Skip to comments.
AG Racine Leads 19-State Coalition Opposing Trump Effort To Limit Asylum For Immigrants Of Color
oag.dc.gov ^
| oag.dc.gov
Posted on 03/10/2020 12:49:37 PM PDT by ransomnote
March 6, 2020
DHS and DOJ Rule Forces Asylum-Seekers to Seek Refuge in Countries with High Levels of Violence and Ill-Equipped to Protect Them from Persecution
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Attorney General Karl A. Racine today led a 19-state coalition challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine asylum protections. Under an interim final rule, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) are requiring asylum-seekers to undergo a “threshold screening” before determining if they can seek asylum in the United States. In a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the plaintiffs in U.T. v. Barr, the State Attorneys General argue that this screening effectively ignores asylum claims and forces people, many fleeing violence and persecution, to seek humanitarian relief in countries that are ill-equipped to protect them. The coalition also argues that the rule deprives the states of valuable contributions made by immigrants, including in the District where more than 100,000 immigrants help power the economy and contribute millions of dollars in taxes each year to the public fisc.
“Yet again, the Trump administration is working to limit immigration from countries of color and ignoring our country’s humanitarian commitments to people fleeing violence and persecution,” said AG Racine. “The new asylum rule will no longer permit some individuals to seek refuge in the U.S., forcing them, instead, to be processed in countries that are ill-equipped to protect them and are especially dangerous for women, children, and LGBTQ+ individuals. Our coalition of State Attorneys General will continue to fight this Administration’s repeated attempts to circumvent the law and harm immigrants.”
In 2019, the federal government entered into “asylum cooperative agreements” with Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, which allow the United States to deport asylum-seekers to these countries rather than processing their asylum claims here. The challenged DHS and DOJ rule establishes the framework for asylum-seekers to be deported to these countries before their claim for asylum is heard in the United States. In the amicus brief filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the coalition argues that the rule will significantly harm states and asylum-seekers by:
- Forcing asylum-seekers to seek refuge in countries with high-levels of violence: Giving asylum-seekers a safe haven from persecution is a fundamental value of the United States. However, this rule would force asylum-seekers to seek asylum in Guatemala, El Salvador, or Honduras, countries with high levels of violence, especially for women, children, and LGBTQ individuals. Also, Guatemala, currently the only country where an asylum cooperative agreement is officially in effect, has insufficient staff to handle humanitarian claims. There are only 12 officials working on asylum cases in the entire country, and only three of them are tasked with interviewing applicants.
- Jeopardizing family unity: The States value family unity because families provide crucial social support that strengthens neighborhoods and communities. The rule will prevent asylum-seekers from reuniting with family members living in the United States and instead send them to countries where they may suffer additional persecution.
- Threatening state economies: The States welcome thousands of immigrants each year who contribute greatly to their communities and economies. In the District, more than one in seven residents, and one in six workers, is an immigrant. In 2014, immigrant-owned businesses generated $121.9 million in income and employed 41,672 people in the District. The rule will lower tax and spending revenue for the States and harm local businesses that will have to find alternative labor.
- Denying states’ legal right to notice and input on the rule: The coalition argues the rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs how federal agencies implement rule changes, and deprived states of the opportunity to comment on the rule prior to its implementation.
The amicus brief was led by District of Columbia AG Karl Racine and California AG Xavier Becerra, and joined by Attorneys General from Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
A copy of the amicus brief is at: https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/UT-v-Barr-Asylum-Amicus.pdf
OAG’s Continued Efforts to Protect Immigrants
This is the latest effort by Attorney General Racine to protect established federal immigration policy, keep longtime District residents from losing their protected status, and advocate for immigrants in the District and nationwide. This year, Attorney General Racine led a multistate coalition opposing a move by the Trump administration to double asylum seekers’ wait to legally work. In 2019, the Attorney General led a multistate amicus brief opposing the illegal termination of Temporary Protected Status for Haitian born residents, filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block DHS’s Public Charge rule from taking effect, and led a multistate amicus brief challenging the Trump administration’s changes to asylum standards in Grace v. Barr. He also joined with other attorneys general to take action against the Trump administration to protect public safety funding for “sanctuary” cities; prevent attempts to close the Southern border to asylum seekers; block immigration-related conditions on law enforcement grants; stop a cruel family separation policy; fight for hard-working “DREAMers” to stay in the United States; and to oppose the “Muslim travel ban.”
TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: agracine; immigrants; immigration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
Just like CA AG Becerra, DC's Attorney General is leading a "coalition" against President Trump. I imagine all members of the coalition are leading a variety of efforts against Trump. It's their way of organizing resistance to the elected president and using "issues" as cover for their efforts.
To: ransomnote
Where is the list of states?
2
posted on
03/10/2020 12:52:58 PM PDT
by
subterfuge
(RIP T.P.)
To: ransomnote
Deport all Illegals
ASAP!
Problem solved.
3
posted on
03/10/2020 12:53:26 PM PDT
by
EnglishOnly
(eWFight all out to win OR get out now. .)
To: subterfuge
You were one click away....
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE STATES OF CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, OREGON, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, WASHINGTON,AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
To: ransomnote
forcing them, instead, to be processed in countries that are ill-equipped to protect them and are especially dangerous for women, children, and LGBTQ+ individuals
I would think the Headline to the Article would have been something like:
AG Becerra and 18 other State AG's declare Mexico a Shithole to Supreme Court.
5
posted on
03/10/2020 12:58:08 PM PDT
by
eyeamok
To: nascarnation
Thanks. Now everyone call your governors.
6
posted on
03/10/2020 1:00:23 PM PDT
by
subterfuge
(RIP T.P.)
To: ransomnote
To: eyeamok
So now you can get asylum gender selection/sexual preferences. Paul Hogan did an Australian movie a number of years back where he and another male pretended to be gay to get some benefit from the government. ‘Strange Bedfellows’ it was called. you are gunna have a lot of hairy South Americans poncing over the border in drag if this continues!
8
posted on
03/10/2020 1:09:22 PM PDT
by
melsec
(There's a track, winding back, to an old forgotten shack along the road to Gundagai..)
To: ransomnote
"countries of color"
It never hurts to add a little race baiting where race itself isn't a factor.
To: nascarnation
Nice list of the biggest offenders, they reveal themselves in their conspiracy and and essentially say yes I am breaking the law...
10
posted on
03/10/2020 1:12:42 PM PDT
by
100American
(Knowledge is knowing how, Wisdom is knowing when)
To: ransomnote
“The coalition also argues that the rule deprives the states of valuable contributions made by immigrants.”
That’s B.S. The government and the law do not presume that a requested asylum will meet the legal requirements for granting such a request, as adjudicated by the immigration courts, just because such a request is made.
Therefor it is not a matter of “immigrants” per se, it is although really about LEGAL immigration standards, which even an asylum seeker must be held to.
The protesting AGs make two great errors. They lump illegal immigration with legal immigration, and they ask the legal process to presume all asylum requests meet the legal tests for that request, before the immigration officials are even able to investigate and adjudicate it. They would have “asylum” seekers passed through the border posts with nothing more than a future court date which history shows most will never show up for.
Their “defense” of the asylum seekers is an offense to the country because, if their ideas was policy it knowingly will increase the U.S. population of illegal immigrants.
11
posted on
03/10/2020 1:13:06 PM PDT
by
Wuli
To: ransomnote
Where are they getting this immigrants of color nonsense from?
Talk about a straw man.
I guess I am opposed to efforts by AG Becerra to normalize rape of small children. He must be stopped!
12
posted on
03/10/2020 1:13:10 PM PDT
by
Jewbacca
(The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem)
To: ransomnote
The whole world would be ‘fleeing persecution’ if they get away with this.
The Congress cannot micro-manage immigration. The President has pretty clear authority.
13
posted on
03/10/2020 1:13:10 PM PDT
by
Mr. K
(No consequence of repealing obamacare is worse than obamacare itself.)
To: ransomnote
“... the Trump administration is working to limit immigration from countries of color...”
“Countries of color”? Is this a thing now? First I’ve heard of it. Is Africa a “continent of color”? I guess this is a more progressive way of saying colored countries.
14
posted on
03/10/2020 1:14:42 PM PDT
by
hanamizu
To: Mr. K
The Congress cannot micro-manage immigration. The President has pretty clear authority.
huh?
To: ransomnote
Color? I guess that includes all those plaid folks too.
16
posted on
03/10/2020 1:15:55 PM PDT
by
SkyDancer
( ~ Just Consider Me A Random Fact Generator ~ Eat Sleep Fly Repeat ~)
To: ransomnote
I though AG's were in place to enforce the law, not to create policy. Does he have an agenda...too?
17
posted on
03/10/2020 1:16:52 PM PDT
by
econjack
To: Telepathic Intruder
18
posted on
03/10/2020 1:17:06 PM PDT
by
Osage Orange
(Whiskey Tango Foxtrot)
To: ransomnote
Its really all about future Democrat voters. Nuff said.
19
posted on
03/10/2020 1:20:21 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever po)
To: subterfuge
Where is the list of states?
"The amicus brief was led by District of Columbia AG Karl Racine and California AG Xavier Becerra, and joined by Attorneys General from Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington."
20
posted on
03/10/2020 1:20:47 PM PDT
by
ransomnote
(IN GOD WE TRUST)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson