boats and jet skis.Two days earlier, another group of about 25 people made landfall near Fort Lauderdale. Authorities arrested 12, while others ran away.Increasing numbers of people are risking their lives to reach the US despite stricter policies from the Biden administration intended to deter irregular immigration and increase humanitarian visa numbers for Cubans, and others, to enter legally – but with a high bar to entry unattainable to many of the thousands fleeing existential threats including extreme violence, political oppression, severe poverty and hardships exacerbated by the climate crisis or failed states.Biden has responded to conservative voices inside the Democratic party and Republicans calling for a tougher stance. But critics say the president’s new “carrot and stick” approach, cracking down on undocumented immigration while appearing to offer an olive branch of more visas, presents obstacles that most migrants would struggle to overcome.Biden’s ‘carrot and stick’ approach to deter migrants met with angerRead moreThe White House says up to 30,000 people a month from Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela will be admitted to the US, but only if they apply online, can pay their own airfare and find a financial sponsor.Writing in the Guardian last week, Moustafa Bayoumi, immigration author and professor of English at Brooklyn College, City University of New York, said Biden was “throwing migrants under the bus”.“This is a program obviously designed to favor those with means and pre-established connections in the US, and it’s hard to imagine it as anything but meaningless for those forced to flee for their lives without money or planning,” he said.DeSantis, seeking to build political capital from a president many expect him to challenge for the White House in 2024, accused Biden of under-resourcing the federal response to the Florida arrivals and placing a burden on local law enforcement.Meanwhile, the impact of the recent increase in migrant landing attempts continues to be felt in south Florida. The Dry Tortugas national park, off the Florida Keys, has only just reopened after being turned into a makeshift processing center for hundreds of people earlier this month.TopicsUS immigrationFloridaJoe BidenRon DeSantisUS politicsMigrationnewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden is throwing migrants under the bus to appease Republican fearmongering | Moustafa Bayoumi

      by

      Biden is throwing migrants under the bus to appease Republican fearmongeringMoustafa BayoumiThe Biden administration criticizes conservatives as anti-immigrant – yet pursues policies not so different from Trump’s Imagine for a moment you are a dissident citizen of Nicaragua. Forced out of bed in the middle of the night and hounded out of your homeland because of your political activities, you have been deprived of all chances to work, let alone live, in the country you’ve always called home. Your opposition to Daniel Ortega’s regime has put your life and your family’s lives in danger. You must find safety immediately.You know that, despite its long history of meddling in your country, the United States also has laws and traditions that enable people in your position to seek asylum. It may be far away, but the US is also the closest country where you believe you can truly feel safe. You must find a way there – any way at all – and it has to be quick.Biden visits border for first time as critics condemn his migrant crackdownRead moreNow, according to new rules just announced by the Biden administration, up to 30,000 Nicaraguans, Cubans and Haitians may soon be able to apply for “humanitarian parole” to the US, expanding a program that had previously been directed solely at Venezuelans. What a relief! you might think, until you discover more about the proposed program, which requires: a valid passport, a plane ticket, the ability and permission to travel to the US by plane, a US-based sponsor, a cell phone that can download a specific app that requires two-factor authentication, and a host of other requirements.This is a program obviously designed to favor those with means and pre-established connections in the US, and it’s hard to imagine it as anything but meaningless for those forced to flee for their lives without money or planning. As Human Rights Watch explains, Biden’s proposed program is “contrary to international refugee law and international human rights law which prohibits discrimination in accessing asylum, including based on financial means”. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has also stated that the new measures are “not in line with international standards”.Yet this problematic humanitarian parole provision is in fact the proverbial carrot of Biden’s proposed border program. The dreaded stick, found in how the administration now plans on processing asylum claims made at the border, is much worse. The opportunity to have your asylum claim heard if you’re a citizen from one of these four countries – all countries with deep legacies of American political interference, it should be pointed out – will now be severely curtailed, according to the proposed rules.For one thing, the administration will require these asylum seekers to request refuge in the first country they cross into, similar to Trump-era “transit ban” policies which led to widespread human rights abuses in countries such as Guatemala and El Salvador.If these asylum seekers somehow make it to the US’s southern border, they must claim asylum at an official port of entry at a previously scheduled time, even though, per US law, “you may apply for asylum regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status”, as the US Citizenship and Immigration Services website states. Those who try to cross the border would also be subject to “expedited removal”, with Mexico accepting 30,000 of them each month, and be subject to a five-year ban from re-entry to the US.The plan also expands the Biden administration’s use of Title 42, a rarely used clause of the 1944 Public Health Services Law that allows the government to take emergency action “to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries.” Through their own anti-immigrant hocus-pocus, the Trump administration conjured Title 42 as a quick and easy way to deport people at the US’s southern border.Though Biden, as recently as last Thursday, has said that he doesn’t “like Title 42,” his administration continues to use the code to prevent people from entering the US. Since March 2020, almost 2.5 million people have been expelled, most of them during the Biden administration. And the new rules will translate into many more expulsions for asylum seekers from these four countries.Democratic Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey got it right. “The Biden administration’s decision to expand Title 42, a disastrous and inhumane relic of the Trump Administration’s racist immigration agenda, is an affront to restoring rule of law at the border,” he said in a statement. “Ultimately, this use of the parole authority is merely an attempt to replace our asylum laws, and thousands of asylum seekers waiting to present their cases will be hurt as a result.”What’s going on here? There’s no question that the current situation presents all kinds of challenges at the border. The US government recorded almost 2.4m encounters with migrants at the border last fiscal year, a record number. Extreme climate events, political corruption, and economic instability all play a role, and the US shares some responsibility in all those arenas. But it’s also clear that Biden feels compelled to get in front of the border issue ahead of Republican fearmongering (hence his visit Sunday to the border).“Immigration is a political issue that extreme Republicans are always going to run on,” the president said. “But now they have a choice: They can keep using immigration to try to score political points or they can help solve the problem.”But, in this terrible move rightward on the issue of border enforcement, Biden has proposed solutions that seem devised more to quell Republican objections (which, let’s face it, can never be mollified) rather than to take humanitarian and legal concerns to heart and turn them into workable policy. The proposed changes are also certain to bring greater chaos, confusion, and misery to the border.I’m all in favor of foregrounding Republican obstructionism when necessary, and Republicans halted Biden’s proposed comprehensive immigration reforms from the moment they were announced, almost two years ago. But Biden can’t accuse his Republican opponents of exploiting immigration and then turn around and lean on their misbegotten policies. Not only is that playing politics with people’s lives, but it’s also playing with fire. If Biden’s proposed rule changes go through, we should worry for all those – Biden included – who are about to get burned.
      Moustafa Bayoumi is the author of the award-winning books How Does It Feel to Be a Problem?: Being Young and Arab in America and This Muslim American Life: Dispatches from the War on Terror. He is professor of English at Brooklyn College, City University of New York
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionMigrationBiden administrationcommentReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US immigration laws should be enforced with discretion. That’s common sense | Robert Reich

      by

      US immigration laws should be enforced with discretion. That’s common senseRobert ReichBiden ordered officials to focus on deporting immigrants convicted of felonies, rather than undocumented people en masse. I applaud that decision Texas has sued the Biden administration over its order to immigration agents to prioritize undocumented immigrants convicted of felonies rather than deport all undocumented immigrants.Texas argues that federal immigration law requires the government to deport every undocumented immigrant. The Biden administration says it doesn’t have the resources to deport the country’s estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants, so it must develop priorities.The Crypto Crash: all Ponzi schemes topple eventually | Robert ReichRead moreThe controversy reminds me of something that happened 30 years ago.Child labor laws bar 14-year-olds from working past 7pm on school nights. Weeks before I became the US secretary of labor, in 1992, a vigilant labor department investigator discovered that the Savannah Cardinals, a Class A farm team of the Atlanta Braves, had hired 14-year-old Tommy McCoy to be their batboy. On balmy evenings extending beyond sunset, Tommy selected each player’s favorite bat and proudly delivered it to him in the batter’s box. Next morning, Tommy went to school.The investigator threatened the team with a stiff fine. The team did what it had to do: it fired little Tommy.Tommy liked being a batboy. His parents were proud of their son. The team was fond of him. The fans loved him. As long as anyone could remember, every kid in Savannah had coveted the job. Tommy did well in school.But now little Tommy was out of a job.Well, you can imagine the furor. It seemed as if the whole city of Savannah was up in arms. The Cardinals were staging a “Save Tommy’s Job Night” rally, featuring balloons, buttons, placards and a petition signed by the fans demanding that Tommy be rehired.ABC News was doing a story on the controversy, which is how I first heard about it. ABC wanted me to do an on-camera interview that evening, explaining why Tommy couldn’t be a batboy.What was I to do? ABC couldn’t wait to show America the stupidity of the government (and its new secretary of labor).The labor department’s chief inspectors, sitting around a large round table in my office, didn’t want me to back down. After all, they said, the law was clear: Children under 14 could not work past 7pm on school nights. Besides, child labor was a serious problem. Children were getting injured working long hours.“If you back down, it will look like you’re caving in to public opinion,” one of the chief inspectors told me.“But,” I asked, “isn’t it the public whom we’re here to serve?”“The Savannah team broke the law and it was our responsibility to enforce the law.”“But who says the law has to be enforced this way?” I asked. “Don’t we have some discretion over how we enforce the law? We have only a limited number of inspectors. Shouldn’t we have priorities? I can understand hitting a building contractor who’s hiring kids to put on roofing, but why are we going after batboys and girls?”They warned me that if I didn’t support the department’s investigators, the staff would become demoralized.“Good! If they become demoralized and stop enforcing the law nonsensically, so much the better,” I said.They warned that if I backed down, the labor department would lose credibility.“We’ll lose even more credibility if we stick with this outrageous decision,” I said.They said there was nothing we could do. The law was the law.“Nonsense,” I said. “We can change the regulation to make an exception for kids at sporting events.”But that would invite all sorts of abuses, they argued. Vendors would exploit young kids on school nights to sell peanuts and popcorn, stadiums would hire young children to clean the locker rooms, parking lots would use children to collect money.“OK,” I said, “so we draw the exemption tighter, and limit it to batboys and batgirls.”I was getting nowhere. In minutes I’d have to appear on World News Tonight and defend the indefensible.Then it hit me, like a fastball slamming into my thick head: I was secretary of labor. I could decide this by myself.“I’ve heard enough,” I said, standing.I turned to my assistant, “We’re going to tell the Savannah team they can keep Tommy. We’ll change the regulation to allow batboys and girls. Put out a press release right now. Call the producers for World News Tonight and tell them I’ve decided to let Tommy keep his batboy job. Tell them our investigator was way off base!”“But World News Tonight is already on the air!” my assistant said.“Call them now!”I turned on the TV in the corner of my office. Peter Jennings was reading the news from his monitor. Within moments he said:The United States Department of Labor has decided that a 14-year-old named Tommy McCoy cannot serve as batboy for the Atlanta Braves farm team in Savannah, Georgia. The decision has provoked outrage from the fans. Here’s more from …As he turned it over to ABC’s Atlanta correspondent, Jennings appeared to be smirking.I was dead, politically.I looked around the table at the inspectors. Did they understand that in 7m living rooms across America people were now saying to each other “How dumb can government get?”After two excruciating minutes during which ABC’s Atlanta correspondent detailed the story of little Tommy, it was back to Jennings:But this tale has a happy ending.My heart skipped a beat.The labor department reports that Tommy will get his job back. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has decided that the department was – quote – off-base in invoking child labor regulations under these circumstances.I was still alive, politically.But the inspectors sitting around my table were dismayed.I tried to explain to them exactly what the Biden administration is now trying to explain to the courts and to Republicans in Congress.Laws cannot be enforced without setting priorities for enforcement. Inevitably – intentionally or unintentionally – the people in charge of enforcing laws determine which cases merit their attention and resources.So enforcers must use common sense. Prioritize targeting employers who are hiring young children and putting them in dangerous jobs over, say, a farm team hiring a kid as a batboy.Prioritize undocumented immigrants convicted of felonies over, say, a Dreamer who was brought to America as an infant and has been hardworking and law-abiding for her whole life.
      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionUS immigrationBiden administrationJoe BidenMigrationcommentReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats call for justice department to investigate migrant flights

      by

      Democrats call for justice department to investigate migrant flightsDozens of Congress members seek inquiry into whether transport of asylum seekers from Florida and Texas broke federal law Democratic lawmakers have called on the US justice department to investigate whether Florida and Texas officials broke any federal law when they moved dozens of Venezuelan asylum seekers from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard under allegedly false pretenses.The letter from the congressional representatives Gerry Connolly, Sylvia Garcia, Ted Lieu and dozens of other Democrats followed the emergence of a report in which a 27-year-old Venezuelan said he was paid $200 by a mystery figure known as “Perla” to find people outside the San Antonio migrant center to board a flight.New York City mayor plans giant tents to house migrants sent by RepublicansRead moreThe migrant, who was called Emmanuel, told the San Antonio Report that he gave Perla contact information for 10 other migrants.“As the federal government retains jurisdiction over cases that involve interstate travel, we request the Department of Justice investigate whether any federal funds were used to operate a fraudulent scheme and request the Department of Justice make a determination as to whether officials in Texas and Florida violated federal law,” the letter said.At least one criminal investigation has already been opened into the situation by a Texas sheriff, and Connolly and others said the justice department should do the same.Multiple media reports have depicted how the asylum seekers had been misled once they arrived in Texas and were incorrectly told they were being flown to Boston.“It is alleged that immigration officials knowingly falsified mailing addresses for the migrants by selecting arbitrary homeless shelters across the United States, with the expectation that migrants would be required to contact the wrong agency,” the letter said.Details have not yet emerged about the planning and execution of the plan, which was spearheaded by the office of the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis.DeSantis has defended his administration’s actions and denied that migrants were misled.The Democrats pointed out that the migrants who were used in what was called a political “stunt” were fleeing communism, authoritarianism and violence, having walked thousands of miles for what they called a “dignified life”.Justice department officials declined to comment.Got a tip? Please contact Stephanie.Kirchgaessner@theguardian.comTopicsUS immigrationUS politicsMigrationRon DeSantisnewsReuse this content More

    • 225 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The US’s ‘immigration crisis’ is admitting too few immigrants, not too many | Deepak Bhargava and Rich Stolz

      by

      The US’s ‘immigration crisis’ is admitting too few immigrants, not too manyDeepak Bhargava and Rich StolzLet’s make the US the most welcoming country on Earth – and bring order and humanity to a dysfunctional system Florida governor Ron DeSantis’s cruel scheme to lure and transport vulnerable asylum seekers from the south to Massachusetts marks a new low in the immigration culture wars. The refugee crisis in our hemisphere demands bold and humane solutions, but the policy debate is frozen by the politics of fear and racism. Republicans grandstand about the issue for political advantage, while many Democrats would prefer to change the subject.We propose a “Statue of Liberty Plan” for the 21st century that would set a goal for the US to become the most welcoming country on Earth for migrants and refugees and bring order and humanity to a dysfunctional system. The antidote to the venomous nativism that poisons our politics is to embrace immigration as a pillar of civic and economic renewal.To the migrants who died in Texas, Biden is no different to Trump on immigration | Maeve HigginsRead moreExpanded migration is necessary to fix a broken system that invites demagoguery. There are few accessible legal pathways for prospective immigrants. People who seek to come to the US wait in lines that extend for years or decades, or have no migration pathway at all. With no other options, migrants trek thousands of miles, risking death to seek asylum.Under US and international law, people arriving in the US claiming persecution must have their cases heard; vulnerable migrants would be better off if they could seek refuge without having to undertake hazardous journeys across continents. The public would not be inflamed by scenes of disorder, and nativist politicians wouldn’t be able to use vulnerable people as political props.Contrary to our national myth of being a welcoming nation, the US currently lags well behind Australia, Canada and other countries in the share of its population that are immigrants. Under our proposal, the US would admit 75 million immigrants over the next decade, which would double the foreign-born population from 15% to over 30%, giving it the largest share of any developed nation. Admitting 7.5 million people a year would be a dramatic increase compared with recent history – in the Obama years, the US admitted 1 million immigrants a year, and that number shrank dramatically under Trump.Under our plan, immigrants could enter the US based on family ties or through a revamped humanitarian visa that would recognize factors such as economic hardship and the climate crisis as well as political persecution.New immigration policy can only succeed with a new story about immigration that dispels historical amnesia. We tend to talk about migration as a matter of individual choices. Conservatives characterize migrants as threats while liberals talk about the positive contributions that migrants make. Both perspectives obscure the role of US foreign policy in installing and supporting repressive and authoritarian governments. Invasions, annexations, coups and mercenary wars are a bloody throughline in the history of US relations with Latin America. US corporations profit from extreme exploitation, while US trade and sanctions policies have increased poverty, notably in Venezuela where sanctions have increased extreme hardship.The climate crisis is also a growing cause of migration. In Central America and the Caribbean, nearly a third of migrants in hard-hit areas cite climate-induced lack of food as the main reason for becoming migrants. The number of climate migrants will surely grow; the World Bank estimates that 216 million people worldwide will be forced to migrate by 2050.Current US policy offers no path for people displaced by extreme weather events, desertification, or rising sea levels. The US contributes greatly to climate change, while countries in the global south are bearing the worst effects. We face a moral reckoning. Having burned down our neighbors’ houses, will we admit them when they seek refuge?Even those who don’t agree that US policy plays a large role in driving migration should embrace our plan. The country’s population growth rate has flatlined. Population growth between 2010 and 2020 was the second lowest in the country’s history, largely because of declining birth rates among native-born Americans. We face a crisis of “age dependency” as the number of seniors rises dramatically relative to working age adults. Demographic decline is feeding a nationwide care crisis and imperils the sustainability of programs like Medicare and social security. Immigration is a necessary solution.The absence of a progressive vision for immigration has fed a nativist consensus that has dominated our policymaking for too long. We now take for granted a vast, sprawling apparatus of border security that surveils and detains immigrants and generates profits for corporations who in turn finance the campaigns of nativist politicians. Studies show that left parties in Europe that embrace restrictionist views legitimize and strengthen the standing of the far right. The future of multiracial democracy depends on a new immigration paradigm.Standing where we do today at a nadir in the country’s immigration debate, proposals to dramatically increase immigration levels may seem far-fetched. But the political consensus rest on a faulty assumption that only a “get tough” posture on immigration is viable.In fact, the public’s reaction to the cruelties of the Trump era was to reject nativist policy making. For the first time since 1965, more Americans believed in 2021 that we should increase immigration levels than those who thought we should admit fewer. Organizations like Welcome.US have organized thousands of Americans across the political spectrum to assist Afghan refugees, while people in New York City and Martha’s Vineyard opened their arms to welcome asylum seekers cynically sent to them by DeSantis and the Texas governor, Greg Abbott.The policy and politics we urgently need will be built by the actions of millions of Americans to welcome new immigrants.
      Deepak Bhargava is a distinguished lecturer at Cuny’s School of Labor and Urban Studies and a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. Rich Stolz is a fellow at the Roosevelt institute. They recently published the report The Statue of Liberty Plan: A Progressive Vision for Migration in the Age of Climate Change
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionUS immigrationMigrationUS-Mexico borderRefugeescommentReuse this content More

    • 225 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The Trump officials who took children from their parents should be prosecuted | Austin Sarat and Dennis Aftergut

      by

      The Trump officials who took children from their parents should be prosecutedAustin Sarat and Dennis AftergutThe border policy violated international law – and prosecuting those responsible may be the best way to prevent it from happening again In the Trump administration’s four years of undermining America’s image of decency, perhaps no policy did so as effectively, or as viciously, as his family separation policy – which separated 5,000 children, some as young as four months old, from their mothers and fathers.The theory behind the policy was that inflicting excruciating pain on thousands of parents and children separated at the border would deter migration to the US. It was another example of the Trump administration’s calculated cruelty.We now know something about why officials throughout the government went along with the family separation policy. They “were under orders from Trump”, Kevin McAleenan, the Department of Homeland Security’s commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, told Caitlin Dickerson of the Atlantic. McAleenan was “just following directions”, as Dickerson puts it. Those directions came from Stephen Miller, Trump’s fiercely anti-immigrant enforcer.Just following orders. We’ve heard that before from perpetrators of great wrongs.Whatever their reasons, the actions government officials took in pursuit of the family separation policy demand a response. Doing justice for the victims of the policy demands accountability for those who designed and implemented it. And deterring such conduct in the future is only possible if there are consequences for engaging in it.International law offers a framework for accomplishing those goals and for seeing the family separation policy for what it was: a crime against humanity.But before exploring that framework, let’s examine what we know about why government officials would go along with Trump and Miller’s calculated cruelty.In 1963, the Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram offered the best-known answer. Milgram enlisted subjects in a “learning experiment”. Their job was to apply what they thought were increasing levels of electrical shock to “learners” whenever they gave incorrect answers.Unknown to subjects, the “learners” were Milgram’s collaborators. They intentionally gave wrong answers and feigned excruciating pain as the voltage seemingly increased to severe shock. Under the direction of a “research administrator”, who became increasingly firm when subjects hesitated to apply more pain, two-thirds of them ended up administering the maximum dose of “electricity”.As Milgram put it: “The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study.”Evil, it turned out, was as banal as Hannah Arendt, the famed political theorist, described it in her celebrated chronicle, Eichmann in Jerusalem. This is the evil done by those without whose complicity Trump’s family separation policy could not have been carried out.Eichmann’s 1961 conviction, and those at Nuremberg, established the principle that individuals who claimed to be “just following orders” are as culpable for crimes they commit as those who give the orders.And the 1998 “Rome statute” created a forum that can provide accountability for the people who designed and implemented the family separation policy – the international criminal court.The Rome statute authorized the ICC to prosecute individuals who commit crimes against humanity, including “inhumane acts … [that] intentionally caus[e] great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”There is no question that systematic actions separating parents from children meet that definition.While the United States is one of only seven countries not to have ratified the Rome Statute, this fact should offer little solace to those who violate its principles. Here is why.First, under the “principle of complementarity”, the ICC may exercise its jurisdiction when a country is either unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute crimes within its territory.Applying the complementarity doctrine, in 2011 the ICC initiated prosecution of Libya’s one-time dictator Muammar Gaddafi, though his country never ratified the Rome statute.Second, the Nuremberg principles that the United States wrote before the trials began justify prosecuting crimes against humanity in the complete absence of any agreement by an accused violators’ country. That Germany did not ratify those principles was no barrier to prosecution of Nazi officials at Nuremberg.Third, the US has signed other international agreements incorporating protections against crimes such as the ones implicated by Trump’s policy to separate families. For example, in 1992, President George HW Bush signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Congress had ratified, making it the law of the land.Article 24 of the ICCPR provides that “[e]very child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, … national or social origin … the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor.” As the UN high commissioner for human rights emphasized in a 2010 report, “the principal normative standards of child protection are equally applicable to migrant children and children implicated in the process of migration.”Another relevant treaty under which American officials could be charged is the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ratified by the US in 1988. It defines “torture” as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted … for such purposes as … punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed … when such pain or suffering is inflicted … at the instigation of a public official.”While the Biden administration has made considerable progress reuniting families, it has not moved quickly enough to completely end the policy. It is up to the public to ensure that result and to demand that Trump administration officials answer for making crimes against humanity a centerpiece of US immigration policy.There is more than enough binding law and precedent for bringing charges against those officials. They should have their day in court, where they can offer their legal defenses and explain to the world why they did what they did.Prosecutors at The Hague should bring before the bar of justice Trump officials who instituted the policy of separating children from their mothers and fathers. Humanity and history require it.
      Austin Sarat is a professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College and the author of Lethal Injection and the False Promise of Humane Execution
      Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, is of counsel to Lawyers Defending American Democracy
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionDonald TrumpTrump administrationMigrationLaw (US)United NationscommentReuse this content More