By Michelle Martin, PhD, MSs, MSW
I’ve been blogging about the humanitarian crisis involving Central American migrant families separated at the U.S. border for months now, and I along with so many others in the United States and around the world, have been trying to find an explanation, some type of rationale for the Trump administration’s handling of the political asylum seekers coming across the southwest border. After reviewing all the pleadings in the federal case filed against the government by the ACLU, as well as many of Trump’s speeches related to immigration, I think I may now have a better understanding. I think I have insight into his and his closest advisors’ perspectives on political asylum; their ultimate, buried-under-the-rhetoric ideology, so to speak.
Trump let his real agenda slip out in a recent speech. The scene was the Cabinet Room, a historic meeting room at the White House. The setting, a luncheon with Republican members of Congress. Trump began his speech by referencing the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold his “Muslim ban,” calling it a victory for the Constitution.
Although there is great variation in the opinions of immigration policy experts on the most effective way of managing cross border migration, throughout this speech, Trump presents the immigration debate in simplistically polarized terms: Republican want closed border and low crime, and Democrats want to open the floodgates to gang members and murderers, stating,
In recent press briefings, both Sessions and Nielsen referenced the risk of adults trafficking and smuggling children into the United States as an additional justification for separating the families at the border. Nielsen confirmed that if parents could not provide proof of parentage, it was assumed the child was likely trafficked, and their child will be taken into custody.
To back up her claims of the increase incidence of child trafficking, Nielsen cited a 314% increase in trafficked children between October 2017 and February 2018, intimating that concerns of child trafficking were the primary motivation for taking custody of the children. In fact, in her June 18, 2018 press briefing, Nielsen accused critics of not caring about trafficked children, stating that “minors have been used and trafficked by unrelated adults in an effort to avoid detention.”
Are Political Asylum Seekers Required to Request Protection through a U.S. Port of Entry? And a Whole lot more...
By Michelle Martin, PhD, MSW
What I want to address in this blog post is whether Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ assertion that the only legal way to request asylum in the United States is through a U.S. port of entry (or U.S. consulate) is accurate. I also want to explore how the government can distinguish between undocumented economic immigrants who cross the Mexico border without documentation to work, and those who cross the border seeking political asylum because they are fleeing persecution.
Dr. Michelle Martin is a social worker, policy specialist and Assistant Professor at California State University, Fullerton in the Department of Social Work, where she teaches social welfare policy, and researches dynamics related to immigrants, political asylum-seekers, refugees and other displaced populations.