October, 01 2021, 11:33am EDT
#WelcomeWithDignity: Court Ruling Will Endanger Families Seeking Safety; Biden Must End Title 42
Yesterday the D.C. Circuit Court granted the government's request for stay in Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, allowing the Biden administration to continue expelling families and children to danger under its inhumane Title 42 policy. Two weeks ago a federal judge ruled Title 42 illegal, issuing an injunction that would have taken effect today. The Biden administration's decision to continue defending the policy in court has put that injunction on pause. The consequences for families and children seeking safety will be deadly.
WASHINGTON
Yesterday the D.C. Circuit Court granted the government's request for stay in Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, allowing the Biden administration to continue expelling families and children to danger under its inhumane Title 42 policy. Two weeks ago a federal judge ruled Title 42 illegal, issuing an injunction that would have taken effect today. The Biden administration's decision to continue defending the policy in court has put that injunction on pause. The consequences for families and children seeking safety will be deadly.
Members of the #WelcomeWithDignity campaign, which include organizations serving people expelled under Title 42 and litigators in the Huisha-Huisha case, responded to the ruling:
"Once again, the Biden Administration has shown that it is more committed to defending Title 42 than upholding the human rights of asylum-seekers," said Amy Fischer, Americas Advocacy Director at Amnesty International USA. "The continued weaponization of the pandemic to expel people from our border will result in serious harm for the thousands who have been denied protection, including thousands of Haitians who have been brutalized and expelled under the policy in recent weeks. There is simply no way around it - Title 42 must end, and every day the Biden Administration fights to uphold it, they choose xenophobia and racism over protecting human rights."
"The Biden administration should have never appealed this case," said Tami Goodlette, Director of Litigation at Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES) and co-counsel in the Huisha-Huisha case. "The lower court concluded Title 42 was illegal and should not be applied to exclude families from seeking asylum in the U.S. But rather than allow families to seek refuge in our country -- which is legal under U.S. law and international law -- the administration chose to further promulgate the Trump administration's racist and xenophobic policies by appealing the case, and then proceeding to expel thousands of Haitians from Del Rio, Texas under Title 42. The Biden administration has lost its way and needs to remember its promises from the election. Migrants deserve better. Our country deserves better."
"The Biden administration's embrace of Title 42 has exposed people seeking safety to untold violence and suffering," said Neela Chakravartula, Managing Attorney at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies and co-counsel in the Huisha-Huisha case. "The administration's decision to defend the policy in court is unconscionable, and a complete betrayal of the president's promise to restore access to asylum. Recent events have laid bare the tragic consequences of Title 42. In less than two weeks, the administration has expelled over 5,000 Haitians to a country plagued with widespread violence and insecurity - a human rights travesty, and no small operational feat. They could have used those resources to safely welcome Haitians seeking refuge. Instead, the president has adopted Trump's racist policy as his own, without regard for the families and children harmed as a result."
"All President Biden needed to do to stop applying Trump's Title 42 to families was not seek a stay or appeal, but they did," said Lindsay Toczylowski, Immigrant Defenders' Co-Founder and Executive Director. "Expelling families with kids and other asylum seekers back to the dangerous countries they have fled with no due process is now a Biden policy, one that the Biden Administration fought hard to keep."
"Abusing an obscure public health rule to shut down our asylum system is Stephen Miller's racist legacy. Every day that the Biden administration allows this policy to remain in place is a day that the government knowingly puts children and families in harm's way. What we witnessed at Del Rio last week is a stark reminder of just how violent this policy is. It's an insult to America's family values that within the past month thousands of Haitians -- including babies and toddlers -- have been expelled back to danger," said Paola Luisi, Director of Families Belong Together. "The Biden administration should live up to its promises and end Title 42 immediately. The world is watching Mr. President: we should be protecting children and families, not expelling them back to danger."
"The Biden Administration's embrace of Title 42 is so absolutely maliciously evil because they've done that political calculus that this obscure policy is just complex enough to never grip the mainstream media's and public's full attention so the government can just continue harming immigrants without being held accountable," said Jonathan Goldman, Executive Director of the Student Clinic for Immigrant Justice. "There is no excuse here. They are complicit in the harm started by Trump. The Biden Administration has not simply continued the policy, which would have been bad enough, but they've actively attempted to keep it alive."
"The Biden Administration's continued defense of Title 42 and its ongoing, devastating effects on human rights at the U.S-Mexico border, which includes over 5,400 Haitians unjustly and cruelly expelled pursuant to these policies within the last 11 days, is outrageous and unconscionable. We will not rest until these practices are eliminated and full reparations have been made to all those who have been affected by these serious human rights crimes," said Camilo Perez-Bustillo, on behalf of the leadership team of Witness at the Border.
"What we know about Title 42 after a year of witnessing its impact firsthand at the border is this: it puts vulnerable migrants in danger, it violates asylum law and it empowers criminal groups to take advantage of those who are expelled," said Dylan Corbett, Executive Director of Hope Border Institute. "Title 42 was the driving force behind the mass deportations of Haitian refugees, one of the largest mass expulsions in US history. The court's decision yesterday was a troubling denial of the reality at the border and the unnecessary suffering of the families we are putting in harm's way."
"Title 42 was a disgrace under the Trump Administration, and now, a disgrace under the Biden Administration." said Karen Tumlin, Founder and Director of Justice Action Center. "The unlawful and immoral policy has never been about protecting public health, but rather, the power to summarily expel asylum seekers back to the very danger they are fleeing. That the Biden Administration would deliberately pursue to uphold the application of Title 42 to children and families is particularly shameful, and immigrant communities and advocates will continue to call on President Biden to end this immoral and unlawful policy once and for all."
"The D.C. Circuit court's decision, which allows the Biden administration to continue to shut the door to people seeking protection and send them back to harm without due process, is beyond disappointing, it is devastating," said Luis Guerra, CLINIC's Strategic Capacity Officer. "We will continue to urge the Biden administration to take bold action at our border by creating safe and dignified pathways for those seeking protection and stop hiding behind and upholding the xenophobic policies of the prior administration. The continued use of Title 42 is shameful, unconscionable and simply inhumane; President Biden has the power and means to end it today. Continuing Title 42 is an absolute affront to our laws and our humanity."
"The Florence Project is dismayed that a court has granted the Biden administration's request to halt a court order that would have protected families seeking protection in the United States," said Chelsea Sachau, an attorney with the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. "People we meet on the Arizona-Sonora border tell us every day that Title 42 puts them in extremely dangerous situations. Asylum seekers tell us that they want to abide by a safe, orderly asylum process. However, despite campaign promises to the contrary, the Biden administration has failed to give them one, even after nine months in office. In fact, they are fighting tooth and nail to defend this indefensible, Trump-era policy and as a result, to prolong the tremendous human suffering it causes. We can welcome asylum seekers safely and with dignity - the Biden administration is choosing not to at every single opportunity."
"The calls come daily, a young journalist in Nicaragua whose life is being threatened because of his political views, a mother and her two young children who watched her brother's murder by cartel and was told they were next, the thousands of people standing on the other side of a horrific wall seeking refuge from climate disasters, violence, and so much more, all turned away because of a public health law dug up by Stephen Miller to forward his racist agenda", said Laurie Benson, Founder of Madres e Hijos. "Every day that the Biden Administration fights to keep this policy in place is a day that they put politics before people, political agendas before humanity."
"The Biden administration's continued embrace of Title 42 expulsions defies domestic and international law, disregards experts' repeated advice on how to handle public health, and puts families and individuals in danger," said Andrew Geibel, Policy Counsel at HIAS. "Its continued use, including its use to deport over 5,000 vulnerable Haitians back to a country that cannot properly integrate them, shocks the conscience. The Biden administration should end this appeal immediately."
"The federal court of appeals ruling allowing the Biden Administration to continue migrant expulsions at the border under Title 42 is a major disappointment," said Joan Rosenhauer, Executive Director of Jesuit Refugee Service USA. "When President Biden campaigned in 2020, he promised he would repair our asylum process and rebuild it from the Trump Administration's attempts to dismantle it and prevent asylum seekers, as well as refugees and other immigrants, from entering the United States. Instead, he is continuing some of the Trump Administration's worst policies. Rather than defending and legitimizing President Trump's legacy, the Biden Administration should be putting more policies in place based on respect for international law and the United States' legacy of welcoming the stranger and providing safety for those fleeing persecution. Title 42 represents the complete opposite."
"While yesterday's decision from the court was disappointing, ultimately nothing is preventing the Biden administration from doing the right thing and choosing to end its use of Title 42 to expel families and adults seeking protection at our border," said Ursela Ojeda Senior Policy Advisor for Migrant Rights and Justice at the Women's Refugee Commission. "Title 42 is an unlawful and xenophobic Trump-era policy that weaponized public health to shut down access to protection at the border. We are outraged by the Biden administration's decision to continue such expulsions which summarily return vulnerable individuals and families to harm and perpetuate suffering and chaos at the border. We call on the administration to finally restore access to asylum, including by reopening ports of entry."
"Just days after witnessing images of the horrific abuses of Black migrants seeking safety at our borders under Title 42, it is disturbing that the Biden administration would continue to maintain and defend this callous policy harming people seeking refuge," said Avideh Moussavian, director of federal advocacy at the National Immigration Law Center. "That last night's ruling came on the same day that DHS issued new enforcement priorities that arbitrarily and unjustly label people as threats to borders security based solely on their attempt to enter the U.S. - often under the most vulnerable and desperate circumstances - speaks to this administration's deeply harmful focus on deterrence. We will continue to fight this policy and others that disproportionately impact Black and LGBTQIA+ asylum seekers and push to hold this administration accountable to its promise to build a 21st century immigration system that centers the dignity of everyone."
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
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular