Thread by @ReichlinMelnick

Alright, let's talk "Asylum Cooperative Agreements" (ACAs).

You may have seen many of Biden's opponents specifically say that terminating these agreements caused a "border crisis."

So what were the ACAs, how did they come into place, and is there any truth in that? A thread.

https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1389934450579058690

"Asylum Cooperative Agreements" are a form of "Safe Third Country" agreement, a concept in US law where someone can be denied the right to ask for asylum if they can be sent to a country where they won't face persecution and which provides "a full and fair" chance to seek asylum.

The "safe third country" concept was created by Congress in 1996, and until 2019 only one such agreement existed.

The US-Canada STC Agreement took years to negotiate, is very limited, provides numerous exceptions, and imposes obligations on both sides. canada.ca/en/immigration…

That brings us to 2019, when the Trump administration was desperate to find some ways to stop people from seeking asylum. At first they tried to get Mexico to sign a Safe Third Country agreement, beginning negotiations even in 2018. But Mexico refused. nytimes.com/2018/05/17/wor…

After tariff threats, in 2019 the Trump administration got Mexico to agree to take more asylum seekers under the so-called "Remain in Mexico" program and provide some vague commitments to reconsidering a STC deal.

But that wasn't enough for the Trump DHS. vox.com/2019/6/15/1868…

On June 7, 2019, at the same time that Trump was threatening massive tariffs on Mexico, DHS began pushing safe third country agreements on Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.

Within just six weeks, the first agreement was signed—even though everyone knew it was a sham.

The process of negotiating the Asylum Cooperative Agreements was pure blackmail and bullying on the part of the United States. When Guatemala's Supreme Court tried to block the agreement, Trump threatened to punish the entire country. Guatemala caved.

latimes.com/politics/story…

By September, DHS had signed Safe Third Country agreements with Honduras and El Salvador.

The only problem? Those countries aren't safe for migrants. So what did DHS do? Rebrand!

"Safe Third Country agreements" became Asylum/Protection Cooperative Agreements. Safety? Gone.

So what did these new "Unsafe third country" agreements do?

Well, remember how the US-Canada agreement imposed burdens on both sides and had extensive exceptions?

The new ACAs did not. At all. Let's look at the U.S-Guatemala's agreement. state.gov/wp-content/upl…

Here are the key provisions of the U.S.-Guatemala ACA ("GACA").

In short: The US can send ANYONE IT WANTS to Guatemala except 1) Guatemalans, 2) unaccompanied children—who are actually exempt from safe third country agreements by US law—and 3) most people who arrive on visas.

Despite the broad language of the agreement which could have allowed the US to send anyone there, Guatemala agreed only to take Hondurans and Salvadorans.

This was spelled out in leaked training materials when the GACA went into effect in November 2019.

https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1197295787090284550

One key feature of the U.S.-Canada Safe Third Country agreement is that it would only apply to people who had actually been in the US before arriving in Canada, or who had been in Canada before arriving in the US.

That transit requirement? Completely gone from the ACAs.

For example, after the U.S.-Honduras ACA was signed, which contained almost identical broad language to the GACA, Honduras agreed to allow the US to deport asylum seekers there from Mexico, Ecuador, and Brazil—even if they had never been in Honduras ever.

https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1215689727489298435

In November 2019, the GACA went into effect and the US began sending Hondurans and Salvadorans to Guatemala and demanding they apply for asylum there.

The border screening process for the GACA was a complete sham designed to make deportations easier.

https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1197295765753925633

Horrifyingly, many asylum seekers sent to Guatemala had no idea that they were going to be sent there until they got off the plane in Guatemala City.

Guatemalan government watchdogs called the program "a total disaster"—and yet the Trump DHS pushed ahead.
washingtonpost.com/world/the_amer…

Advocates documented extensive ways in which the Guatemalan ACA was essentially just "deportation with a layover."

Guatemala had no real capacity to process asylum claims —and of course Guatemala was itself was a net exporter of asylum claimants. hrw.org/report/2020/05…

The damage being done by the ACAs was effectively ended in March 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Guatemala suspended ACA flights and the US government started instead to simply expel people under "Title 42." cbsnews.com/news/guatemala…

In total, just 945 people were sent to Guatemala under the Asylum Cooperative Agreement from November 2019 to March 2020 when it was suspended.

As a Senate Foreign Relations Committee report revealed, not a single one of them was granted asylum. washingtonpost.com/world/the_amer…

The Trump administration lied through their teeth about the main purposes of the ACAs.

For example, this 2019 fact sheet claims the ACAs "allow migrants to seek protection within the region."

But that's a lie. They were about denying migrants any chance at asylum in the US.

The Trump administration's doublespeak on the ACAs continues to cause confusion today.

For example, Rep. Crenshaw went on TV and claimed the ACAs were not about "sending" people anywhere—seeming to think they were some kind of regional processing system.

https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1373807251769729024

Given that only one ACA ever went into effect for a four month period and only applied to 945 people, why has the GOP tried to claim terminating them caused a "border crisis"?

Talking points!

No, seriously, check them out. Cancelling the ACAs is a claimed "open border policy"

So there you have it. The ACAs were a sham designed to allow the US to avoid responsibility for having to allow migrants to apply for asylum by instead deporting them to third countries they might not have ever been to and which weren't safe and had no functioning asylum systems.