November, 26 2018, 11:00pm EDT
US Government Endangers Asylum Seekers with Unlawful Policies
WASHINGTON
Unlawful US border policies are leaving thousands of asylum seekers stranded in Mexico, where they are facing threats of deportation to their countries of origin, where they potentially face serious harm, Amnesty International said Monday following a research mission last week. Conditions could only worsen under a reported deal between both countries that, if agreed, would force asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico while their claims are processed, rather than allow them to enter the United States.
As a result of Amnesty International's research focusing on the treatment of refugees and migrants in the caravans in Guatemala, the southern Mexican state of Chiapas, Mexico City and Tijuana throughout October and November, the organization on Monday issued 26 recommendations to the US and Mexican governments, as well as to the authorities in Central American countries of origin and transit, to ensure human rights protections and humanitarian support for all those seeking asylum and en route, including calling on authorities to respect interntional standards on the use of force.
"Instead of militarizing the border and peddling fear and discrimination, President Trump's administration should show compassion for those forced to flee their homes and must receive their requests for asylum without delay, as required by US and international law," said Erika Guevara-Rosas, Americas director at Amnesty International.
"For their part, the governments of Mexico and Central America must take urgent action to guarantee the safety and wellbeing of all these people on the move and ensure they do not suffer further human rights violations. If Mexico agrees to do the US government's dirty work at the expense of the caravan members' dignity and human rights, it is effectively paying for Trump's shameful border wall."
"The danger posed to desperate families patiently waiting their turn for asylum at the border is an emergency of the US government's own making," said Margaret Huang, executive director of Amnesty International USA. "Using teargas in a situation where families, children and their parents were present was not only horrific, it was also a new low for this administration in its contempt for our shared human dignity and human rights."
Unsanitary conditions and unlawful asylum waitlists
On November 18, Amnesty International visited Tijuana's Benito Juarez sports complex, a temporary shelter where the municipal government had accommodated approximately 3,000 migrants and asylum seekers who had arrived in the first of several caravans totaling 8,000 to 10,000 people across Mexico. They joined thousands of other people that US authorities have forced to wait in Tijuana for weeks or months before allowing them to request asylum at the border. On 22 November, US Secretary of State Pompeo declared that the US government plans to unlawfully deny people that right by refusing entry of the caravans into the United States.
Mexican federal, state and municipal officials separately confirmed to Amnesty International that the temporary shelter did not have sufficient food, water and health services, and that respiratory illnesses were spreading among those staying there.
Since at least April 2018, US and Mexican authorities have unlawfully required asylum seekers to put their names on a quasi-official asylum waitlist on the Tijuana side of the San Ysidro Port of Entry, instead of allowing people to request asylum directly at the border. The list is jointly coordinated by the asylum seekers themselves and Mexican authorities, in response to US limits on the number of asylum seekers they will receive each day. People seeking asylum without identity documents are prohibited from joining the list of those waiting to request asylum, and if they miss the day their number is called, they risk losing their places entirely.
By turning away asylum-seekers at ports of entry, US authorities are violating their right to seek asylum from persecution and manufacturing an emergency along the border. This queue along the border exposes people who seek asylum to risks of detention and deportation by Mexican immigration officials, and exploitation by criminal gangs.
On November 21, Amnesty International reviewed the list, which contained the names of around 4,320 people, including about 2,000 caravan members, mostly from Honduras, who had arrived since 15 November. Those already on the list prior to the caravan's arrival had been waiting, on average, about five weeks in Tijuana before US authorities started processing their asylum claims. Officials from Mexico's National Institute of Migration (INM) and a Tijuana municipal official told Amnesty International that Mexican nationals comprised approximately 80 percent of those seeking asylum before the caravan arrived.
Mexican authorities cannot lawfully prevent people from exiting the country and seeking asylum at the US border. Yet Amnesty International confirmed with multiple sources in the Mexican government that Mexican immigration officials routinely take possession of the waitlist each night, and coordinate with US border authorities on how many asylum seekers from the list will be received each day. Amnesty International has received reports from Mexican officials speaking anonymously that raise doubts as to the supposed lack of capacity by US authorities to receive more people and indicate the pressure that the US government exercises on Mexican authorities to restrict entry of asylum seekers.
Mexican officials and asylum seekers at the San Ysidro Port of Entry told Amnesty International that US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials there were recently accepting 30 to 70 asylum applications per day. On November 16, CBP's San Ysidro Port Director told the Washington Post his staff could process 90 to 100 asylum seekers per day, provided that US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) took custody within 72 hours of those asylum seekers whom they processed.
In a meeting with Amnesty International on November 20, ICE officials declined to answer whether they were taking custody of asylum seekers in a timely fashion or faced any capacity constraints due to the recent arrival of the caravans, before abruptly ending the meeting.
Amnesty International calls on the US authorities to immediately respect people's right to claim asylum both at and between official ports of entry. Following the US government's declarations that they plan to unlawfully deny people in the caravans that right, Congress should decline to fund CBP operations absent rigorous congressional oversight of those operations and a written commitment from CBP to halt the illegal pushbacks of asylum-seekers both at and between US ports of entry. Amnesty International documented these pushbacks in a recent report.
People seeking asylum face risk of deportation by Mexican authorities
On November 19, Tijuana's municipal police force announced that it had detained 34 caravan members for "public disorder" (including drinking beer on the street) and transferred them to INM for potential deportation. Amnesty International immediately asked INM to facilitate its access to interview the detainees, after receiving unverified reports that Tijuana's municipal police may have racially profiled, entrapped and/or extorted some of them, and that their detentions may have resulted in their separation from family members staying at the Benito Juarez sports facility. INM did not allow the organization to visit them.
On November 20, a migrant rights expert with Mexico's National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) confirmed to Amnesty International that one or more families had been separated by the detentions, but said CNDH had not yet interviewed any of the detainees to assess the validity of the charges against them. He noted that people who were part of the caravans were at high risk of deportation if detained by municipal police, since most either lack legal status in Mexico or their legal stay is due to expire soon, including those planning to seek asylum at the US border. Under Mexican migration law, municipal police are not allowed to carry out migratory revisions of people's documents - a task reserved for the INM.
Local media in Tijuana reported on November 20 that 40 caravan members had been detained by municipal police and then deported by INM. This detention is part of a wider trend in recent days, with the INM carrying out several mass detentions across Mexico in response to the caravan, including of families and children. In some cases, the number of people detained has reached the hundreds. On November 25, Mexican authorities said that some of those who tried to cross into the United States and were met with teargas would be deported. Deporting people to countries were their lives are at risk, without giving them the chance to seek asylum, would violate Mexican and international law.
"Mexican municipal, state and federal authorities have struggled to accommodate and provide adequate humanitarian assistance for those stuck in Tijuana, and in some cases sought for Mexican immigration officials to deport people who are part of the caravans, potentially contrary to international law," said Erika Guevara-Rosas.
"Mexico's National Migration Institute should urgently clarify whether all of those caravan members detained in recent days have been provided with opportunities to request asylum in Mexico or regularize their status and reunify with their children or other family members."
Amnesty International calls on the Mexican government to ensure and expedite proper screening of migrants and asylum seekers who may qualify for international protection; and provide provisional documentation to those awaiting reception at US ports of entry, to prevent them from being deported to their countries of origin while their cases are processed.
The organization also recommends authorities in countries of origin to address the factors that drive people to leave, while transit and receiving countries must ensure their health and safety, provide them with humanitarian assistance, respect their right to claim asylum, and prevent and investigate any abuses and human rights violations against them.
These recommendations are based on interviews that Amnesty International conducted with approximately 200 people travelling in the caravans - either individually or in groups, including several families, women travelling with children, and members of the LGTBI community - as well as information obtained from governments across the region, international organizations and civil society organizations present in the field.
Amnesty International is a global movement of millions of people demanding human rights for all people - no matter who they are or where they are. We are the world's largest grassroots human rights organization.
(212) 807-8400LATEST NEWS
New Rule From Agency Trump Wants Destroyed Would Save Consumers $5 Billion Per Year in Overdraft Fees
One advocate called the CFPB's new rule "a major milestone in its effort to level the playing field between regular people and big banks."
Dec 12, 2024
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, one of President-elect Donald Trump's top expected targets as he plans to dismantle parts of the federal government after taking office in January, announced on Thursday its latest action aimed at saving households across the U.S. hundreds of dollars in fees each year.
The agency issued a final rule to close a 55-year-old loophole that has allowed big banks to collect billions of dollars in overdraft fees from consumers each year,
The rule makes significant updates to federal regulations for financial institutions' overdraft fees, ordering banks with more than $10 billion in assets to choose between several options:
- Capping their overdraft fees at $5;
- Capping fees at an amount that covers costs and losses; or
- Disclosing the terms of overdraft loans as they do with other loans, giving consumers a choice regarding whether they open a line of overdraft credit and allowing them to comparison-shop.
The final rule is expected to save Americans $5 billion annually in overdraft fees, or about $225 per household that pays overdraft fees.
Adam Rust, director of financial services at the Consumer Federation of America, called the rule "a major milestone" in the CFPB's efforts "to level the playing field between regular people and big banks."
"No one should have to pick between paying a junk overdraft fee or buying groceries," said Rust. "This rule gives banks a choice: they can charge a reasonable fee that does not exploit their customers, or they can treat these loan products as an extension of credit and comply with existing lending laws."
The rule is set to go into effect next October, but the incoming Trump administration could put its implementation in jeopardy. Trump has named billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk to co-lead the Department of Government Efficiency, an advisory body he hopes to create. Musk has signaled that he wants to "delete" the CFPB, echoing a proposal within the right-wing policy agenda Project 2025, which was co-authored by many officials from the first Trump term.
"The CFPB is cracking down on these excessive junk fees and requiring big banks to come clean about the interest rate they're charging on overdraft loans."
"It is critical that incoming and returning members of Congress and President-elect Trump side with voters struggling in this economy and support the CFPB's overdraft rule," said Lauren Saunders, associate director at the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC). "This rule is an example of the CFPB's hard work for everyday Americans."
In recent decades, banks have used overdraft fees as profit drivers which increase consumer costs by billions of dollars every year while causing tens of millions to lose access to banking services and face negative credit reports that can harm their financial futures.
The Federal Reserve Board exempted banks from Truth in Lending Act protections in 1969, allowing them to charge overdraft fees without disclosing their terms to consumers.
"For far too long, the largest banks have exploited a legal loophole that has drained billions of dollars from Americans' deposit accounts," said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. "The CFPB is cracking down on these excessive junk fees and requiring big banks to come clean about the interest rate they're charging on overdraft loans."
Government watchdog Accountable.US credited the CFPB with cracking down on overdraft fees despite aggressive campaigning against the action by Wall Street, which has claimed the fees have benefits for American families.
Accountable.US noted that Republican Reps. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina and Andy Barr of Kentucky have appeared to lift their criticisms of the rule straight from industry talking points, claiming that reforming overdraft fee rules would "limit consumer choice, stifle innovation, and ultimately raise the cost of banking for all consumers."
Similarly, in April Barr claimed at a hearing that "the vast majority of Americans" believe credit card late fees are legitimate after the Biden administration unveiled a rule capping the fees at $8.
"Americans pay billions in overdraft fees every year, but the CFPB's final rule is putting an end to the $35 surprise fee," said Liz Zelnick, director of the Economic Security and Corporate Power Program at Accountable.US. "Despite efforts to block the rule and protect petty profits by big bank CEOs and lobbyists, the Biden administration's initiative will protect our wallets from an exploitative profit-maximizing tactic."
The new overdraft fee rule follows a $95 million enforcement action against Navy Federal Credit Union for illegal surprise overdraft fees and similar actions against Wells Fargo, Regions Bank, and Atlantic Union.
Consumers have saved $6 billion annually through the CFPB's initiative to curb junk fees, which has led multiple banks to reduce or eliminate their fees.
"Big banks that charge high fees for overdrafts are not providing a courtesy to consumers—it's a form of predatory lending that exacerbates wealth disparities and racial inequalities," said Carla Sanchez-Adams, senior attorney at NCLC. "The CFPB's overdraft rule ensures that the most vulnerable consumers are protected from big banks trying to pad their profits with junk fees."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Arrests of US Journalists Surged in 2024 Amid Crackdown on Gaza Protests
Police use of "catch-and-release" tactics is particularly worrying for press freedom advocates, according to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
Dec 12, 2024
Arrests and detainments of journalists in the United States surged in 2024 compared to the year prior, according to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, a project of the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
The tracker reports that journalists were arrested or detained by police at least 48 times this year—eclipsing the number of arrests that took place in the previous two years combined, and constituting the third highest number of yearly arrests and detentions since the project began cataloging press freedom violations in 2017. 2020, however, still stands as far and away the year with the most arrests and detentions.
The 48 arrests and detentions this year is also part of a larger list of "press freedom incidents" that the tracker documents, including things like equipment damage, equipment seizure, and assault.
While a year with a high number of protests typically leads to more arrests, "it was protests in response to the Israel-Gaza war that caused this year's uptick," according to the tracker.
The vast majority of the arrests and detainments out of the total 48 were linked to these sorts of demonstrations, and it was protests at Columbia University's Manhattan campus that were the site of this year's largest detainment of journalists.
The report also recounts the story of Roni Jacobson, a freelance reporter whose experience on the last day of 2023 was a harbinger of press freedom incidents to come in 2024. Jacobson was on assignment to cover a pro-Palestinian demonstration for the New York Daily News on December 31, 2023 when she was told to leave by police because she didn't have city-issued press credentials with her. She recounted that she accidentally bumped into an officer and was arrested. She was held overnight at a precinct and then released after the charges against her, which included disorderly conduct, were dropped.
Even five arrests that the tracker deems "election-related" took place at protests that were "at least partially if not entirely focused on the Israel-Gaza war." Three of those election-related arrests took place at protests happening around the Democratic National Convention in August.
One police force in particular bears responsibility for this year's crackdown: Nearly 50% of the arrests of journalists this year were at the hands of the New York Police Department (NYPD). Many of those taken into custody had their charges dropped quickly, but the tracker notes that the NYPD's use of "catch-and-release" tactics was particularly worrying to press freedom advocates.
Two photojournalists, Josh Pacheco and Olga Federova, were detained four times this year in both New York City and Chicago while photographing protests. They were both "assaulted and arrested and [had] their equipment damaged" while documenting police clearing a student encampment at Manhattan's Fashion Institute of Technology; however, they were released the next day and told their arrests had been voided.
"While [we are] glad that some common sense prevailed by the NYPD not charging these two photographers with any crime, we are very concerned that they are perfecting 'catch-and-release' to an art form,” Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, told the tracker.
"The fact that they took two photojournalists off the street, preventing them from making any more images or transmitting the ones they already had on a matter of extreme public concern, is very disturbing," he said.
Besides covering protests, 2024 also saw the continued practice of "criminally charging journalists for standard journalistic practices," according to the tracker. For example, one investigative journalist in Los Angeles was repeatedly threatened with arrest while attempting to cover a homeless encampment sweep in the city, and then was detained in October, though he was let go without charges.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Stuff of Parody': Trump Taps Election-Denying Ally Kari Lake to Run Voice of America
"Authoritarians love to control and instrumentalize media organizations, especially state-funded ones," journalist Mehdi Hasan wrote in response to the news.
Dec 12, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump said Wednesday that he has chosen Kari Lake, a far-right election denier and failed U.S. Senate candidate, to lead the federally funded international broadcast network Voice of America, a move that critics said underscores Trump's effort to transform government entities into vehicles to advance his own interests.
In a Truth Social post, Trump wrote that as director of VOA, Lake would "ensure that the American values of Freedom and Liberty are broadcast around the World FAIRLY and ACCURATELY, unlike the lies spread by the Fake News Media."
Lake, a former television news anchor in Arizona who has echoed Trump's insidious attacks on journalists, wrote in response to the president-elect's announcement that she was "honored" to be asked to lead VOA, which she characterized as "a vital international media outlet dedicated to advancing the interests of the United States by engaging directly with people across the globe and promoting democracy and truth." VOA, which is supposed to have editorial independence, has long faced criticism for its coverage and treatment of employees.
Though the VOA's Charter states that the outlet will "present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions," Lake made clear that she views the network as a propaganda channel for the United States.
"Under my leadership, the VOA will excel in its mission: chronicling America's achievements worldwide," Lake, an outspoken Trump loyalist, wrote Wednesday.
Hours after Trump's announcement that she's his pick to lead VOA, Lake applaudedTIME magazine for naming Trump its "Person of the Year" and gushed that he "should have been the Person of the Year every year for the last decade."
Journalists and watchdogs expressed a mixture of alarm and mockery in response to Trump's attempt to elevate Lake to VOA director.
"Kari Lake as (head of) Voice of America is the stuff of parody. Or tragedy," Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, wrote on social media. "VOA matters."
Zeteo's Mehdi Hasan added that "authoritarians love to control and instrumentalize media organizations, especially state-funded ones."
"Good luck to the VOA," he wrote.
VOA is the largest federally funded international broadcaster and is overseen by the U.S. Agency for Global Media.
It is not clear whether Trump will be able to easily install Lake as VOA director. The Washington Post noted that "under rules passed in 2020, the VOA director is appointed by a majority vote of a seven-member advisory board."
"Six members of the board are named by the president and require Senate consent, and the seventh member is the secretary of state," the Post explained.
During his first term in the White House, Trump's pick to lead the U.S. Agency for Global Media worked aggressively to influence VOA coverage.
"In 2020, Mr. Trump appointed Michael Pack, an ally of his former aide Stephen K. Bannon, to run the U.S. Agency for Global Media," The New York Timessummarized on Thursday. "Mr. Pack was accused of trying to turn Voice of America into a mouthpiece for the Trump administration, and a federal judge ruled that Mr. Pack had violated the First Amendment rights of the outlet's journalists. A federal investigation later found that Mr. Pack had grossly mismanaged the U.S. Agency for Global Media, repeatedly abusing his power by sidelining executives he felt did not sufficiently support Mr. Trump."
The far-right Project 2025 agenda, which some members of the incoming Trump administration helped craft, includes a section that proposes placing the U.S. Agency for Global Media "under the supervision of the [White House National Security Council], the State Department, or both."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular