#U.S. asylum officers

[minnesotafollower]

Problems in U.S. Asylum System Help Promote Increases in U.S. Immigration

A lengthy Wall Street Journal article provides details on the well-known promotion of increases in U.S. immigration by the many problems in the U.S. asylum system. Here then is a summary of the basic U.S. law of asylum, the current U.S. system for administering such claims and a summary of the current problems with such administration. The Basic Law of Asylum On July 2, 1951, an international…

[zvaigzdelasas]

Vice President Kamala Harris’s new campaign ad features a deep voice speaking over images of Border Patrol agents, the border wall, and seized pills and guns. It describes Harris, the former attorney general of California, as a “border state prosecutor” who “took on drug cartels and jailed gang members,” and says that Harris, if elected President, will hire thousands more border agents and crack down on fentanyl smuggling and human trafficking.[...]

She is playing up her law enforcement record and saying Trump wanted to worsen conditions on the border to help his chances of getting elected when he told Republicans to back out of a deal that would have added Border Patrol agents and immigration officers. “Donald Trump does not care about border security, he only cares about himself,” she said on July 30.[...]

In recent months, Harris has been part of an effort by the Biden administration to take tougher measures on the border to stop illegal migration. In May, Biden moved to restrict the number of asylum cases that will be heard at the border, a rightward shift by his administration designed to slow the high numbers of people being brought to the southern border of the U.S. by smugglers.[...]

The new campaign ad finishes with the line: “Fixing the border is tough. So is Kamala Harris.”

9 Aug 24

[chamerionwrites]

President Biden issued an executive order on Tuesday that prevents migrants from seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border when crossings surge, a dramatic election-year move to ease pressure on the immigration system and address a major concern among voters.

The measure is the most restrictive border policy instituted by Mr. Biden, or any other modern Democrat, and echoes an effort in 2018 by President Donald J. Trump to cut off migration that was blocked in federal court.

In remarks at the White House, Mr. Biden said he was forced to take executive action because Republicans had blocked bipartisan legislation that had some of the most significant border security restrictions Congress had considered in years.

“We must face a simple truth,” said the president, who was joined by a group of lawmakers and mayors from border communities. “To protect America as a land that welcomes immigrants, we must first secure the border and secure it now.”

Aware that the policy raised uncomfortable comparisons, Mr. Biden took pains to distinguish his actions from those of Mr. Trump. “We continue to work closely with our Mexican neighbors instead of attacking them,” Mr. Biden said. He said he would never refer to immigrants as “poisoning the blood” of the country, as Mr. Trump has done.

Still, the move shows how drastically the politics of immigration have shifted to the right in the United States. Polls suggest there is support in both parties for border measures once denounced by Democrats and championed by Mr. Trump as the number of people crossing into the country has reached record levels in recent years.

The restrictions kick in once the seven-day average for illegal crossings hits 2,500 per day. Daily totals already exceed that number, which means that Mr. Biden’s executive order could go into effect right away — allowing border officers to return migrants across the border into Mexico or to their home countries within hours or days.

Typically, migrants who cross illegally and claim asylum are released into the United States to wait for court appearances, where they can plead their cases. But a huge backlog means those cases can take years to come up.

The new system is designed to deter those illegal crossings.

The border would reopen to asylum seekers only when the number of crossings falls significantly. The figure would have to stay below a daily average of 1,500 for seven days in a row. The border would reopen to migrants two weeks after that.

The American Civil Liberties Union said it planned to challenge the executive action in court.

“The administration has left us little choice but to sue,” said Lee Gelernt, a lawyer at the A.C.L.U, which led the charge against the Trump administration’s attempt to block asylum in 2018 and resulted in the policy being stopped by federal courts. “It was unlawful under Trump and is no less illegal now.”

There would be limited exceptions to the restrictions announced Tuesday, including for minors who cross the border alone, victims of human trafficking and those who use a Customs and Border Protection app to schedule an appointment with a border officer to request asylum.

But for the most part, the order suspends longtime guarantees that give anyone who steps onto U.S. soil the right to seek a safe haven.

The executive action mirrors the legislation that Republicans blocked in February, saying it was not strong enough. Many of them, egged on by Mr. Trump, were loath to give Mr. Biden a legislative victory in an election year.

“Donald Trump begged them to vote ‘no’ because he was worried that more border enforcement would hurt him politically,” Andrew Bates, a White House spokesman, said in a statement on Tuesday. He added: “The American people want bipartisan solutions to border security — not cynical politics.”

Immigration advocates and some progressive Democrats have expressed concern that Mr. Biden was abandoning his promise to rebuild the asylum system.

“By reviving Trump’s asylum ban, President Biden has undermined American values and abandoned our nation’s obligations to provide people fleeing persecution, violence, and authoritarianism with an opportunity to seek refuge in the U.S.,” said Senator Alex Padilla, Democrat of California.

Tuesday’s decision is a stark turnaround for Mr. Biden, who came into office attacking Mr. Trump for his efforts to restrict asylum. During a 2019 debate, Mr. Biden, then a candidate running against Mr. Trump for the first time, excoriated his rival’s policies.

“This is the first president in the history of the United States of America that anybody seeking asylum has to do it in another country,” Mr. Biden said at the time.

[1americanconservative]

Those granted asylum become citizens within 5 years, which is just over one Presidential election cycle and then vote overwhelmingly Democrat. This is why so many are being placed in large numbers in Arizona, Wisconsin, Ohio and other swing states. To create permanent one-party rule by the “Democrats”.

NEW: Per newly released CBP data, nearly 530,000 migrants have flown into the US & have been paroled into the country as part of the Biden administration’s controversial CHNV mass parole program. Additionally, approx 813,000 migrants have scheduled appointments via the CBP One app at ports of entry to be released into the US. These are “lawful pathways” created by the Biden administration, and these numbers do not count in Border Patrol data, as they are not illegal crossings. Most of the migrants taking part in these programs are paroled into the U.S. on two year humanitarian parole grants, which also allow them to apply to work. Every single ICE source/contact I’ve spoken with has told me the same thing - they do not have the manpower or resources to find and deport such a large population of people if they overstay these 2 year grants. As it stands now, ICE’s non-detained docket is on track to hit 8 million by the end of the year, and each ICE officer currently manages an average of 7,000 cases. The agency is already tasked with tracking down and removing those with final orders of removal, aggravated felons, gotaways, etc. They physically do not have the bodies to track and remove this additional population - and there has been no government agency monitoring parole expiration, according to a recent DHS Inspector General report. The bottom line - the more than 1 million migrants the Biden admin has allowed into the U.S. via these programs are here to stay - even if they fall out of status and become unlawfully in the U.S.

[vintagelasvegas]

Postcards of Downtowner Motel, 129 N 8th St at Ogden – circa 70s, 80s. The motel was opened by local attorney Robert Cohen in '63. It has been owned and maintained by DTPLV since the 2010s.

When Cohen opened the Downtowner it was called the largest "apt-hotel" downtown with 93 rooms. The land was owned by the Pinjuv family and Cohen owned the motel, along with downtown’s MacDonald Hotel, Crest Hotel, and the Strip’s Vagabond/Center Strip Motel, totaling over 500 rooms in all.

In the late 70s he was indicted in a child prostitution ring. Failing to appear for arraignment on charges of sexual relations with a 14 year-old, Cohen fled the U.S. and sought asylum in Israel. He was disbarred by Nevada Supreme Court in '79. Brought back to Southern Nevada, he plead guilty to reduced charges of statutory rape and received three years probation. In the 80s he was found liable for robbery and assault to guests at Downtowner motel because he failed to provide security. At his Crest Hotel, carbon monoxide poisoning caused two deaths and send others to the hospital. Throughout it all he fought for and won the privilege of gaming license to maintain slot machines at his hotels.

Metro officer and future governor Joe Lombardo appeared on the television show COPS in '91 making an arrest at the motel.

“This place is nice now. When I was an EMS, we used to carry bodies out of here all the time.” – Nef, 2019

Notes & Bolts. Review-Journal, 10/1/63; Couple Awarded $167,000. Review-Journal, 6/22/84; Phil Pattee. Fumes blamed for deaths, 20 injuries. Review-Journal, 7/6/85 p1; Monica Caruso. LV motels plan to cash in on mega resort boom. Review-Journal, 1/9/94; John L. Smith. Legal quirks allow former fugitive to buck the system. Review-Journal, 2/23/97.

[beardedmrbean]

A group of migrants are refusing to leave an encampment in Denver until the city meets a list of 13 demands.

The demands were sent to Denver Mayor Mike Johnston following a petition by city officials to move the group from the encampment to indoor shelters funded by the city, local TV station KDVR reported. The encampment is under a bridge and near train tracks.

The group said if its demands are met, it will leave the encampment and move to a city shelter. The demands include providing "fresh" and "culturally appropriate" ingredients to cook with, shower access with no time limits, medical visits and housing support.

Newsweek has contacted via email the mayor's office for comment.

The group's complete demands are as follows:

The migrants should be allowed to "cook their own food with fresh, culturally appropriate ingredients," including rice, chicken, flour, tomatoes and onions, instead of being served premade meals. They also want to ensure people are not punished for bringing and eating food from outside the shelters.

Have access to showers at all times and without time limits.

Visits by medical professionals will occur on a regular basis, with referrals for specialty care made as needed.

The group will receive the same housing support offered to others, and city officials will not "kick people out in 30 days without something stable established."

A "clear" and "just" process for removing someone, including verbal, written and final warnings.

Employment support, including work permit applications for those who qualify.

Free consultations with an immigration lawyer, as well as ongoing legal support provided by the city through immigration clinics and transportation to court.

Privacy for families in the shelter.

No verbal, physical or mental abuse by shelter staff and no 24/7 monitoring by law enforcement.

Transportation for children to and from school.

No separation of families, regardless of whether those families have children.

A meeting with the mayor and those involved in running the city's program to support migrants "to discuss further improvements."

All shelter residents will be provided with a document signed by a city official in English and Spanish and containing the list of demands and a number to call to report violations.

Jon Ewing, a spokesman for Denver Human Services, told KDVR that the city is "just trying to get families to leave that camp and come inside."

The city's offer will give families "three square meals a day," and they can cook their own meals if they wish, he said. He also said that the city will try to compromise and determine what assistance the migrants qualify for.

"What might be something that is a feasible path for you to success that is not staying on the streets of Denver?" he said. "We try to figure something out.... At the end of the day, what we do not want is families on the streets of Denver."

Denver is among the U.S. cities that have struggled to manage the rising number of migrants that have been transported from Texas and other states. Last month, Johnston announced the creation of the Denver Asylum Seekers Program, which his office billed as a sustainable response to the city's migrant crisis.

The program will place asylum seekers in apartments for up to six months and provide job and skills training, food assistance and free legal help with asylum applications.

However, the program is limited to those who were in the city's shelters on April 10 and capped at about 1,000 people. Those who arrived in Denver after April 10 will be provided with a short-term stay at a shelter and assistance with onward travel.

Nonprofits are also working to support migrants arriving in Denver and other parts of Colorado. One organization, Hope Has No Borders, is working to pair migrants with host families for short or longer-term stays in Denver and other parts of Colorado.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Luke Rosiak

The Department of Homeland Security is facing a lawsuit after Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas refused to explain why a former spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was still employed by the department months after The Daily Wire exposed her support for terrorism and extreme anti-Semitism.

Nejwa Ali was hired by the U.S. government to “perform credible fear interviews by reviewing evidence, credibility, and determine admissibility” of asylum-seekers. While working for DHS, her social media consisted largely of a jihad against Jews, posting memes celebrating Hamas terrorists paragliding into a dance festival with guns, writing “F*** Israel, the government, and its military. Are you ready for your downfall?” and sharing videos with captions like “F*** Israel and any Jew that supports Israel,” The Daily Wire revealed October 18.

DHS said it put her on leave after that story, but six months later, she was still being paid, gloating online about her unpaid leave and seeming to suggest that Mayorkas was protecting her. On social media, when somebody commented on her page, “When you do everything you can to get fired but the boss says NO,” she responded, “hilarious, seriously.

The department violated the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to provide documents about Ali in response to a November request, according to a new lawsuit filed by the Center to Advance Security in America (CASA) against DHS.

The FOIA sought “records related to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Adjudication Officer Nejwa Ali and a potential conflict of interest in administering her duties,” exploring whether she ushered in dangerous Palestinians or denied entry to Israelis.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

June 26, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUN 27, 2024

Today President Joe Biden pardoned more than 2000 former military personnel who had been convicted of engaging in consensual sex under a gay sex ban in the military that has since been repealed. People covered under the pardon can apply to have their military discharges corrected and to recover the pay and benefits the convictions cost them. “[M]aintaining the finest fighting force in the world…means making sure that every member of our military feels safe and respected,” Biden said in a statement. 

Biden said he was “righting an historic wrong.” “This is about dignity, decency, and ensuring the culture of our Armed Forces reflect the values that make us an exceptional nation,” he said.

On this date in 2015, the Supreme Court handed down the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which said that states must license and recognize same-sex marriage because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement that citizens must have the equal protection of the laws and cannot be deprived of rights without due process of the laws.  

In the New York Times today, Kate Zernike explained how the public conversations about abortion have shifted in the two years since the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that recognized the constitutional right to abortion. The state bans that went into place have illustrated that abortion is indeed healthcare, as people suffering miscarriages have been unable to obtain the imperative medical care they need. 

Zernike quoted pollster Tresa Undem, who estimated that before the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturned Roe, less than 15% of Americans thought that abortion was relevant to them personally. Now, though, Undem said, “it’s about pregnancy, and everybody knows someone who had a baby or wants to have a baby or might get pregnant. It’s profoundly personal to a majority of the public.”

In the three weeks since Biden announced restrictions on asylum applications for undocumented immigrants, the number of people trying to cross the border has dropped more than 40% to its lowest level since he took office. This information will likely come up in tomorrow’s scheduled debate between the president and presumptive Republican nominee Trump, who has made it clear he intends to accuse the president of promoting immigration policies that bring criminals into the United States.

Former representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), a military veteran who joined the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol and who has fiercely criticized Trump, today endorsed Biden for president. 

In a video, Kinzinger said: “[W]hile I certainly don’t agree with President Biden on everything, and I never thought I’d be endorsing a Democrat for president, I know that he will always protect the very thing that makes America the best country in the world: our democracy. Donald Trump poses a direct threat to every fundamental American value. He doesn’t care about our country. He doesn’t care about you. He only cares about himself. And he’ll hurt anyone or anything in pursuit of power.” 

On CNN tonight, Georgia governor Brian Kemp told Kaitlan Collins he did not vote for Trump in his state’s Republican primary, although he said he would “support the ticket” in November so that Georgia would remain in Republican hands. It was an interesting statement, since he could easily have deflected the question or simply said he voted for Trump if he cared about avoiding Trump’s wrath. But he appeared not to care, suggesting that Trump’s power even with prominent Republicans is slipping. 

Two Republican voters from Pennsylvania told MSNBC tonight that they are voting for Biden. When asked whether they think there is “a silent Biden voter out there,” one said, “I do. I know there is…. We don’t want to talk about it, but we’re all going to vote for Joe Biden.” 

By a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court today blessed the practice of taking “gratuities” as a gift for past behavior by an official, distinguishing them from “bribes,” which require proof that there was an illegal deal in place. The case involved a former mayor from Indiana who helped a local truck dealership win $1.1 million in city contracts and then asked for and received $13,000 from the dealership’s owners. The mayor was found guilty of violating a federal anti-corruption law that prohibits state and local officials from taking gifts worth more than $5,000 from someone the official had helped to land lucrative government business.

For the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that the law prohibited officials from accepting “gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos or the like” in thanks for an official’s help, although David G. Savage of the Los Angeles Times noted that the law came into play only when the gift was worth more than $5,000. 

Savage pointed out that as the federal law in question covers about 20 million state and local officials, the decision could have wide impact. This decision that officials can accept “gifts” so long as they are not “bribes” might have something to do with the fact that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have accepted significant gifts from donors—Thomas’s count is upward of $4 million—and it doesn’t relieve the sense that this Supreme Court, with its three right-wing Trump-appointed justices, is untrustworthy.

Writing for justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and herself, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said, “Officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions.” 

Yesterday, House Republicans released draft legislation to fund the Justice Department and the Commerce Departments for fiscal year 2025, which starts October 1. They propose to slash nearly a billion dollars from the Department of Justice in retaliation for its bringing cases against Trump, and both to cut funding for the FBI and to block the construction of its new headquarters. Attorney General Merrick Garland called the cuts “unacceptable” and said that the “effort to defund the Justice Department and its essential law enforcement functions will make our fight against violent crime all the more difficult.”

In a secret vote yesterday  by a House panel that fell along party lines, House Republicans also agreed to say that the last Congress’s construction of the January 6th committee was invalid and illegal. This enabled them to back a last-ditch effort by Trump ally Steve Bannon to stay out of jail. After Bannon refused to respond to the committee’s subpoena for documents and testimony about the January 6 attack, a jury found him guilty of being in contempt of Congress. 

Today, Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) filed a brief with the Supreme Court saying that Bannon was right to ignore the subpoena because the committee was illegally organized. Politico’s Kyle Cheney pointed out that the lawyer for the brief is not a House lawyer but rather comes from America First Legal, a public interest organization put together by Trump loyalist Stephen Miller to challenge the legal efforts to rein in Trump’s orders when in office. 

Finally, Milwaukee journalist Dan Shafer reported in The Recombobulation Area today that event bookings expected for the week of the Republican National Convention, which is set to begin on July 15, four days after Judge Juan Merchan sentences Trump for his 34 criminal convictions, have not materialized. Estimates were that the convention would bring $200 million in economic impact to Milwaukee, but that now appears to be optimistic. “[This is] certainly nothing like we were told or promised,” chef Gregory León told Shafer. With locals staying home to avoid the downtown area during the convention, “[i]f the [reservation] book stays the way it is, we’re not going to make enough money to cover costs.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[mariacallous]

Earlier this year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released estimates suggesting that net immigration—inflows minus outflows—was 3.3 million in 2023. That is much higher than the 1 million or so they projected pre-pandemic for 2023, which was a more typical figure for the 2010s. There is also some uncertainty about the 3.3 million number, which is higher than the most recent Census estimate of 1.1 million net migrants for the year ending July 2023. (See here for a more detailed explanation of why the CBO number seems reasonable.) Here we discuss the new immigrants: how they are arriving to the United States, what we know about them, and the economic implications of larger inflows.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A federal judge in Austin on Thursday halted a new state law that would allow Texas police to arrest people suspected of crossing the Texas-Mexico border illegally.

The law, Senate Bill 4, was scheduled to take effect Tuesday. U.S. District Judge David Ezra issued a preliminary injunction that will keep it from being enforced while a court battle continues playing out. Texas is being sued by the federal government and several immigration advocacy organizations. Texas appealed the ruling to the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ezra said in his order Thursday that the federal government “will suffer grave irreparable harm” if the law took effect because it could inspire other states to pass their own immigration laws, creating an inconsistent patchwork of rules about immigration, which has historically been upheld as being solely within the jurisdiction of the federal government.

“SB 4 threatens the fundamental notion that the United States must regulate immigration with one voice,” Ezra wrote.

Ezra also wrote that if the state arrested and deported migrants who may be eligible for political asylum, that would violate the Constitution and also be "in violation of U.S. treaty obligations."

"Finally, the Court does not doubt the risk that cartels and drug trafficking pose to many people in Texas," Ezra wrote in his ruling. "But as explained, Texas can and does already criminalize those activities. Nothing in this Order stops those enforcement efforts. No matter how emphatic Texas’s criticism of the Federal Governments handling of immigration on the border may be to some, disagreement with the federal government’s immigration policy does not justify a violation of the Supremacy Clause."

Gov. Greg Abbott signed SB 4 in December, marking Texas’ latest attempt to try to deter people from crossing the Rio Grande after several years of historic numbers of migrants arriving at the Texas-Mexico border.

In a statement, Abbott said the state "will not back down in our fight" and that he expects this case would eventually be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. On social media, he wrote that he is "not worried" because "this was fully expected."

"Texas has solid legal grounds to defend against an invasion," he added.

State Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose office is defending SB 4 in court, said in a statement that he "will do everything possible to defend Texas’s right to defend herself."

The law seeks to make illegally crossing the border a Class B misdemeanor, carrying a punishment of up to six months in jail. Repeat offenders could face a second-degree felony with a punishment of two to 20 years in prison.

The law also seeks to require state judges to order migrants returned to Mexico if they are convicted; local law enforcement would be responsible for transporting migrants to the border. A judge could drop the charges if a migrant agrees to return to Mexico voluntarily.

In December, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas and the Texas Civil Rights Project sued Texas on behalf of El Paso County and two immigrant rights organizations — El Paso-based Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and Austin-based American Gateways — over the new state law. The following month, the U.S. Department of Justice filed its lawsuit against Texas. The lawsuits have since been combined.

During a court hearing on Feb. 15 in Austin, the Department of Justice argued that SB 4 is unconstitutional because courts have ruled that immigration solely falls under the federal government’s authority.

The lawyer representing Texas, Ryan Walters, argued that the high number of migrants arriving at the border — some of them smuggled by drug cartels — constitutes an invasion and Texas has a right to defend itself under Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from engaging in war on their own “unless actually invaded.”

Ezra said that he “is not unsympathetic to the concerns raised by Abbott,” but appeared unconvinced by Walters’ argument.

"I haven't seen, and the state of Texas can't point me to any type of military invasion in Texas," Ezra said. "I don't see evidence that Texas is at war."

Immigrant rights advocates around the state celebrated the ruling because they worried that SB 4 would lead to border residents' rights being violated.

"We celebrate today’s win, blocking this extreme law from going into effect before it has the opportunity to harm Texas communities," said Aron Thorn, senior attorney for the Beyond Border Program at Texas Civil Rights Project. "This is a major step in showing the State of Texas and Governor Abbott that they do not have the power to enforce unconstitutional, state-run immigration policies."

Edna Yang, co-executive director at American Gateways, said that SB 4 does not fix “our broken immigration system” and it will divide communities.

“This decision is a victory for all our communities as it stops a harmful, unconstitutional, and discriminatory state policy from taking effect and impacting the lives of millions of Texans," she said. "Local officials should not be federal immigration agents, and our state should not be creating its own laws that deny people their right to seek protection here in the U.S."

David Donatti, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas, said the ruling is an "important win for Texas values, human rights, and the U.S. Constitution."

"Our current immigration system needs repair because it forces millions of Americans into the shadows and shuts the door on people in need of safety. S.B. 4 would only make things worse," he said. "Cruelty to migrants is not a policy solution.”

[kp777]

By Jessica Corbett

Common Dreams

July 25, 2024

"This is your chance to energize young people and our communities to vote, mount one of the greatest political comebacks in decades, and deliver a resounding defeat to the far-right agenda of Trump and Vance."

Four youth-led groups on Thursday urged Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, to "fight for our future" by pursuing a policy agenda the coalition unveiled in a March letter to U.S. President Joe Biden.

It's been less than a week since Biden left the race and endorsed Harris, who is expected to face former Republican Donald Trump and his running mate, U.S. Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), in the November election. Since then, she's racked up endorsements from Democratic members of Congress and progressive groups focused on issues including climate, labor, and reproductive rights.

March for Our Lives, which was launched after the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, honored Harris with the group's first-ever endorsement on Wednesday, calling her "the right person to stand up for us and fight for the country we deserve."

"To defeat Trump, you must rebuild support and enthusiasm among young voters."

The gun violence prevention organization is part of the youth-led coalition behind the new letter, which also includes the climate-focused Sunrise Movement; Gen-Z for Change, which advocates on a range of issues; and the national immigrant network United We Dream Action.

"You have an urgent and important task. To defeat Trump, you must rebuild support and enthusiasm among young voters," the coalition told Harris on Thursday, noting that she sought the Democratic nomination during the last cycle. "You should build on your 2020 campaign platform where you put forward a strong vision to make the economy work for everyday people and ensure a livable future for us all."

The groups urged Harris to support the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and the Reverse Mass Incarceration Act. They pushed her to expand pathways to citizenship, keep families together, end fossil fuel subsidies, and create good, union jobs. They also called on her to prioritize gun violence prevention and investments in public health solutions and green, affordable housing.

"Democrats are at a critical crossroads with young people," the coalition wrote to Harris on Thursday. "Polls showed Biden and Trump neck-and-neck among young voters."

A New York Times/Siena College poll conducted July 22-24 shows Trump leading Harris 48% to 47% among likely voters and 48% to 46% among registered voters—differences that fall within the margin of error.

Forbes noted Thursday that "Democrats are far more enthusiastic about Harris than they were Biden, the Times/Siena survey found, with nearly 80% of voters who lean Democrat saying they would like Harris to be the nominee, compared to 48% of Democrats who said the same about Biden three weeks ago."

The outlet also pointed to two other polls conducted by Morning Consult and Reuters/Ipsos since Biden dropped out, which both show Harris with a narrow lead over Trump.

"You have an opportunity to win the youth vote by turning the page and differentiating yourself from Biden policies that are deeply unpopular with us, such as approving new oil and gas projects, denying people their right to seek refuge and asylum, and funding the Israeli government's killing of civilians in Gaza," the youth coalition highlighted Thursday. "You must speak to the economic pain young people are facing from crushing student debt and skyrocketing housing and food prices."

Looking beyond November, the groups told Harris—who could be the first Black woman and person of Asian descent elected to the country's highest office—that "you could be a historic president. Not just because of who you are, but what you can accomplish."

"Young people are energized and ready to organize against fascism and for the future we deserve," they concluded. "This is your chance to energize young people and our communities to vote, mount one of the greatest political comebacks in decades, and deliver a resounding defeat to the far-right agenda of Trump and Vance."

[plethoraworldatlas]

The ACLU on Tuesday vowed to launch a legal challenge to U.S. President Joe Biden's executive order barring migrants who cross the southern border without authorization from receiving asylum.

Biden's executive action invokes Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act—previously used by the administration of former Republican President Donald Trump to deny migrants asylum—"when the southern border is overwhelmed."

Under the policy, asylum requests will be shut down when the average number of daily migrant encounters between ports of entry hits 2,500. Border entry points would reopen to asylum-seekers when that number dips below 1,500.

The president said he was acting, in part, because "Republicans in Congress chose to put partisan politics ahead of our national security, twice voting against the toughest and fairest set of reforms in decades."

On Tuesday, the ACLU said Biden's policy will "rush vulnerable people through already fast-tracked deportation proceedings, sending people in need of protection to their deaths."

"We intend to challenge this order in court," Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement. "It was illegal when Trump did it, and it is no less illegal now."

In July 2020 a federal judge in Washington, D.C. struck down the Trump administration's ban on most Central Americans and migrants from other countries.

ACLU chief political and advocacy officer Deirdre Schifeling said that "we need solutions to address the challenges at the border, but the administration's planned executive actions will put thousands of lives at risk."

"They will not meet the needs at the border, nor will they fix our broken immigration system," Schifeling added. "We urge the administration to uphold its campaign promise to restore asylum and mobilize the necessary resources to address the challenges at the border. It's not just the morally sound thing to do—it's good politics."

The ACLU pointed to polling showing that "voters nationwide and in battleground states largely reject enforcement-only policies that put vulnerable people in danger."

The group is advocating "balanced and humane solutions" including "improving processing at ports of entry and addressing the immigration case backlog by investing in immigration court judges and legal representation."

[zvaigzdelasas]

Emmanuel said he wanted to work in the U.S. and send money back to his family in Chiapas, Mexico's southernmost state. But soon after crossing into Arizona illegally, Emmanuel said he was detained by U.S. border agents and returned to Mexico.

Asked about his next steps, Emmanuel said he might return to Chiapas, noting that American officials told him he would face jail time if he attempted to enter the U.S. unlawfully again. He was one of dozens of migrants deported to Nogales during a recent Thursday morning in late August.[...]

Rosalis and her young daughters were also deported to Nogales that Thursday morning. The Mexican mother said she traveled to the U.S. border after a man started harassing her daughters in their hometown. She said she tried to explain to U.S. immigration officials why she came — to no avail.

These scenes in Nogales play out most mornings, volunteers said. Since President Biden invoked sweeping presidential powers to curtail access to the overwhelmed U.S. asylum system in early June, returns of migrants to Mexican border cities like Nogales have increased sharply.

The "deportations are 24/7," said Dora Rodriguez, a Tucson resident who travels to Nogales to assist deportees four days a week.

Mr. Biden's executive action has upended U.S. asylum law, which generally allowed migrants physically on American soil to request asylum as a way to fight their deportation. But under his June proclamation, migrants who cross the southern border between legal entry points are generally disqualified from asylum.

The new rules also scrapped a requirement for U.S. immigration officials to ask migrants whether they fear being harmed if deported, placing the onus on them to express that fear in order to be interviewed by U.S. asylum officers. The measures have led to a dramatic drop in those being allowed to access the U.S. asylum system. They have also allowed officials to more quickly deport migrants from Mexico, Central America and other countries where the U.S. conducts regular deportations.[...]

Deportations of migrants as a proportion of encounters at the southern border more than doubled after Mr. Biden's order, according to a recent court declaration from Royce Murray, a top immigration official at the Department of Homeland Security. During the first two months of the order's implementation, the department conducted 62 repatriations per every 100 border encounters, up from 26 repatriations per 100 encounters, Murray said.

1 Sep 24

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Liz Skalka at HuffPost:

SPRINGFIELD, Ohio — Joe and Cheryl Backus have plenty of concerns over the influx of immigrants to this central Ohio city. “They’re giving up on our homeless here,” Joe Backus, a retired 80-year-old, said from a loveseat in his living room, referring to the general strain population growth is having on certain sectors of the local government. “They’re ignoring them.” But the spotlight Donald Trump and his running mate, Ohio’s own junior U.S. Sen. JD Vance, have put on Springfield and its estimated 60,000 residents hasn’t helped matters — whipping up tensions here to a potentially dangerous degree after the former president baselessly suggested to a live debate audience of 67 million people last week that foreigners here were eating cats and dogs. It’s quickly upended life, leading to bomb threats and general threats of violence that closed schools and government offices.

“I think here in this town, we’re going to have a — well, you wouldn’t call it a civil war — but an uprising,” said Joe Backus, a Democrat who’s in the minority of this red county that went twice for Trump. “Because I think people are going to get tired.” From a recliner across the room, Cheryl Backus, 67, recoiled at the idea of people associating Springfield with the consumption of pets. “Eating the cats and dogs? No, no, no, no, no. We don’t need — no.” The GOP ticket has made this blue-collar city a Midwestern front in the party’s immigration wars, stoking fears about a reign of terror that includes reckless driving and pet-snatching — all as Republicans continue to blame Democrats for a glut of asylum seekers and illegal crossings at the southern border in an election year when Republicans tanked their own border security bill to help Trump.

At the center of it all are people like Steven Pierre, a 32-year-old who emigrated to Springfield from Haiti at age 12. Now he’s a married father of four and works for Amazon. He has a dog, Baba. “It’s sad, because I gotta hear this, and my kids gotta ask questions about it,” said Pierre, who was building a chicken coop in the back of a pristine white home as Baba looked on. “And it’s like, what do I tell them?” “They’re not here to bother anybody,” Pierre said of the Haitians. “They’re here for a goal and to get on with their life. We’re just regular people. We want to be left alone.” Vance, who grew up an hour south of Springfield in a challenged town he popularized in his memoir, acknowledged last week there was no basis for the viral pet smears. But Vance still told his followers to keep sharing the cat memes these rumors helped spawn.

The vice presidential nominee took it a step further Sunday, suggesting he spread the hoax for the greater good of the country. “If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do,” he said on CNN. Trump also vowed to begin his planned mass deportation of immigrants in Springfield, where the Haitian population is mostly here legally, and claimed to know nothing about the bomb threats he helped stoke. “I don’t know what happened with the bomb threats. I know that it’s been taken over by illegal migrants, and that’s a terrible thing that happened,” Trump said Saturday. The rhetoric is beginning to grate on members of even their own party.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, who has a prickly relationship with Trump, went on TV this weekend to decry the drama surrounding Springfield as “unfortunate” and the pet rumors as “garbage.” He praised Springfield’s population of “hard-working” Haitians, who are able to work legally under a special immigration status afforded to immigrants from countries suffering from civil unrest or natural disasters. Springfield’s own GOP mayor, Rob Rue, said he was tired and angry, and wouldn’t reveal whether he’d vote for Trump in November. All the attention has turned Springfield into a tinderbox. Right-leaning content creators are prowling the streets, hunting down evidence of pet-eating for a $5,000 bounty. Elementary and middle schools were closed or evacuated for two consecutive days last week due to threats. City Hall also closed due to security concerns, as several city commissioners found themselves targeted with threats.

[...] After decades of economic decline from factory off-shoring, the legal influx of Haitian immigrants seeking blue-collar work at factories and warehouses in Springfield struck a raw nerve in a community with a significant number of boarded-up buildings and homes, and longtime residents struggling to make ends meet. An estimated 20,000 Haitians have flocked to Springfield since the pandemic, stressing the city’s housing infrastructure, schools and hospitals. “The people who have lived here pay taxes and support Springfield all their life. They cannot get help, because it’s all about [the Haitians],” said Carol Lawson, 65, who lives a block over from Pierre. Lawson, who said she does not work and collects disability, repeated an oft-cited complaint about the Haitians: That they drive nicer cars than everyone else and appear to be the beneficiaries of generous government support — even though Temporary Protected Status, while it affords a pathway to getting a Social Security card and eventual citizenship, does not automatically confer public benefits like food stamps.

Over the last week or so, the residents of Springfield, Ohio have been unwillingly thrusted into the spotlight thanks to JD Vance, Donald Trump, and the right-wing media’s amplification of the false and racist insinuation that Haitian migrants are eating pets.

Tensions have risen in the town as a result of the debunked and unsubstantiated rumor.

[odinsblog]

HOLY SHIT! I just looked outside and there’s 400 asylum seekers standing out there! They must be exhausted. I’m gonna see if I can make them some food and see if they need somewhere to rest after their long journey.

Ordinarily I would try not to make fun of someone making a typo, but you cannot convince me that MTG doesn’t believe that 6 Billion people have crossed the U.S.-Mexico border since Biden assumed office.

Anyway, consider this your daily reminder that seeking asylum in person is not illegal. People are not illegal. Asylum seekers are not illegal. Seeking asylum is not illegal. Seeking asylum is, for the time being, a constitutionally protected act. Asking desperate people fleeing from terror to please wait patiently—while they are being politically persecuted, or being physically beaten or abused, or having their lives threatened by gangs—asking someone to “just follow the rules” that were specifically designed to make immigration harder for non-Europeans, is a deeply racist, deeply privileged take, and cruelly inhumane.

[charyou-tree]

More than 150 fake local news websites pushing Russian propaganda to U.S. audiences are connected to John Mark Dougan, an American former law enforcement officer living in Moscow, according to a research report published Wednesday by NewsGuard, a firm that monitors misinformation. The websites, with names like DC Weekly, New York News Daily and Boston Times, look similar to those of legitimate local news outlets and have already succeeded in spreading a number of false stories surrounding the war in Ukraine. Experts warn they could be used to launder disinformation about the 2024 election. In an interview over WhatsApp, Dougan denied involvement with the websites. “Never heard of them,” he said. Dougan, a former Marine and police officer, fled his home in Florida in 2016 to evade criminal charges related to a massive doxxing campaign he was accused of launching against public officials and was given asylum by the Russian government.

The disinformation campaigns are out in force, stay aware.