A few years ago, I gave an academic paper about Ana Estela Guervara Flores, who was one of people in the Orantes-Hernandez litigation but also an important case in her own right that was denied cert by SCOTUS in 1986. justice.gov/sites/default/…
I did a lot of research about the lengths that the State department went to accuse this refugee of being someone she wasn't and a security threat. She wasn't.
Here's a bit from that paper: "The immigration authorities and FBI detained and interrogated Ana, convinced that she was “Commandante Norma Guevara,” a well-known “communist terrorist.” The FBI, through the US Embassy in El Salvador,
informed the Salvadoran government of their suspicions and as them to compare Ana’s photo and fingerprints with that of the Commandante. The Salvadoran authorities—after searching Ana’s home in San Salvador and arresting Ana’s mother and sister--
determined the two women (Ana and Norma) were not a match, but the US authorities still agreed to let the Salvadoran authorities know when Ana was to be deported to El Salvador so that she could be detained and questioned there about her possession of subversive literature."
Like a tape recording of the last homily of Archbishop Romero.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Restrictionists have frequently said, we’re not letting you in for your own good! I wrote a whole paper about how immigration enforcement bureaucrats in the 1920s made themselves out into humanitarians this way.
“letting in migrants is cruel” is really exactly what they said. Rather than question whether the humanitarian standards should be broadened, they dug in and blamed immigrants for asking too much, family members in the US for leaving others behind (separating themselves) etc.
It is so passive. The way policies are is the way they should always be. Restrictionist policies are natural and should not change.
Anybody who has met him knows how brave and humble, humane and resourceful, Pastor Lorenzo Ortiz is.
To understand both the challenges and the possibilities at the U.S.-Mexico border:
Watch the last in our Voices from the Border video series:
I've got to say: there is a long standing problem with stash house raids. As I wrote two years ago, assuming the migrants held there are people who deserve protection rather than deportation is not customary.
"CBP and ICE press releases about raids on stash houses where migrants were held against their will do not suggest that migrants were advised of their ability to apply for visas as victims of trafficking. Migrants were arrested and “processed for immigration violations.”
It's also true that, even if they were to apply for these visas, USCIS has tended to rule that "being held captive, physically abused, and forced to work in a stash house does not merit a T visa" as a victim of trafficking.
Since 2010s, number of people requesting asylum while attempting to enter U.S. has gone up, and raised stakes for screening process we use at border. I discuss this a bit here; more from me in writing shortly. WE NEED NEW PROCESS, and MORE PROTECTION. wola.org/analysis/peopl…
I talk about asylum officers a lot here. I neglected to mention (because I got sidetracked) what a noble fight many asylum officers put up to some of the Trump administration's anti-asylum policies. There is a lot we can work with to make the asylum office great!
I also didn't get to say that: besides rolling back Trump administration's restrictions on asylum eligibility, we must screen people from Central America for complimentary protection. This exists in Europe and it should exist here--so we don't deport people to real harm.
You know what I hate? The insistence that US asylum system was born after WWII. THE US DIDN’T SIGN UN REFUGEE CONVENTION IN 1952. US had an ad hoc refugee program till 1980. It would be generous to say asylum was born AT THE BORDER w/ 1980 Refugee Act. It’s been a struggle since.
I say this as a Jew whose paternal grandparents came to the US as displaced persons after WWII in one of the resettlement programs Congress established for discrete populations. US border with Mexico and the Western Hemisphere in general have been treated differently.
And this trade off of security at the border for immigration reform affecting people already here has been a toxic part of our politics since the 1980s and it’s time to let go. It hasn’t led to compromise or progress.
You'd think, given this has been going on for a decade, policy makers would not be surprised. It's been pretty consistently large migration flow for many years. Something we should plan for and accept. Period.
The flow started EARLIER than MPI tracks. And led to a major shift in the way that the UNHCR approached migration in the hemisphere. This was YEARS AGO. unhcr.org/en-us/children…
Remember Enrique's Journey? A hugely important book, published back in 2007! Or the scholarship of Jacqueline Bhabha, who has been tracking the rise in child refugees all over the world for over a decade.