Share this page!

Yael Schacher Profile picture
Twitter logo
22 Dec, 4 tweets, 1 min read
Oh no.
To understand how wrong this is, please read my comment:
refugeesinternational.org/reports/2020/8…
As all comments note, this rule discriminates against ASYLUM SEEKERS (vs. other migrants). Non-response to this in final rule: No, it doesn't discriminate, because it applies to all asylum seekers.
That is not an answer.
The idea that national security means anything you say it means--especially that asylum seekers who haven't tested positive for COVID-19 will somehow spread COVID further in the US and thereby worsen its economic impact--is, frankly, beyond belief.
final rule cites Frances Walter (nativist par excellence) regarding provision of 1952 INA to bolster its authority. Fortunately, INA has changed since 1952, esp. re: asylum seekers. U.S. has acceded to the Refugee Convention and, later, passed Refugee Act of 1980.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Yael Schacher

Yael Schacher Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @YaelSchacher

Yael Schacher Profile picture
24 Dec
Finally finished reading The President and Immigration Law. Of course agree all immigration policy is not fulfillment of Congressional will. But disagree thatCongressional intent is always too hard to discern--especially when it comes too the Refugee Act of 1980.
Fact of the matter is: Immigration policy starting in 1981 consistently ignored a very clear Congressional mandate: don't prevent people from seeking asylum.
Is the INA complicated: yes. But, to my mind, the way the 1996 law took away court review and gave more discretion to the executive has made things much worse.
Read 11 tweets
Yael Schacher Profile picture
23 Dec
"CBP insists that awarding contracts without first obtaining land is efficient."

Just WOW.

Great reporting.
texastribune.org/2020/12/23/tru…
"The Trump administration’s legal efforts have only intensified, with nearly 40 new eminent domain lawsuits filed in the Southern District of Texas since Election Day."

!!!!
Historians need to delve into this! "CBP’s toughest fights over eminent domain center on Starr County...where family properties date back to original Spanish land grants issued 250 years ago, well before the Rio Grande served as an international boundary."
Read 5 tweets
Yael Schacher Profile picture
21 Dec
There's a lot that can be done with this "border wall" money to reform the asylum bureaucracy!
How about hiring new medical and social workers at ports and surging supplies?
How about, for USCIS, more asylum officers, new training, a research unit on country conditions?
More funding for CBP oversight and accountability would also be good. Or for that an investigatory/accountability commission.
Also, this money might obviate the inhumane need for fees for humanitarian applications.
Read 4 tweets
Yael Schacher Profile picture
30 Aug
Talking the anti-trafficking talk, not walking the walk. And it's much worse for immigrant victims of trafficking, especially labor trafficking (as per State Dept. 2020 TIP report).
Denial rate for T visas for victims of trafficking has risen steadily from 24 percent in 2017 to 50 percent so far this year. (Denial rate: denied/denied plus approved. Leave out pending).
uscis.gov/sites/default/…
I wrote about this last year. refugeesinternational.org/reports/2019/5…

And this report is very good follow up.
ilrc.org/sites/default/…

Processing times for T visas way up. Applications are down. It's a risk to apply.
Read 8 tweets
Yael Schacher Profile picture
22 Jun
It's now official: the administration has adopted a policy of coercing poor asylum seekers into giving up their claims or pushing them into starvation and abusive work in the underground economy.

s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspect…
From the rule: "DHS acknowledges that these reforms will apply to aliens with meritorious asylum claims, and that these applicants may experience some degree of economic hardship as a result of heightened requirements for" work authorization.
There also seems to be a whole section of the rule--page 70-71--which essentially uses work authorization as a back handed way to raise the asylum standard from "well founded fear of persecution" to "fleeing imminent serious harm". Am I reading this right @ReichlinMelnick?
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @YaelSchacher has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @YaelSchacher!

Read all threads by @YaelSchacher