This Thursday, after almost three years of validity, the Title 42a controversial measure of the presidency of Donald Trump that allowed the authorities to expel from the United States anyone who showed up at its borders, alleging that there was a health emergency in the country caused by the covid-19 pandemic.
(Also: White House Orders ‘Mass Hacking’ of Artificial Intelligence Systems: Why?)
In this way, at least three million people were returned to their countries of origin, transported to Mexico, without their asylum cases going through the legal process that exists in the country for asylum seekers.
(You can read: USA: What is Title 8, and how does it affect migrants at the border?)
Instead, the US will reapply the so-called Title 8 —or its regular process in this type of situation—, but under the threat that they will continue to deport detainees who do not qualify for asylum in an “express” manner and with strong penaltieswhich include even jail for those who appear at the border.
Despite the fact that the date for the end of Title 42 has been known for months, the expectation is high and the authorities fear the arrival of a whole tsunami of migrants starting this week that could exacerbate the crisis that exists at the border. south.
To discuss the issue, EL TIEMPO interviewed Tom Cartwright, a specialist for Witnesses on the Border, an organization that defends the rights of migrants.
The end of the health emergency that gave life to the controversial Title 42 is this Thursday and there is great expectation for what may happen, and there is talk of a tsunami of migrants ready to enter the US. You are in Texas, in the area of border. What is the situation there?
There have been more migrants recently than in the past, and I think many of us expected that because Title 42 has been in place for over three years, basically closing the border, and we’ve been pushing people back to Mexico ever since. So there are a lot of people waiting in Mexico and that, combined with the lack of a good flow of information about what’s going to happen on May 11, I think it creates a lot of uncertainty for people and, in general, people before the uncertainty prefers to act and not wait. It is something that was seen coming.
And the administration and the states have been preparing for months, do you think they are ready to face the situation?
I think the first few weeks will be difficult because there will be a lot of new things and a lot of people. But I think after a few weeks or a month things will probably calm down. But it is always difficult. People have been preparing all along the border. People providing humanitarian aid, shelters, etc. There’s been a lot of coordination with the government lately to understand what’s going to happen and really think about how to respond in a humane way rather than just approach this from a law enforcement and public order perspective.
You recently wrote an article saying that Title 42 should never have existed, but you also criticize the Biden administration’s plans for a post-Title 42 world. Why?
We certainly appreciate the new pathways that have been established, such as the processing centers in Guatemala and Colombia, and some of the other new legal pathways for citizens of four nationalities. But that cannot be a replacement for the right to apply for asylum in the United States. And Customs and Border Control (CBP) can’t be the only way someone can approach the United States and ask for protection here. And some of the new things that have been proposed, like the rule that prohibits asylum in the US if you went through a transit country or third country, which is essentially a throwback to the Trump days, are things that we they seem really difficult to accept because what you do is put a huge obstacle in front of people who want to ask for protection in the US and to which they are entitled.
Among them, the administration has said that although Title 42 expires, under Title 8 (or the regular process) they also plan to deport expeditiously and that they will veto or even put migrants who repeat offenses in jail. Is that legit?
Well, I’m going to wait for the lawyers and experts on that to respond, but it doesn’t seem like it is. It seems that it goes against all the asylum laws that are in force nationally and internationally. So we’ll have to see where this stops. But the asylum ban for those passing through a third transit country seems especially egregious.
What do you think of the decision to send National Guard troops to help at the border?
As for me, I thought it was in very bad taste, because it plays in favor of the narrative that there is an invasion. Troops are sent when there is an invasion. I understand that their purpose is only to help with administrative tasks, but it is also a message that they are sending and should have been avoided.
If anything, this looks like a crossroads for Biden. If he stands his ground, he is criticized by his base. If he doesn’t, then the Republicans attack him…
Yes. And I would say that you are never going to satisfy the people of the right. The Greg Abbotts (Governor of Texas) of the world will not be satisfied until there are zero people asking for protection in the United States. So, in my opinion, I think it should do the right thing, the right thing for the people from a humanitarian perspective. Whatever you do, the right is going to criticize you.
But what is wrong with the argument of the Republicans, and also at times of Biden, that although there are legal ways to get to the US, what you cannot do is show up at the border or enter illegally? ?
The counterargument would be that it is legal to cross between ports or countries and ask for asylum and by placing a transit ban they are putting up a barricade. Secondly, the ports, these points do not have the capacity to process the number of people arriving at them. Therefore, it is not an effective way to process those who want to come. In addition, the so-called legal avenues are very narrow. We are talking about a minimal number of people compared to the 3 million people we have expelled in the last three years. So we appreciate legal avenues, but they cannot be a substitute. And many of them, by the way, are specific according to the nationality of the people. Therefore, we cannot allow these narrowly defined and small number of legal pathways to replace the legal right of individuals to seek asylum in the United States.
(Furthermore: the US sanctions three former Colombian soldiers for violating human rights.)
Many of those who arrive asking for asylum come from countries at war, or where they are persecuted. But others, and that includes many of the Colombians, come for economic reasons. The reasoning is that the US cannot receive everyone who is not doing well financially in their home countries. What do you think?
We appreciate legal avenues, but they cannot be a substitute. And many of them, by the way, are specific according to the nationality of the people.
There is a difference between saying that everyone has the right to seek asylum and protection in the United States and that everyone has the right to come to the United States. They are two very different things. We have a court to judge those requests. But what is not correct is to put obstacles so that people cannot even present that request.
The counterargument to that is usually that since there is no way to process all those applications, once they arrive they have to release them in the US while the process progresses and then they don’t come back and end up staying illegal.
That they do not return to the courts and stay is not true. Most return to their appointments and face the process. But there are a couple of additional things. The fact that someone comes for economic reasons does not mean that we should not want them in the United States, that we should not analyze what the requirements are to request asylum in the United States. I’m not sure people stop at this. I know that my grandparents came to this country for economic reasons and were allowed to stay and build a life. And what we’re saying now is no, someone has to literally be on the noose around their neck or on the brink of death before they can ask for protection and you’re allowed to immigrate. But the other one is why don’t we put the resources there? If we think we’re spending billions and billions of dollars on border controls, why not spend some of that money on humanitarian purposes, on case management, on expanding the capacity of the courts to move cases forward?
And why do you think that doesn’t happen?
I don’t think it’s something that Congress is going to do because the Republicans, and this is my personal opinion, favor the immigration issue for their political purposes. They believe that it is a winning issue in electoral terms. They love the chaos at the border and don’t want solutions to the problem.
The Biden administration is expected to expand the family reunification program, which would now include Colombians and other Central Americans. Do you see this as a step in the right direction? Why has it taken so long to take a measure that seems logical?
It makes a lot of sense and it’s a big step. Why has it taken so long? Don’t know. Again, I think politics plays a big part in a lot of these things. There’s no reason this shouldn’t have happened a long time ago. But there are others without explanation, such as Deferred Deportation for those who arrived as minors (Daca). Something that is not understood without a political element involved.
Finally, what is your reading of the death of 8 migrants this week in Texas after being hit by a car? Do you think it was an accident or a deliberate, anti-immigrant act?
It’s hard to talk about this specific case because the investigation is not over yet and I don’t like to speculate about things I don’t know the facts about. There are certainly indications, at least from people who have spoken in the press, about what they heard the person in charge say. If they are true, it would have been inspired by more than just an accident. But I will say that it is very clear that the rhetoric that is heard puts them in danger, it equates those who want to come with underpersons.
When there was a shooting in Texas, Governor Abbott said that the people who were shot were illegal aliens, which is a way of saying that maybe it shouldn’t matter so much because they weren’t here legally. And that is making an appalling characterization of a human being.
(Keep reading: How would the new immigration law in Florida affect undocumented Colombians?)
SERGIO GOMEZ MASERI
EL TIEMPO correspondent
Washington
#migrants #Title #Thursday #speak #expert