The Daily - Why Asylum Seekers Are Being Sent Back to Mexico

Episode Date: June 20, 2019

With asylum requests at a record high, the Trump administration is telling migrants to wait in Mexico. We look at how that policy could fundamentally change immigration in the United States. Guests: Natalie Kitroeff, a business reporter for The New York Times, spoke with Zolan Kanno-Youngs, who covers homeland security. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: A recent State Department report acknowledged the possibility that migrants from Central America were no safer in Mexico than at home from the gangs that had threatened them.The cornerstone of President Trump’s deal to avert tariffs with Mexico — the terms of which were largely already agreed-upon in December — was an expansion of the “Remain in Mexico” program.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today, with asylum requests at an all-time high, the Trump administration is telling migrants to wait in Mexico. Natalie Kitchereff speaks with immigration reporter Zolan Kaino-Youngs about how that policy could fundamentally change U.S. immigration. It's Thursday, June 20th. So back in March, I was in San Diego, right near the Tijuana border. I'm the Homeland Security correspondent for The New York Times, and a big part of that is covering immigration.

So I knew that there was this surge in Central American families, migrants coming to the border to seek asylum. So I was sent down there to report on that. And I end up going to this shelter in Tijuana, walk to the back. I remember there were milk crates kind of spread around and there was some laundry drying above us on a string. And there were many, many families also in the shelter. So we make our way to the back and my translator and my photographer and I sit down and we get ready to hear the story of a man named Selvin Alvarado.

So can you ask him where he's from and why he chose to leave? He starts out by telling me that he worked in a farming collective in Honduras. He was the leader of a farming, farmer's group. And at one point, he discovered that the leaders of this collective were stealing money from the farmers. And he confronted them. He said, if you talk, we'll kill you. They said, if you talk, we'll kill you. What they said in return was, essentially, if you expose us, we're going to kill you and your family.

The people came to me and said, if you talk, we'll do the same to you as we did to your colleagues. And so he and his family decided to leave. A friend told him, you don't have any other options. You can't stay in Honduras. You can't stay in Guatemala. So your only option is to flee to the U.S. They fled through Central America to Mexico, and they made it to the U.S. border. And he claimed asylum, fully prepared to be detained while his case wound its way through the immigration system. But instead, he was sent back to Mexico.

Zolan, how did Selvin end up back in Mexico? Walk me through what happened here. Right. So to find out how Selvin was returned to Mexico, you have to go back a couple months. So the Trump administration has tried to limit both illegal immigration and legal immigration to the United States. Specifically, if you look at the southwest border, which has been the subject of the president's fury, we have had a surge of migrants to the point where government officials say facilities are overwhelmed and pushed beyond capacity. We face a crisis at our border, a real, serious, and sustained crisis. So then, in December 2018, former Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen announces this new policy. Effective immediately, the United States will begin the process of invoking Section 235B2C of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

What would be commonly known as Remain in Mexico. Individuals arriving in or entering the United States from Mexico illegally or without proper documentation may be returned to Mexico for the duration of their immigration proceedings. So what this policy says is that the U.S. government now has the ability to return you and now you are going to wait in Mexico for the duration of your immigration case. They will not be able to disappear into the United States. So yes, you are still applying for asylum in the U.S. You will still report to court in the U.S. But you will no longer be waiting in the U.S. for the duration of your case. And so that's why Selvin ends up back in Mexico after having applied for asylum in the United States. He's waiting in Mexico for his asylum application to be processed. That's right. And here's the thing.

Selvin is not only stunned that he's been returned to Mexico, but he tells us that he's also very, very afraid. Because he told them, he said to them, I'm afraid of fighting my case from Mexico. I mean, while I'm talking to him, he pulls out of an envelope photos of these men that he said threatened him and his family. He's afraid that the men in these photos will be able to find him in Mexico. Mexico. He says that when he would think of the U.S., you know, he would associate that with safety,

with sanctuary. But he doesn't feel that way in Mexico. I mean, are you still afraid. I barely go outside. So he's afraid for himself as well as his family now that he's been returned. I would prefer a thousand times more to be in the U.S., be it for months or for years, even if I am detained. Can I ask, Solon, why is the administration focusing on asylum seekers? What's the issue they have with the process in place? Well, I mean, we're all familiar with the politics of the situation.

You know, the president has said multiple times that he feels that many of the claims for asylum are fraudulent. I am very afraid for my life. I am afraid for my life. Okay. And then I look at the guy. He looks like he just got out of the ring. He's the heavyweight champion of the world.

He's afraid for his life. And that it's a sham. It's a big, fat con job, folks. It's a big, fat con job.. It's a big fat con job. And there's also this reality on the ground of what's going on. So when migrants come over the border and they say that they have a fear of returning to their home, then it starts this asylum process. They then are going to go and get a credible fear interview with an asylum officer that does have a very low bar. Most people pass it.

And at that point, you are on your way in this process to claim asylum in the United States. But here's the issue. Border patrol facilities are overwhelmed and pushed to the capacity. ICE facilities, where adults would usually be based, are also full. HHS facilities, where children would go into shelters, are also full. So what ends up happening is you have families released into the public, and you can imagine for the Trump administration, this is not at all what they want. Right. So hence the desire for some sort of policy that sends them back to Mexico while they wait.

That's correct. So with this policy, instead of these families getting released into the United States, now they're going to be returned to Mexico where shelters and the government there will bear the burden of providing resources for them. And Mexico is fine with that? Well, at this point, that's what the U.S. says.

U.S. officials are saying that, yes, Mexico is going to work with them on this program. So initially, who's getting sent to wait in Mexico? So Nielsen announces this policy in December, and the administration starts to roll Remain in Mexico out in January. And initially, this is slow. It's a quiet rollout that's only affecting a small number of the asylum seekers. At the San Ysidro port of entry, which sits in between Tijuana and San Diego, initially, the administration is only returning single adult men. So what happens next?

So what happens next is a lawsuit. Like with many of the Trump administration's policies on immigration, this one goes to the court. ACLU, as well as other groups, say, look, you don't have the power to do this. These are people that stepped onto U.S. soil and claimed asylum in the U.S. You can't send them back to Mexico. They have a right to asylum. And they backed that up by saying it's rather inhumane to send them back to Mexico because it's very dangerous for them there. But the lawsuit doesn't stop the administration.

Shortly after the ACLU sues, the Trump administration announces they're going to be expanding Remain in Mexico. So no longer just San Ysidro Port of Entry, but also the areas around that. And they said that they would be expanding it to a second port of entry in Calexico. And a big detail here is they also said that it would no longer apply to just single males. It would also apply to families. And as we know, most of the migrants that are approaching the border are Central American families. And so this is when you meet Selvin, right? Who else did you meet?

So we also met a good amount of families, one of which was Enoch and Alba. We're not going to say their full names out of their own safety. I sat down with them at a restaurant near the shelter to talk. Okay, good. And where are they from?

They're from El Salvador. And they said that they had a local business in the area. And after some time, local gangs began to request money from them on a monthly basis to the point where they wouldn't be able to provide for their family. I didn't have another option. They threatened my daughter, my wife, and me. Gangs and El Salvador play around. They also migrated, made this journey to the U.S., expecting that once they stepped inside the U.S.,

that they would be processed through the asylum system and even detained. But that's not what happened. They were returned to Mexico. They didn't ask me if I was afraid to go back to Mexico. They just told me about the new law that was in place. And they say they're still in fear of their lives. He said, I haven't felt safe in all of our travel through Mexico. He said, I haven't felt safe in all of our travel through Mexico. And they, similar to Selvin, feel like this gang could still get them while they're in Mexico.

OK, so the Trump administration in sending these migrants back to Mexico is basically saying it's safe for you in Mexico. But many of the migrants you're talking to are saying we have targets on our backs. What does the court say? Well, in April, a judge in San Francisco blocks it. Yeah, another legal hurdle for the president's border battle. Judge Richard Seaborg. He says that there's not sufficient safeguards to this policy and worries that the life or freedom of the migrants would be threatened. But then. This is a Fox News alert. The Trump administration's remain-in-Mexico policy for asylum seekers getting a big boost from an unlikely source tonight.

The Ninth Circuit in California actually issues a stay, meaning that the policy can continue for the time being. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules with the president. Can you believe this? And this surprised a lot of people, because the Ninth Circuit is the court that's actually struck down many of the administration's immigration policies. A big victory for President Trump.

This is one of the biggest victories for DHS at that point. I mean, think about all the other ways that they have tried to restrict asylum for migrants, whether it be family separation, which was a disaster, trying to restrict asylum for those who cross illegally, blocked immediately. Then you have this, which is essentially saying, potentially, no migrants who apply for asylum in the U.S. are going to be in the U.S., are going to wait in the U.S. That's huge. Wow. So at this point, the administration is feeling really confident about this policy. That's right. They see this as validation of

the policy. And the number of migrants being returned to Mexico starts to steadily increase, first from a couple dozen to a couple hundred a day. But the administration wants to do even more. We'll be right back. Okay, Zolan, so the administration has won this big victory in court and remain in Mexico can continue. But you said they want more. What more do they want? Well, there's still huge numbers of migrants coming to the border every single day. You know, we've got record breaking numbers at the end of each month. And this policy really is just a drop in the bucket. They want to expand it across the entire border.

They want to send back thousands of people a day to wait in Mexico. So, yes, they've gained a victory, but they're not happy. And that came to a head a couple weeks ago. I was in Guatemala City, embedded with the Homeland Security Secretary. And we were late to go meet the U.N. ambassador for Guatemala. We're kind of wondering what's going on. I'm with another reporter, and we know something's happening because the president that morning had stepped outside the White House and told reporters.

I will be making a major statement. I would say my biggest statement on the border probably today or tomorrow. The biggest announcement yet on the border is coming. Everybody's trying to find out what is going to happen. There was word that it might have something to do with asylum policy. And then later on, the president, in his medium of choice, tweets out what the news is. Here's the president's tweets a moment ago. On June 10th, the United States will impose a 5% tariff on all goods coming into our country from Mexico. He is now threatening Mexico with tariffs.

Until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico and into our country stop. This sets off a frenzy. and into our country. Stop. This sets off a frenzy. Chairs of the major automakers hitting a skid today after President Trump threatens to slap 5% initially tariffs on all Mexican imports. The stock market is deeply in the red in the pre-markets right now. We're seeing red across the board. Nobody really saw this coming. 5% on June 1st, 10% on July 1st, going up to the possibility of 25% on $300 billion worth of goods if the president is not satisfied

with any changes they make at the border, which, what does satisfied mean, Willie? What is the benchmark here? The market doesn't know. Mexican officials over the next week or so are traveling to Washington, D.C. to negotiate with officials in the Trump administration. The top question for Mexico is probably, what do you guys want? It's also unclear exactly what would be enough to please the president.

Is there a number? Do you have some plan in mind? People are confused. You know, we don't know what really is the mandate to get a deal here. And then after the course of a week of negotiations, the president announces that a deal has been reached. Let me quote now. He writes, I am pleased to inform you that the United States of America has reached a signed agreement with Mexico.

The tariffs scheduled to be implemented by the U.S. on Monday against Mexico are hereby indefinitely suspended. Mexico, in turn, has agreed to take strong measures to stem the tide of migration through Mexico into our southern border. This is being done to greatly reduce or eliminate illegal immigration coming from Mexico and into the United States. Details of the agreement will be released shortly by the State Department. Thank you. So what's the deal? Okay, so it's a couple things. One, Mexico is now going to deploy about 6,000 members of their National Guard

to their southern border. Mexico has also verbally committed to working with the U.S. to target human trafficking organizations. And then there's a big third part of this plan, which is Mexico has agreed to work with the U.S. to aggressively expand Remain in Mexico. And then at the end of 45 days, as a part of this deal, officials from both countries have agreed to come back to the table and revisit this deal. And if the numbers are not at a point, and by numbers, I mean migrants approaching the U.S.

border, if that's not at a level that pleases the president, well, then at that point, he may have an opportunity to push the policy that his administration really wants to be put into place. What does the administration really want? Well, what the administration wants is for these asylum seekers to stop coming to the border and instead apply for asylum in a country that's along the route. So this is what's called the Safe Third Country Treaty. So that would give the United States the legal ability to reject asylum seekers if they didn't first seek asylum in Mexico. Remember the route for these migrants. They're going from Central America through Mexico to the U.S. The administration standpoint is if you're going through Mexico

and you're residing there, that is the first country that you could apply for asylum in. So if safe third country comes into effect, then anybody who continues to the U.S., the administration could essentially say, no, sorry, you passed through Mexico. Why didn't you apply for asylum there? You passed through these other countries, why didn't you apply there? And that's because the safe third policy wouldn't just apply to Mexico. What the administration wants is for Guatemala to declare as a safe third country, because that's another country where many migrants on their way to the border must pass through. And if these countries do agree to something like that, it sounds like that would mean that basically no Central American migrants would be coming to the U.S. to claim asylum.

Homeland Security. They will tell you, we are trying to prevent people from making this journey that requires hundreds of miles and paying a trafficker and subjecting yourself to violence and abuse. And if you want to seek refuge, we want you to do it closer to where you're from. And then you also have to remember the politics of the situation. also have to remember the politics of the situation. The administration has made a point that they want to limit both illegal and legal immigration to the United States. The idea is that the U.S. is going to cut down on asylum not by denying asylum claims, but by preventing people from being able to apply for asylum in the U.S. in the first place by having them apply in Mexico or one of the other Central American countries they pass through. That's right. That's right. They want them to start

and finish this process south of the border. Zolan, I want to know about the logic of this end goal, because, I mean, these are countries with some of the highest homicide rates in the Western Hemisphere. How can there be this assumption that it's a safe country? I mean, it's a great question, and it's a reason why a lot of these policies are criticized. And you're right. There is a consensus that many of these countries are not the safest place. But when you talk to people in the administration, their stance is that these are adults and they're making adult decisions. They've made a choice and that it's not the responsibility of the government, the U.S. government, to ensure that the countries that they're passing through are also safe.

Isn't that the whole point of an asylum program, though, right? That we're recognizing that there are places in the world where people are not safe, where their lives are at risk. And one of the things that we have potentially a moral responsibility to do is to offer safe haven to people who would be at moral risk if not for the refuge that they have in the United States? You know, I was talking to someone who used to work in DHS. And what this person said to me is, who used to work in DHS. And what this person said to me is, I never thought we would get to a point where we were exporting the duty of the United States to our neighboring countries. So I think that's a view among many. And the idea that these are people who walked all those miles, and maybe we shouldn't think of it as a poor decision by them or an irresponsible decision.

But maybe the dangers in their home and the risks that they faced pushed them to the United States, and they chose the United States because asylum is ingrained in the history of this country, of accepting people and granting that safe haven. Maybe that because this country has made a name for itself in doing that, that it is internationally recognized in providing that safe haven. Maybe that's a factor in why many of these people are coming as well. The administration wants to make it so that if you have made this journey from Central America to the border, that there will be a system in place where you will not be released into the U.S. They want that message spread, that you will not be released into the United States while your case is winding its way through the immigration system, that you will be waiting in Mexico. And it has had an impact.

You look at specific cases. You know, Daniela Diaz was one woman I met in Tijuana who was threatened with sexual assault. He threatened me that if I didn't become his girlfriend, he would kill me. And she fled thinking that she would be able to claim asylum and enter and be in the United States. And she was sent back. So when they read her the paper that said that on the 8th she had to present herself in court, she said that she was afraid of coming to Mexico. And the U.S. officials said to her, that's not my problem.

In Tijuana, there are a lot of shelters where you could stay. And after months now in Mexico, she's contemplating staying. She essentially is giving up on this American dream. So when you think of cases like that, then you see just how significant this policy can be. That just the idea of returning people who have had this thought in their mind that they are going to step onto U.S. soil and that they've reached the finish line in a way. They've reached this safe haven. And to then say, no, you will be returned and you're going to wait here, that we are going to really push these asylum seekers south of the border, that's a major overhaul in the asylum process. As a result of that, they hope that many people who they would say would not end up getting asylum will not make the journey to the U.S.

And the other thing is that if they continue to aggressively expand this and they do send thousands of migrants back to Mexico, then maybe they can show that these migrants can live in Mexico, that they don't need to come to the U.S. If they can show that there have been many that have been able to work and live in Mexico, that could be their evidence there for a safe third agreement. for a safe third agreement. Zolan, thank you so much. Thanks for having me.

We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this important hearing. This year, we mark the 400th anniversary of the first enslaved Africans arriving at the colony of Jamestown, Virginia. arriving at the colony of Jamestown, Virginia. In a highly anticipated hearing on Monday, the House of Representatives began discussing reparations for African Americans to address the lingering effects of slavery. Today's hearing on H.R. 40 and the path to restorative justice gives us the opportunity to reflect on the shameful legacy of slavery

and Jim Crow in this country and to examine how we can best move forward as a nation. The testimony was marked by frustration with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who, on the eve of the hearing, said he could not support reparations because slavery was a sin of previous generations. I don't think reparations for something that happened 150 years ago for whom none of us currently living are responsible is a good idea. At Wednesday's hearing, the author, Ta-Nehisi Coates, who favors reparations, rejected McConnell's argument. This rebuttal proffers a strange theory of governance, that American accounts are somehow bound by the lifetime of its generations.

that American accounts are somehow bound by the lifetime of its generations. But well into this century, the United States was still paying out pensions to the heirs of Civil War soldiers. We honor treaties that date back some 200 years, despite no one being alive who signed those treaties. Many of us would love to be taxed for the things we are solely and individually responsible for. But we are American citizens, and thus bound to a collective enterprise that extends beyond our individual and personal reach. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.