Newspaper column: Asylum seekers should prove their claims

Nevada’s Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford joined with other attorneys general this past week in filing a friend of the court brief in a case challenging another Trump administration rule attempting to curb the flood of asylum seekers.

The rule would deny asylum to those who passed through a safe country en route to the U.S., but did not apply for asylum in that country and get turned down. The lawsuit challenging the rule was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union — styled East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr — is currently pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California.

In a press release announcing the filing of the brief, Ford was quoted as saying, “Facing violence or persecution, asylum seekers look to us for help and safety. As Attorney General, my ultimate goal is to welcome and protect Nevadans, and I will fight every attempt by the Trump Administration to turn its back on those in need of dire assistance.”

The press release said the rule subjects asylum seekers to trauma and perils in dangerous countries, such as Mexico and Guatemala. Sounds like the sort of stereotyping rhetoric the left is always accusing Trump of spouting.

The attorneys general of California and Massachusetts, who are taking the lead in the brief filing, issued an almost identically worded press release.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is quoted as saying, “Again and again, the Trump Administration proffers sloppy reasoning at best for decisions that have lasting consequences on the lives of real people. Countless people are being put at risk by a rule that runs afoul of one of our core principles — welcoming homeless refugees to our shores. This rule is unreasonable and disturbingly callous. We’re going to do everything we can to stand up for the rights of those seeking refuge from persecution and violence.”

Both press releases claim the rule is particularly injurious to unaccompanied children, LGBTQ applicants, and women, for whom applying for asylum in a third country is said to be perilous. “For example, two-thirds of LGBTQ Central American asylum-seekers reportedly suffered sexual violence while transiting through Mexico and, in Guatemala, children are frequently targets of recruitment by criminal gangs,” both releases say. “In addition, the rule will cause state agencies and non-profits to divert resources to address the added trauma asylum-seekers will suffer because of precarious conditions in third countries and will force states to lose out on the economic contributions of those who might otherwise have been welcomed to the country.”

Yes, the brief claims the rule will deprive states of the economic benefits of immigrants denied asylum.

Oddly, just a few weeks ago Ford joined in another court filing that challenged a Trump administration rule that would have denied legal immigration status and work cards to non-naturalized immigrants who have come to rely on government welfare — known as the public charge rule.

At the time, Ford wailed, “I pledged to protect Nevada’s families, and I will continue to protect our families from the Trump Administration’s numerous attacks. This proposed change is not only mean-spirited, it essentially makes legal immigrants choose between maintaining their legal status and receiving assistance to meet basic needs, like food, health care and housing. It’s unconscionable.”

Asylum seekers are required to prove persecution on one of five grounds — race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group or political opinion. That covers a lot of ground.

In June, then-acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan told a congressional hearing that a recently conducted study of 7,000 family units revealed that 90 percent failed to appear for immigration hearings and simply vanished into the countryside rather than face the judicial process. In 2018, fully 65 percent of asylum cases that were heard were denied.

Despite this, Nevada’s senior U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat, signed onto a letter with other senators opposing a Trump administration immigration rule requiring asylum seekers at the southern border to remain in Mexico pending hearings.

As further witness to the lack of validity of asylum requests, this past week Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection in the El Paso area identified 238 fraudulent families, as well as 50 adults falsely claiming to be minors. More than 350 people are being prosecuted.

Legal immigration should be afforded only to those who can prove their cases and then can support themselves and their families once allowed in. Open borders will not work for current Nevada taxpayers and job seekers.

A version of this column appeared this week in many of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel and the Lincoln County Record — and the Elko Daily Free Press.

Fraudulent families detected at the border. (ICE pix)

9 comments on “Newspaper column: Asylum seekers should prove their claims

  1. Rincon says:

    I guess I’m still trying to figure out where this “flood of asylum seekers” actually is, because it’s not showing up in the numbers I find. It seems that no matter how many people are seeking asylum, the numbers actually receiving it (which matters far more than the number of applicants) since 2000 are fewer than they were in the 1980’s and 1990’s, although the numbers have been remarkably stable for decades. Fewer received asylum it in 2017, ’18, and so far in ’19 than the average over the past 1, 2 ,3, or 4 decades.

    Has something dramatically changed over the past few months, or is this just another bit of Conservative propaganda?

  2. Mistrbill says:

    ” my ultimate goal is to welcome and protect Nevadans”, non-naturalized immigrants who have come to rely on government welfare — known as the public charge rule”. Ford wailed, “I pledged to protect Nevada’s families, and I will continue to protect our families from the Trump Administration’s numerous attacks. This proposed change is not only mean-spirited, it essentially makes legal immigrants choose between maintaining their legal status and receiving assistance to meet basic needs, like food, health care and housing. It’s unconscionable.”
    Me thinks that Ford and our other “representatives” in Washington seem to forget that the “Nevada Families” are the “LEGAL CITIZENS” living in Nevada as I have for 50 years+.
    It is their duty to protect US from invasions! ILLEGALS AND SELF DISPLACED persons are NOT citizens of Nevada yet they are treated better than our citizens and military living on our streets, let alone seniors. The COMMUNISTS are taking us over and our politicians are they!

  3. Anonymous says:

    This is certainly conservative to core MisterBill.

    Just a couple things though, “Ford” (unlike Nevada’s own bastard before him) doesn’t spend much time in Washington and definitely doesn’t represent us there.

    And when you use that word “COMMUNIST” are you using it in the positive republican sense as in “Trump says he loves and believes the COMMUNIST dictator of N. Korea” way? Or the republican “we all love Walmart and it’s support for the COMMUNIST government in China because they have such terrific low prices on all their Chinese goods” sort of way?

    Or is it some other usage?

    Thanking you in advance.

  4. Mistrbill says:

    I am using the word COMMUNIST strictly in the manor that fits all Democraps that plan to destroy our country for all times.

  5. Mistrbill says:

    We don’t have anyone in Washington or damned few in Carson City, Las Vegas or Reno that support “WE THE PEOPLE! The blame game for this rests on the Republican party’s lack of caring or finding someone to stand up for us. Greed and Graft is rampant!

  6. Anonymous says:

    So then a word means only what you intend it to mean and nothing more?

    And I certainly agree with you that the blame for most problems we have rest with the republican party. i do so love to find commonality.

  7. Rincon says:

    Let’s see then, Republicans have allowed Russia to attack Ukraine and annex Crimea without so much as a whimper, sent Turkey into the arms of Russia, have given Russia full authority over Syria, have failed to restrain Iran and North Korea in the least, gave Russia classified information, and coordinated (not colluded) with Russia to undermine our electoral process. Separately, they have helped Putin’s cause immensely by undermining NATO and giving our allies serious doubts about our reliability by abandoning the Kurds, They have favored Putin by actively undermining our faith in our own system by calling our Supreme Court the laughing stock of the world, repeatedly attacking our intelligence community, claiming our electoral process to be “rigged”, constantly denigrating the fourth branch of government (calling them the “enemy of the people for example), and claiming that our House of Representatives are a variety of ways. Oh, and he denies climate change, which fits beautifully into the plans of an oil exporter like Russia. Conveniently, Russia would also be perhaps the greatest beneficiary of a warmer planet. I’m sure there’s more, but this is off the top of my head.

    So please tell me, Mr. Bill, how is it that you hate Communists and still like Republicans? They appear to be allies.

  8. Mistrbill says:

    I didn’t say anything about liking Republicans, in fact I blame them for not providing quality representation! I claim to be a Conservative, Constitutionst, as as such have problems with 95% of all politicians and feel they have outlived their useful TERM LIMITS. Another point that needs to be incorporated. They are “blood money” and greedy SOB’s. “Politicians” were never supposed to be a job classification and life time occupation with lifetime benefits. They are supposed to work for We the People and most never even answer to any of us, Democraps or Republican alike. On this I would agree with you and statistics you posted!

  9. Rincon says:

    I like you better already! Sorry for the presumption. I find many of my conservative acquaintances to be Trumpkins and have a tendency to lump them together. Unfortunately, we disagree about the strict interpretation of the Constitution. I believe it was purposely painted with broad strokes because the Founders wisely decided that they would be foolish for them to micromanage the future. As an example, although the Constitution gives us the right to bear arms, if taken literally, then we should all have the right to buy shoulder fired missiles. A bit extreme even for a Conservative.

    Unfortunately, Boss Tweed showed us the dangers when he said something to the effect of, I don’t care who does the electing so long as I get to do the nominating. With a fundamentalist Supreme Court, we have codified unlimited gerrymandering, a great way to make a rep permanently reelectable. We also have made unlimited campaign financing a reality, insuring that the only way to get nominated or elected, in almost all cases, is to have heavy financial backing. Herein lies the greed you mentioned.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s