Bryan thought it would take him about a month to get from Honduras to the United States last year.
Over the last year, in the name of national security, those changes have made it increasingly difficult for migrants to win asylum cases in the U.S. The latest change has effectively made the majority of non-Mexican migrants ineligible for asylum, according to lawyers and activists. That 0.1% grant rate is significantly lower than the 20% who were granted asylum outside of the Remain in Mexico process, according to data from the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
Officials at the Department of Homeland Security defend the practice, saying there is a limited amount of space in holding facilities where they process migrants who enter the country without proper documentation. To prevent overcrowding, they need to manage the number of people who enter each day. Officially known as Migrant Protection Protocols, the policy requires asylum seekers with immigration court cases in the U.S. to wait in Mexico until their cases are adjudicated.
But advocates on the ground have long argued that the program, along with the administration’s other changes to asylum policy, also deters migrants from submitting legitimate claims.“There’s metering, there’s Remain in Mexico, there’s the new asylum ban. Basically, the process is blocking people from getting asylum,” said Kennji Kizuka, senior researcher and policy analyst for Human Rights First.
Kizuka says legitimate asylum seekers who have fled their homes are choosing to go back because they are afraid they’ll die in Mexico. During the summer, after seeing migrant families struggle to find housing in Tijuana, he helped build a migrant-run shelter. In Bryan’s case, his fate partly came down to a brief exchange with an immigration judge about abuse Bryan had already suffered in Honduras.
Bryan had suffered a traumatic event, he was nervous and told the story out of order, but the facts of the story never changed, never contradicted themselves, Waldron said.In his decision, the judge describes Bryan’s answer as an “internal inconsistency” that is “significant enough to be the basis for the Court’s adverse credibility finding.”
That number is still to high.
So is this good or bad?
Doesn't bother me
That’s 100% more than I would have given this racist government credit for but it is an abhorrent representation of our country. Unless you are Native American, you are an immigrant, willing or unwilling.
womp womp
That's good news!
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Source: WSJ - 🏆 98. / 63 Read more »
Source: bonappetit - 🏆 482. / 51 Read more »
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Source: trtworld - 🏆 101. / 63 Read more »