….as migrants, refugees and asylum seekers will be blocked from admission because of fear that they are “diseased.”
This line from near the end of an article published in The Nation yesterday sums up the fear of the international Open Borders movement:
The existential threat of Covid-19 has prompted a swift retreat to the nation-state, at the cost of international human rights, as countries rush to fly their own citizens home while keeping others out.
I’ve snipped some highlights from the article, but it is very well worth your time to read it all!
Could Covid-19 Mean the End of Asylum Law in the United States?
As this type of hand-wringing story is wont to do, it begins with a paragraph about the travails of those stalwart souls who walk for months to our southern border expecting to be let in (so they can disappear into their ethnic enclaves and hide for years). LOL! No it doesn’t say that last part.
(Emphasis below is mine)
For almost all of the people who made this kind of journey but were unlucky enough to complete it in the past two months, their time in this country has lasted less than a few hours before they were summarily—and illegally—deported back into Mexico.
Since March 21, the Trump administration has sent over 20,000 people back across the border, thousands of whom would have otherwise sought refugee protection. In that same time, only two people were allowed to stay to seek asylum.
One of the earliest victims of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States was the country’s refugee system. On March 20, the Trump administration announced a sweeping and unprecedented order: Instead of processing new arrivals for asylum, the Border Patrol was encouraged to deport them as rapidly as possible. The United Nations said the decision was illegal under international law; advocacy groups and elected officials called the new policy a travesty. The administration defended the move, claiming it was only a temporary, 30-day measure to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. But the rapid expulsion policy remains in place, almost two months later. It has not yet been challenged in court.
While the administration has justified the end of asylum on the border as a necessary public health measure, it’s not hard to see the ways in which the pandemic is merely the pretext for the order, not the motivation.
“From its earliest days, one of the Trump administration’s chief objectives has been overturning and circumventing US laws that were designed to protect refugees and people seeking protection, as well as unaccompanied children,” says Eleanor Acer, the senior director of refugee protection for Human Rights First. “It’s now using the pandemic as yet another weapon to try to circumvent US asylum law.”
[….]
Why, despite its clear illegality, has the total asylum ban remained in place?
Scholars of immigration say the administration has capitalized on two things: the current crisis, and over 100 years of anti-immigrant propaganda casting immigrants as diseased.
Now, here is an interesting piece of news—the ACLU in “disarray!” Why? Is it because they are busy defending the civil liberties of rioters, looters and thugs?
The Nation continues….
Organizations that would typically challenge the law, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, are in disarray, as they deal with the shock of multiple emergencies and a pandemic that is impacting their lawyers across the country.
However, even after the intensity of the shutdowns and quarantines wear off, advocates worry that fears of “diseased” outsiders will make Americans—including those who otherwise support the institution of asylum—more willing to give up on refugee law: Foreigners will simply be seen as too dangerous to admit, no matter the circumstances.
[….]
“Crisis produces an instinct to close the border and keep people out,” says Charanya Krishnaswarmi, Amnesty International’s advocacy director for the Americas.
But the Covid-19 pandemic might create long-term damage to refugee law in ways other crises have not: Sickness provides a convenient pretext to mask xenophobia. Even in the best of times, immigrants are seen by those seeking to limit immigration as a threat to “our” culture, “our” economic well-being. Now, the risk of a deadly virus means the outsiders can be presented as an existential threat as well.
[….]
On April 21, the president announced plans to “temporarily suspend immigration into the United States” in a move Democrats have called “xenophobic scapegoating.” Covid-19 has made tangible the parallels the president himself has drawn between migrants and disease, and given such claims a veneer of legitimacy.
Medicalized migration reinforces this connection between immigrant and threat, while simultaneously buttressing the inequalities between citizens and noncitizens. [There are, and should be,”inequalities” between citizens and non-citizens.—ed]
What does this mean for the future of refugee law? Human Rights First’s Acer, like other refugee experts we spoke to, suspects that the new, total asylum ban will last long after the coronavirus pandemic ends. “I expect they will fight to make it last as long as this administration, however long that is,” she says.
[….]
Acer worries that the Chinese virus will give yet another reason for their most-feared world leader and ultimate boogeyman—Viktor Orban!—to keep Hungary’s borders closed in order to save Hungary for Hungarians.
However, even if asylum is reinstated on the southern border (for instance, under a hypothetical Democratic administration), Acer worries that the pandemic-inspired exclusions policy might have already done significant damage to international refugee protections.
“What I’m worried about now is how countries like Hungary and Turkey will be emboldened to further refuse refugees,” she says. The language of public health creates a convenient narrative for anti-immigrant zealots like Hungarian President Viktor Orbán to obscure racist and Islamaphobic rhetoric with the language of medical necessity.
There ismuch more (it was hard to decide which were the best bits to snip!).
It is always worth learning how the opposition thinks and what they fear the most which in this case is that they fear the hardening of borders worldwide while using their humanitarian mumbo-jumbo as a cover for their real goal of erasing borders altogether.
See my Viktor Orban (the world leader I would most like to meet) archive here.
….and boy are the Leftwing Open Borders agitators steamed!
Former US Senator and now Attorney General Sessions, who you will recall got on the Trump train in the earliest days of the campaign, is quietly carrying out an immigration restriction agenda at the Justice Department and in the courts.
The primary reason we elected this president in the first place was to get immigration under control and Sessions is doing that!
If the President foolishly pushes Jeff Sessions out of the Justice Department, the Senate will never confirm a replacement who would carry out the immigration control agenda that Sessions has undertaken.
Yesterday, I told you about the asylum scam, here, and today we bring your attention to Mother Joneswith this headline:
Sessions Is Poised to Make It Vastly Harder for Asylum-Seekers to Get Out of Detention
A new decision from Attorney General Jeff Sessions is likely to make it dramatically harder for tens of thousands of asylum-seekers to get out of detention.
How many asylum-seekers are in detention and how many are free to roam America while waiting for a decision? I don’t know the answer, but when I find it, I will let you know. But, know that thousands of wannabe refugees are simply free across America. Vast numbers of them will never show up for their asylum hearing.
On Tuesday, in a now-familiar tactic, Sessions used his broad authority over America’s immigration courts to refer a case to himself. The move will allow him to reinterpret a 2005 decision from the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals that gives some migrants the ability to get out of detention on bond. Sessions now appears likely to strip many detained immigrants of that right.
The self-referral comes two weeks after the Trump administration proposed a rule that would allow it to detain migrant families indefinitely. Combined, these two moves would make families seeking asylum much more likely to spend months or even years in detention.
And, what should be done now is a massive public relations campaign by the US throughout Mexico and Central America about how asylum seekers will be detained maybe for years. Such an effort could have a chilling effect on the hordes hankering to move north.
Mother Jones continues…
Under current law, asylum-seekers who cross the border without authorization are entitled to bond hearings before an immigration judge if they establish a credible fear of being persecuted in their home country. In a strange twist, asylum-seekers who request protection at official border crossings—the government’s preferred route—must ask Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to grant them parole, rather than asking a judge to grant bond. That distinction matters because ICE has shown an almost complete unwillingness to grant parole under Trump.
Eleanor Acer of Human Rights First: “This is just not who we are as a country.” How dare Acer and her ilk be the arbiters of who we are as a country! If it was up to her we would have no borders and therefore no country!
Eleanor Acer, the director of the refugee protection program at Human Rights First, says eliminating bond hearings would have an “absolutely devastating impact” on migrants because of the difficulty of being granted parole by ICE. “This is just not who we are as a country,” she says. “This should not be a country where people are thrown into jails and not even allowed to see a judge who decides whether or not they could be released from detention or not.”
Sessions’ decision to review the case is the latest step in the Trump administration’s systematic crackdown on asylum-seekers. In June, Sessions all but eliminated gang and domestic violence as grounds for asylumafter referring a different case to himself. Earlier this month, the Trump administration proposed a rule to terminate the Flores settlement agreement, a two-decade-old court settlement that prevents the government from detaining migrant children for more than about 20 days. The proposal would allow the Trump administration to detain families indefinitely.
By the way, this is very significant—eliminating fear of violence back home as a grounds for gaining refugee protection and ultimately US citizenship!
We have told you over the years how the Open Borders Left is systematically eroding the definition of who is a refugee. A legitimate refugee, under the 1951 UN Convention, must be able to prove that he or she (personally!) would be PERSECUTED for one of several reasons including race, religion, political views, if returned to their home country. There is nothing in the definition about escaping violence or even war.
In recent years we have been allowing border-crossers to claim they are escaping gangs and abusive husbands to gain a legal foothold in America. Sessions is forcing adherence to the original law and not allowing this expansion.
I know all of you are distracted this morning by the horrific news out of the United Kingdom in the wake of the latest terrorist attack on innocent people. I’m distracted too and don’t have the focus to analyze a House bill which was the subject of a hearing last week in the House Judiciary Committee.
First I laughed when I saw this at Human Rights First’swebsite:
Human Rights First Press Contact Mary Elizabeth Margolis 212-845-5269 Here is what Human Rights First says about the bill (of course they oppose any tightening of security for immigrants legal and illegal already on our soil or about to enter).
From their website:
Washington, D.C. – Human Rights first today, along with 25 leading human rights, refugee resettlement, and faith organizations, called on the House Judiciary Committee to reject the Michael Davis, Jr. and Danny Oliver in Honor of State and Local Law Enforcement Act (H.R. 2431), a bill that would harm refugees, asylum seekers, and stateless people fleeing persecution. The organizations submitted a joint statement for the record for today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on H.R. 2431, emphasizing that many provisions in the bill would severely limit access to asylum and undermine U.S. commitments to refugee protection.
“H.R. 2431 undermines our nation’s legal obligations to refugees and would cause unnecessary hardship for refugees seeking and refugees who have already received protection in the United States,” wrote the groups.
H.R. 2431 would significantly increase the use of immigration detention, increase barriers to seeking asylum in the United States by expanding already sweeping inadmissibility provisions that mislabel innocent refugees and victims of armed groups as supporters of terrorism, and deny countless asylum seekers their day in court by requiring expedited removal of broad swaths of immigrants in need of protection.
Continue reading here. (Here is their complete statement on the bill.)
It must be a good bill if they hate it so much!
Below are the groups opposing beefing-up our security (those in red are refugee contractors whose budgets are largely funded by your tax dollars):
Signers of today’s statement include the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project at the Urban Justice Center, Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, Church World Service, DC-Maryland Justice for Our Neighbors, Friends Committee on National Legislation, HIAS, Hispanic Federation, Human Rights First, Human Rights Initiative of North Texas, International Refugee Assistance Project, International Rescue Committee, Jesuit Conference of Canada and the United States, Jesuit Refugee Service/USA, Latin America Working Group (LAWG), League of United Latin American Citizens, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Multifaith Alliance for Syrian Refugees, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, Northern Illinois Justice for Our Neighbors, Office of Social Justice, Christian Reformed Church in North America, Pax Christi USA, Tahirih Justice Center, The Episcopal Church***, The IMPAC Fund, U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, and Women’s Refugee Commission.
***The Episcopal Church is probably a stand-in for Episcopal Migration Ministries(also one of nine federal resettlement contractors). Why on earth Congress continues to fund these groups and ‘religious charities’ which take our money (ostensibly to care for refugees), and then work politically in Washington to weaken our security is beyond me!
For new readers, here are the nine major federal contractors which you pay to place refugees into your towns and cities:
It is probably the same old bill he has been trying to get passed for years. I didn’t bother looking at it. The point I want to make here is this—the Open Borders Left never gives up! There is no way this bill will go anywhere this year in the waning months of an election year, but this sort of thing is done because they constantly push and they constantly gin up their grassroots by doing ‘show’ bills like this. Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy one of the most important Senators pushing for MORE and MORE refugees to be admitted to the US. Editor: By the way, I am traveling as I mentioned here. I am really hoping to continue posting from the road, however, at least this hotel in this city has a lousy internet connection (I’ll probably lose this connection 5 times before I finish this post)!
Here is a bit of information from Human Rights First about the bill introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California:
New York City—Human Rights First urges members of Congress to support the Refugee Protection Act of 2016, a bill that reaffirms the United States’ commitment to refugees and strengthens legal safeguards for those seeking protection from persecution and violence. The organization applauds Senator Leahy and Representative Lofgren for their leadership on this bill and for their commitment to the America’s legacy as a haven for refugees.
[….]
The bill would improve the efficiency, fairness and effectiveness of the U.S. asylum and resettlement processes, and strengthen protection for refugees. U.S. global leadership on the protection of refugees is crucial, as demonstrated by President Obama’s decision to host a world Leaders’ Summit on Refugees on September 20, and the U.S. asylum and resettlement systems should be a model for other countries.The Refugee Protection Act of 2016 fixes many of the areas in which U.S. laws and policies are not living up to the standards the United States has set for itself and, by extension, the bar it sets for the rest of the world.
Then this is my favorite in a list of things the bill would do, revealing I believe the Achilles heel of the UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program—refugees are not finding jobs and economically helping communities, but are in fact a drain wherever they are placed. This is probably a provision to send more of your $$$ to the resettlement contractors to distribute to the refugees (I didn’t bother to look it up!):
Safeguards newly arrived refugees from slipping into poverty and supports local communities.
Continue reading here for more of what Human Rights First has to say. HIAS’ Melanie Nezer is telling her people to write to Congress now.
The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society(one of the nine major federal refugee contractors) is telling its members to write to their representatives in Washington and say this (they gotta keep their members believing that they are working for them in Washington):
I write to urge you to cosponsor the Refugee Protection Act (HR 5851/S 3241).
This legislation would provide critical protections for refugees and asylum seekers in the United States. It would ensure due process for refugees and asylum seekers, simplify asylum procedures, keep more refugee families together, protect refugee children, and modernize our refugee resettlement program.
The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program is a critical tool for achieving our humanitarian goals, promoting our economic interests, and enhancing our national security. Refugees selected for resettlement to the U.S. have been thoroughly vetted by our national security agencies and arrive in the U.S. wanting the same things we all want — peace, safety, and opportunities for themselves and their children.
As a nation with a long legacy of welcoming refugees, it is critical that we have the best procedures and tools for helping the world’s most vulnerable victims of violence. Resettlement — to the U.S. or anywhere else — is often the last resort for refugees who may never be able to return to their home countries or have any access to a productive future in the country to which they first fled.
As your constituent, I urge you to use your voice to stand up for refugees by co-sponsoring the Refugee Protection Act and opposing any legislation that would undermine our Jewish and American values of welcoming the stranger and protecting refugees.
Of course I’m telling you all this with a chuckle, but if Hillary is elected, this won’t be a laughing matter. Bills like this could get through to her desk! And, again, that is because they (the Open Borders Left) never gives up, they agitate and they agitate, day after day and year after year! Note to angry Rutland residents:If you want to stop the madness help get rid of your old man in the Senate and help us all!
Remember that Pew poll I told you about here yesterday. It seems that the numbers have those, like Human Rights First, that welcome Muslim refugees to America, worried. They noticed too that the fearful-Democrat numbers are pretty high too! Human Rights First hated the Bushies but when they can use one for their purposes, why not! Because of his complete misunderstanding about why ISIS exists, Michael Chertoff is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are in! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chertoff
They want all of you Trump supporters to know that ISIS and other Muslim extremists are watching to see how bigoted and hypocritical we are. The theory goes that ISIS will lose power if other Muslims love us and they will only love us if we take in hundreds of thousands of them as welfare-dependent refugees.
From Human Rights First:
Editor: These numbers indicate to me that Trump has a lot of room for expansion of his voter base (are we one terrorist attack away from President Donald J. Trump?)
The Guardian reported on a recent Pew poll that found 85 percent of Donald Trump supporters believe that refugees from Iraq and Syria are a major threat to the United States. As for the other presidential candidates, 74 percent of Ted Cruz supporters felt the same, followed by 59 percent for Kasich, 40 percent for Clinton, and 34 percent for Sanders.
If we prove we aren’t bigots (goes the theory), the bad Muslims will leave us alone! And, the good ones will love us! (and that is all that matters):
As Michael Chertoff, former DHS Secretary under President George W. Bush, told the Wall Street Journal: “[Resettling refugees] allows us to truthfully say that we’re not hypocrites or bigoted against Muslims or people from other cultures. That has a positive impact in terms of the disposition people around the world have toward the U.S. You don’t want to play into the narrative of the bad guy. That’s giving propaganda to the enemy.”
Click here for more illogical thinking from HRF about how bringing questionably-screened refugees from Iraq and Syria to America, scattering them to hundreds of towns, and adding them to our welfare rolls will keep us all safer. What it will do is advance the Hijra and the eventual Islamification of America because it isn’t just terrorist attacks we should fear. (Just look at Londonistan!)
