Tag: President Joe Biden

Washington Post Calls for Closing  Guantanamo Bay Prison 

In the following  January 15 Editorial, the Washington Post called flor closing the U. S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.[1]

“President Joe Biden is set to leave office Monday as the third president to try — and fail — to close the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. This ugly symbol of one of the most regrettable policies in recent American history will persist into another administration, and very likely beyond.”

“President George W. Bush opened Guantánamo at the height of the “war on terror” and quickly filled it with 780 men. After belatedly realizing that its existence had become a terrorist recruiting tool and a blight on America’s global standing as a beacon of justice, Bush wanted to close it but settled for reducing the population to 242 inmates. Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to close the prison, but once elected he was stymied by Congress, managing only to reduce its population to 40. President Donald Trump, in his first term, pledged to keep the prison running and fill it with “some bad dudes,” but added no prisoners.”

“Biden deserves credit for bringing Guantánamo’s inmate population down to 15. This month, in the largest-ever transfer of detainees, 11 Yemeni men were sent to Oman. This followed the movement in December of two detainees to Malaysia and one to Kenya.”

“The remaining prisoners are from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. There is also one Palestinian and one stateless Rohingya Muslim who was captured by Pakistani troops near the Afghanistan border in 2001.”

“The inmate population might have been reduced further in August, had Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin not stepped in at the last moment to nix a plea deal with three men accused of plotting the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi had agreed to plead guilty before a military commission hearing their cases in exchange for the government taking the death penalty off the table. The men would have served life in prison instead. Austin’s decision to revoke the plea deal was inexplicable — he would have, or should have, known about it long before it became public — and can only be marked down to the political calendar; the presidential election was three months away, and the families of the 9/11 victims might have been outraged by a deal that spared the lives of some of the terror plot’s masterminds. Austin’s decision was overturned by a military judge, and the deal is now stalled.”

“Biden also could have moved more quickly early in his term if he had made emptying Guantánamo a higher priority — as might have been expected from a president who said “democracy promotion” was a core tenet of his foreign policy. Keeping inmates detained for decades in a parallel legal structure, without charges, after many were subjected to torture and denied basic due process (the presumption of innocence and speedy trials, for instance) contradicts core principles of American justice. For 23 years, Guantánamo’s dark stain has hampered America’s ability to honestly condemn other countries for using arbitrary detention and torture, and for denying basic human rights for the accused.”

“Opening Guantánamo was a mistake from the start, and presidents since Bush can be blamed for not correcting it. But Congress has thrown up obstacles. Biden and Obama were both hamstrung by foolish legislation that tightly restricted detainee transfers to other countries and altogether prohibited sending them to prisons on U.S. soil because of specious concerns about security. Federal prisons already hold convicted terrorists, including shoe bomber Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, sometimes called the 20th hijacker.”

“Leaving only 15 detainees in Guantánamo Bay at an estimated cost of about $500 million a year — $33 million per prisoner — exposes the absurdity of keeping the prison open at all.”

“Abuse of detainees during wars or periods of mass trauma is tragically common. Think of the forced relocation and imprisonment of people of Japanese ancestry during World War II. But it is left to future leaders to acknowledge and correct such wrongs. President-elect Trump, who signed an executive order in 2018 to keep Guantánamo open, has expressed no interest in closing it. But in 2019 he did acknowledge that the cost of maintaining the prison was “crazy.” If he is now serious about wanting to improve government efficiency, he should work toward transferring the remaining inmates to secure federal prisons.”

Conclusion. Give thanks to the Washington Post for this Editorial.

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

[1] Editorial, After 23 shameful years, close Guantanamo, Wash. Post (Jan. 15, 2025).

 

Why Are Cuba and the U.S. Still Mired in the Cold War? 

This is the title of a lengthy article in Foreign Policy by William H. LeoGrande, professor of government at American University in Washington, D.C. and a respected commentator on the important topic of this bilateral relation.[1]

Obama’s Normalization Effort

The starting point for his analysis is a review of the 10th anniversary of President Obama’s public announcement of his Administration’s start of normalization of relations with Cuba. Highlights of that effort were “ending the U.S. designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism, reopening of both countries embassies, President Obama’s visit to Cuba, loosening of restrictions on U.S. citizens travel to the island and resumption of U.S. airlines travel to Cuba, resulting increases in U.S. travel to the island, establishing a bilateral commission to oversee the work of 18 diplomatic working groups; and Obama’s prediction of an end to the U.S. embargo” (that did not happen). Nevertheless, this effort at normalization “was immensely popular both at home and abroad. Pope Francis blessed it, the Cuban people loved it, and the general U.S. public supported it, including more than half of Cuban Americans.”[2]

Trump’s First Term’s Return to Hostile Relations

LeoGrande then notes that in  his first term, Trump adopted new regulations to restrict U.S. travel to the island, impose limits on remittances, block business with Cuban companies managed by its military, disband bilateral working groups on various issues plus returned to Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism.[3]

Biden’s Failure To Return to Obama’s Normalization

Leo Grande then had these brief remarks about President Biden. “During [Biden’s] campaign, he criticized the impact of Trump’s policies on Cuban families and promised to restore Obama’s policy of normalization ‘in large part.’ But he never did. Biden did adopt some ‘half-measures.’ Most importantly, he left Cuba on the lise of state sponsors of terrorism. The result has been an incoherent hybrid policy . . .and there is little indication that he will use his lame-duck period to finally keep the Cuba-policy promises he made in 2020.” [4]

Trump Redux

Leo Grande says, “Trump’s return to the White House could presage a return to maximum pressure, especially with Rubio as secretary of states and Rep. Mike Waltz as national security advisor. Rubio and Republican Cuban Americans on the Hill will surely push for it, just as they did in Trump’s first term. They will point out that 70 percent of Cuban Americans in Florida voted for him and that a recent Florida International University (FIU) poll found 72 percent of Cuban American respondents support maximum pressure to promote regime change.” [5]

“But resuming maximum pressure would stir a political hornet’s nest. After eight years of intense sanctions exacerbated by the Cuban government’s policy mistakes, the island is suffering an unprecedented economic and social crisis. Life is so hard and prospects for the future are so grim that more than a million Cubans—9 percent of the population—emigrated in the past three years.  Three-quarters of them have come to the United States, 690,000 arrived undocumented at the southern border, another 100,000 admitted under Biden’s humanitarian parole program. If Trump adopts policies that deepen Cuba’s crisis, the new surge of migrants could dwarf these numbers, which would seriously complicate his plans to end irregular immigration.”

Conclusion

LeoGrande concludes his article with the following words:

“[T]he key lesson from the fleeting rapprochement that began 10 years ago on Dec. 17, 2014, is that engagement benefits both countries and that bold and determined leaders can make it happen. The enthusiasm with which Cubans, Americans, and people around the world embraced the prospect of peace between the United States and Cuba underscored just how long overdue reconciliation was. Both Obama and Raúl Castro spoke of rebuilding bridges between their countries, and both acknowledged it would be hard to put decades of animosity to rest. It has proven harder than anyone expected in the halcyon days following Dec. 17, but the ties that bind Cuba and the United States—ties of family, commerce, culture, and the shared interests that come from living next door to one another—will eventually overcome the resistance of even the most recalcitrant politicians. As Henry Kissinger recognized half a century ago, ‘perpetual antagonism’ between the United States and Cuba need not be normal.’”

“Cuban Americans are not likely to support closing the southern border to Cuban migrants, and immigration law prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality. If the administration tries to make an exception for Cubans, the policy will certainly be challenged in court. Trump’s plans to deport undocumented immigrants could face even bigger problems. Tearing recent Cuban migrants from their families, many of whom paid traffickers thousands of dollars to bring their relatives here, would cause a political firestorm in south Florida. The FIU poll found that 72 percent of respondents support humanitarian parole for Cuban migrants and that half are planning to bring relatives still in Cuba to the United States in the future.”

“In foreign policy, tougher Cuba sanctions would complicate relations with Mexico. President Claudia Sheinbaum is supporting Cuba by sending it cheap oil. In 2023, her predecessor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, warned the Biden administration that Cuban migration spurred by U.S. sanctions was causing problems for Mexico and complicating cooperation with Washington on migration issues. Cooperation with Mexico, as Trump learned in his first term, is indispensable for limiting undocumented migration and narcotics trafficking across the southern border, which are all top priorities for him.”

“Escalating sanctions on Cuba could also complicate Trump’s desire to improve relations with Russia. Moscow has grown closer with Havana in recent years, expanding relations beyond economic cooperation into a ‘strategic partnership,’ as the two countries describe it. Cuba has defended Russia’s rationale for its invasion of Ukraine, making Havana a valuable ally in the Global South. And Russian President Vladimir Putin clearly values having an outpost in the United States “near abroad,” if only as a geopolitical thorn in Washington’s side. In short, Russia has a clear interest in the survival of the Cuban regime.”

“I f sanctions succeed in destabilizing Cuba to the point that the state fails and social violence erupts, the pressure from Cuban Americans for U.S. military intervention will be immense. Cuban American elected officials demanded intervention in July 2021, in response to the Cuban government’s suppression of nationwide demonstrations, even though the largely peaceful protests only lasted a few days. U.S. intervention would poison relations with Latin America for a generation.”

“But the key lesson from the fleeting rapprochement that began 10 years ago on Dec. 17, 2014, is that engagement benefits both countries and that bold and determined leaders can make it happen. The enthusiasm with which Cubans, Americans, and people around the world embraced the prospect of peace between the United States and Cuba underscored just how long overdue reconciliation was. Both Obama and Raúl Castro spoke of rebuilding bridges between their countries, and both acknowledged it would be hard to put decades of animosity to rest. It has proven harder than anyone expected in the halcyon days following Dec. 17, but the ties that bind Cuba and the United States—ties of family, commerce, culture, and the shared interests that come from living next door to one another—will eventually overcome the resistance of even the most recalcitrant politicians. As Henry Kissinger recognized half a century ago, “perpetual antagonism” between the United States and Cuba need not be normal.”

Reactions

This blog recently has been publishing posts about the horrible times currently being suffered in Cuba and hence the need for the U.S. to return to the normalization efforts of President Obama/ [6]

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

 

[1] Leo Grande, Why Are Cuba and the U.S. Still Mired in the Cold War?, Foreign Policy (Dec. 12, 2024).

[2] See the posts listed in the following sections of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: CUBA [as of 5/4/20]: U.S. (Obama) & Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2014; U.S. (Obama) & Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2015; U.S. (Obama) & Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2016; and U.S. (Obama) & Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2017.

[3] See the posts listed in  the following sections of  that List of Posts: U.S. (Trump) & Cuba Relations, 2016-17; and U.S. (Trump) and Cuba, 2018.

[4] I concur in LeoGrande’s analysis and conclusion.

[5] Another concurrence.

[6] E.g., U.S. Congressmen Ask President Biden To Provide Sanctions Relief and Other Aid to Cuba (Nov. 20, 2024); Cuba’s Unstoppable Spiral of Misery, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 4, 2024);Diario de Cuba’s Editorial on Its 15th Anniversary, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 5, 2024); Will Cuba Lose Almost Half of Its Population by 2100?,  dwkcommentaries.com (Dec.14, 2024).

 

Analysis of Recent U.S.Immigration Surge        

A New York Times columnist, David Leonhardt, has provided an analysis of the recent surge in U.S. immigration. Here are the seven highlights of that analysis.[1]

“1. The immigration surge since 2021 has been the largest in U.S. history, surpassing even the levels of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Total net migration — the number of people coming to the country minus the number leaving — will likely exceed eight million people over the past four years, government statistics suggest. That number includes both legal and illegal immigration.”

“Never before has annual net migration been close to two million for an extended period, according to data from the Census Bureau and the Congressional Budget Office.”

“2. Even after adjusting for today’s larger population, the surge is slightly larger than that during the peak years of Ellis Island traffic, when millions of Europeans came to the United States.”

“3. The share of the U.S. population born in another country has reached a record high as a result. That share hit 15.2 percent in the summer of 2023 (and continued rising over the past 18 months). The previous high of 14.8 percent occurred in 1890, and the share remained high for decades afterward.”

“It began to decline after the passage of a tough immigration law in 1924. That restrictive era lasted until 1965, when a new law expanded immigration.”

“4. President Biden’s welcoming immigration policy has been the main reason for the recent surge. During his 2020 campaign, Biden encouraged more people to come to the U.S., and he loosened several policies after taking office.”

“Biden administration officials sometimes argue that outside events, such as the turmoil in Haiti, Ukraine and Venezuela, have been the main cause of the surge, and those events did play a role. But the sharp decline of migration levels since this past summer — when Biden tightened the rules — indicates that the administration’s policies were the biggest factor.”

“5. More than half of net migration since 2021 has been among people who entered the country illegally. Of the roughly eight million net migrants who came to the U.S. over the past four years, about five million — or 62 percent — were unauthorized, according to an estimate by Goldman Sachs.”

“6. The unprecedented scale of recent immigration helps explain why the issue played such a big role in the 2024 election. Polls showed that the sharp rise in immigration was unpopular with most Americans, especially among working-class voters, some of whom complained of strained social services, crowded schools and increased homelessness.”

“The issue appears to have been Kamala Harris’s second biggest vulnerability, after only the economy. Donald Trump made striking gains near the border in Texas, winning six counties along the Rio Grande that he lost badly only eight years ago. And Democrats who outpaced Harris and won tough congressional races — in Arizona, Michigan, Ohio, New York and elsewhere — often criticized Biden’s immigration policies.”

“7. The recent immigration surge has probably ended. Trump has promised to impose even tougher border rules next year than Biden recently imposed. Trump also campaigned on a plan to deport millions of immigrants who entered the country illegally.”

“It remains unclear how far Trump will go and whether his plan will remain popular once he begins to implement it. Either way, the pace at which immigrants enter the U.S. has already fallen significantly from the peak levels of 2022 and 2023 and may continue to fall after Trump takes office. Historically, in both the U.S. and other countries, very high levels of immigration often cause a political backlash that leads to new restrictions.”

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

[1]  Leonhardt, The Largest Immigration Surge in U.S. History, N.Y. Times (Dec. 11, 2024). More details are contained in Leonhardt’s longer article, Recent Immigration Surge Has Been Largest in U.S. History, N.Y. Times (Dec. 11, 2024).. See also David Leonhardt (background). 

Diario de Cuba’s Editorial on Its 15th Anniversary

On December 4 , Diario de Cuba, a daily Internet Cuban diary (in Spanish and English) published in Madrid, Spain, celebrated its 15th anniversary with the following editorial.[1]

“Exactly 15 years ago, the first news and articles from this newspaper appeared on the screens of some readers. Over the course of this decade and a half, changes have taken place in Cuba, but not those necessary for the country’s democratization.”

“Fidel Castro died—which for many seemed not only unimaginable, but impossible—and something else happened that had seemed impossible: the people took to the streets to protest their living conditions. The regime in Havana opened an embassy in Washington, Washington opened an embassy in Havana, and the rapprochement between the two countries, arranged by President Obama, was ultimately sabotaged by the Cuban regime.”

“With Miguel Díaz-Canel chosen by Raúl Castro, the first revolutionary leader who did not participate in the armed struggle rose to the presidency of the country and the secretariat of its sole party. Almost the country’s entire productive economy passed into the hands of the military conglomerate GAESA , which has set about building hotels while ignoring the downturn in tourism and ruling out investments much needed for the Cuban population.”

“The country became even more indebted and, in a vicious circle, persisted in its tradition of shirking its financial obligations. The authorities implemented the most ill-advised monetary policies possible, so inflation runs rampant in Cuba. Medical professionals and technicians have been, and continue to be, exploited by means of contracts lucrative for the regime but exploitive for them.”

“In response to the popular protests, the regime ratcheted up its repression against dissidents, activists and independent journalists, as the Justice system was turned into an ever stronger mechanism of repression , and the number of political prisoners grew. Censorship of thought and the arts intensified, and those young artists who protested ended up in prison or having to go into exile.”

“The migratory wave in the history of the country began, and the emigration of the youngest Cubans, along with low birth rates, has contributed to a largest acute aging of the population . Every day it is more and more difficult to have children in Cuba. Elderly Cubans are more vulnerable than ever. The regime used to have a “monopoly” on violence, but now cities and towns are no longer safe. Public insecurity is on the rise, gangs of young people are forming, and VAW is claiming more and more victims.”

“Each new state measure manages to render agriculture and livestock even more unproductive. Cuba, once the world’s largest exporter of sugar, has been fallen apart, with the country now importing sugar for several years. The only plant that grows in Cuba is marabou, and farmers determined to make the land produce are hampered by new restrictions. Meanwhile, no less onerous burdens weigh on entrepreneurs, who have been allowed, reluctantly, to start MSMEs.”

“Health and education, which for decades were the regime’s showpieces, have collapsed, their decline evident in the unhealthy state of hospital facilities and students’ poor results. Sports, another point of pride for socialism, are suffering a similar fate. Not even baseball is spared. Just as Cuba ceased to be a sugar powerhouse, it has now ceased to be a baseball power too.”

“In the last 15 years the regime has been dismantling the welfare system with which it had mitigated social inequalities, to the point that it no longer addresses the fate of the most disadvantaged . Today we can talk about the end of the grocery store book and rationing card. With blackout after blackout, the island has been sunk in darkness, and the national electrical system can no longer hold up. The last hurricanes to hit the island have highlighted the ineffectiveness of its on-effective civil defense system.”

“Old, dilapidated buildings continue, inexorably, to collapse, and the construction of new homes is an unresolved problem in every government plan. Vagrants, homeless people, and children who work, or beg, are becoming more common on Cuban streets. Meanwhile, his heirs of the regime’s elite boast on social media about what their parents have stolen, and continue to steal.”

“The Cuban regime cultivates alliances with nations like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, and continues to meddle in Venezuela’s politics. It no longer operates based on any ideology, but rather on the exercise of brute force, and continues to mutate towards a dictatorship shamelessly open to benefiting a fortunate few.”

“Over the course of this last decade and a half, DIARIO DE CUBA has been there, studying and covering the scenarios briefly summarized above. In celebration of its birthday, last October the “For the Cuba of Tomorrow” DDC Forum was held in Madrid. Through it, and its day-to-day work, DDC demonstrates its commitment to the Cuba of the future.”

“On this anniversary, all that remains is to thank all our contributors and readers, and to renew this publication’s commitment to Cuba and to Cuban democracy.”

Reactions

As a U.S. citizen with some connections with Cuba, including three visits to the island at the start of this century, conversations with Cubans who have visited the U.S. and carefully following the published news about Cuba, especially those in Diario de Cuba, and writing blog posts about same,[2] I concur in most of this editorial’s observations.

However, although agreeing that U.S. President Obama had taken steps for “rapprochement between the two countries,” I think it is overstatement to claim that this effort was “ultimately sabotaged by the Cuban regime.” Obama’s successor (President Donald Trump) reversed some of those steps and the whole psychology of improving the relationship and even President Biden has not returned to the Obama effort.[3]

Recently a group of 15 U.S. Congress Representatives wrote a letter to President Biden urgently requesting “immediate action to stabilize Cuba’s energy infrastructure and provide critical humanitarian assistance. The Cuban people are currently facing widespread blackouts and an escalating energy crisis, exacerbated by the impact of Hurricane Rafael. The situation is not only causing immense suffering for the Cuban people but also poses serious risks to U.S. national security interests. If left unaddressed, the crisis will almost certainly fuel increased migration, strain U.S. border management systems, and fully destabilize the already-strained Caribbean region.”[4]

Therefore, these Congressmen “strongly” recommended “removing Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism (SSOT) list” and suspending “sanctions that hinder the flow of humanitarian assistance, including restoring the EAR license exception to allow donations to Cuban health and humanitarian relief entities.” This blogger endorsed those recommendations plus asking President Biden to “eliminate the U.S. embargo of Cuba. . . .“

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

[1]  Editorial: DIARIO DE CUBA Turns 15, Diario de Cuba (Dec. 4, 2024)..

[2]  See List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: CUBA [as of 5/4/20}.The labor of manually preparing updates to this list has discouraged the blogger from creating similar subsequent lists.

[3] See the posts listed in these sections (U.S. (Obama) & Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2014; U.S. (Obama) & Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2015); U.S. (Obama) & Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2016);and U.S. (Obama) & Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2017; U.S. (Trump) & Cuba Relations, 2016-17) of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries– Topical: CUBA [as of 5/4/20}.

[4] U.S. Congressmen Ask President Biden To Provide Sanctions Relief and Other Aid to Cuba, dwkcommentaries.com (Nov. 20, 2024).

U.S. Response to Cuban Americans for Normalizing Relations with Cuba

On May 6, the Alliance for Commitment and Respect for Cuba (ACERE), an U.S. organization on behalf of over 200 Cuban-Americans, and 30 Cuban-American organizations and others, sent a letter to the U.S. Department of State with the following request:

  • “[H]elp alleviate the . . .[dire economic crisis] on the island by issuing regulations to support the growth of Cuba’s private sector; rescinding Cuba’s unfounded designation as a state sponsor of terrorism; fully funding and staffing the U.S. Embassy in Havana in order to resume the processing of nonimmigrant visas; and further easing restrictions on travel to facilitate people-to-people exchange and family reunification.”
  • “The signers also urge President Biden to return to a broader path of normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations, which polling indicates enjoys broad support among a vast majority of Cuban-American Democrats in Florida and an overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens.”[1]

The signers of this letter include former federal, state and local officials; academics and university administrators; business owners, executives and investors; lawyers; architects; doctors; scientists; educators; artists, musicians and filmmakers; non-profit administrators; social workers; veterans and other prominent individuals.”

U.S. Response to Letter[2]

On May 9, a State Department official responded to this letter with the following comments:

  • The U.S. welcomes “the opportunity for exchange views with a wide range of civil society groups, including ACERE” and appreciates the work of civil society in achieving the objectives of freedom and democracy for the Cuban people.”
  • “United States policy towards Cuba focuses on supporting the Cuban people, including their human rights, fundamental freedoms, and their political and economic well-being.”
  • The “Administration previously announced a series of measures to support the Cuban people, including the elimination of previous limits on remittances, support for the development of the private sector, easing of travel restrictions and the expansion of consular services in the United States Embassy in Havana.”

Conclusion

As a U.S. citizen and voter without any Cuban genealogical connections, this blogger supports the ACERE request.

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

[1] Press Release: Prominent Cuban Americans Call On President Biden To Fulfill His Campaign Promises on Cuba, acere.org (May 6, 2024); Remove Cuba from SST list, claims Cuban Americans, Prensa Latina (May 6, 2024); A group of Cuban Americans asks Biden for a ‘broader path of normalization’ of relations with the regime, Diario de Cuba (May 8, 2024).

[2] The US responds to criticism from ACERE: “the policy towards Cuba focuses on supporting the people, Martinotices.com (May 9, 2024); The US responds to Cuban Americans who demand that Biden ‘normalize’ relations with the regime, Diario de Cuba (May 10, 2024).

Bipartisan Group of U.S. Senators Call for Reassessment of So-Called Havana Syndrome 

On April 12 a bipartisan group of eight U.S. Senators sent a letter to President Biden calling for a “renewed assessment . . . to identify the cause behind directed energy attacks” . . . and “review of the March 2023 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of AHHs.”[1]

This letter said, “Most recently, some . . . [former intelligence officials, service members and diplomats] have told Congress that the Intelligence Community has not followed all credible leads about AHIs or that the Intelligence Community is in possession of information that undermines or contradicts the assessment provided by the National Intelligence Council in March 2023 that ‘available intelligence consistently points against the involvement of US adversaries in causing the reported incidents.’”

“First, we request an interagency briefing with officials from all relevant government agencies to discuss the allegations that have been raised in recent media coverage, outline continued efforts to investigate the cause behind anomalous health incidents, communicate hoe the interagency is undertaking efforts to protect the health and safety of U.S. government employees serving domestically and abroad and provide an update on full implementation of the HAVANA Act.”

“Second, . . there are still a number of individuals who have not received compensation due to unacceptable delays at the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense. The Department of Justice has yet to finalize implementing guidance that also impacts affected individuals in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We urge you to call on the Department of Justice to finalize the draft rule without delay. . . . Additionally the Department of Defense has yet to issue the federal regulations required under statute.”

Third, as members of the relevant Congressional Committees with the responsibility to respond to this issue, we hope to partner with your Administration to advance any new legislation that may be required to both get to the root cause behind AHHs and ensure that victim get access to the treatment they deserve.

This letter was signed by Senators Jeanne Shaheen (NH, Dem), Susan Collins (ME, Rep), Kristen Gillibrand (NY, Dem), Marco Rubio (FL, Rep), Mark R, Warner (VA, Dem), Roger F. Wicker (Miss, Rep), James E. Risch (ID, Rep),and Benjamin L. Cardin (MD, Dem).

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

[1] Chasan, Ohara, Senators call for renewed Havana Syndrome assessment after 60 Minutes report, CBS News (April 17, 2024); Letter to President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. from the above Senators (April 12, 2024). This blog has published numerous posts regarding this Syndrome.

U.S. Senators and Representatives Demand Ending U.S. Designation of Cuba as State Sponsor of Terrorism     

On January 2, the two U.S. Senators from Massachusetts (Elizabeth Warren and Edward Markey) and five U.S. Representatives from that state (Jim McGovern, Ayanna Pressley, Lori Trahan, Seth Moulton and Stephen Lynch) released a letter (dated December 14, 2023) they had sent to President Biden demanding the cancellation of the U.S. designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism.[1]

That letter stated the following:

  • We “respectfully ask that you act as quickly as possible to remove Cuba from the State Sponsor of Terrorism (SSOT) list. As you well know, Cuba was removed from the list in 2015 by President Obama and yourself after thorough review on the basis that the designation is without merit. Given the information and evidence we have reviewed, Cuba should never have been placed again on the SSOT list. It was a vindictive action taken by the Trump Administration in January 2021 as it departed office, and the policy is well overdue for change. In fact, Cuba and the United States have a functioning bilateral cooperation agreement on counterterrorism.”
  • “We believe the time to act and remove Cuba from the SSOT list is now – not months from now. There is no political or other policy argument that can justify the U.S. continuing to knowingly add to the suffering of the Cuban people. The unabated hardships facing all sectors of Cuban society are the driving force for tens of thousands abandoning their homes and migrating to the United States. It therefore runs counter to U.S. direct interests to continue the collective economic restrictions that result from Cuba remaining on the SSOT list.’
  • “As for the Trump Administration’s specious reason for returning Cuba to the SSOT list, during his most recent visit to the United States, Colombian President Gustavo Petro appealed personally to you for Cuba to be removed from the list to facilitate peace negotiations between the Colombian government and the National Liberation Army (ELN) guerrillas. The importance of these negotiations merits a timely and affirmative response. For similar reasons, the President of Mexico has also requested that the designation against Cuba be rescinded.”
  • “As a candidate for President, you promised to address re-engagement with Cuba and return to the policy begun during the Obama-Biden administration, and we supported you on this commitment. We recognize that much has changed in Cuba and in the United States since 2018, but two and a half years into your Presidency, the overwhelming number of sanctions put in place by your predecessor, including placing Cuba back on the SSOT list, remain in effect. Even modest reforms to support the Cuban private sector reported last month by the media (but not yet announced officially) will not bring relief to the overwhelming majority of the Cuban people.”
  • “From the poorest and most vulnerable to the struggling private sector to religious, humanitarian and cultural actors, the Cuban people are enduring the most dire deprivations in recent memory – everyone is suffering. While there are multiple reasons for the economic crisis in Cuba, without a doubt a significant contributing factor is the restrictions and penalties facing international financial institutions and other entities because Cuba is on the SSOT list. Removing Cuba from this list is one thing that the U.S. can do immediately to ease the daily hardships facing so many Cuban families, including its struggling private sector.”
  • “We call on you now, Mr. President, to help ordinary Cubans at this critical time by acting swiftly to remove Cuba from the State Sponsor of Terrorism list. It is the only option worthy of the United States and we stand ready to support you in this decision.”

Conclusion

These Senators and Representatives are hereby thanked for this important action. Now we citizens need to ask our other congressional delegations to join this request.

And President Biden do your job and make the removal!

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

[1] Letter, Congress of U.S. to President Biden (Dec. 14, 2023); McGovern Press Release, McGovern, Pressley Mass. Lawmakers Urge President Biden to take Cuba off Terrorism List (Jan. 2, 2024); Members of Congress tell Bisen: Cuba is no sponsor of terrorism, People’s World (Jan. 10, 2024);

 

 

 

President Biden’s Inspiring Praise of John McCain and Criticism of Donald Trump  and MAGA 

On September 28, 2023, President Joe Biden was in Tempe, Arizona to  announce a major federal grant to the state of Arizona to help design and build a new McCain National Library at Arizona State University. The President’s remarks on that occasion honored his deceased friend, John McCain, followed by the President’s blistering attack on Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement. [1]

Remarks About John McCain

The President started by quoting from McCain’s farewell letter to the nation as he was dying from brain cancer. “We are citizens of the world — the world’s greatest republic. A nation of ideals, not blood and soil. Americans never quit. They never hide from history. America makes history.”

“John was right. Every other nation in the world has been founded on either a grouping by ethnicity, religion, background. We’re the most unique nation in the world. We’re founded on an idea — the only major nation in the world founded on an idea. An idea that we are all created equal in the image of God, endowed by our Creator to be able to be treated equally throughout our lives.”

“I believe very strongly that the defining feature of our democracy is our Constitution and our believe in the separation of powers and checks and balances, that debate and disagreement do not lead to disunion. I believe in free and fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power. I believe there is no place in America — none, none, none — for political violence. We have to denounce hate, not embolden it.”

“I’m the guy that convinced [John] to run in Arizona as a Republican, . .. and I said, ‘John, you can do this job. My only worry is you’ll do it too well.’”

“John is one of those patriots who, when they die, their voices are never silent. They still speak to us. They tug at both our hearts and our conscience. And they pose the most profound questions: Who are we? What do we stand for? What do we believe? What will we be?”

“While [recently] in Hanoi, I visited a marker depicting where John had endured all the pain. Imprisoned five and a half years. Solitary confinement for two years. Given an opportunity to come home if he just said a couple things, [which he refused to do]. He was beaten, bloodied, bones broken, isolated, tortured, left unable to raise his arms above his shoulders again.”

“I [also] thought about how much America missed John right now, how much America needed John’s courage and foresight and vision. I thought about what John stood for, what he fought for, what he was willing to die for. I thought about what we owed John, what I owed him, and what we . . .owed each other as well — and Americans as well.”

Criticism of Trump and MAGA

Biden then directed his attention to “something dangerous happening in America now. There is an extremist movement that does not share the basic belief in our democracy: the MAGA Movement. . . . [T]here is no question that today’s Republican Party is driven and intimidated by MAGA Republican extremists. Their extreme agenda, if carried out, would fundamentally alter the institutions of American democracy as we know it.”

“[T]hey’re not hiding their attacks. They’re openly promoting them — attacking the free press as the enemy of the people, attacking the rule of law as an impediment, fomenting voter suppression and election subversion.”

But “democracy means respecting the institutions that govern a free society. That means adhering to the timeless words of the Declaration of Independence: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident.’ A mission statement embodied in our Constitution, our system of separation of powers and checks and balances.”

“But our institutions and our democracy are not just of government. The institutions of democracy depend on the Constitution and our character and the habits of our hearts and minds.”

“Democracies don’t have to die at the end of a rifle. They can die when people are silent, when they fail to stand up or condemn the threats to democracy, when people are willing to give away that which is most precious to them because they feel frustrated, disillusioned, tired, alienated.”

“Democracy means rejecting and repudiating political violence. Regardless of party, such violence is never, never, never acceptable in America. It’s undemocratic, and it must never be normalized to advance political power.”

“Did you ever think we’d be having debates . . . [about] banning books and burying history? Did you ever think you’d hear leaders of political parties in the United States of America speak like that? Seizing power, concentrating power, attempting to abuse power, purging and packing key institutions, spewing conspiracy theories, spreading lies for profit and power to divide America in every way, inciting violence against those who risk their lives to keep America safe, weaponizing against the very soul of who we are as Americans.”

“Every other nation in the world has been founded on either a grouping by ethnicity, religion, background. We’re the most unique nation in the world. We’re founded on an idea — the only major nation in the world founded on an idea. An idea that we are all created equal, endowed by our Creator in the image of God . . . to be able to be treated equally throughout our lives.”

“Extremists in Congress [are] more determined to shut down the government, to burn the place down than to let the people’s business be done. Frankly, these extremists have no idea what the hell they’re talking about. It’s the controlling element of the House Republican Party.”

“Just consider these . . .actual quotes from . . . the MAGA movement. ‘I am your retribution.’ ‘Slitting throats” of civil servants, replacing them with extreme political cronies. MAGA extremists proclaim support for law enforcement only to say, ‘We must destroy the FBI.’”

“Let me begin with the core principles. Democracy means rule of the people, not rule of monarchs, not rule of the monied, not rule of the mighty. Regardless of party, that means respecting free and fair elections; accepting the outcome, win or lose. It means you can’t love your country only when you win.”

“MAGA extremists . . . are harming military readiness, leadership, troop morale, freezing pay, freezing military families in limbo.”

“MAGA extremists [call Mark Milley] the retiring Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States military, a ‘traitor.’ In times gone by, the punishment would’ve been death.”

“One [Republican Senator] in Alabama is holding up the promotion of . .. hundreds of these officers.”

The “defeated former President refused to pay respects at an American cemetery near Paris, referring to the American servicemen buried there . . . as ‘suckers’ and ‘losers.’”

“Our U.S. military . . . is the strongest military in the history of the world. It’s the most diverse, the most powerful in the history of the world. And it’s being accused of being weak and “woke” by the opposition.”

“Our Constitution [is] the bulwark to prevent the abuse of power to ensure ‘We the People’ move forward together under the law, rather than believing the only way is one way or no way at all.”

“Remember what [Trump] did as he was leaving office: He imposed a new thing [on] the Civil Service — ‘Schedule F.’ These civil servants had to pledge loyalty to the President, not the Constitution. It did not require that they had any protections, and the President would be able to wholesale fire them if he wanted, because they had . . . no Civil Service protection. [This is one] of the first things I got rid of when I became President.”

“So, you, me, every American who is committed to preserving our democracy and our constitutional protections, we carry a special responsibility. We have to stand up for American values embedded in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, because we know the MAGA extremists have already proven they won’t.”

“These principles of democracy are essential in a free society, but they have always been embattled. While we’ve made progress, democracy is still at risk.”

“They’re pushing a notion the defeated former President expressed when he was in office and believes applies only to him. And this is a dangerous notion: This president is above the law, with no limits on power.”

“This MAGA threat is the threat to the brick and mortar of our democratic institutions. But it’s also a threat to the character of our nation and gives our Constitution life, that binds us together as Americans in common cause.”

“Trump says the Constitution gave him ‘the right to do whatever he wants as President.. . . ’ Not guided by the Constitution or by common service and decency toward our fellow Americans but by vengeance and vindictiveness.”

“We see the[MAGA} headlines: “sweeping expansion of presidential power.” Their goal to ‘alter the balance of power by increasing the President’s authority over every part of the federal government.’”

“We’ve never fully lived up to that idea, but we’ve never walked away from it. But there’s danger we’re walking too far away from it now, the way we talk in this country. Because a long line of patriots like John McCain kept it from ever becoming something other than what it is.”

“What do [Trump and MAGA] intend to do once they erode the constitutional order of checks and balances and separation of powers? Limit the independence of federal agencies and put them under the thumb of a president? Give the President the power to refuse to spend money that Congress has appropriated if he doesn’t like what it’s being spent for? . . . Get rid of longstanding protections for civil servants? Whitewash [the] attacks of January 6th by calling the spearing and stomping of police a ‘legitimate political discourse’?

[In recent days they made] accusations of treason . . .against the major . . . news network because they don’t like its coverage.”

Conclusion[2]

Michael Beschloss, presidential historian, said, “Biden has never delivered a more important, powerful or eloquent speech” than this one “about the crucial importance of protecting American democracy.”

According to Peter Baker of the New York Times, Biden “portrayed Mr. Trump as a budding autocrat with no fidelity to the tenets of American democracy and who is motivated by hatred and a desire for retribution.”

As an U.S. citizen, I congratulate President Biden for his justified and blistering attack on MAGA and Trump. Biden needs to keep doing it.

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

[1] Remarks by President Biden Honoring the Legacy of Senator John McCain and the Work We Must do Together , White House (Sept. 28, 2023); ASU to create national library honoring legacy of Sen. John McCain, asu.edu (Sept. 28, 2023).

[2] Baker, Biden Issues a Blistering Attack on Trump, N.Y. Times (Sept. 29, 2023); Tait, Biden warns voters a second Trump presidency will threaten democracy, Guardian (Sept. 29, 2023).

 

Other Comments on David Brooks’ Column  on “the Bad Guys”  

The New York Times’ on August 2 published a David Brooks’ column entitled, “What If We’re the Bad Guys Here?”[1] and on August 9 this blogger published his blog post about that column.[2]

Now on August 12 the Times published the following comments by nine readers of that column.[3]

  • Michael Hadjiargyrou (Centerport, N.Y.)

“I am sick and tired of people like Mr. Brooks telling me that I am the problem or the ‘bad guy’ because I am educated (and no, I was not educated at an Ivy League school, and neither of my parents finished high school) to justify the fact that 35 percent of the population are fervent supporters of Donald Trump, no matter what he says or does.”

“Moreover, Mr. Trump is also part of the elite, but his supporters simply ignore this. This is not because he identifies with them in any way (as a golden-haired billionaire living in a mansion), but because Fox, Newsmax, and other right-wing TV and radio media outlets, right-wing militias and Trump puppet politicians in Congress essentially brainwashed them with their daily dose of propaganda about how the ‘left wing socialists and communists,’ ‘elites, the ‘woke,’ etc., are all conspiring to take their country and only Donald Trump can stop them.”

‘In my opinion, this is the biggest problem, Mr. Brooks, not educated Americans who as you correctly state are ‘are earnest, kind and public spirited.’”

“So, let’s not beat ourselves up because the other side has been completely brainwashed, does not accept facts, scientific and otherwise, is obsessed with conspiracies and lives in a right-wing echo chamber.”

(2) David Mahan (Sebring, Fla.)

“While I grew up in a small Midwestern town in a middle-class family, education has offered me a satisfying life with a secure retirement. Many of my classmates who chose a more blue-collar life path have endured more struggles, starting with military service in Vietnam. I am quite confident that many of them today support Donald Trump, at least partly for the reasons that David Brooks suggests.”

“Mr. Brooks’ column was a brilliant, moving description of the unspoken arrogance of many of us who are left-leaning. I believe that some sincere humility and understanding with regard to the concerns of many who feel left behind would go a long way to healing some of our divisions. Thanks to Mr. Brooks for his insight.”

  • Brian Smith (Dayton, Ohio)

“I’ll accept David Brooks’ plea that we not blame the logic-defying viability of Donald Trump on the wrongheadedness of tens of millions of Americans. I get the class resentment. I share the rage against excessive political correctness and the feeling that immigration is unchecked and overwhelming. I see his point that the elite stoke these resentments by voicing our support for the nonelite while spending most of our energy and resources protecting our own class privilege.”

“But let’s not gloss over the main factor here: Mr. Trump is the latest version of a leader who is little more than a self-obsessed expert at exploiting and inflaming the fear and resentments of the masses to benefit his own power and ego. Such a leader cares nothing about those who harbor these resentments, and certainly does not share the same fears.”

“On a more practical note, those who resent wokeism are shooting themselves in the foot by supporting someone who so many Americans, elite and otherwise, would vote for over their proverbial dead bodies.”

  • Ellen S. Hirsch (New York)

“The irony behind the case that David Brooks makes for Donald Trump’s support is that this support is based entirely on words (primarily offensive) and not actions. What did Mr. Trump do as president to help his supporters and make their lives better?”

“His major accomplishment was the tax reform enacted in 2017, which heavily favored the rich and elites (including himself). His supporters love the way he attacks his ‘enemies’ and anyone who disagrees with him and feel he speaks for them. The lack of actual benefits they have enjoyed seems not to matter.”

  • Jeffrey Callahan (Cleveland)

“Donald Trump, as loathsome as he is, has done one significant service for this country. He has made clear the great social divide that David Brooks describes in his excellent column. Now, how to fix it?”

“As a former naval officer and Vietnam veteran, I would suggest universal national service, with almost no exemptions. Being forced to live with, eat with, work with people from all over the country would teach all of us to be more tolerant. This would not just be military service; it would include working in national parks, teaching in underserved schools, and many other forms of service to the nation.”

“The only thing standing in the way is a timid Congress. Is there anyone in Congress brave enough to take this on?”

  • James A. Lepone (Telfod, Pa.)

“David Brooks makes a familiar and not unreasonable argument about how the fear, resentment and sense of alienation that fuel the cult of Trumpism proceed from economic and cultural realities for which liberal elites are, in large part, responsible.”

“When Mr. Brooks asks, however, whether anti-Trumpers should consider whether they are the ‘bad guys,’ he embarks on an analysis that completely excludes millions of people like me who find Donald Trump and Trumpism appalling, without being ‘elite’ at all.”

“I was raised in a row home in northeast Philly by a single mom who was a cop. My dad was a union construction worker. I’ve been a musician and a bartender for most of my adult life. In short, I’m hardly part of the elite class that Mr. Brooks seems to equate with the anti-Trump movement, and yet I’m passionately anti-Trump!”

“Maybe this particular piece simply wasn’t aimed at people like me, and that’s fine. But all too often I see this oversimplified, false duality that leaves out all the decent working-class people who have themselves been hurt by neoliberal policies and narratives, and yet would never channel their frustration into an odious movement like Trumpism. When we condemn Mr. Trump and his followers, we do so with a clean conscience.”

  • Jack Stern (Setauket, N.Y.)

“David Brooks identifies the privileges enjoyed by the highly educated class and the resentment of the less educated class that might cause them to be ardent supporters of Donald Trump. Mr. Brooks concludes with a warning that history is the graveyard of classes with preferred caste privileges.”

“What he fails to consider is that in the United States his identified ‘upper’ class encourages, both by words and action, members of the ‘lower’ class to join it. Nothing would make those with college or graduate degrees happier than if every capable child joined their class. This differs very much from any true caste system.”

  • Phillip L. Rosen (Venice Beach, Calif.)

“David Brooks’ column gave me a new perspective regarding why people support this obvious con man named Donald Trump. Although Mr. Brooks makes excellent points regarding the anger that people feel, is it not the Democrats who advocate and pass legislation regarding the minimum wage, infrastructure, child care, education, the environment, middle-class tax relief, financial assistance with community colleges and technical schools, etc., all for the benefit of working- and middle-class Americans?”

“Mr. Trump and the current crop of Republicans have done nothing to help these people. In light of this, isn’t propaganda from Mr. Trump and his followers, as well as the cynical right-wing media, also to blame for this misplaced anger and anti-democratic sentiment?”

  • Trudy Ring (Bend, Ore.)

“David Brooks does an excellent job of setting up a straw man to bring down. Most liberals aren’t part of the ‘elite,’ no matter how many right-wingers parrot that lie.”

“Exit polls from 2020 found that Joe Biden outpaced Donald Trump significantly among voters making less than $100,000 a year, while Mr. Trump did better among those making $100,000 or more. Mr. Trump is no friend to the working class, and polls like these give me confidence that a majority of the working class recognizes this. And any member of the working class who supports him or today’s extreme-right Republican Party is going against their own best interests.”

“It’s liberals and Democrats (usually but not always the same) who support policies to empower workers and reduce economic inequality, and the other side doesn’t give a damn. Liberals are not the elite and are not the enemy of the working class.”

This Blogger’s Reactions to These Comments

I share the belief of one of the published comments that “Mr. Trump is the latest version of a leader who is little more than a self-obsessed expert at exploiting and inflaming the fear and resentments of the masses to benefit his own power and ego. Such a leader cares nothing about those who harbor these resentments, and certainly does not share the same fears.”

Although I am a liberal, I believe that some liberals or left-leaning people exhibit “unspoken arrogance” and that all of us need “sincere humility and understanding with regard to the concerns of many who feel left behind would go a long way to healing some of our divisions.”

One way to work at healing those divisions is the suggested “universal national service, with almost no exceptions, [such as] working in national parks, teaching in underserved schools, and many other forms of service to the nation. Being forced to live with, eat with, work with people from all over the country would [help] teach all of us to be more tolerant.” This suggestion, however, is practically and politically unrealistic.

The laudable goal of helping us all to be more understanding and tolerant of those with different political opinions, especially of urban and rural dwellers, could be furthered by having members of urban churches and civic groups develop programs for visiting and spending time with members of rural churches and civic groups, devoted to talking about these various public issues. A key for urban dwellers like myself, I believe, is recognizing that many rural areas in the U.S. are experiencing problems associated with aging and declining population. So too members of rural churches and civic groups could spend time with members of such groups in urban areas talking about public issues and the urban-area problems such as crime in the streets.

There also should be recognition by all that many Democrats advocate and pass legislation regarding minimum wage, infrastructure, child care, education, the environment, middle class tax relief, and financial assistance for community colleges and technical schools for the benefit of working and middle-class Americans.

Another problem not mentioned in these selected reader comments is all of us tend to watch and listen to radio and television news programs that are oriented to our existing opinions and orientations to public issues.

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

[1]  Brooks, What if We’re the Bad Guys Here?, N.Y. Times (Aug. 2, 2023).

[2] Are Anti-Trumpers “the Bad Guys”?, dwkcommentaries (Aug. 9, 2023), .

[3] LETTERS: Are the Elite Anti-Trumpers the ‘Bad Guys’?, N.Y. Times (Aug. 12, 2023),

 

Biden Administration Announces Proposed Restrictions on Asylum Applications

On February 21, the Biden Administration announced a proposed rule that would  require rapid deportation of an immigrant at the U.S. border who had failed to request protection from another country while en route to the U.S. or who had not previously notified the U.S. via a mobile app of their plan to seek asylum in the U.S. or who had applied for the new U.S. humanitarian parole programs for certain countries (Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela). This rule will take effect on May 11, with the expected termination that day of Title 42 that allowed the U.S. to swiftly expel migrants at the U.S. border.[1]

This announcement stated that the new rule would “incentivize the use of new and existing lawful processes and disincentivize dangerous border crossings, by placing a new condition on asylum eligibility for those who fail to do so. These steps are being taken in response to the unprecedented western hemispheric migration challenges – the greatest displacement of people since World War II – and the absence of congressional action to update a very broken, outdated immigration system.”

DHS Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas stated, “We are a nation of immigrants, and we are a nation of laws. We are strengthening the availability of legal, orderly pathways for migrants to come to the United States, at the same time proposing new consequences on those who fail to use processes made available to them by the United States and its regional partners. As we have seen time and time again, individuals who are provided a safe, orderly, and lawful path to the United States are less likely to risk their lives traversing thousands of miles in the hands of ruthless smugglers, only to arrive at our southern border and face the legal consequences of unlawful entry.”

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland added the following: “The Department of Justice is responsible for administering the Nation’s immigration courts and ensuring that claims are adjudicated expeditiously, fairly, and consistent with due process. This proposed rule will establish temporary rules concerning asylum eligibility in those proceedings when the Title 42 order is lifted. We look forward to reviewing the public’s comments on this proposed rule.”

The Administration says that without this new rule, immigration at the U.S. border would “increase significantly, to a level that risks undermining the … continued ability to safely, effectively and humanely enforce and administer U.S. immigration law.”

Reactions to the New Rule[2]

“In a joint statement, Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez (N.J.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Ben Ray Luján (N.M.) and Alex Padilla (Calif.) called on the administration to drop the proposed rule. “We are deeply disappointed that the administration has chosen to move forward with publishing this proposed rule, which only perpetuates the harmful myth that asylum seekers are a threat to this nation. In reality, they are pursuing a legal pathway in the United States.”

 A similar reaction came from leading Democratic House members (Rep. Jerrold Nadler and Pramila Jayapal). In their joint statement, they expressed “deep disappointment” with the newly proposed rule and stated, “The ability to seek asylum is a bedrock principle protected by federal law and should never be violated. We should not be restricting legal pathways to enter the United States, we should be expanding them.”

“Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, said they applaud the expanded pathways for those four countries announced in January but question where that leaves migrants from other countries. She says it favors people with resources who can afford the necessary requirements of finding a financial sponsor and buying a plane ticket to the U.S. And some people are so at risk, they simply cannot wait in their country for a humanitarian parole slot. Critics have also highlighted technological problems with the app.”

“The Federation for American Immigration Reform said that the rule isn’t designed to halt migrants as much as make the process more orderly: “In other words, the real objective is not to end large-scale asylum abuse, but rather to get them through the next election cycle.”

Justice Action Center’s counsel, Jane Bentrott, said the proposed rule “would send asylum seekers back to danger, separate families, and cost lives, as human rights advocates have been asserting for weeks. It is in direct contravention of President Biden’s campaign promises to reverse Trump’s racist, xenophobic immigration policies, and give all folks seeking safety a fair shot at asylum.”

Lindsay Toczylowski, the executive director of Immigrant Defenders Law Center in California, criticized the inept operations of the government’s online system for scheduling an asylum application interview. “It’s almost like a lottery. You have to win a ticket to be able to seek protection in the U.S.”

An ACLU attorney, Lee Gelernt, who successfully challenged similar efforts by the Trump Administration, said that Biden’s new proposed rules had the same legal flaws as the Trump rules  and that the ACLU would sue to block the latest move.

Although this blogger has been a pro bono attorney for asylum applicants and more generally an advocate for strong U.S. laws and procedures for same and although he is sympathetic to the above criticisms of the new proposed rules, it must be acknowledged that there is nothing in the international treaty or U.S. statutes on asylum that requires the U.S. to provide asylum interviews at the border to undocumented immigrants. Moreover, this and related changes in U.S. asylum laws and procedures are counterbalanced by new procedures in U.S. law for asylum or parole applications in Central American countries for at least some of these immigrants (Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela).

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

[1] DHS and DOJ Propose Rule to Incentivize Lawful Migration Processes, DHS (Feb. 21, 2023); Jordan, Biden Administration Announces New Border Crackdown, N.Y. Times (Feb. 21, 2023); Parti & Caldwell, Biden Administration Proposes New Limits on Asylum Seekers, W.S.J. (Feb. 21, 2023); Miroff, Asylum seekers who cross U.S. border illegally face new Biden rule, Wash. Post (Feb. 21, 2023); Santana, How Biden asylum rule affects immigration, compares to Trump, Wash. Post (Feb. 22, 2023).

[2] See n.1.