#Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ratingtheframe · 4 years ago

Text

Lights, camera, lockdown! All the films I watched at home this November.

Last month, the UK went on a one month down lockdown, causing cinemas to shut and new releases to be put on hold.

In fact, Christopher Nolan’s Tenet was the only multi million dollar film to be released this year. It’s painful to think that Dune was supposed to be released almost two weeks from now and that we have to wait several months to see the sci fi film hit screens. Despite the post poned releases and closing of cinema chains, there are still some great films I hadn’t seen and used last month as an opportunity to look into them. Even though I didn’t see as much as I did in October, the quality of the films I managed to see this month is high.

His House (2020) as seen on Netflix

Starting off reasonably well with this horror brought to you by Netflix that centers the life around two immigrants and a spirit haunting the new lives they’re trying to build in the UK. It’s certainly a new perspective that I haven’t seen in horror and definitely isn’t a film for the fainted hearted for some of the scenes in this are genuinely terrifying. The overall message was thought provoking and poignant as it sort of spoke for those who’ve lost their lives attempting to seek asylum and those whoa are still struggling to find a new home.

His House is available to watch on Netflix. Score: 9/10

Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight (2020) as seen on Netflix

Definitely one of the most surprisingly good films I watched this month, Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight is a classic Netflix horror from Poland. The film follows a group of Polish teenagers addicted to social media who are sent to a camp to curb their addiction. However, when on a hike through the woods, one of the teens goes missing and without a phone to call for help, the kids are forced to face two grotesque monsters feeding upon humans. From start to finish, this film was highly entertaining and had a good structure to it. There were no gimmicks or cliches and it’s definitely a film I’d recommend to just about anyone.

Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight is available to watch on Netflix.

Score: 10/10

The Ring (2002) as seen on BBC iPlayer

Gore Verbinski’s (A Cure for Wellness, Pirates of the Caribbean) infamous horror is a cult classic and must watch for scary movie fans. Usually horror films can be too gimmicky and borderline cringey without an ounce of substance to them. However, The Ring is surprisingly good in that it possesses a deep narrative with three dimensional characters, good acting and wonderful direction. When a journalist’s (Naomi Watts) niece dies in unknown circumstances, she embarks on a journey to discover a horrifying tape that if watched, kills you in a week’s time. The box office sales for this film speaks for itself seeing as the film made nearly $130 million when it was released back in 2002. The Ring is certainly not for the faint hearted, so if horror isn’t your thing, I’d advise you stay well away from it.

Score: 9/10

Misery (1990) as seen on Netflix

Stephen King’s Misery is turned into an unsettling thriller starring Kathy Bates and James Caan. Author Paul Sheldon (James Caan) ends up getting caught in a snow storm, that seems his car veer off the road, leaving him in a critical state. However, a seemingly caring and selfless woman, Annie (Kathy Bates) takes him in, using her work as a nurse to care for him. It turns out that Annie is a super fan of Paul’s work and the care she has for him soon turns nasty and sadistic, leaving Paul in a panicked state for he is in the middle of nowhere with a practical psychopath. I wouldn’t say Misery is one of best adaptations of King’s novels. There are better pieces of work by Stephen King that have been made into movies such as IT, The Green Mile and 1922. The pace was quite slow and the fact that it took place in only one settling detracted from the progression of the film. However, it’s entertaining, well cast and had a decent story to it.

Score: 7/10

Drive (2011) as seen on Amazon Prime

Drive is 1000% one of the best films I’ve seen this year, in my entire life in fact. It’s incredibly bold, ambitious, vivid, subtle and heart wrenching at moments. A stunt driver (Ryan Gosling) is torn between the world of crime he partakes in and the love he has for a young woman (Carey Mulligan) that lives in the apartment next door to his. The subtlety and sensitivity that both Gosling and Mulligan brought to this film was so pure and authentic to their characters, whilst bringing an underlying sadness to the entirety of the film. By the end of the film you want to cry but aren’t sure why and these sorts of films are rare to find. The sound track and SFX in this are unreal, again adding to the confirmation that this film is one of a kind.

Score: 12/10

Time (2020) as seen on Amazon Prime

I was delighted to see Amazon Prime had put this straight onto their service seeing as I’d missed out on Time during the London Film Festival two months ago. This is one of the most moving and deep pieces of work I’ve seen this year. Time is a documentary filmed over 20 years that details the life of a woman trying to seek justice for her husband who was put in prison for life for armed robbery. Not only is she fighting for her husband, but also her four sons, two of which weren’t even born when their father was put away in jail. Fox Rich lives in Louisiana, one of America’s toughest states when it comes to the criminal justice system. Sentences are of some of the highest in the entire country and are especially harsher to people of colour. Fox and her husband took the fatal and desperate decision to rob a bank in a bid to support their business and family. This drastic choice took Fox’s husband away from his family and for 2 decades, Fox spent time trying to get her husband out of jail. The thing that moved me the most about this documentary was her sons; four beautiful, smart and driven men who grew up without a father. It made me wonder how proud Fox must be of her kids and to see her fight for her husband and remain loyal to him is enough love to last two lifetimes.

Time is available��to watch on Amazon Prime now.

Score: 10/10

The Departed (2006) as seen on DVD

Throughout this two and a half hour film I was wondering how they had managed to get Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Alec Baldwin and Mark Wahlberg to do a film together. And the answer is that this epic and high profile movie was directed by the infamous Martin Scorsese. It’s a mystery why I hadn’t seen this film sooner, seeing as it was a huge hit during its release making a staggering $291 million worldwide during its release. This is definitely DiCaprio’s best film (next to Revolutionary Road and The Revenant) and his performance was incredibly punchy and strong throughout. Everyone in this film was top class and the dialogue fitted well with each character with a natural story progression throughout. A top notch, Hollywood, must watch film.

Score: 10/10

Murder by Numbers (2002) as seen on Amazon Prime

One of Ryan Gosling’s earliest films follows two high school students committing a sadistic murder simply to see just how it feels. Detective Cassie Mayweather (Sandra Bullock) is put on the case to solve the murder and quickly pieces the case together, leading her to Richard Haywood (Ryan Gosling) and Justin Pendleton (Michael Pitt) two students at the same high school. I wouldn’t say this film was bad, however the ending played a big part in the overall quality of the film. It had a good pace and characters, however the ending definitely let down the film for it was rushed and unaligned to the rest of the film. Ryan Gosling’s performance at the tender age of 22 was pretty decent and definitely stated to everyone else his ability as an actor for years to come.

Score: 7/10

All Good Things (2010) as seen on Amazon Prime

As you can tell by now, I went on a Ryan Gosling whip this month. All Good Things is the true story of David Marks (Ryan Gosling), whose wife Katie (Kirsten Dunst) disappears and still to this day, has never been found. Marks was the prime suspect in the disappearance case but was never found guilty and lives a free man. Even though the story was interesting and the performances good, the fact this is a Weinstein Company Film made it hard to watch, especially with the totally unnecessary nudity and sex scenes that put Kirsten Dunst at its forefront. The film lacked a clear resolution and was left completely open ended like the case of Katie Marks, which is understandable, however not when it comes to making a good film.

Score: 6/10

Borat (2006) as seen on Amazon Prime

After finding the second Borat film to be highly entertaining, I decided to watch the first one and was certainly not left disappointed. The first Borat film introduces us to Kazakstan reporter Borat Sagdiyev (Sacha Baron Cohen) and his first visit to America, whilst taking in all the americanisms to report back to his own country. Soon his pursuit turns to Pamela Anderson whose doing a book signing across in California. The comedy has many jaw dropping moments and sees Cohen above and beyond the boundaries of comedy to bring the character of Borat to life.

Score: 10/10

Boy Erased (2018) as seen on Sky Cinema

If there’s one film worth watching on this list, it’d be Joel Edgerton’s Boy Erased. This film is the product of a real understanding of film language and the ability to make a beautiful and heart felt story. Edgerton is a well known actor, but has taken time to go behind the camera as well as in front of it in this Golden Globe nominated picture starring the likes of Lucas Hedges, Russell Crowe, Nicole Kidman, Troye Sivan, Xavier Dolan and Joe Alwyn. Like HELLO if that cast isn’t making you immediately turn off this site right now to find Boy Erased, then I don’t know what will. The film based on a true story follows Jared Eamons (Lucas Hedges) and his time spent at a gay conversion centre with fellow homosexuals Gary (Troye Sivan) and Jon (Xavier Dolan). Jared’s father (Russell Crowe) is a pastor he and his wife (Nicole Kidman) take their religion rather seriously, which is why Jared has been forced to seek help for his sexuality. It’s a hard concept to swallow, especially in this day and age when most parents, religious or not, are starting to become more acceptable of their children’s sexuality. This film exposes the reality beyond that and how some parents feel their child is damaged by something completely normal and feel the need to seek help for it. Boy Erased is made with sensitivity and beautiful acting from an a class cast. All round, it’s a perfect film.

Score: 11/10

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009) as seen on Amazon Prime

I was a little confused starting this film to see it in Swedish, as I thought I was watching the David Fincher film of the same title. However, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was original a book and the first adapation of it for film was directed by Niels Arden Oplev, two years before Fincher made his version, starring Rooney Mara and Daniel Craig. However, the fact that this version was in Swedish didn’t detract from the thrilling story spun onto screen. The three hour movie follows a journalist whose been hired to solve the mystery of a missing girl who is part of a high profile family. A young female hacker who once hacked the journalist and practically ruined his career, joins him along the way and the pair of them uncover a long string of untold secrets that see blood being split amongst numerous women. It’s one of the best thrillers I’ve ever seen and a must watch if you enjoyed Fincher’s version.

Score: 10/10

Still Alice (2014) as seen on DVD

A highly anticipated film on my part, Still Alice is an arresting and moving film about a mother struggling with on set Alzheimers. Julianne Moore scooped up a Best Actress Award at the Academy Awards in 2015, a Golden Globe and a BAFTA for her performance as Dr Alice Howland and her battle with Alzheimers at the age of 50. Kristen Stewart plays her daughter and Alec Baldwin her husband and their performances are equal to Julianne Moore’s. Overall, this was a touching piece that had soooo much depth to it and yet carried a satisfying simplicity throughout it.

Score: 10/10

Enemy (2013) as seen on DVD

I heard about Enemy’s synopsis via a YouTube video and was throughly excited to watch it on hearing it was directed by Denis Villeneuve, a master director when it comes to thrillers and sci fi films. Even though Enemy was difficult to fully interpret, I still enjoyed the story and performance Jake Gyllenhaal brought to the table as a man who meets another man that looks exactly like him. There’s some pure mind fuckery that plays throughout the film as you’re left questioning who is this other man or if there are even two men at all. If anything, it’s an exploration of a man having a double life, wrapped up in some sinister secrets and tied between two women. All of Denis Villeneuve’s work is exceptional and Enemy is no different. A must watch for thriller lovers.

Score: 10/10

A Star is Born (2018) as seen on DVD

Bradley Cooper’s A Star is Born certainly wins the award for making me cry the most this month. The last version I saw of this film starred Judy Garland and James Mason and was centred around a musical actress and the rocky relationship she had with her actor husband. That 1954 version possessed a lot of brilliance and it was easy to compare it to the more modern version starring Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga. Who would’ve thought these two could be such an authentic on screen couple? The songs, the lyrics and the acting that these two brought to this picture was on another level, it was incredible from start to finish. Obviously the fact that this film had been done 4 times before honed the quality of the film, however Bradley Cooper’s direction and ability to bring out the best in Lady Gaga definitely makes this version of A Star is Born the best one yet. This directorial debut was nominated for 8 Academy Awards including Best Picture and Lady Gaga was handed the award for Best Music for a motion picture. Warning: you will cry whilst watching this or at least afterwards.

Score: 12/10

Sorry to Bother You (2018) as seen on Netflix

Netflix certainly came through this month when it put Boots Riley’s fanatical dark comedy Sorry to Bother You on its streaming service. It’s honestly like nothing I’ve ever seen before and the innuendo and hidden messages within this film make it something that you can watch several times and never get bored of. Cassius Green (Lakeith Stanfield) gets a job as a telemarketer who gets promoted to a “power caller” and through pride and greed, ends up abandoning his ideologies and friends completely. The film speaks for the gentrification of Oakland, California and capitalistic society we live in today. There are many hidden messages amongst the film that at first are hard to decipher, but soon you realise these messages are as clear as day within our own society. Lakeith Stanfield stars alongside Tessa Thompson, Steve Yeun and Armie Hammer, not a cast you’d usually put together but one that certainly worked. Sorry to Bother You is highly entertaining and will definitely make you laugh out loud at points and have you questioning your laughter right after.

Score: 10/10

The Florida Project (2017) as seen on DVD

I’m starting to think that films made between 2017 and 2018 are some of the best ever made and the Florida Project falls into that. I heard about this film through one of my favourite actors and was glad for the recommendation as this film is one of the best I’ve seen all year. The colours and character dynamics are strong and vivid throughout, as we follow the lives of people living on an apartment complex whilst speaking for the child poverty that plagues American society today. Willem Dafoe, who plays the complex’s handy man and security guard, even earned himself a Best Supporting Actor Award at the 2018 Academy Awards.

Score: 10/10

Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind (2014) as seen on DVD

Usually I’d pass on a Charlie Kaufman film, seeing as they make no sense, however I felt that it was time I delved into this cult classic starring Kate Winslet, Jim Carrey, Kirsten Dunst, Mark Ruffalo and Elijah Wood. It’s a really well made film with a clear and distinct message to it that’s represented in some phenomenal filmmaking techniques. The plot line of this film follows a man trying to erase a past lover and his memories of her get wiped away physically before your eyes on screen. This film is certainly a conversation starter and one I’d recommend to just about anyone.

Score: 9/10

Moonrise Kingdom (2012) as seen on DVD

Wes Anderson’s wonderful mind is depicted in this endearing narrative about two children running away from home. This has to one of Wes Anderson’s most iconic films and next to The Grand Budapest Hotel, it’s definitely one of the films you think of when you think of Anderson’s work. His work is known for having well rounded stories, beautiful shots and A List casts, with Moonrise Kingdom being no expection as Anderson manages to squeeze Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Jason Schwartzman, Harvey Kietel and a young Lucas Hedges into this film. If you’ve seen any of Wes Anderson’s work and not Moonrise Kingdom, get on it now. No, seriously, now.

Score: 10/10

Jarhead (2005) as seen on DVD

Sam Mendes’ war film starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Jamie Foxx translates the lives of US soldiers in Iraq onto screen and the brain washing their government has done to boost the importance of the US military and the service soldiers are doing to their country. Jake Gyllenhaal’s execution in this film is a reflection of his ability as a great actor. He always has this patient and gritty approach to his work that makes him addicting to watch on screen. There’s an entire video on YouTube about Jake Gyllenhaal’s eyes and the way they communicate his emotions on screen. This is certainly present in Jarhead, as the anger, frustration, disappointment and despair is held within Jake Gyllenhaal’s eyes throughout. Jarhead was originally a memoir written by a US solider named Anthony Swofford. The only thing I wasn’t a fan of was the open ended resolution to the film and the stagnant progression of Jake Gyllenhaal’s character. He literally didn’t achieve anything, which I suppose is the point of the film and how the honour that soldiers who went to Iraq were supposed to feel, is more of a fantasy than a reality.

Score: 9/10

Silence (2016) as seen on BBC iPlayer

This film was truly summit else and a refreshing turn on genre from highly acclaimed filmmaker, Martin Scorsese. Silence certainly proved that he has the ability to be more sensitive with his films and can tells stories outside his usual New York mobster type movies. The film tracks the journey of two Portuguese missionaries (Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver) in the 17th Century who go to Japan looking for one of their mentors (Liam Neeson). However in this era, Christians faced persecution in Japan and were practically slaughtered for not following the country’s religion of Buddhism. The priests’ journey is perilous and heart rendering as they are forced to abandon their own religion in order to save their own lives and the lives of others. Despite the film being just over 160 minutes, it’s an inspiring story and one that is told in a tactful way. To believe this is a film is quite hard, as the accuracy of it makes it closer to reality than just a film itself.

Score: 8/10

Lynn + Lucy (2019) as seen on BBC iPlayer

This film recently came out in UK cinemas and was put onto BBC iPlayer due to lockdown. I found it to be interesting and enjoyed the new perspective it gave to quite a simple story. Lynn and Lucy have been friends for almost their entire lives, and when Lucy’s baby boy dies in unexplained circumstances, it drives a wedge between her relationship with Lynn, as people in their neighbourhood accuse her of being a child murderer. Eventually, Lynn stats to believe the rumours herself, leaving her best friend behind and favouring the opinions of those who hardly know her. A great debut and British film, Lynn + Lucy is profound story of friendship.

Score: 8/10

Revolutionary Road (2008) as seen on Netflix

Revolutionary Road has a metric score of 60% on Rotten Tomatoes, which I find quite offensive as the film nearly falls into the “thanks but no thanks” category of films. Directed by Sam Mendes and starring Kate Winslet alongside Leonardo DiCaprio, I don’t see what’s not to like. I only clocked halfway through the film why DiCaprio had been cast with Kate Winslet (Titanic, duh) and it made their on screen chemistry more prominent for me. I always say this about EVERY SINGLE Leonardo DiCaprio film I watch, but his performance in this was unreeeaaal. His character went somewhere intense and never returned, making the hardship on screen 10 times more powerful. There’s a scene where him and Winslet’s character are in a full blown argument and DiCaprio’s rage was on another level. Incredibly authentic and honest, Revolutionary Road showcases a wonderful example of when two masterful actors come together to make something great.

Score: 10/10

Hillbilly Elegy (2020) as seen on Netflix

Hillbilly Elegy recently got torn to shreds by critics as it was released on Netflix the other week, and I half agree with what most are saying about it, but also feel there’s unnecessary criticisms about this film. The film is based on a memoir of a Yale Law student, J.D Vance (Gabriel Basso) who comes from rough beginnings and ends up building the life he so desired from a young age. His mother (Amy Adams) is a destructive drug addict who’s moods change frequently so that she’s constantly at war with her own mother (Glenn Close) and two children (Haley Bennett and Gabriel Basso). The story follows J.D’s return to his home town to claim his mother from a hospital after she over dosed on heroin. The only problem is, he has an interview with a law firm from Washington the following morning and has to choose between taking care of his mother and landing his dream job. Sounds pretty intriguing, right? And it truly is. The film is laced with conflict and great performances from everyone, however critics have blasted this film with hate, saying that it doesn’t ring true to the entire American experience of living in poverty, without healthcare and enough money to bring food to the table. The fact that J.D made it to Harvard and now works for a successful enterprise somehow detracts from his struggle as a child, which I think is complete BS. I think this film should be taken for more face value than as a political story. It’s a straight talking, rags to riches tale that proves with hard work and dedication, you can transform your struggles into success. One critic had the audacity to say that “Selling out your origins is a kind of white trash cosplay because you were lucky enough to get out”. The irony of this is that the critic herself is white and it suggests had JD been a person of colour, it’d made a better film, which isn’t the kind of world where I want to live in when stories of people of colour are used as poverty porn rather than something to enjoy or learn from. My only criticism of this film would be the pace of conflict within the film and how things went from 0-100 waaay too quickly. This can happen in real life, but on screen it tends to look sloppy and rushed.

Score: 9/10

And that’s it! A rather short list for this month, but as the year draws to a close, I’m just really excited for the new films hopefully hitting screens next year. Seen you soon!

9 notes · View notes

creepingsharia · 5 years ago

Text

The Missing Link Showing Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother

“The facts describe perhaps the most extensive spree of illegal misconduct committed by a House member in American history.”

Tying up loose threads in the curious case

In four intensely reported investigative columns — here (August 13, 2018), here (October 23, 2018), here (October 30, 2018), and here (November 5, 2018), — David Steinberg has explored the evidence suggesting that Ilhan Omar entered into a sham marriage with her brother in 2009. This is his fifth. He titles it “Meet Leila Elmi: The Missing Link Showing Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother.” Drawing on his research, interviews, and social media evidence he makes the case that Omar has engaged in a variety of fraudulent activities and willful misrepresentations related to her marital arrangements.

...

Twelve-year-old Ilhan had no say on the manner in which she arrived in the United States.

However, U.S. Congresswoman Ilhan Abdullahi Omar (D-MN) is now under scrutiny for acts she took beginning in 2009 — not 1995. In 2009, Omar was a 26-year-old U.S. citizen. She had been a U.S. citizen for nearly nine years.

Additionally, the foreign national Omar apparently helped commit fraud was not fleeing hell in 2009, either. Ahmed Nur Said Elmi was a long-time citizen of the United Kingdom. He even possessed a high school diploma from the United States: Elmi attended a St. Paul, Minnesota high school for his senior year of 2002-2003, and graduated before returning to London.

We look to 1995 not to incriminate a kid, but to answer questions about what Omar did 14 years later as an adult U.S. citizen.

Please read the verified evidence below — and read it alongside the three years of verified evidence published by Scott Johnson, Preya Samsundar, and myself (our work is linked here). The answers to those questions about 2009 appear to give probable cause to investigate Omar for eight instances of perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, up to eight years of state and federal tax fraud, two years of federal student loan fraud, and even bigamy.

To be clear: The facts describe perhaps the most extensive spree of illegal misconduct committed by a House member in American history.

———————-

The proceeding information was given to me by multiple sources within the Minneapolis Somali community. The verifiable evidence corroborating their information follows below:

In 1995, Ilhan entered the United States as a fraudulent member of the “Omar” family.

That is not her family. The Omar family is a second, unrelated family which was being granted asylum by the United States. The Omars allowed Ilhan, her genetic sister Sahra, and her genetic father Nur Said to use false names to apply for asylum as members of the Omar family.

Ilhan’s genetic family split up at this time. The above three received asylum in the United States, while Ilhan’s three other siblings — using their real names — managed to get asylum in the United Kingdom.

Ilhan Abdullahi Omar’s name, before applying for asylum, was Ilhan Nur Said Elmi.

Her father’s name before applying for asylum was Nur Said Elmi Mohamed. Her sister Sahra Noor’s name before applying for asylum was Sahra Nur Said Elmi. Her three siblings who were granted asylum by the United Kingdom are Leila Nur Said Elmi, Mohamed Nur Said Elmi, and Ahmed Nur Said Elmi.

Ilhan and Ahmed married in 2009, presumably to benefit in some way from a fraudulent marriage. They did not divorce until 2017.

———————-

Confirming some of the above information, as it might appear on their 1995 U.S. immigration papers, is not difficult. A basic background search shows that ��Nur Omar Mohamed,” “Ilhan Abdullahi Omar,” and “Sahra Noor” all received SSNs in 1995 or 1996 in Virginia. Verified address records show adult members of the Omars living at three addresses in Arlington, Virginia at that time: 1223 South Thomas Street, 1226 South Thomas Street, and 1107 South Thomas Street.

The United Kingdom records of the relevant individuals are similarly easy to find. Try with a simple Ancestry.com account and similar online tools: There appears to be only one “Leila Nur Said Elmi,” only one “Mohamed Nur Said Elmi,” and only one “Ahmed Nur Said Elmi” in the UK.

The remaining evidence below verifies a sibling relationship between Ilhan and Ahmed.

————————

...

On August 10, 2017, Ilhan swore under penalty of perjury — literally, she signed a half-inch or so under “penalty of perjury” — that she’d had zero contact with Ahmed Nur Said Elmi after June 2011.

Further, Ilhan swore that she did not know where to find him, and that she did not know a single person who was likely to know his whereabouts. She did this to apply for a default divorce from Ahmed — a divorce where one spouse cannot be located and served.

Now, a tremendous amount of evidence — from this article and our prior articles — shows that Ilhan perhaps perjured herself eight times with her nine answers. Minnesota’s perjury statute allows for a sentence of up to five years — for each instance:

Yet this may be the least worrisome of her current legal exposures.

Consider the disturbingly inadequate evidence used to obtain FISA warrants on members of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Consider that Democratic representatives have demanded that Attorney General William Barr release grand jury testimony — itself an illegal act.

Yet here we have:

Verifiable UK and U.S. marriage records

Verifiable address records

Time-stamped, traceable, archived online communications (Convictions and settlements based upon social media evidence are commonplace, Anthony Weiner being a notable example)

Background check confirmations of SSNs and birthdates

Archived court documents signed under penalty of perjury

Photos which can be examined to rule out digital manipulation

The 2019 Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board investigation, which found Omar filed illegal joint tax returns with a man who was not her husband in at least 2014 and 2015

Three years’ of evidence published across many articles — none of which has been shown to be incorrect, or have even been challenged with contradictory evidence from Rep. Omar or any other source

Perjury evidence that stands on its own — regardless of whom she married:

Long after June 2011, she was clearly in contact with the only man in either the U.S. or the UK with the same name and birthdate as the man she married. She was clearly in contact with several people who were in contact with him.

Further, Preya Samsundar did contact him, published how she managed to contact him, and published his email admitting to being photographed with Omar in London in 2015. To be clear: Omar was legally married to an “Ahmed Nur Said Elmi” at the time she was photographed next to a man who admits his name is Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, and that he is in the photo.

Samsundar published all of this information on how to contact Ahmed Nur Said Elmi a few months before Omar swore to that nine-question court document.

Rep. Omar has refused all inquiries from her constituents, elected officials, and media outlets to provide any specific evidence contradicting even a single allegation suggested by three years of now-public information.

In fact, Omar has responded by making information less available:

In August 2016, after Scott Johnson and Preya Samsundar posted the allegations, Omar’s verified social media accounts were taken offline.

Ahmed Nur Said Elmi’s social media accounts were also taken offline.

When the accounts returned, a large amount of potentially incriminating evidence had verifiably been deleted.

I found and published at least ten additional “before and after” instances of evidence still being deleted in 2018.

Omar has released carefully worded, Clintonian statements that denigrate those seeking answers from her as racists. Yet she has repeatedly refused to answer questions or issue anything other than public relations statements.

I have a large amount of information that we have not published for reasons including the protection of sources.

Sources have expressed fear regarding published video and photo evidence confirming threats from Omar’s campaign team. These sources have shared other evidence of threats. I have contacted the federal authorities to share this and other unpublished information. Providing knowingly false information to the DOJ is a serious crime.

I believe Scott Johnson, Preya Samsundar, and me, with our three years of articles, columns and posts, have provided more than enough evidence to give law enforcement authorities probable cause to open an investigation. Now would be the chance for law enforcement, and especially for Rep. Ilhan Omar’s House colleagues, to make a sincere stand against corruption and for the uniform application of the law.

------------------------------------------------------------

These excerpts don’t due the vast amount of evidence justice. There is much more evidence, photographs, documents at the link below. Take the time to read it all and share it with your friends, neighbors and elected officials.

#Legal #Immigration #Sharia #Jihad #News #Politics

27 notes · View notes

rightsinexile · 5 years ago

Text

Table of Contents

Issue 110, March 2020

ISSN 2049-2650

Editorial Team: Nejla Sammakia, Christian Jorgensen, Cristina de Nicolás Izquierdo, Nicolas Parent, Taylor Brooks, Sirak Akalu Iyassu, Lucia Slot, Adam Severson, Nastassja White, Lena Ellen Becker, Muchengeti Hwacha, Saskia Llewellyn and Rosa da Costa.

Chief Editor: Fiona McKinnon

Web links are in blue.

In this issue:

Articles & Short Pieces

The recent decision on climate displacement by the UN Human Rights Committee

After the forum: New directions in global refugee policy

South Africa takes fresh steps to restrict rights of refugees

Spain: New proposal restricting rights of asylum seekers

A restrictionist revolution? A counter-intuitive reading of the ECtHR N.D. & N.T. judgment on “hot expulsions”

Indian refugee policy: From strategic ambiguity to exclusion?

The status of EU immigration and asylum law after Brexit

Assisted Voluntary Return from Mexico: Another opaque asylum restriction with a misleading name

Economic crisis in Lebanon: What UNHCR is doing in the Bekaa, and what more is needed from the international community

The end of protection? Cessation and the “return turn” in refugee law

Deported to death: US sent 138 Salvadorans home to be killed

US Senators send letter to US cabinet officials regarding deportations to the Northern Triangle and asylum cooperative agreements

News on Countries of Origin

News on Countries of Asylum

Detention and Deportation News

Statelessness

Case Notes

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocks US policy of sending asylum seekers back to Mexico, then suspends its own order

“Only the perverse logic of some politicians has transformed sea rescue into a potential crime”: Italian prosecutors ask court to dismiss charges brought against Mediterranea staff in connection with the rescue of 50 persons in the Mediterranean Sea in March 2019

Australia offshore detention is unlawful, but does not warrant prosecution: ICC

UK Upper Tribunal considers section 104 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act (2002) regarding abandonment of appeals

England and Wales High Court determines benefit of the doubt applies even to abbreviated age assessments

US federal judge orders Customs and Border Protection to meet the basic needs of every migrant detained more than 48 hours

Hot returns remain contrary to the ECHR: N.D. & N.T. before the ECtHR

Opinion/Editorial

It is time to change the definition of refugee

Change to the Refugee Act moves South Africa much closer to the America of Donald Trump

Greek refugee plan is inhumane and doomed to fail. The EU must step in.

Lesvos: Empower both islanders and asylum seekers to defuse tensions

The persecuted Rohingya now have legal protection, but will it amount to anything?

Border prisons are go. Or not.

Letters to the Editors

Announcements

Requests

Resources

Publications

Newsletters

1 note · View note

chaoticnightwolf · 5 years ago

Text

family law child custody

Since 2002, Khalid has worked for various law firms in Manchester where he gained experience in Criminal and Civil Litigation, Family Law, Commercial Leases and Personal Injury.Prior to becoming a freelance solicitor, Khalid was a Director/Principal Solicitor at a law firm where he acted for a client in a Negligence claim to the value of £1.5 million.Khalid is also a Police Station accredited representative.Khalid is a highly experienced solicitor, who undertakes Immigration and Asylum Law, Immigration Appeal, Judicial Review and Human Rights work.Khalid has over 15 years of extensive experience in Immigration and Asylum Law.

He understands the needs of his clients and goes the extra mile to help his clients. He frequently represents clients in the First- tier Tribunal (FTT) and Upper Tribunal (UT). He has a really good understanding of the dynamics of the court room and gets the job done.Khalid also undertakes Family Law work including Divorce, Financial Settlements and Children Act Proceedings.Judicial Review (JR) is the process by which judges examine the decisions of public bodies and consider whether the law has been correctly applied.

Most JR in Asylum and Immigration cases in England and Wales are lodged and heard in the Upper Tribunal (UT). In the past, the JR used to be heard in the High Court.You can Challenge the Home Office’s decision by way of Judicial Review (JR), if you believe that the decision was illegal, irrational or unfair.Judicial Review (JR) is the process by which judges examine the decisions of public bodies and consider whether the law has been correctly applied.Most JR in Asylum and Immigration cases in England and Wales are lodged and heard in the Upper Tribunal (UT). In the past, the JR used to be heard in the High Court.

1 note · View note

a4bl · 6 years ago

Text

A Timeline on U.S. War & Militarism in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia and the U.S. Migration-to-School-to-Prison-to Deportation Pipeline

Compiled by Asians4BlackLives primarily based on research by AATimeline, VietUnity and SEARAC

From January 19-25, 2019, impacted communities, social justice and advocacy organizations, and other allies across the country will launch a national week of action to stand with Southeast Asian American communities as they continue to be terrorized by policies of mass incarceration and deportation. This week of action, which spans 15 cities across the country, is on the heels of one of the largest Southeast Asian deportation flights in United States history and coincides with Martin Luther King Jr. Day. In honor of Dr. King’s memory, we call on our country to remember the three evils—racism, militarism and poverty—that continue to devastate and divide Southeast Asian, Black and Brown communities: bit.ly/SEAAWeekofAction

The timeline below was developed to help the public learn about the connection between US imperialism and war in Southeast Asian and the current struggle of Southeast Asian immigrant and refugee communities against deportations. A downloadable PDF version is available which can be folded into a mini-zine.

1953

The U.S. provides military aid to France to suppress Vietnam freedom fighters, helping France maintain Vietnam as its colony.

1961

U.S. involvement in the “Secret War” in Laos deepens. U.S. presence in Laos aids its military presence in Vietnam. The CIA recruits Hmong and other ethnic minority groups living in Laos to guerilla units fighting for the Royal Lao Government. Details of this war were not disclosed to the public, and were often completely denied.

1963

A U.S.-approved military coup overthrows President Ngô Đình Diệmin of Vietnam.

1965

President Lyndon B. Johnson deploys American combat troops to Vietnam. Domestic demonstrations against the U.S. war in Vietnam begin.

1964-73

The U.S. drops more than 2.5 million tons of ordnance on Laos over the course of 580,000 bombing missions. This is equal to a planeload of bombs every 8 minutes, 24-hours a day, for 9 years.

1965-1973

The U.S. drops 2,756,941 tons of ordnance on Cambodia. This is more than the Allies dropped in the entirety of World War II. Information about the first four years of bombing was not made public until 2000.

1968

My Lai Massacre – US soldiers kill as many as 504 Vietnamese civilians including 119 children & 27 elderly.

1973

The U.S. & North Vietnam sign a ceasefire agreement.

The U.S. withdraws troops from Laos.

1975

The U.S. War in Vietnam comes to an end.

U.S. war and military presence in Southeast Asia leads to the rise of oppressive governments in both Cambodia & Laos. After a 5-year civil war in Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge captures the capital city of Phnom Penh and a genocide of 1-3 million people begins in Cambodia.

The U.S. authorizes the entry of 130,000 evacuees from Vietnam, Cambodia, & Laos.

1978

A second wave of refugees begin to leave Vietnam, many by sea. Journeys by boat are dangerous and many refugees don’t survive the trip. Many countries become unwilling to accept refugees.

1979

The UN establishes the Orderly Departure Program to deal with various waves of refugees leaving Southeast Asia. The U.S. becomes the largest country of second asylum. People continued to leave their homelands as a result of the U.S. War in Vietnam through the early 1990s.

1980

U.S. Congress passes the Refugee Act.

1987

In California the Creation of the Gang Reporting Evaluation & Tracking database heightens the profiling and flagging youth of color as gang members.

1980s-1990s

Many Southeast Asian refugees resettle in already underserved neighborhoods and must compete for low-wage jobs or face unemployment. Many lack access to health care, mental health services, and support for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

The rise of the school to prison pipeline: over-stretched public schools with inadequate resources lead to disengagement and dropouts with youth then being pushed into violence and juvenile detention facilities with few pathways to return to school.

1994

A national report finds that more than 30 percent of all Southeast Asian households in the US depend on welfare for survival. Among Cambodian and Laotian communities in California, the percentage of those on welfare reaches 77 percent.

The state of California passes Proposition 187, denying undocumented immigrants public services like education & healthcare.

The state of California passes Proposition 184, Three Strikes Sentencing Initiative, the nation’s toughest mandatory sentencing law.

U.S. Congress passes the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the largest crime bill in the history of the U.S. It provided for 100,000 new police officers, $9.7 billion in funding for prisons, $1.2 billion for border control, deportations, asylum reform and a tracking center for immigrants with convictions., $1.8 billion to reimburse states for incarceration of immigrants who also had convictions. . It also expedited deportation for immigrants who are not lawful permanent residents and who are convicted of aggravated felonies.

1996

U.S. Congress passes the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, a welfare reform bill. Immigrants who were on welfare were immediately removed if they were in the US for less than 5 years. Only immigrants who have been in the US for over 5 years can receive welfare.

U.S. Congress passes the Illegal Immigration Reform & Immigrant Responsibility Act, setting mandatory detention and deportation laws that apply retroactively, making refugees and lawful permanent residents vulnerable to deportation. Forms of immigration relief previously available to people with convictions are eliminated. It also eliminates judicial review for cases.

2001

U.S. Congress passes the USA Patriot Act after September 11th, ushering in a new era of racial profiling, immigrant detentions, and deportations.

2002

First repatriation agreement between U.S. and Cambodia for Cambodia to accept deportees.

2008

The U.S. signs an agreement with Vietnam not to deport Vietnamese immigrants who entered the U.S. before July 12, 1995.

2017

The U.S. sanctions visas for Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar to pressure them to accept deportees.

2018

The U.S. goes back on its 2008 agreement with Vietnam in an attempt to deport more Vietnamese people.

More than 110 Cambodian people are deported in the calendar year, the highest number in U.S. history. 750+ Cambodian, 200+ Laotian, and 550+Vietnamese community members have been deported since 2002.

Additional sources: Legacies of War. “Secret War in Laos.” Legacies of War, legaciesofwar.org/about-laos/secret-war-laos/; Taylor Owen. “Bombs Over Cambodia.” The Walrus, thewalrus.ca/2006-10-history/; Ashley Dunn. “Southeast Asians Highly Dependent on Welfare in U.S.” The New York Times archive, https://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/19/us/southeast-asians-highly-dependent-on-welfare-in-us.html.

21 notes · View notes

science-criticaltheory · 6 years ago

Video

youtube

Why the Real Migration Crisis Is in Central America, Not at the Southern U.S. Border.

Trump has announced the United States will cut off funding to the so-called Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador that are the primary source of a wave of migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, including caravans of families with children. He is also threatening to close the border with Mexico. This comes after Trump declared a national emergency to justify redirecting money earmarked for the military to pay for building a wall at the border. We speak with John Carlos Frey, award-winning investigative reporter and ”PBS NewsHour” special correspondent who has reported extensively on immigration and recently traveled with the first migrant caravan from Central America to the U.S.-Mexico border.

Democracy Now!

Nuremberg Tribunal Charter:

CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to . . . murder, ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Highlights of Trump lying and stupidity:

Migrants at U.S. Southern Border at lowest in 21st Century. 2002/2003: 1,600,000. 2019 600,000.

Institutional space of migrants in U.S. underutilized 2019.

Migrants seeking asylum from U.S. War Crimes in Central America.

Trump, Elliot Abrams et al are war criminals.

Nuremberg Tribunal reconvened with trump/abrams et al tried for crimes against humanity.

Sentence for guilty verdict same as for Hermann Wilhelm Göring in 1946.

#trump #crimes against humanity #fascism

1 note · View note

amargarone772 · 6 years ago

Text

Political Landscape Brief

After years of monarchy in France and the spark of the French Revolution, the First Republic of France was established in 1792. It took about 80 years of disorder following this for a stable democracy to be established in France. The current government is based upon the 1958 constitution which established the Fifth French Republic (Factmonster). Current day, there is a defined separation of powers between the executive and local powers. This includes a strong president who is allowed to serve two, five-year terms, and who is directly elected by the citizens. It is the president’s responsibility to appoint a prime minister and his cabinet who are responsible for the National Assembly (Factmonster). With many French citizens having little confidence in their government, populist leaders have quickly risen. France is reported as the second most populist country in Europe at 70% (Bourekba, 2017). Citizens have expressed a lack of confidence due to little equality, opportunity, and weak political leaders. Terrorist attacks, a struggling economy, and an influx of immigrants have also contributed to these feelings of fear that populist parties like the National Front have utilized to gain followers.

One of the main populist parties in France is the National Front, or now known as the National Rally (Edelman), whose president up until 2017 was Marine Le Pen. The party is a right-wing populist and nationalist political party that was first started in 1972 to help unify a multitude of French nationalist movements. They claimed to represent the “little people” and the “forgotten members” against the caste” (Judis, 2017, 3). It was founded by former president Marine Le Pen’s father, Jean-Marie Le Pen. It is most well-known for opposing French membership to the European Union (Wikipedia). It had little widespread recognition and popularity up until the 2002 presidential election where Jean-Marie became the first National Front candidate. (Wikipedia). Jean-Marie was not viewed or represented positively by the main-stream media, which caused his daughter who succeeded him to try to soften the party’s image to gain more popularity and followers (Wikipedia). This is why Marine Le Pen is known to have censored the media during the launch of her campaign in 2017 for the presidential election, justifying banning journalists from the website Mediapart and a TV program on TMC because they “treated her differently” compared to other presidential candidates (Reporters Without Borders). The National Front claimed stated this would continue unless these media outlets changed their attitudes toward their party, which critics argue strongly goes against the French Republic’s value of freedom of information (Reporters without Borders). Despite this censorship, Le Pen is known to have a “media-friendly persona” and political skills that helped bring the Front National Party to national fame (Factmonster).

Another prominent populist leader in France is Jean-Luc Melenchon (Bourekba, 2017). He uses the populist approach of needing to get rid of elites who control the country’s wealth and monopolize power; he also rejects globalization and calls for a “Disobedient France” controlled revolt by the people. Similar to Le Pen, he wishes to call for a vote to leave the EU (Bourekba, 2017). While the Front National Party is the most prominent populist party in France, there are other smaller populist parties that have gotten less national attention that also exist.

In the midst of all of this, human rights in France are also being threatened by the counter-terrorism powers being used to “protect” France under their state of emergency, which was established following the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks (Amnesty, 2018). Even after the state of emergency in France was lifted in October 2017, a severe state of securitization has taken its place. This is known as the new counter-terrorism law SILT, or the “Strengthening Internal Security and the Fight Against Terrorism” law (Amnesty, 2018). This law undermines the rights to liberty, freedom of movement, privacy, security, and freedoms of association and expression (Human Rights Watch). According to Amnesty International, people are unjustly being punished without charge or trial, so ordinary criminal justice system measure is being ignored and avoided (Amnesty, 2018). As Rym Khadhraoui of Amnesty International stated, “Emergency measures that were intended to be exceptional and temporary have now been firmly embedded into ordinary French law” (Amnesty, 2018). There are even “pre-crime” initiatives that penalize people for an act the government believes they might perform in the future (Amnesty, 2018). There are also control measures that restrict people from leaving a specific town or region, make people have curfews, restrict contact with others (even family members), and require them to make daily police reports (Amnesty, 2018). Many people subject to this compare it to a prison sentence, feeling dehumanized and traumatized (Amnesty, 2018). The people most targeted and subject to this kind of treatment are Muslims, Asylum seekers, and migrants (Human Rights Watch). The French government has overlooked vital parts of their criminal justice system during this process of trying to protect its people.

1 note · View note

lexlawuk · 3 years ago

Text

Claiming Asylum in the UK

Claiming Asylum in the UK #asylum #migration #ukimmigration #immigrationadvice #immigrationsolicitors

Asylum is a legal protection granted to foreign nationals who fear persecution in their country of origin. Asylum law can be complex, therefore it is best that you get legal advice from the outset. Having one of our experienced immigration lawyers on your side will dramatically increase your chances of a successful asylum application. Please contact our immigration team to arrange an initial…

View On WordPress

0 notes

greysicloud · 2 years ago

Text

Rose puzzle in asylum

Although asylum- seekers possess an authorized presence in Ireland, they exist as a unique category of immigrant with no statutory or constitutional rights to social support. By 1999, in an effort to make Ireland a “less attractive” destination for asylum-seekers, the government approved restrictions to social service access (Fanning 2004, 90). Asylum-seekers also could access mainstream social service benefits, including housing allowances, enabling them to live independently (Ibid., 11). Prior to 1999, asylum-seekers with children were eligible for the Child Benefit Allowance, giving them the right to access funding for clothing, food, school supplies, toiletries, and other necessities for children, in the same way Irish citizens could provide for their own (Arnold 2012, 23). Ironically, because Section 9(4)(b) of the 1996 Refugee Act prohibits adult asylum-seekers from seeking employment, I argue that the government created the “culture of dependency” it originally sought to avoid (Quinn and Joyce 2014, 17). By not allowing asylum-seekers to work until they receive a positive decision on their asylum claim, Ireland is an outlier among European Union (EU) member states, most of which allow asylum-seekers to work after a certain period of time (Human Rights Watch 2015). Even Kosovar arrivals, who were not granted the status of “program refugee,” were still allowed to work and receive social welfare benefits (Ibid., 88). For example, between 19, Ireland’s first state-funded refugee program was established, accepting those fleeing armed conflict in the Balkans and giving them permission to work (Ibid., 88). Ireland historically has allowed refugees but not asylum-seekers to work. The distinction between refugees and asylum-seekers is important to consider when tracing the development of direct provision, in particular, the exclusion of them and their children from Ireland’s welfare apparatus (Thornton 2007, 86). In line with a general increase in migration into Ireland during that period, the numbers of people seeking asylum rose from a mere 39 applicants in 1992 to more than 11,000 by 2002 (Ogbu et al. Ireland’s geographic isolation and its lack of colonial power status added to the puzzle of increased asylum applications during the 1990s and early 2000s (Thornton 2007, 93). As early as 1997, however, news headlines proclaiming that Ireland was being “flooded, swamped or invaded by an influx of asylum seekers tap into visceral fears,” and the arrival of a few thousand asylum-seekers was reported as a “national crisis” (Fanning 2002, 321). In recent years, Ireland has transformed from a country of net emigration to a country of net immigration, having experienced appreciable asylum flows in the past decade (Thornton 2007, 87).

#Rose puzzle in asylum

0 notes

39minormovements · 2 years ago

Photo

excerpts from “hostile environment: 10 year anniversary” (may 25, 2022) by migrants’ rights network

“In 1948, the British nationality act gave British citizenship to all citizens of the colonies of the British empire. It is thought that this came into force in order to halt decolonisation efforts. As decolonisation became a global phenomenon in the 1950s onwards, and many countries in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean declared independence from imperial powers, residents of these former colonies were encouraged to come to the U.K. and contribute to the work force, especially to take up jobs that white people did not want to do.”

“In 1962 and 1968, 2 Commonwealth Immigrant Acts were passed, and in 1971, an Immigration Act was passed. These all deliberately restricted the immigration of Black and Asian immigrants from formerly colonised countries, and hampered their right of abode. In 1981, the British Nationality Act introduced deprivation of citizenship on certain grounds.”

“As the decades went by, anti-immigrant rhetoric continued to target racialised communities. 9/11 ushered in the Islamophobic War On Terror. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act came into force in 2002, and widened deprivation of citizenship powers. These powers were also the subject of the 2006 Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act.”

“In 2012, Theresa May announced her plans for the Hostile Environment: to create a living hell for undocumented migrants by restricting or denying their access to basic rights and public services through the threat of removal. Many have lived in fear of, or have been subjected to forced removal as a result of the hostile environment.”

“In 2014, the Immigration Act further codified hostility towards racialised and migratised communities, and is one of the main causes of the Windrush Scandal, showing Black British people that their belonging was always conditional. The Immigration Act of 2016 further extended surveillance against and restricted the rights of migratised communities. We now find ourselves at yet another iteration of racialised violence, as the anti-refugee Nationality and Borders Act has become law.”

image: demonstration against the commonwealth immigration act, 1962 (via london transport museum)

[image description: a black-and-white photograph of a march on the streets--the banner they carry reads: “no colour bar on immigration.”]

0 notes

umass-digiturgy · 3 years ago

Text

A Brief History of Repatriation and Deportation in the US

by Pedro Eiras (MFA in Dramaturgy and Assistant Dramaturgy and Assistant Director for Olvidados)

The US has a long history of deportation, expulsion and repatriation. Despite its standing as a nation created by immigrants, it has deported nearly 57 million people since 1882, which is more than any other country in the modern world. In 1798, merely 22 years after the US became an independent nation, the Alien and Sedition Act was signed, giving the president the power to deport “alien enemies” in times of war. In the decades that followed, legislation on all levels of government gave states and the federal government power to remove unwanted people from their borders. Oftentimes, the target of deportations and forced relocations have been those on whose backs this country was built, such as when the American Colonization Society, established in 1816, advocated and carried out the expulsion of free Black people from the United States, a cause promoted by founding father Thomas Jefferson and, later, Abraham Lincoln.

In 1830, Andrew Jackson passed the Indian Removal Act and enlisted the U.S. Army to force Native Americans in the Southeast—the Creeks, the Cherokees, the Choctaws, the Chickasaws, and the Seminoles— westward. In the forced migration of 16,000 Cherokee men, women, and children, as many as 4,000 died of disease, drought, or exposure. A few decades later, in 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was signed, followed by what was known as the Driving Out period, during which time hundreds of Chinese immigrants were beaten, burned alive, forced into hiding and starvation, and, eventually, deportation.

The desire to remove people of color from this country is an American tradition, but it was not until the last decades of the nineteenth century that a series of Congressional acts and Supreme Court decisions created the framework for these deportations to happen with the establishment of a vast federal immigration bureaucracy. It was under the auspices of this new deportation machine that the Mexican Repatriation of the Great Depression took place. During that period, Mexican immigrants and many Mexican-Americans were blamed for the economic downturn and huge unemployment rates of the Great Depression and then targeted because of their race. Many scholars now consider Repatriation as an ethnic cleansing effort. The Mexican Repatriation was a brutal practice that shipped away hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom were rightful citizens and many more who were born here.

Their plight was, unfortunately, not unprecedented. They were neither the first nor the last group of people to be deported or repatriated after being exploited in the US, though the number of people repatriated during this time far outnumbers any other such movements in the history of the United States. Later, in 1953, Puerto Ricans became the target of efforts of repatriation. Officials in Chicago estimated that the population of Puerto Ricans there had grown to twenty thousand people. This boom in migration caused concern on the part of city officials who viewed Puerto Ricans as contributing to “serious problems in the community.” Alvin E. Rose, commissioner of public welfare for Cook County, traveled to Puerto Rico to discuss plans to repatriate migrants with local authorities. He also publicly discouraged any other “unskilled workers” from coming to Chicago. There is private correspondence that shows he planned to “ship Puerto Ricans back in plane lots and allegedly urged the public welfare agency ‘not to make it too easy for them to stay or bring others in.’”

This impetus to deport, remove or repatriate mainly people of color became even more institutionalized in 2002, when President Bush signed the Homeland Security Act which, in turn, created the modern framework of border control, patrol and deportation. This movement only increased during Obama’s presidency, when over 4 million people, many rightfully requesting asylum in the United States, were deported or removed from the US. In fact, the daily number of noncitizens detained both at the border and internally increased from 7,475 in 1995 to 33,330 in 2011, three years into Obama’s first term. This led Janet Murguía, a third-generation Mexican American and president of UnidosUS, the most important Latino advocacy organization in the country, to label Obama as the “Deporter in Chief.”

During Trump’s Presidency, the number of deportations and expulsions decreased, but the number of immigrants being detained increased dramatically, to over 50,000 a day in 2019. It was also under his “zero tolerance” immigration policy that thousands of families were separated, with kids as young as four months old being removed from their parents. In 2020, during the early days of the covid pandemic, Trump enacted Title 42, allowing for the immediate expulsion of immigrants without any due process. President Biden kept Title 42 in place until May 2022, and during that time, the order was used to expel those legally seeking asylum over 1.7 million times.

Sources:

Decade of Betrayal: Mexican Repatriation in the 1930s, by Francisco E. Balderrama and Raymond Rodríguez, 2006

Becoming Mexican American : Ethnicity, Culture, and Identity in Chicano Los Angeles, 1900-1945 by George J. Sanchez, Charles Bergquist, and Ricardo Penaranda, 1993

The Deportation Machine: America’s Long History of Expelling Immigrants, by Adam Goodman, 2020

Once I was You: A Memory of Love and Hate in a Torn America, by Maria Hinojosa, 2020

Brown in the Windy City: Mexicans and Puerto Ricans in Postwar Chicago, Lilia Fernandez[MOU4] , 2012

#olvidados

0 notes

yhwhrulz · 3 years ago

Text

Wiktionary Daily Article 1st October 2021

The Gateway Protection Programme was operated by the British government between 2004 and 2020, in partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and co-funded by the European Union, offering a legal route for a quota of UNHCR-identified refugees to settle in the United Kingdom. It was proposed by the British Home Secretary, David Blunkett, in October 2001, and its legal basis was established by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The programme launched in March 2004, initially with a quota of 500 and later 750 refugees per year, but the actual number of refugees resettled in most years was fewer than the quota permitted. Evaluations of the programme have praised it but noted problems in securing employment for refugees. In March 2020, the Gateway Protection Programme closed after resettling 9,939 refugees, including Congolese, Somali, Iraqi, Ethiopian, Sudanese and Burmese nationals. A new UK Resettlement Scheme started in February 2021.

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_Protection_Programme

0 notes

socialjusticeartshare · 4 years ago

Text

The facts about how the U.S. processes unaccompanied migrant children at the border

The treatment of migrant children taken into custody along the U.S.-Mexico border has become a focal point of the national debate over immigration policy.

Over the past decade, Democratic and Republican administrations have struggled to adequately and safely process large numbers of unaccompanied minors, who have special legal protections under U.S law.

Since 2013, U.S. authorities along the southern border have taken into custody more than 445,000 unaccompanied children, including 72,000 in 2014 and 80,000 in 2019, according to Department of Homeland Security data.

The U.S. government has, for the most part, sought to discourage these children, many of whom come from areas in Central America plagued by poverty and violence, from journeying to the southern border, highlighting the often dangerous trek north.

Earlier this week, the Biden administration reopened an influx facility to house migrant teenagers in Texas in response to a marked uptick in interdictions of unaccompanied children that has severely strained the shelter bed space the U.S. government has for them.

The move sparked condemnation from critics with different political and policy views. Some suggested the U.S. government should not be in the business of holding minors in any facilities like the one opened in Texas. Others madeaccusations of hypocrisy, inaccurately equating influx holding facilities and state-licensed shelters with a border center featuring chain-linked partitions resembling "cages."

To provide clarity on the current situation, here's an overview of the legal authorities and policies that govern the care of unaccompanied children, as well as the facilities where these minors are housed while in U.S. government custody.

What is the current legal process for unaccompanied children?

U.S. law defines unaccompanied migrant children as minors who don't have legal permission to be in the country and who are taken into government custody without an accompanying parent or legal guardian.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 charged the Office of Refugee Resettlement, a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services, with housing unaccompanied migrant children until they could be placed with vetted sponsors, who are typically family members residing in the U.S.

Another law, passed with bipartisan support in 2008, requires all government agencies to transfer most unaccompanied migrant children to the refugee office within 72 hours, absent extraordinary circumstances.

Unaccompanied children are typically first taken into custody along U.S. borders by Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a law enforcement agency whose facilities were largely designed to hold single adult men for short periods of time.

Internal CBP policy dictates that all migrants, especially unaccompanied minors, should be transferred out of the agency's custody within 72 hours of apprehending them.

Once in the custody of the refugee office, migrant children have access to lawyers and, in some cases, child advocates. The agency is bound by law and a landmark federal court settlement to continuously pursue the release of these minors to sponsors who are willing to care for them. The refugee office is allowed to release children to parents and legal guardians, as well as immediate relatives like siblings, grandparents, uncles, aunts and first cousins. In limited circumstances, children can also be placed with distant relatives or unrelated sponsors if no other caretakers are located. The agency requires all prospective sponsors to undergo background checks.

In some circumstances, the refugee office is unable to identify any sponsors for children. The agency can't house minors once they reach legal age, which has, on some occasions, led to teenagers being transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centers for adults on their 18th birthdays.

Under the Flores Settlement Agreement of 1997, the U.S. government committed to house migrant children in the "least restrictive" settings possible and provide them basic necessities like water, food, toilets and medical care.

Do unaccompanied children have a legal right to stay in the U.S.?

Unlike migrant adults and families, U.S. law does not require unaccompanied children to seek asylum through an adversarial courtroom setting. Instead, they are allowed to undergo child-sensitive interviews with asylum officers. Unaccompanied minors are also shielded from expedited deportations.

In addition to asylum, unaccompanied minors can request visas for trafficking victims, as well as a protection known as Special Immigrant Juvenile Status that can place undocumented children who were abandoned, neglected or abused by one or both parents on a pathway to U.S. green card status.

If they lose their legal cases, unaccompanied children can be deported to their countries of birth. However, Department of Homeland Security data shows the vast majority have not been deported in recent years.

Are unaccompanied children held in "cages"?

Border Patrol oversees police-like stations with cinder-block cells that government officials and advocates agree are not adequate to hold children. Migrants have called these facilities "perreras," or dog kennels, as well as "hieleras," due to the cold temperatures experienced while sleeping on concrete floors.

During surges in border crossings in 2014 and 2019, these border stations became dangerously overcrowded, garnering national attention. Children were held for prolonged periods of time in cells with one toilet and border agents even used parking lots as makeshift detention areas.

CBP has also opened "soft-sided" tent complexes specifically designed to hold unaccompanied minors and families with children during upticks in border apprehensions. While migrants have more accommodations and space in these facilities, they are still secure structures designed for short-term custody.

In 2014, the Obama administration converted a warehouse in McAllen, Texas, into a detention facility and installed chain-linked fencing to divide populations, like teenagers and families. Photos from the facility provoked a massive uproar in 2018 when the public became aware of the Trump administration's policy of separating thousands of migrant families.

The notion of "kids in cages" gained traction and was subsequently used to criticize the Trump administration's hard-line border and immigration policies, during and after the family separation crisis.

Where are unaccompanied minors housed after leaving Border Patrol custody?

The Office of Refugee Resettlement oversees shelters and foster homes that are licensed by states to house children.

Private nonprofits and for-profit groups operate more than 170 housing facilities in 22 states under grants from the refugee office. In limited circumstances, some youth are transferred to facilities that are more restrictive.

The refugee office offers unaccompanied youth in its custody food, educational services, access to legal counsel, recreational activities and medical services, including vaccination.

During influxes of border apprehensions, Republican and Democratic administrations have placed unaccompanied children in large temporary facilities. Unlike shelters, these facilities, used or built on federal property, have not been subject to state child welfare requirements.

The Obama administration used three Department of Defense installations to temporarily house unaccompanied children in 2014 and opened a temporary holding facility in Homestead, Florida, in 2016.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, opened two additional "influx" facilities in Texas in 2018 and 2019. Along with the Homestead facility, the facilities in Tornillo and Carrizo Springs — which were ultimately closed — came under withering criticism from advocates who objected to the housing conditions and the hiring of for-profit companies to run the installations.

On Monday, the Biden administration reopened the Carrizo Springs facility and is considering reopening the dormant Homestead facility to respond to the marked increase in apprehensions of unaccompanied minors along the southern border in recent days.

Children are not being held in cells at the Carrizo Springs facility, which does not have chain-linked fencing.

While the refugee office oversees more than 13,000 beds for migrant children, it has said it can only use about 8,000 because of COVID-19 mitigation protocols. As of Monday, more than 7,100 of the available beds — or about 90% of them — were full.

Were unaccompanied children treated differently under Trump or Obama?

The Trump administration, and to some extent the Obama administration, argued that the legal safeguards Congress created for unaccompanied children encouraged teenagers and other minors from impoverished areas in Central America to enter the U.S. without authorization.

Both administrations urged Congress to change the law, which drew opposition from advocates.

Over four years, the Trump administration instituted several unprecedented policies to deter unaccompanied children from coming to the U.S. border, including a broad ban on asylum for non-Mexican minors and efforts to prosecute undocumented immigrants who sought to sponsor children in the refugee agency's care.

During its "zero tolerance" crackdown, the Trump administration also incorrectly designated thousands of children it separated from their families as unaccompanied and sent them to shelters alone while their parents were prosecuted for crossing the border illegally.

In March 2020, the Trump administration invoked a public health authority dating back to the late 19th century to authorize border officials to expel migrants, including unaccompanied minors, without letting them apply for U.S. refuge. Thousands of unaccompanied children, including victims of gang and domestic violence, were expelled until a federal judge blocked the practice in November.

While an appeals court lifted that order late last month, the Biden administration has since announced it will exercise its discretion to not expel unaccompanied children. Instead, it will continue transferring them to the refugee office.

That policy choice, which White House press secretary Jen Psaki called a "human and moral objective," could prove to be an early logistical and political test for the Biden administration. The alternative, Psaki said Wednesday, is off the table for now.

"We can send them back home," Psaki said. "We're not doing that." Article Source

#unaccompanied migrant children #border #U.S.

0 notes