Aleaziz writes: "A group of US asylum officers urged a federal appeals court Wednesday to block a Trump administration program forcing Central American migrants to remain in Mexico as their cases are processed in the US, calling the directive 'fundamentally contrary to the moral fabric of our nation.'"
A group of migrant families in a Border Patrol transport van in McAllen, Texas. (photo: Carolyn Van Houten/Getty)
US Asylum Officers Slam Trump's Policy, Call It "Contrary to the Moral Fabric of Our Nation"
27 June 19
The officers charged with carrying out Trump's asylum policy called it "fundamentally contrary to the moral fabric of our nation."
group of US asylum officers urged a federal appeals court Wednesday to block a Trump administration program forcing Central American migrants to remain in Mexico as their cases are processed in the US, calling the directive �fundamentally contrary to the moral fabric of our nation.�
The policy, called Migration Protection Protocols, was initiated earlier this year and has since expanded across various portions of the southern border. As of June 24, more than 15,000 people had been sent back to Mexico through the program, according to Mexican government officials.
�By forcing a vulnerable population to return to a hostile territory where they are likely to face persecution, the MPP abandons our tradition of providing a safe haven to the persecuted and violates our international and domestic legal obligations,� the asylum officers� union, American Federation of Government Employees Local 1924, wrote.
The filing with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California is the most recent turn in a pivotal case challenging the Trump administration�s attempt to deter asylum-seekers from crossing the border to request refuge. In the past week, the administration has come under fire as rapidly deteriorating conditions inside Border Patrol facilities have been revealed, and record numbers of families and children continue to cross the border.
In April, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the policy, but before that could happen, the 9th Circuit Court instituted a temporary stay. Later, in May, the San Francisco�based panel � Judges Paul J. Watford, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, and William A. Fletcher � granted the government's stay of the preliminary injunction, pending its appeal to the court, meaning the administration could continue to enforce the controversial policy while the case is decided.
Now, the group representing asylum officers has told the court to side with the American Civil LIberties Union and block the policy for several reasons, including what they describe as inadequate safeguards in protecting those who are fearful of persecution in Mexico, clogging an already backed up immigration system, and perhaps most crucially, placing asylum-seekers in a country that is �simply not safe� for Central American migrants.
Asylum officers are on the front-line of the policy, and have been charged with enforcing it since January.
�Asylum officers are duty bound to protect vulnerable asylum seekers from persecution,� the group said. �However, under the MPP, they face a conflict between the directives of their departmental leaders to follow the MPP and adherence to our Nation�s legal commitment to not returning the persecuted to a territory where they will face persecution.�
Union leaders previously spoke with Vox about their concerns regarding the policy.
In the filing Wednesday, the group of asylum officers told the court they �should not be forced to honor departmental directives that are fundamentally contrary to the moral fabric of our nation and our international and domestic legal obligations.�
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
If Saudi Arabia was directly involved in 9-11, it was not a Saudi originated plan. The Saudis were just used as a cover and as foot soldiers, as they have often been. The origin of the plan certainly was all American -- neo-cons. They really would not care if Saudi Arabia too the fall.