September, 26 2019, 12:00am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jen Nessel, Center for Constitutional Rights, (212) 614-6449, jnessel@ccrjustice.org
Marion Steinfels, SPLC, 202-557-0430, marion.steinfels@splcenter.org
After SCOTUS Ruling, Asylum Seekers Ask Court for Protection
New Asylum Ban Should Not Apply to Those Turned Back at Ports of EntryÂ
WASHINGTON
Today, immigrant rights attorneys moved to block the Trump administration's Asylum Ban from affecting tens of thousands of migrants who have already attempted to access the U.S. asylum process before the ban was implemented. With limited exceptions, the Asylum Ban prohibits anyone who traveled through a third country and did not seek protection there from obtaining asylum here. The request filed today is in the ongoing case challenging the Trump administration's policy of turning back asylum seekers at ports of entry on the U.S.-Mexico border, including the "metering" policy that requires asylum seekers to get on endless lists in order to seek asylum in the U.S. The drastic reduction in processing asylum seekers by turning them back to wait was one of the earliest in the series of policies and practices the administration has implemented in an effort to deter asylum seekers at the Southern Border.
Said Erika Pinheiro, Al Otro Lado's Litigation and Policy Director, "We filed the class action lawsuit Al Otro Lado v. Nielsen two years ago to challenge the Trump administration's policy of turning away asylum seekers either through tactics of fraud and coercion or, most recently, by placing vulnerable individuals on endless waitlists where they remain in dangerous conditions." Nicole Ramos, Border Rights Project Director for Al Otro Lado, adds, "We are seeking emergency relief from the court to protect those individuals who would have avoided the brutality of the Asylum Ban but for the government's illegal turnaway policy. Thousands of vulnerable lives are at stake, and our work to protect them will not be deterred by this latest attack on asylum seekers."
"The government cannot be permitted to exploit one illegal Trump policy - the Asylum Ban - to attempt to extinguish our clients' challenge to the prior illegal policy - the Turnback Policy," said Baher Azmy, Legal Director at the Center for Constitutional Rights. "The court can ensure that the government be made to answer for the illegality of the Turnback Policy and that those individuals who had rightful claims of asylum are not denied access to the asylum process through the multiplicity of the Trump administration's illegality."
The injunction requested today would remain in place until a final determination is made about the legality of the Turnback Policy and prevent the application of the Asylum Ban to categorically deny asylum to those vulnerable asylum seekers who should have been processed months ago.
"The government has engaged in a cruel bait and switch in its ongoing war against asylum seekers," according to Melissa Crow, Senior Supervising Attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center's Immigrant Justice Project. "Before the Asylum Ban was issued, the official message from the U.S. government was that asylum seekers should enter the United States 'the right way,' by going to a port of entry on the Southern Border, instead of crossing without authorization through the desert or across the river. Now those who followed the rules may never have an opportunity to have their asylum claims decided on the merits."
While asylum seekers are coming to the Southern Border from many nations, thousands of Central Americans are fleeing their home countries and seeking asylum due to levels of violence in the region not seen since the civil wars in the 1970s and 80s. Human rights advocates note that U.S. foreign policy is fueling the violence and instability that is causing people to flee. Those fleeing undertake dangerous journeys to the U.S., frequently facing violence from gangs and security forces along the way.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, Center for Constitutional Rights, and American Immigration Council filed the lawsuit, Al Otro Lado v. McAleenan, No. 3:17-cv-02366 (S.D. Cal.), in July 2017 on behalf of individual asylum seekers and Al Otro Lado, an immigration legal services provider with offices in Mexico and California.
Al Otro Lado is also a plaintiff two other cases challenging the administration's asylum ban, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump and East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr.
For more information, visit the Center for Constitutional Rights' case page, American Immigration Council and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464LATEST NEWS
Israeli 'Use of Starvation' as Weapon in Gaza Would Be 'War Crime': UN Rights Chief
"The clock is ticking," said Volker Türk. "Everyone, especially those with influence, must insist that Israel acts to facilitate the unimpeded entry and distribution of needed humanitarian assistance."
Mar 19, 2024
A dire new report on mass hunger in the Gaza Strip prompted the United Nations high commissioner for human rights to declare Tuesday that Israel's persistent obstruction of humanitarian aid "may amount to the use of starvation as a method of war, which is a war crime."
"Israel, as the occupying power, has the obligation to ensure the provision of food and medical care to the population commensurate with their needs and to facilitate the work of humanitarian organizations to deliver that assistance," Volker Türk said in a statement after the Integrated Food Security and Nutrition Phase Classification (IPC) warned that half of Gaza's population is currently experiencing catastrophic hunger and at growing risk of starving to death.
Noting that Israel's 16-year blockade of Gaza "has already had a severe impact on human rights for the civilian population," Türk said Monday that Israel is required under international law to ensure the population of Gaza can access food, medicine, and other humanitarian assistance in a "safe and dignified manner."
"The clock is ticking," said Türk. "Everyone, especially those with influence, must insist that Israel acts to facilitate the unimpeded entry and distribution of needed humanitarian assistance and commercial goods to end starvation and avert all risk of famine. There needs to be full restoration of essential services, including the supply of food, water, electricity, and fuel. And there needs to be an immediate cease-fire, as well as the unconditional release of Israeli hostages still held in Gaza."
Türk is not the first U.N. official to condemn Israel's deliberate withholding of food aid from Palestinians in Gaza. Last month, U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food Michael Fakhri said that "there is no reason to intentionally block the passage of humanitarian aid or intentionally obliterate small-scale fishing vessels, greenhouses, and orchards in Gaza—other than to deny people access to food."
"Intentionally depriving people of food is clearly a war crime," said Fakhri.
"The U.S. co-owns this outcome and now must apply real leverage ASAP to change course."
In violation of the International Court of Justice's January order, the Israeli military has systematically restricted ground-based aid deliveries to the Gaza Strip and violently attacked crowds seeking out the limited assistance that has been allowed to enter the enclave, fueling the rapid and deadly spread of malnutrition.
The IPC's new report put numbers to what aid groups on the ground in Gaza have been reporting in recent weeks as Israel's bombing and blockade continue with no end in sight. According to the IPC, Gaza's entire population is facing acute food insecurity and "famine is imminent."
Jeremy Konyndyk, the president of Refugees International and a former U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) official,
wrote on social media Monday that the IPC's report offers "the grimmest analysis" he has "ever seen."
"The famine is now starting," Konyndyk wrote. "Only question at this point is how much more momentum it will be allowed to develop. Every day without a cease-fire at this point will extend the famine further on the back end, costing more lives."
U.S. President Joe Biden "must begin pulling out all the stops to get this contained," Konyndyk added. "The Netanyahu government created this situation as the U.S. continued supplying them with arms and diplomatic cover. The U.S. co-owns this outcome and now must apply real leverage ASAP to change course."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Small Step Forward': Canadian Parliament Backs Ending Arms Exports to Israel
"While imperfect, this is a tangible victory on the road to a Canadian two-way arms embargo with Israel," said one advocacy group.
Mar 19, 2024
Canada's Parliament on Monday approved a nonbinding resolution calling on the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to cut off the country's arms exports to Israel, demand an immediate cease-fire and the release of hostages, and support international legal efforts to hold perpetrators of war crimes accountable.
The measure, led by Canada's New Democratic Party (NDP), passed in a 204-to-117 vote after private negotiations between Trudeau's Liberal government and the NDP produced significant changes to the original text, including the removal of language calling for "sanctions on Israeli officials who incite genocide."
The final motion, which Conservatives opposed, calls on Trudeau's government to "cease the further authorization and transfer of arms exports to Israel to ensure compliance with Canada's arms export regime," "sanction extremist settlers from Canada," and "demand unimpeded humanitarian access to Gaza," among other steps.
"We are dismayed by the failure of Canada's Liberal government to stand up for what is right, for the rule of international law, for humanity, for peace," NDP MP Heather McPherson, the lead sponsor of the original motion, said in a speech ahead of Monday's vote. "Canadians are horrified by a brutal assault on Gaza where over 30,000 civilians have been killed, they were horrified on October 7 by the vile terrorist attack on innocent civilians in Israel by Hamas terrorists, and they are horrified now by the way [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's extremist government has responded."
2/14
Today, the Liberals and Conservatives have an opportunity to join the NDP and uphold the values of Canadians – to show that Palestinian lives matter as much as any other lives. That Palestinian rights are human rights. And that children – all children - deserve peace. pic.twitter.com/RhtowYsEDp
— Heather McPherson (@HMcPhersonMP) March 18, 2024
Michael Bueckert, vice president of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME), said in a statement that the amended measure does not "go nearly as far as we had hoped for, but it is nonetheless a small step forward for ending Canadian complicity in Israel's genocidal war in Gaza."
"The watering down of the NDP resolution weakens the significance of Parliament's vote, even if it was a major concession forced by the Liberal government to ensure its passage," Bueckert added. "With the passage of this motion, the government has effectively promised to adopt a clear policy to restrict exports, including for already-issued permits, not just a temporary pause on approvals. While imperfect, this is a tangible victory on the road to a Canadian two-way arms embargo with Israel. The NDP must not rest on its laurels and continue to fight Canada's relationship with the Israeli military-industrial complex."
Bueckert said Trudeau's government "must immediately implement the democratic will of Parliament by adopting these demands, and ignore the backlash from those who seek to vilify this motion, including the far-right Israeli government itself."
The motion's passage comes days after the Toronto Starreported that the Trudeau government "stopped approving exports of non-lethal military goods and technology to Israel two months ago amid deepening concerns about possible human rights violations."
"Since Jan. 8, applications for permits to allow Canadian companies to ship tens of millions of dollars worth of non-lethal goods and technology, such as night vision goggles, have been temporarily put on hold because of the difficulty in establishing whether the material could be used in human rights violations," the Star reported, citing unnamed senior government officials.
Data from Global Affairs Canada indicates that Canada exported at least $28.5 million worth of military equipment to Israel in the three months after October 7. A coalition of human rights groups noted in a letter last month to Canada's foreign affairs minister that Canada has exported more than $140 million worth of military goods to Israel over the past decade, "including military aerospace components as well as bombs, missiles, explosives, and associated parts."
"There is substantial concern that some of these weapons could be enabling Israel's operation in Gaza," the groups wrote. "In addition to direct exports, Canadian-produced technology has also been supplied to Israel by first being integrated into US-produced systems, including components incorporated into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which Israel has used in its bombing campaign across Gaza."
United Nations experts have called for an immediate arms embargo on Israel, warning last month that "state officials involved in arms exports may be individually criminally liable for aiding and abetting any war crimes, crimes against humanity, or acts of genocide."
The National Council of Canadian Muslims said Monday that it is "pleased to see that a historic vote on the NDP motion on Palestine is likely going to result in historic change for Canada."
"While we recognize that some would have liked the original motion to stay fully together," the group added, "we believe that the NDP did the right thing by tabling the original motion and pushing to make sure that Canada voted in favor of Palestine today. That is history."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrat Eva Burch Shares With Arizona Senate Her Plans to Get an Abortion
"I stand with those who have had to grapple with and navigate Arizona's restrictive laws surrounding abortion," the state senator said. "I'm with them. I appreciate them. I am them."
Mar 18, 2024
As Arizonans prepare for a potential vote on an abortion rights ballot measure, Democratic state Sen. Eva Burch on Monday took to the chamber's floor to announce that she plans to terminate her current pregnancy, explain why, and condemn harmful restrictions.
"A few weeks ago, I learned that against all odds, I am pregnant," said Burch (D-9). "Many of you know that I've had kind of a rough journey with fertility. I had my first miscarriage more than 13 years ago, and I have been pregnant many times. Since then, twice, I was lucky enough to successfully carry to term and I have two beautiful healthy little boys."
"But two years ago, while I was campaigning for this Senate seat, I became pregnant with what we later determined was a nonviable pregnancy. It was a pregnancy that we had been trying for, and we were heartbroken over it," she continued, referencing an abortion she has previously discussed publicly. "After numerous ultrasounds and blood draws, we have determined that my pregnancy is once again not progressing and is not viable And once again, I have scheduled an appointment to terminate my pregnancy."
"My experiences in this space, both as a provider and as a patient, have led me to believe that this Legislature has failed the people of Arizona."
Burch, who has worked as an emergency nurse and a nurse practitioner in a women's health clinic, stressed that "I don't think people should have to justify their abortions but I'm choosing to talk about why I made this decision because I want us to be able to have meaningful conversations about the reality of how the work that we do in this body impacts people in the real world."
After acknowledging some of the risks of pregnancy and that she accepted them to carry her two sons, she said: "I don't know how many of you have been unfortunate enough to experience a miscarriage before but I am not interested in going through it unnecessarily. And right now, the safest and most appropriate treatment for me and the treatment that I choose is abortion."
The Democrat then took aim at the Arizona Legislature for passing laws that restrict access to care for people like her. The state bans most abortions after 15 weeks, imposes a 24-hour waiting period between in-person counseling containing misinformation and the procedure, and forces patients to get medically unnecessary ultrasounds.
Detailing her trip to an abortion clinic on Friday, Burch said:
I didn't have an ultrasound because my doctor thought I needed one. I had one because legislation has forced me to do that, an invasive transvaginal ultrasound that I didn't want or need to have, performed by someone who didn't want to have to do it. I am safe and loved and protected in my marriage. But I cannot imagine how inappropriate that would be for a victim of sexual assault or for someone who has an abusive or coercive relationship with their partner—another unwanted vaginal penetration, but this time by the state, by the people who are commissioned to protect us.
Then I got to sit through an exhaustive list of absolute disinformation that was read off to me. I was told that there were alternatives to abortion, parenting or adoption among them, as if delivering a healthy baby is an option for me. It is not. My medical provider was forced to tell me multiple things that don't apply to my situation, and some that are just transparently factually false. And they do this because of laws passed by this Legislature in opposition to medical expert testimony and advice. From where I sat, the only reason I had to hear those things was in a cruel and really uninformed attempt by outside forces to shame and coerce and frighten me into making a different decision other than the one that I knew was right for me.
Burch explained that "the last time that I had an abortion, I started to miscarry that night before it was scheduled to take place. And I was denied a procedure in the hospital because I was deemed not critical enough, in spite of the fact that my embryo had died, and that my miscarriage had stalled."
"The clauses for emergencies aren't good enough. These laws can serve to intimidate doctors and it muddies the waters when they're trying to make complex decisions in situations that are really volatile," she argued. "I had been bleeding and passing huge clots for hours, but I wasn't bleeding out. And I was still pregnant. So I was offered medication to make me start bleeding again and told that I could have a procedure when I had bled enough. A waiting period is often totally inappropriate and potentially dangerous."
The lawmaker got an abortion at the clinic the following day—just two weeks before the right-wing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court reversedRoe v. Wade in June 2022, setting off a new wave of efforts by state legislators to pass forced-pregnancy legislation.
Burch highlighted some negative impacts of being denied an abortion—from heightened risks of domestic violence and eviction to long-term health consequences. She also noted the "sensitive feelings surrounding pregnancy" and "philosophical questions that people cannot agree on," while stressing that decisions should be made by patients and providers.
"My experiences in this space, both as a provider and as a patient, have led me to believe that this Legislature has failed the people of Arizona, in the laws that restrict and dictate abortion and in the resources that it cuts and strangles and denies at every opportunity," she said of her time in the state Senate. "Our decision-making should be grounded in expert testimony and in consensus from both the medical community and from constituents, and free from political posturing and partisan bias, but that's not what I see happening."
"So I truly hope that Arizonans have the opportunity to weigh in on abortion on the ballot in November. We know that the majority of Arizonans support the right to abortion and if we can't operate in that reality in this chamber, then it is critical that everyone have the opportunity for their voices to be heard elsewhere," she concluded. "I stand with those who have had to grapple with and navigate Arizona's restrictive laws surrounding abortion at a time when the decisions being made were complicated enough. I'm with them. I appreciate them. I am them."
Among those who praised her 10-minute speech was Sam Paisley, national press secretary of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC), which works to elect state lawmakers in the party.
"Arizona Sen. Eva Burch sharing her decision to get an abortion is the epitome of courage," said Paisley. "No woman should have to go through the emotional and physical hurdles she described—Arizona Republicans have passed unnecessary burdens on abortion care that put women in danger. Sen. Burch's story is powerful, but it is sadly not unique—patients across Arizona have to jump through hoops to get the care they need."
"There are very real, and sometimes even deadly, consequences to the attacks on reproductive freedom that Republicans across the country have launched," Paisley added. "The DLCC commends Sen. Burch for her advocacy and stands ready to defeat alarming GOP extremism in state legislatures in Arizona and across the country."
Jodi Liggett, founder of the Arizona Center for Women's Advancement, similarly said on social media: "Today, Sen. Eva Burch shared her heart-wrenching story of nonviable pregnancy. AZ laws... have complicated her access to care. Her situation is one of thousands; personal and complicated. Conservatives, butt out and let patients and doctors handle these decisions. Privately."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular