Members of Mexican National Guard detain Central American migrants trying to cross the Rio Bravo, in Ciudad Juarez, State of Chihuahua, on June 21, 2019. (Photo: Herika Martinez/AFP/Getty Images)
Jun 27, 2019
Expressing grave objections to an immigration policy which has forced them to violate international law, U.S. asylum officers filed a federal court brief demanding an end to President Donald Trump's so-called "Remain in Mexico" policy under which asylum seekers have been turned away at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Ordering people who are exercising their legal right to seek asylum to turn back and endure a months-long or years-long wait for their applications to be processed is "fundamentally contrary to the moral fabric of our nation and our international and domestic legal obligations," wrote the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1924, the union which represents asylum officers.
"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."
--American Federation of Government Employees Local 1924
The amicus brief was filed by the union in support of the ACLU, which is challenging the Remain in Mexico policy, officially known as Trump's Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program.
Since Trump enacted the program in January, the Mexican government says about 15,000 people have been sent to Mexico while their applications are processed. Human rights advocates have decried the policy, warning that asylum seekers may face violence in Mexico as many did in their home countries.
"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," reads the brief.
Earlier this month, the president also reached a deal with Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrado, under which Mexico agreed to step up immigration enforcement in exchange for the cancellation of tariffs. Weeks later, police in Veracruz reportedly opened fire on a truck carrying Central American immigrants, killing a young woman.
\u201cDays after Mexico launched its immigration crackdown, a truck full of migrants came under fire. A 19-year-old Salvadoran was killed. Now, it looks like the assailants were police. https://t.co/Iy9JeSrMGY\u201d— Kevin Sieff (@Kevin Sieff) 1560901328
\u201cThis is the Salvadoran woman who was allegedly shot and killed by Mexican police. Maria Senaida Escobar Cerritos, 19. She was on her way to visit her father in Santa Cruz, California.\u201d— Kevin Sieff (@Kevin Sieff) 1560901328
When Trump enacted the MPP program, his administration claimed that if asylum seekers are allowed to wait in the U.S. while their applications are processed, they would "disappear into the United States."
In fact, the union noted, there is "no evidence" that asylum seekers pose any security risk.
Justice Department statistics indicate that 90 percent of people fulfill their legal obligations while awaiting asylum rulings in the United States.
"The MPP is entirely unnecessary," wrote the union. "The system has been tested time and again, and it is fully capable--with additional resources where appropriate--of efficiently processing asylum claims by those with valid claims while removing those that are not entitled to protection after they undergo the process designed to ensure that they will not be returned to a place where they will be persecuted."
By failing to adhere to the 1967 Protocol, the U.N. accord stating that participating countries including the U.S. would not "expel or return a refugee in any manner," wrote the officers, the Trump administration is compelling government employees to break international law.
"The MPP places [asylum officers] at risk of participation in the widespread violation of international treaty and domestic legal obligations," wrote the union, "something that they did not sign up to do when they decided to become asylum and refugee officers for the United States government."
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Expressing grave objections to an immigration policy which has forced them to violate international law, U.S. asylum officers filed a federal court brief demanding an end to President Donald Trump's so-called "Remain in Mexico" policy under which asylum seekers have been turned away at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Ordering people who are exercising their legal right to seek asylum to turn back and endure a months-long or years-long wait for their applications to be processed is "fundamentally contrary to the moral fabric of our nation and our international and domestic legal obligations," wrote the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1924, the union which represents asylum officers.
"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."
--American Federation of Government Employees Local 1924
The amicus brief was filed by the union in support of the ACLU, which is challenging the Remain in Mexico policy, officially known as Trump's Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program.
Since Trump enacted the program in January, the Mexican government says about 15,000 people have been sent to Mexico while their applications are processed. Human rights advocates have decried the policy, warning that asylum seekers may face violence in Mexico as many did in their home countries.
"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," reads the brief.
Earlier this month, the president also reached a deal with Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrado, under which Mexico agreed to step up immigration enforcement in exchange for the cancellation of tariffs. Weeks later, police in Veracruz reportedly opened fire on a truck carrying Central American immigrants, killing a young woman.
\u201cDays after Mexico launched its immigration crackdown, a truck full of migrants came under fire. A 19-year-old Salvadoran was killed. Now, it looks like the assailants were police. https://t.co/Iy9JeSrMGY\u201d— Kevin Sieff (@Kevin Sieff) 1560901328
\u201cThis is the Salvadoran woman who was allegedly shot and killed by Mexican police. Maria Senaida Escobar Cerritos, 19. She was on her way to visit her father in Santa Cruz, California.\u201d— Kevin Sieff (@Kevin Sieff) 1560901328
When Trump enacted the MPP program, his administration claimed that if asylum seekers are allowed to wait in the U.S. while their applications are processed, they would "disappear into the United States."
In fact, the union noted, there is "no evidence" that asylum seekers pose any security risk.
Justice Department statistics indicate that 90 percent of people fulfill their legal obligations while awaiting asylum rulings in the United States.
"The MPP is entirely unnecessary," wrote the union. "The system has been tested time and again, and it is fully capable--with additional resources where appropriate--of efficiently processing asylum claims by those with valid claims while removing those that are not entitled to protection after they undergo the process designed to ensure that they will not be returned to a place where they will be persecuted."
By failing to adhere to the 1967 Protocol, the U.N. accord stating that participating countries including the U.S. would not "expel or return a refugee in any manner," wrote the officers, the Trump administration is compelling government employees to break international law.
"The MPP places [asylum officers] at risk of participation in the widespread violation of international treaty and domestic legal obligations," wrote the union, "something that they did not sign up to do when they decided to become asylum and refugee officers for the United States government."
Expressing grave objections to an immigration policy which has forced them to violate international law, U.S. asylum officers filed a federal court brief demanding an end to President Donald Trump's so-called "Remain in Mexico" policy under which asylum seekers have been turned away at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Ordering people who are exercising their legal right to seek asylum to turn back and endure a months-long or years-long wait for their applications to be processed is "fundamentally contrary to the moral fabric of our nation and our international and domestic legal obligations," wrote the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1924, the union which represents asylum officers.
"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."
--American Federation of Government Employees Local 1924
The amicus brief was filed by the union in support of the ACLU, which is challenging the Remain in Mexico policy, officially known as Trump's Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program.
Since Trump enacted the program in January, the Mexican government says about 15,000 people have been sent to Mexico while their applications are processed. Human rights advocates have decried the policy, warning that asylum seekers may face violence in Mexico as many did in their home countries.
"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," reads the brief.
Earlier this month, the president also reached a deal with Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrado, under which Mexico agreed to step up immigration enforcement in exchange for the cancellation of tariffs. Weeks later, police in Veracruz reportedly opened fire on a truck carrying Central American immigrants, killing a young woman.
\u201cDays after Mexico launched its immigration crackdown, a truck full of migrants came under fire. A 19-year-old Salvadoran was killed. Now, it looks like the assailants were police. https://t.co/Iy9JeSrMGY\u201d— Kevin Sieff (@Kevin Sieff) 1560901328
\u201cThis is the Salvadoran woman who was allegedly shot and killed by Mexican police. Maria Senaida Escobar Cerritos, 19. She was on her way to visit her father in Santa Cruz, California.\u201d— Kevin Sieff (@Kevin Sieff) 1560901328
When Trump enacted the MPP program, his administration claimed that if asylum seekers are allowed to wait in the U.S. while their applications are processed, they would "disappear into the United States."
In fact, the union noted, there is "no evidence" that asylum seekers pose any security risk.
Justice Department statistics indicate that 90 percent of people fulfill their legal obligations while awaiting asylum rulings in the United States.
"The MPP is entirely unnecessary," wrote the union. "The system has been tested time and again, and it is fully capable--with additional resources where appropriate--of efficiently processing asylum claims by those with valid claims while removing those that are not entitled to protection after they undergo the process designed to ensure that they will not be returned to a place where they will be persecuted."
By failing to adhere to the 1967 Protocol, the U.N. accord stating that participating countries including the U.S. would not "expel or return a refugee in any manner," wrote the officers, the Trump administration is compelling government employees to break international law.
"The MPP places [asylum officers] at risk of participation in the widespread violation of international treaty and domestic legal obligations," wrote the union, "something that they did not sign up to do when they decided to become asylum and refugee officers for the United States government."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.