Tag: El Salvador

Honoring Oscar Romero at London’s Westminster Abbey

In 1998, individual statues for Oscar Romero and ten other modern martyrs (Maximillian Kolbe, Manche Masemola, Manche Masemola, Janani Luwum, Elizabeth of Russia, Martin Luther King Jr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Esther John, Lucian Tapiedi and Wang Zhiming) were added above the West Entrance to London’s Westminster Abbey.  [1]

The Abbey’s website says the following about Romero:[2]

  • “Oscar Romero was beatified by Pope Francis on 23rd May 2015 and canonised (made a saint) in Rome on 14th October 2018.”
  • Romero: “I must tell you, as a Christian, I do not believe in death without resurrection. If I am killed, I shall arise in the Salvadoran people.”
  • “He went to a seminary in San Miguel, then to the capital San Salvador, and from there to Rome. He was ordained in 1942. In January 1944 he was recalled to San Miguel by his bishop and was soon secretary of the diocese. This position he held for twenty-three years. In San Miguel his work flourished and his reputation grew. He established a succession of new organizations and inspired many with his sermons, broadcast by five local radio stations and heard across the city.”
  • “Romero was impressed, though not always uncritical, of the new Catholicism that was affirmed with such confidence in Vatican II. In 1970 he became auxiliary bishop of San Salvador, and there he busied himself with administration. Many found him a conservative in views and by temperament. In 1974 he became bishop of a rural diocese, Santiago de Maria. Three years later, in February 1977, Oscar Romero became archbishop of San Salvador.”
  • “In that month a crowd of protesters were attacked by soldiers in the town square of the capital. Then, on 12th March 1977, a radical priest, Rutilio Grande, was murdered in Aguilares. Romero had known him. Now he observed that there was no official enquiry. He recognized that power lay in the hands of violent men, and that they murdered with impunity. The wealthy sanctioned the violence that maintained them. Death squads committed murder in the cities while soldiers killed as they wished in the countryside. When a new government which represented a coalition of powerful interests was elected it was seen to be by fraud. There was talk of revolution.”
  • “More and more Romero committed himself to the poor and the persecuted, and he became the catalyst for radical moral prophecy in the church and outside it. Meanwhile, his church began to document the abuse of human rights, and to establish the truth in a country governed by lies, where men and women simply disappeared without account. The press attacked him vehemently. Romero, it was said, allied the church with revolutionaries. This he repudiated: the church was not a political movement. But when a succession of priests were murdered Romero found in their deaths testimony of a church incarnated in the problems of its people.”
  • “In May 1979 he visited the Pope in Rome and presented him with seven dossiers filled with reports and documents describing the injustices of El Salvador. But his friends sensed his isolation in the church, while the threats and dangers against him mounted outside it. On 24th March 1980 he was suddenly shot dead while celebrating mass in the chapel of the hospital where he lived.”
  • “Today the memory of Oscar Romero is cherished by the people of El Salvador, and by countless Christians across the world.”

In addition, the Abbey’s website adds the program for an Evensong commemorating the centenary of Romero’s birth on September 23, 2017, and an Abbey service for St. Oscar Romero on November 17, 2018, along with the text of the sermon by the Dean of Westminster (the Very Reverend Dr. John Hall) and a list of materials about Romero and his martyrdom.[3]

==================

[1] St Oscar Romero, Westminster Abbey.

[2] Venerable Tricia Hillas, St. Oscar Romero sermon (Sept. 10, 2023).

 [3] Centenary of the Birth of Blessed Oscar Romero (Sept. 23, 2017); Evensong commemorating the cnetenary of the birth of Blessed Oscar Romero  (Sep. 23, 2017); Solemn Evensong of Thanksgiving for the Canonization of St Oscar Romero. (Nov. 17, 2018); Abbey service for St Oscar Romero (Nov. 17, 2018); Sermon given at the Thanksgiving for the Canonization of St Oscar Romero (Nov. 17, 2018). See also blog posts about Romero in List of Posts in dwkcommentaries—Topical: EL SALVADOR.

Issues Facing Marco Rubio on Trip  to Latin America 

On his trip to Latin America starting on February 1, Secretary of State Marco Rubio will be facing at least the following issues.

Panama.

“The Panama Canal will be the most important issue.”

“Mr. Trump falsely accused Panama of allowing China to station troops on the canal and of treating U.S. ships and goods unfairly by charging exorbitant fees. The Panama Canal Authority, which operates the waterway independently of the government, has denied those claims.”

“While there are no Chinese troops to be seen on the waterway, a Hong Kong-based company called CK Hutchison Holdings has operated two seaports at each end of the Panama Canal for decades.”

“Mr. Trump may not be serious about using the U.S. military to retake the canal, analysts say, instead staking out an extreme negotiating position in order to clinch another deal. He may be eyeing lower fees for American goods traversing the canal or greater cooperation on migration.”

“The other major issue Mr. Rubio and Panamanian leaders are likely to discuss is immigration and the Darién Gap, the perilous jungle route between Panama and Colombia that hundreds of thousands of migrants have used in recent years to make their way to the United States.”

“Panama has struggled to slow the flood of migrants traversing the gap, with more than 520,000 people passing through in 2023. That number declined to 302,000 in 2024. Last summer, Mr. Mulino signed an agreement with the Biden administration that tightened security in the gap. Around the same time, President Biden also blocked the vast majority of asylum claims at the U.S.-Mexico border and allowed agents to turn people back quickly.”

“Panama will likely ask the United States to invest more in Panama if it seeks to curb Chinese influence in the region. Panamanian politicians and business leaders complain that when the country puts out tenders for big infrastructure projects, U.S. companies are often absent while Chinese are eager to bid.””

“In exchange, Mr. Rubio could ask Panama to sign a safe-third country agreement, which would see it absorb non-Panamanian migrants. Analysts say Mr. Rubio could use the threats to retake the canal to pressure Panama to accept those asylum seekers or get them to to kick out CK Hutchison Holdings from those ports.”

Guatemala

“Guatemala has emerged as a country eager to show it is open to cooperating with the Trump administration, particularly when it comes to migration. The Guatemalan government was the first country to receive U.S. military flights carrying deportees, which have served to support Mr. Trump’s claim that migrants are criminals best dealt with by force.”

“Rather than speak out about deportations, the government launched the “Return Home” plan to reintegrate Guatemalan deportees.”

“For us, the most important thing is to present ourselves to the U.S., to the new administration, as a reliable and strategic partner in the region,” Guatemala’s foreign minister, Carlos Ramiro Martínez, said in an interview this past week.”

“About 675,000 undocumented Guatemalans lived in the United States as of 2022, according to the Pew Research Center, making it one of the largest sources of illegal migrants after Mexico, India and El Salvador.”

“Guatemala also shares a border with Mexico, and migrants from around the world trek through it on their journeys north. Mr. Rubio could call on the nation to do more to prevent migrants from reaching Mexico, analysts say.”

“When asked if Guatemala would host asylum seekers deported from the United States as part of a “safe third country” agreement, Mr. Ramiro said nothing was off the table ahead of the visit. “I’m not ruling anything out because the negotiation is still ongoing,” he said at a news conference this past week.”

“Also on the table will be countering illicit drug trafficking and organized crime, Mr. Ramiro said.”

“Guatemala’s president, Bernardo Arévalo, faces intense internal opposition and will most likely try to find an ally in Mr. Rubio, both to shore up his position at home and to protect the economy. The United States is Guatemala’s primary trading partner, accounting for more than 30 percent of the country’s exports, including coffee and bananas.”

El Salvador

 “Of all of the countries in the region that Mr. Rubio is planning to visit, El Salvador stands out for having already established a somewhat warm relationship with the Trump administration.”

“Within the inner circle of MAGA loyalists, Bukele has a lot of appeal,” Manuel Meléndez Sánchez, a Salvadoran political scientist at Harvard University, said of El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele.”

“The Salvadoran government’s recent crackdown on vicious gangs that terrorized the country has enthused traditional law-and-order Republicans. Mr. Bukele’s antiglobalist and what he calls “anti-woke” policies have captivated American conservatives. And his embrace of technology, including Bitcoin as an official currency, has won over tech billionaires, like Elon Musk.”

“In a phone call between the leaders last week, Mr. Trump praised Mr. Bukele’s leadership before discussing the two main issues Mr. Rubio is likely to resurface during his visit: illegal immigration and a crackdown on gangs.”

“A priority for the Trump administration is to get the country to take in non-Salvadoran deportees from the United States.”

“The country signed a similar deal in 2019 after Trump administration officials cut off some aid to El Salvador, accusing the country of not doing enough to curb illegal migration. But the agreement never took effect and was terminated by the Biden administration.”

“In a briefing call on Friday, Mauricio Claver-Carone, Mr. Trump’s special envoy for Latin America, told reporters that the United States was committed to efforts “to revive that agreement.”

“A spokeswoman for Mr. Bukele declined to comment.”

“During Mr. Rubio’s visit, Mr. Claver-Carone added, he will also try to persuade El Salvador to accept deported members of the notorious Tren de Aragua gang, a Venezuelan criminal group that has spread its reach into the United States.”

““If Caracas does not accept them, Bukele will receive them,” María Elvira Salazar, a Republican congresswoman, said this past week. “And Bukele’s prisons are very big.”

Costa Rica

“Mr. Rubio’s visit will most likely focus on American investment, migration policy and the continuing fight against international drug trafficking, according to Costa Rican authorities.”

“President Rodrigo Chaves anticipates a more transactional relationship with Mr. Trump.”

“It is going to be about international trade issues, capital flows, and investment,” he told reporters last week.”

“Mr. Trump’s criticisms of the Biden administration’s CHIPS and Science Act — and his overall stance against American companies investing overseas — have been received nervously in Costa Rica, a hub of semiconductor manufacturing. The Biden-era program was meant to reduce the United States’ reliance on China for microchip production by encouraging neighboring countries to enter the industry.”

“Beyond trying to maintain U.S. investments, Costa Rica will portray itself as a crucial ally in the war against drugs during negotiations with Mr. Rubio. Costa Rica has become a major transshipment point for cocaine destined for the United States, contributing to the country’s record-high murder rate since 2022.”

“Arnoldo André, Costa Rica’s minister of foreign affairs, described the joint fight against organized crime and drug trafficking as “issues that we are sure we will be able to reconcile with the new U.S. authorities.”

“If Mr. Trump wants Costa Rica to continue to clamp down on drug trafficking, economic investments must be maintained, current and former government officials say. Or poverty may make the country ripe for the cartels that run amok in the region.”

Dominican Republic

 “During his Senate confirmation hearings, Mr. Rubio mentioned the Dominican Republic as one of the countries in Latin America that was “doing it the right way.”

“By that, Mr. Rubio may mean the Trump way. The Caribbean country is building a wall along its border with Haiti, and the government has pledged to deport 10,000 Haitians a week — a move human rights groups have criticized as rife with abuses.”

“The Dominican Republic, a country of 11 million, shares an island with Haiti, a nation that has descended into chaos since the assassination in July 2021 of its last elected president, Jovenel Moïse. Gangs earning income from illegal checkpoints, extortion and kidnappings have used the political vacuum to expand their territory to control some 90 percent of the Haitian capital.”

“Some one million Haitians have fled their homes, according to the International Organization for Migration, many crossing the porous border into the Dominican Republic.”

“Riding a wave of nationalism, President Luis Abinader was re-elected last May in a landslide, bolstered by anti-Haitian sentiments that run rampant among the population, while pledging stricter immigration policies.”

“The Dominican Republic has also emerged as a key security partner for Washington, cracking down on drugs and gun smuggling routes that fuel violence across the region. The Trump administration wants more cooperation there.”

======================

Abi-Habib, Correal, Mega, Wagner & Bolanos, Latin America Gets Into Deal-Making Mode for Rubio’s Visit, N.Y. Times (Feb. 1, 2025).

 

 

 

 

Marco Rubio Proposes  America First Foreign Policy

In the Wall Street Journal, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has proposed what he calls an “Americas First  Foreign Policy.” [1]

“When Donald Trump won his sweeping victory in November, he received a mandate to put America first. In the realm of diplomacy, this means paying closer attention to our own neighborhood—the Western Hemisphere.”

“It’s no accident that my first trip abroad as secretary of state, to Central America on Friday, will keep me in the hemisphere. This is rare among secretaries of state over the past century. For many reasons, U.S. foreign policy has long focused on other regions while overlooking our own. As a result, we’ve let problems fester, missed opportunities and neglected partners. That ends now.”

“President Trump’s foreign-policy agenda begins close to home. Among his top priorities is securing our borders and reversing the disastrous invasion abetted by the last administration. Diplomacy’s role in this effort is central. We need to work with countries of origin to halt and deter further migrant flows, and to accept the return of their citizens present in the U.S. illegally.”

“Some countries are cooperating with us enthusiastically—others, less so. The former will be rewarded. As for the latter, Mr. Trump has already shown that he is more than willing to use America’s considerable leverage to protect our interests. Just ask Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro.”

“Yet even when circumstances demand toughness, the president’s vision for the hemisphere remains positive. We see a prosperous region rife with opportunities. We can strengthen trade ties, create partnerships to control migration, and enhance our hemisphere’s security.”

“El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama and the Dominican Republic—the countries I will visit on this trip—all stand to benefit tremendously from greater cooperation with the U.S. These nations were neglected by past administrations that prioritized the global over the local and pursued policies that accelerated China’s economic development, often at our neighbors’ expense.”

“We can reverse this. Covid exposed the fragility of America’s dependence on far-flung supply chains. Relocating our critical supply chains to the Western Hemisphere would clear a path for our neighbors’ economic growth and safeguard Americans’ own economic security.”

“Closer relationships with the U.S. lead to more jobs and higher growth in these countries. This reduces incentives for emigration from these countries while providing governments with revenue to fight crime and invest at home. As our regional partners build themselves up, they can more easily resist countries such as China that promise much but deliver little.”

“Mass migration has destabilized our entire region. Drug cartels—now correctly categorized, thanks to the president, as foreign terrorist organizations—are taking over our communities, sowing violence and poisoning our families with fentanyl. Illegitimate regimes in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela are intentionally amplifying the chaos. All the while, the Chinese Communist Party uses diplomatic and economic leverage—such as at the Panama Canal—to oppose the U.S. and turn sovereign nations into vassal states.”

I am confident that the countries I will soon visit will be ready partners. Like President Trump, their leaders are pragmatists who put their citizens first. And because they are pragmatists, they also know that there is much more to be gained from working with the U.S. than not.

“This is an approach to foreign policy based on concrete shared interests, not vague platitudes or utopian ideologies. It is representative of the approach the State Department will be taking to all its international dealings. We will extend our hand to all nations of goodwill, in the confident expectation that they will recognize what we can do together.”

“Thankfully, the Western Hemisphere harbors more congruent interests than conflicting ones. Making America great again also means helping our neighbors achieve greatness. The threats Mr. Trump was elected to stop are threats to the nations of our hemisphere as well.”

“We share a common home. The safer, stronger and more prosperous that home becomes, the more all our nations stand to benefit. Together, there are few limits to what we can accomplish.”

===================

[1] Rubio, An Americas First Foreign Policy, W.S.J. (Jan. 30, 2025)

 

 

President Biden Sets U.S. Refugee Quotas for Fiscal 2025  

 On September 30, 2024, President Biden in a Memorandum for the Secretary of State established the U.S. quota for admission of refugees for Fiscal 2025 at 125,000  “as justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the [U.S.] national interest.”[1]

The President also established the following regional allocations for those refugees:

Africa                                      30,000-50,000

East Asia                                 10,000-20,000

Europe & Central Asia                2,000-3,000

Latin America/Caribbean       35,000-50,000

Near East/South Asia              30,000-45,000

“The above allocation ranges are intended to provide flexibility as needs arise, but the total admissions among all of the regions may not exceed 125,000.  Upon providing notification to the Judiciary Committees of the Congress, you are hereby authorized to transfer unused admissions allocated to a particular region to one or more other regions, if there is a need for greater admissions for the region or regions to which the admissions are being transferred.”

“Consistent with section 2(b)(2) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (22 U.S.C. 2601(b)(2)), I hereby determine that assistance to or on behalf of persons applying for admission to the United States as part of the overseas refugee admissions program will contribute to the foreign policy interests of the United States and designate such persons for this purpose.”

“Consistent with section 101(a)(42) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)), and after appropriate consultation with the Congress, I also specify that, for FY 2025, the following persons may, if otherwise qualified, be considered refugees for the purpose of admission to the United States within their countries of nationality or habitual residence:

  1. Persons in Cuba;
  2. Persons in Eurasia and the Baltics;
  3. Persons in Iraq;
  4. Persons in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras; and
  5. In certain circumstances, persons identified by a United States Embassy or by an authorized State Department referral partner in any location.”

====================================

[1] White House, Memorandum on the Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2025 (Sept. 30, 2024).

U.S. Excludes Cuba from Its “Visa Lottery” for Fiscal 2026 

The U.S. has excluded Cuba from the 2026 Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (“Visa Lottery”) for fiscal 2026. [1]

This was done, said the U.S., because more than 50,000 Cubans have emigrated to the U.S. in the past five years. The other countries similarly excluded are Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Korea, Venezuela and Vietnam.

Under another U.S. program (humanitarian parole), “as of last July, some 106,757 Cubans had benefited from this process and some 104,130 had already traveled to the US.

================================

[1] Cubans are left out of the lottery for immigrant visas to the US, Diario de Cuba (Sept. 28, 2024).

 

 

 

 

 

Cuba’s Poor Ranking in the World Democracy Index

Each year the British magazine The Economist publishes its World Democracy Index. For 2023 Cuba ranked 135th our of 167 world-wide countries and 22nd out of 24 Latin American countries.[i]

The five principles taken into account for this analysis and ranking are: electoral process and pluralism; functioning of the Government; political participation; democratic political culture; and civil liberties. The countries are then grouped into four categories: full democracy, deficient democracy, hybrid regime and authoritarian regime.

World Ranking

Cuba was given the 135th ranking out of 167 countries.

“Norway remains the most democratic country,” a position it has occupied for 14 years” while “Afghanistan is at the bottom for the third consecutive year.

“Less than 8% of the world’s population live in full democracies” while “39.4% are under authoritarian rule.”

Latin America Ranking

Only two Latin American countries (Uruguay and Costa Rica) received the top rank of “full democracy.’ Cuba followed by Venezuela and Nicaragua were placed in the bottom category of “authoritarian regimes” while Haiti was assigned an even lower ranking of “country in state of collapse.”

On a population basis, “just over 1% of the region’s population lives in a full democracy, the majority (54%) live in a flawed democracy, 35% in a hybrid regime and 9% in an authoritarian regime.”

“Latin America fell by the most, and recorded its eighth consecutive drop. El Salvador, where Nayib Bukele ran for re-election as president in defiance of the constitution (and easily won [in early February]), was the worst performer in the region.”

=============================

[i]  Cuba ranks 135th in the 2023 World Democracy Index, Diario de Cuba (Feb. 19, 2024); Where democracy is most at risk, Economist (Feb. 14, 2024)

Increasing Migrant Crossings at U.S. Border Call for Legal Changes

This July more than 130,000 migrants were apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border. The fastest growth in this immigration, with 40,000 of the total, was in the Border Patrol’s Tucson sector, which comprises most of Arizona, which was the most since April 2008. U.S. authorities attribute this increase to smugglers now guiding migrants to the border across the most remote and harsh stretches of the Arizona desert between Yuma and Tucson to avoid detection. [1]

Crossing in desert areas in the summer can be deadly, with ground temperatures well exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit at times, officials say. Such extreme conditions have led to a spike in 911 calls.  Agents responding to such calls for help routinely find dozens or even hundreds of migrants in need of aid and trying to surrender to arriving border agents.

Cuba is experiencing growth in out-migration. Social-media advertisements on the island have recently increased offering door-to-door transportation to the U.S. through flights from Cuba to Nicaragua and ground travel across Central America and Mexico. Although new Biden policies require Cubans to have a U.S. citizen-sponsor for legal entry to the U.S., many Cubans do not have such sponsors and some officials say, “For ordinary Cubans, finding a sponsor who has money in the U.S. is Mission Impossible.”[2]

Another indication of this migrant pressure is the recent guilty plea by the owners of a Williamsburg, Virginia cleaning business who operated a “labor trafficking enterprise” that smuggled over 100 migrants from El Salvador, including minors, and forced them to work in U.S. under threats of violence and deportation.[3]

Recommended Changes

 Andrea R. Flores, who served as an immigration policy adviser in the Obama and Biden administrations, says, “Until Congress finds the political will to act, the president should use his authority to relieve pressure on our asylum system and give migrants the ability to legally work once they reach the United States.”[4] To that end, she recommends the following:

  • “While far from perfect, the Biden administration’s parole program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans could serve as a model for what is possible. This policy provides safer options to people who are unlikely to meet the legal requirements for asylum, but who still have urgent humanitarian reasons to flee their homes.”
  • The President should “use his authority to grant Temporary Protected Status to the hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans who lack work authorization, which would be a boon for immigrants and the communities that welcome them. A 2023 analysisby FWD.us, a bipartisan group founded by American business leaders that favors more humane immigration reform, found that T.P.S. holders contribute $22 billion in wages annually to the U.S. economy.”
  • “The administration should also act quickly to increase the number of appointments at ports of entry; add new countries eligible for parole; lift caps on countries with urgent resettlement needs, as it did for Ukraine; and invest resources in adjudicating asylum cases expeditiously.”

Noted commentator, Fareed Zakaria, points out the obvious: “America’s immigration system is broken.” [5]Therefore, he says the following: “The laws and rules around asylum must be fixed so that immigration authorities can focus on the small number of genuine asylum seekers while compelling the rest to seek other legal means of entry. At the same time, it’s important to note that the United States is facing a drastic shortfall of labor and must expand legal immigration in many areas for just that reason. We urgently need to attract the world’s best technically skilled people so that they can push forward the information and biotech revolutions that are transforming the economy and life itself. With unemployment rates around 50-year lows, it is obvious that we need more workers in many sectors of the economy, from agriculture to hospitality. If this is done in a legal and orderly manner, Americans will welcome the new workers.”

Therefore, he says Biden “should propose an immigration bill that is genuinely bipartisan and forces compromises from both sides. It would be one more strong dose of evidence that policy can triumph over populism.” Good luck on doing that.

==========================

[1] Perez & Caldwell, Migrant Crossings on the Rise Again at U.S. Border,W.S.J. (Aug. 12, 2023); Miroff & Sacchetti, Border arrests surged in July, a blow to Biden immigration plan, Wash. Post (Aug. 1, 2023).

[2] Perez & Caldwell, Migrant Crossings on the Rise Again at U.S. Border, W.S.J. (Aug. 12, 2023).

[3] Paul, Laundry company owners guilty of trafficking migrants, minors for labor, Wash. Post (Aug. 13, 2023).

[4] Flores, We Know What Doesn’t Work at the Border. Here’s a Better Solution, N.Y. Times (Aug. 10, 2023).

[5] Zakaria, Immigration can be fixed. So why aren’t we doing it?, Wash. Post (Aug. 11, 2023).

 

More Criticism of U.S. Means of Addressing Immigration Needs of Afghan Evacuees  

This blog previously discussed the complexity of meeting the U.S. immigration needs of Afghan evacuees, estimated at 65,000 to 199,000 less than two weeks ago.[1] This analysis has been underscored by John T. Medeiros, an experienced U.S. immigration attorney and the Chair of the Minnesota/Dakotas Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.[2]

According to Medeiros, this subject was the focus of a recent conference call with nearly 100 immigration lawyers across the U.S.

He noted that he and many other immigration lawyers have been focused on assisting “family members and friends of Afghan allies in applying for humanitarian parole, which the federal Immigration Service says “is used to bring someone who is otherwise inadmissible to the United States for a temporary period of time due to an emergency.”

This conference call emphasized the following current status of this situation:

  • “Within the past two months there have been over 17,000 applications for humanitarian parole filed with the USCIS.”
  • “Each application includes a filing fee of $575; in the past two months the USCIS has received an estimated $9.8 million in fees.”
  • “While there is an option to request a fee waiver, almost all applications filed with a fee waiver have been rejected by the USCIS.”
  • “For the pending 17,000 applications there are a total of six USCIS adjudicators.”
  • “Since Sept. 1, USCIS has not processed any applications for individuals still in Afghanistan.”
  • “Since that same date, USCIS has processed ‘a handful of applications’ for Afghan nationals displaced in a third country.”
  • “USCIS is expected to soon announce its plans to adjudicate those applications that remain pending, with priority given to individuals who are not physically in Afghanistan. The rationale for this decision is that third-country nationals would be able to obtain the required travel permission in the form of a visa at a U.S. consular post in the third country, while visa services have been suspended within Afghanistan.”
  • “It is unclear if [U.S.] visas will be issued to displaced Afghan nationals who are not in possession of a valid passport.”

This horrible situation, said Medeiros, caused the participants in this conference call to demand the following actions:

“[We] call on Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to immediately allocate sufficient resources to the USCIS for the swift adjudication of the pending 17,000 applications for humanitarian parole and to approve applications for fee waivers for applicants who meet the eligibility criteria.”

“After these applications have been approved, we call on Secretary of State Antony Blinken to expedite the vetting process and the issuance of visas to displaced Afghan nationals, including those who are not in possession of a valid passport.”

“[We] call on the office of the White House to authorize the U.S. Department of Defense to send military flights to countries with concentrations of displaced Afghan nationals, and evacuate those with valid claims to asylum, Special Immigrant Visas or any other immigration benefit.”

“[We] call on Congress to swiftly pass the Afghan Adjustment Act, which would provide a path to permanent residence for those Afghan evacuees who have risked their lives in support of U.S. military efforts. It is the least we can do to honor the sacrifices our Afghan allies have made for the benefit of American democracy.”

Conclusion

These recommendations are endorsed by this blogger, who is a retired lawyer who did not specialize in immigration law, but who in the mid-1980s learned certain aspects of immigration and asylum law and then served as a pro bono lawyer for asylum seekers from El Salvador and other countries.[3]

This endorsement is also buttressed by my current service on the Refugee Co-Sponsorship Team at Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church, which is now co-sponsoring an Afghan family with the assistance of the Minnesota Council of Churches. [4]

===============================

[1]  Immense Problems Hampering U.S. Efforts To Resettle Afghans, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 22, 2021).

[2] Medeiros, We’re still failing Afghan allies. Why no outrage?, StarTribune (Nov. 2, 2021); John t. Medeiros [Biography];  American Immigration Lawyers Association, Minnesota/Dakotas Chapter.

[3]  Becoming a Pro Bono Asylum Lawyer, dwkcommentareis.com (May 24, 2011); My Pilgrimage to El Salvador, April 1989, dwkcommentaries.com (May 25,  2011); Teaching the International Human Rights Course, dwkcommentaries.com (July 1, 2011).

[4]  Schulze, Campbell & Krohnke, Our Sojourners Have Arrived, Westminster News, p.7  (Nov. 2021).

President Trump Announces Categories for U.S. Admission of Refugees for Fiscal 2021             

On September 30, the U.S. State Department announced that President Trump had reduced the U.S. quota for admission of refugees to 15,000 for Fiscal Year 2021 (October 1, 2020-September 30, 2021) that would be documented in a subsequent presidential determination.[1]

That Presidential Determination confirming the 15,000 limitation was issued on October 28 in the form of a memorandum to the Secretary of State. It also announced allocations “among refugees of special humanitarian concern to the United States.”[2] Here are those allocations:

Number Category
5,000 Refugees who: have been persecuted or have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of religion; or are within a category of aliens established under subsections (b) and (c) of section 599D of Title V, Public Law 101-167, as amended (the Lautenberg and Specter Amendments). [(i) “aliens who are or were nationals and residents of the Soviet Union and who share common characteristics that identify them as targets of persecution in the Soviet Union on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion,” including “nationals and residents of the Soviet Union and who are Jews or Evangelical Christians ” and (ii) “aliens who are or were nationals and residents of Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia and who share common characteristics that identify them as targets of persecution in such respective foreign state on such an account.
4,000 Refugees who are within a category of aliens listed in section 1243(a) of the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act of 2007, Title XII, Div. A, Public Law 110-181, as amended: “[1) Iraqis who were or are employed by the United States Government, in Iraq;(2) Iraqis who establish to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that they are or were employed in Iraq by–(A) a media or nongovernmental organization headquartered in the United States; or (B) an organization or entity closely associated with the United States mission in Iraq that has received United States Government funding through an official and documented contract, award, grant, or cooperative agreement; and 3) spouses, children, and parents whether or not  accompanying or following to join, and sons, daughters, and siblings of aliens described in paragraph (1), paragraph (2), or section 1244(b)(1); and(4) Iraqis who are members of a religious or minority community, have been identified by the Secretary of State, or the designee of the Secretary, as a persecuted group, and have close family members . . . in the United States.”
1,000 Refugees who are nationals or habitual residents of El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras.
5,000 Other refugees in the following groups: those referred to the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) by a United States Embassy in any location; those who will be admitted through a Form I-730 following-to-join petition or who gain access to the USRAP for family reunification through the P-3 process; those currently located in Australia, Nauru, or Papua New Guinea who gain access to the USRAP pursuant to an arrangement between the United States and Australia; those who are nationals or habitual residents of Hong Kong, Venezuela, or Cuba; and those in the USRAP who were in “Ready for Departure” status as of September 30, 2019.
15,000 TOTAL

In addition, the President authorized the Secretary of State, subject to certain conditions, “to transfer unused admissions from a particular allocation above to one or more other allocations, if there is a need for greater admissions for the allocation to which the admissions will be transferred.”

The President, subject to certain conditions, also authorized the Secretary of State to consider “the following persons . . ., if otherwise qualified, . . . [as] refugees for the purpose of admission to the United States within their countries of nationality or habitual residence: a. persons in Cuba; b. persons in Eurasia and the Baltics; c. persons in Iraq; d. persons in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador; and e. in exceptional circumstances, persons identified by a United States Embassy in any location.”

The President specified “that persons from certain high-risk areas of terrorist presence or control, including Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, shall not be admitted as refugees, except those refugees of special humanitarian concern:  (1) who have been persecuted or have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of religion; (2) were referred to the USRAP by a United States Embassy in any location; or (3) who will be admitted through a Form I-730 following-to-join petition or who gain access to the USRAP for family reunification through the P‑3 process.  The threat to United States national security and public safety posed by the admission of refugees from high-risk areas of terrorist presence or control is significant and cannot be fully mitigated at this time.”

Another specification by the President was “ for FY 2021, newly admitted refugees should be placed, to the maximum extent possible, in States and localities that have clearly expressed their willingness to receive refugees under the Department of State’s Reception and Placement Program.  Such cooperation ensures that refugees are resettled in communities that are eager and equipped to support their successful integration into American society and the labor force.”

Finally the President determined “hat assistance to or on behalf of persons applying for admission to the United States as part of the overseas refugee admissions program will contribute to the foreign policy interests of the United States, and I accordingly designate such persons for this purpose.”

Conclusion

 The principal objection to this presidential action is the overall limitation of resettled refugees to 15,000 in one year. The identification of the refugees in the above categories and their allocated numbers presumably are justified.

================================

[1] U.S. Reduces Refugee Admissions to 15,000 for Fiscal 2021, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 2, 2020).

[2] White House, Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2021 (Oct. 28, 2020).

 

Objections to Proposed U.S. Rule Changing Asylum Procedures

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has proposed a rule that would significantly shorten the time for asylum seekers to file their paperwork for asylum and to amend that paperwork.[1] Given my experience as a pro bono attorney for such individuals, I filed with the EOIR a comment objecting to that proposed rule. Here is that comment followed by another objection by a Minnesota lawyer and friend, Steven Thal.

My Objection to the Proposed Rule[2]

“I am writing to oppose EOIR’s proposed rule to curtail human rights of asylum seekers by limiting timelines for applications and unlawfully restricting the type of evidence presented. The rule represents yet another attempt to restrict the right of people to obtain protection from persecution and torture—rights that the U.S. has agreed to meaningfully implement. By putting up nearly-insurmountable obstacles in that process, this proposed rule violates the rights of asylum seekers and, therefore, U.S. and international law. For the following reasons, I request that this rule be withdrawn in its entirety.”

I.“The 15-day filing deadline for asylum- and withholding-only removal proceedings will contravene our international and domestic laws.”

”The proposed rule will violate our obligations under the UN Refugee Convention and U.S. law by impinging on the ability for people in asylum- and withholding-only proceedings to adequately prepare their case. The rule proposes to require filing within 15 days of the person’s first hearing. For most in asylum- and withholding-only proceedings, this will be an impossible task as many are recently-arrived in the U.S., lack sufficient language skills to prepare a filing that must be in English, lack the resources to pay the now-required $50 fee, and are unlikely to secure reliable counsel on that timeline. Asylum seekers are entitled to present their case and be represented by counsel. This new rule infringes on those rights and must be withdrawn. Moreover, the rule will unduly impact attorneys and service providers—particularly nonprofit providers—who will be overburdened and unable to find pro bono counsel willing to complete applications on such a timeline”

II.“The proposed restrictions on evidence are a blatant attempt to deny asylum protections and improperly restrict due process.”

“The proposed changes to evidence are unlawful and blatantly targeted to discourage asylum applications. This violates our obligations under the UN Refugee Convention as well as U.S. law.”

“The proposed rule proposes to make all evidence other than U.S. government reports presumptively unreliable. Such change would allow immigration judges to discount local and international news sources, reports by both local and international nongovernmental organizations and even United Nations reports. The only evidence under the new rule that would be presumed credible would be reports prepared by the U.S. Government, i.e., opposing counsel in an asylum case.”

“This rule is unjustified and must be withdrawn as local and international sources provide nuanced and expert analysis that the U.S Government reports often lack due to capacity, know-how and diplomatic pressures. Moreover, because U.S. Government reports will be prepared by the same branch as the opposing counsel in asylum cases, the rule violates basic understandings of due process rights by presumptively finding one side credible. And, the rule allows immigration judges to introduce their own evidence into the record, further violating due process by eliminating their role as a neutral arbiter.”

III. “The proposed 30-day timeframe for correcting errors will deny asylum to those who need protection, thereby contravening international and domestic law on nonrefoulment.”

“The proposed rule further violates asylum seekers’ rights by restricting their ability to file an application. The proposed rule, though espousing efficient processing of applications, removes the requirement that EOIR return an application within 30 days of filing or presume it properly filed. Yet, it then gives the asylum seeker only 30 days to correct any deficiencies and will deem abandoned and deny any application not corrected in that time. This rule is a clear attempt to allow the Government to deny bona fide asylum claims under the guise of procedural efficiencies. Moreover, it will violate our international nonrefoulment obligations by denying asylum applications due to procedural defects rather than substance and, therefore, returning people to countries in which they will be persecuted or tortured.”

IV. “The proposed 180-day case completion timeline and restrictions on continuances improperly penalizes asylum applicants for the court’s inefficiencies.”

 “The proposed rule passes-on to the applicant the inefficiencies and failure of EOIR to provide sufficient resources—while eliminating case management techniques such as administrative closure—by requiring applications be adjudicated within 180 days absent a very limited set of exceptional circumstances. The rule will mean in practice that bona fide asylum applicants are denied and removed to countries in which they will face persecution or torture because they will be foreclosed from requesting continuances to sufficiently prepare their case. By essentially barring continuances and demanding immigration judges adjudicate cases on impossible timelines given backlog and complexity of asylum cases—as well as the myriad new restrictions and processing requirements created over the past four years— the proposed rule will result in improperly decided cases, increasing the rate of appeals and threatening to deny those who truly need our protection. Such a timeline will also present immense challenges to attorneys and pro bono service providers who will be challenged to represent clients to the best of their abilities without the ability to request time to prepare. This infringes on the due process rights of asylum clients and should be withdrawn.”

V. “My Personal Experience As a Pro Bono Asylum Lawyer Demonstrates the Utter Insanity of this Proposed Regulation.”

“In the mid-1980s I was a partner in a major Minneapolis law firm with 20 years of experience representing fee-paying clients in business litigation. I had not studied immigration law in law school or thereafter and had no knowledge of that field in general or refugee and asylum law in particular. But for various professional and personal reasons, I decided that I wanted to be a pro bono lawyer for an asylum seeker from Central America.”

“Fortunately for me and many other Minnesota lawyers, then and now, a Minnesota non-profit organization—[Minnesota] Advocates for Human Rights—provided a course in refugee and asylum law for lawyers like me and the support of experienced immigration lawyers that enabled me and others, then and now, to become pro bono asylum lawyers.”

“With that support from this system and my law firm, I thus embarked in the mid-1980’s on my first pro bono case for a Salvadoran asylum seeker and tried the case in the Immigration Court with the assistance of an experienced immigration attorney. We lost the case, but filed an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and under the laws at that time our client maintained his work permit and continued to live and work in the Twin Cities.”

“Thereafter with the assistance of [Minnesota] Advocates for Human Rights I was a pro bono attorney for another Salvadoran asylum seeker, whose case prompted me in April 1989 to go to that country, at my own expense, to do some investigations in his case and learn more about that country more generally. This trip was during the Salvadoran Civil War and on the day that I arrived her attorney general was assassinated with a car bomb. That subsequent week, therefore, was tense and dangerous, but to my surprise turned out to be the most important religious experience of my life as I started to learn about the courageous work of Archbishop (now Saint) Oscar Romero, the Jesuit priests at the University of Central America (six of whom were murdered by the Salvadoran military later that same year), Bishop Menardo Gomez of the Lutheran Church of El Salvador and many others. Afterwards my second Salvadoran client was granted protection by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.”

“In the 1990s I was a successful pro bono lawyer for an Afghan’s affirmative application for asylum and later for U.S. citizenship. Thereafter until my retirement in 2001 I also had success as a pro bono attorney for asylum seekers from Colombia, Somalia and Burma. All of this was made possible by the assistance of Advocates for Human Rights and experienced immigration lawyers and by the support of my law firm.”

“As a result of this experience, I can testify that asylum seekers in the U.S. desperately need the assistance and guidance of able pro bono attorneys since almost all such individuals do not have the financial resources to retain fee-based attorneys.”

“Moreover, I can testify to the time constraints associated with such pro bono representation.”

“First, organizations like Advocates have procedures to screen potential asylum applicants and identify those who appear to have credible claims and then seek to find an a competent attorney who is willing to represent, pro bono, such applicants. These organizations also have to develop and produce at least annual programs to educate potential pro bono attorneys about refugee and asylum law and develop other ways to recruit such lawyers to volunteer their services to asylum seekers. That takes time and effort and financial support by charitable contributions from the community. Advocates for Human Rights continues to be successful in these efforts.”

“Second, once an attorney agrees to take such a case, pro bono, he or she needs to fit that case into his or her caseload and obligations to existing clients, especially fee-paying clients. Once the attorney starts working on the pro bono asylum case, he or she may identify documents that need to be obtained from another place in the U.S. or foreign country and/or need to be translated from a foreign language into English. An interpreter may be needed for conferences with the client or other witnesses. Eventually the attorney must prepare documents for the asylum application and appear with the client in Immigration Court or at interviews on affirmative claims. In addition, the case may require the attorney to travel to another location. All of these actions by an attorney are necessary to provide competent advice and service to the pro bono client and all have their time requirements.”

“Third, these time pressures on the relevant non-profit organizations and pro bono asylum attorneys are even more intense now in the midst of the COVID-19 Pandemic disruptions and complications.”

“In short, it would be impossible under the proposed regulation for asylum seekers to obtain the competent pro bono representation they so desperately need. The proposed regulation is utter insanity.”

Steven Thal’s Objection to the Proposed Rule[3]

“I have been practicing immigration law since 1982 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. I also am a past Chair of the Immigration Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association. I have served as a past Chair of the Minnesota/Dakotas American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Chapter and previously served as its Vice Chair and Secretary/Treasurer. I have served on the AILA Essential Workers Committee, AILA Immigration Works Committee. The law firm I established currently has three full-time associate attorneys involved in our practice. (www.thalvisa.com.)”

“First, I endorse the comments on this proposed rule made by my friend and fellow Minnesota attorney, Duane W. Krohnke (Comment Tracking Number: kgl-2g3o-0vel.) “

“Second, although my two associates and I along with other full-time Minnesota immigration attorneys represent some asylum seekers on a pro bono basis, the demand for such services exceeds our collective ability to do so. Therefore, we need the assistance of non-immigration attorneys to be pro bono lawyers for other asylum seekers after these lawyers have obained education about asylum law from Advocates for Human Rights. In short, the only way that asylum applicants in the Twin Cities and Minnesota can obtain a pro bono attorney is through organizations like Advocates.”

“Third, I would add that it would be nearly impossible to meet the proposed deadlines in this proposed rule given the difficulty in reaching clients who are in detention in remotely held jail facilities, especially since ICE can move these individuals without prior notification. Just getting a G-28 Notice of Appearance of Attorney signed is a logistical nightmare. Gathering evidence, locating witnesses, obtaining supporting evidence cannot be accomplished effectively within the short times in the proposed rule.”

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we call on the Department to withdraw the proposed rule in its entirety.

===============================

[1] Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal (Sept. 23, 2020).

[2] Comment on FR Doc # 2020-2107, EOIR Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal (by Duane Krohnke) (Oct. 22, 2020), Comment ID: EOIR-2020-0005-1113;Tracking Number kgl-2g3o-Ovel.

[3] Comment on FR Doc # 2020-2107, EOIR Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal (by Steven Thal) (Oct. 22, 2020) Comment ID: EOIR-2020-0005-????; Tracking Number: 1K4-0jny-mh2v.