Opponents of the Trump\nadministration have filed suit to block the president\u2019s Migration Protection\nProtocols (MPP) program \u2013 known colloquially as the \u201cstay in Mexico program.\u201d\nThat\u2019s not surprising. Neither is the fact that the suit is being pursued in\nthe notoriously activist Ninth Judicial Circuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What is<\/em> surprising, however, is that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration\nServices asylum\nofficers<\/a> have jumped on the anti-Trump bandwagon. The American Federation\nof Government Employees Local 1924, the union representing asylum officers,\nfiled a friend of the court brief claiming that, “[The MPP] violates our\nNation’s longstanding tradition and international treaty and domestic\nobligation not to return those fleeing persecution to a territory where they\nwill be persecuted.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Aside from the questionable ethics\ndemonstrated by federal employees who insert themselves into a lawsuit between\nthe government and foreign nationals pressing bogus\nclaims<\/a> for refuge in the U.S., there are also a number of egregious legal\nflaws in that assertion: <\/p>\n\n\n\n International law doesn\u2019t obligate\nthe U.S. to accept all migrants who allege that they are fleeing persecution.\nNations who are parties to the 1951 United\nNations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees<\/em> must refrain from\nreturning people to a territory where they will face threats to their life or\nfreedom on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular\nsocial group, or political opinion. This is referred to as the duty of non-refoulement<\/em><\/a>.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the duty of non-refoulement <\/em>pertains only to genuine\nrefugees. It does not apply to individuals who are emigrating to escape\n\u201cgeneralized conditions of civil strife\u201d (i.e.,<\/em>\nthe general breakdown of order, that frequently accompanies things like crop\nfailures, droughts, civil wars and contested regime changes).<\/p>\n\n\n\n And domestic\nlaw<\/a> doesn\u2019t require the U.S. to let in everyone who arrives at the border\nrequesting asylum either. Asylum is a discretionary\nform<\/a> of relief. That means that the United States is not\nrequired to grant it to anybody, even individuals who establish that they are\neligible. Discretion in approving asylum applications allows asylum officers\nand immigration judges to take into account the legal, public\nsafety<\/a> and national security interests of the United States while\nallocating a limited number of asylum slots.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Most of the people currently\nstreaming north from Central America aren\u2019t\nfleeing anything<\/a>, they\u2019re emigrating in search of better economic opportunities\n\u2013 and the U.S. would be well within its rights to turn away economic migrants.\nBut the fact is, that the U.S. isn\u2019t turning anyone away, it is simply asking\nthem to wait their turn in Mexico. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While Mexico may have its own problems, claims that asylum seekers aren\u2019t any safer in Mexico because they face persecution there are utterly baseless. Both the Mexican government and Mexican civil society have been furnishing food, shelter and other assistance<\/a> to migrants waiting to be interviewed by U.S. immigration officials. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s profoundly disturbing when officials hired by the federal government to conduct full and fair reviews of asylum applications stop seeing themselves as guardians of the American people and start acting as advocates for foreign nationals who are trying to find a way around our immigration laws. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Opponents of the Trump administration have filed suit to block the president\u2019s Migration Protection Protocols (MPP) program \u2013 known colloquially as the \u201cstay in Mexico program.\u201d That\u2019s not surprising. Neither is the fact that the suit is being pursued in the notoriously activist Ninth Judicial Circuit. What is surprising, however, is that U.S. Citizenship and<\/p>\n