Getting to the La Roca shelter took some doing. A steep street followed by sets of steps to get us to the rock on which the shelter was built. Francisco (Pancho) Olachea Martin loaded our group into his ambulance, named after his daughter Cristina, and drove up the street. He even used the siren for kicks. That’s the kind of guy he is. The ambulance was tight for nine people, a couple of benches and a stretcher. In the front, a few drawers with bandages and a bin labeled “Various Meds.”
The fun of the ambulance ride evaporated the moment we saw the first room at the shelter, reserved for women and children. It was a dim, narrow space, maybe ten feet across. It looked like it was occupied before it was ready. Some wiring hung loose. An old stove provided some heat. Bunk beds took up most of the floor space. The remaining floor space was taken up by belongings and blankets. If the ambulance was tight, this room was even more cramped. The women and their children spent most of their days in this cramped space waiting for their turn at the border. There was an outdoor rec space, but we were told it was unsafe because of cartel surveillance.
Since January 2019, the Trump administration has implemented a policy with the Orwellian title “Migrant Protection Protocol.” No asylum seeker is being protected by this policy. Colloquially called “Remain in Mexico,” the policy dramatically limits access to asylum.
All ports of entry have imposed a metering system, allowing only an arbitrary low number of people to apply for asylum. Others are given a number and are sent back. They have to be ready to apply for asylum when their number comes up. If they miss it, they have to go to the back of the line.
Once asylum seekers have had their initial “credible fear” hearing, they are again sent back across the border and have to wait for their appearance before an immigration judge. Since adopting the policy over 60,000 asylum seekers have been forced to return to Mexico, including more than 16,000 children. The women and children we saw at La Roca shelter were some of those.
The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is the international treaty that governs the treatment of asylum seekers. The US ratified that treaty in 1968. It is therefore bound by its articles. The “Remain in Mexico” policy violates that treaty in at least two ways.
First, asylum seekers who are pushed back to Mexico face significant dangers from cartels which have made a business of kidnapping asylum seekers to demand ransom. At a comedor run by the non-profit Iniciatíva Kino Para La Frontera, a sign spelled out the threats asylum seekers face—coyotes, traficantes, eganchadores. Our guide pointed to a wooded area where cartel members would sit and spy on migrants with binoculars to find suitable kidnapping victims.
Asylum seekers are also vulnerable because they have no support systems. Those who don’t find space in a shelter, are homeless and often subject to sexual and gender based violence. All of these dangers add up to a violation of Article 33 of the convention, which prohibits the return of asylum seekers to any territory where their lives or freedoms are threatened.
Second, asylum seekers are entitled to access to courts and due process in the examination of their claims (Article 16). Part of the “Remain in Mexico” policy are so-called tent-courts in several border towns. There, the cases of asylum seekers are adjudicated by far-away judges via video conferencing. These courts are not accessible to the public, the vast majority of asylum seekers have no legal representation, and the courts function like an assembly line with hundreds of cases decided per day. This is a serious violation of the due process rights to which all asylum seekers are entitled.
The sad part is that this policy is entirely unnecessary. President Trump campaigned in opposition of what he called the “catch and release” policy of prior administrations. He didn’t understand the process then or now. Once asylum seekers coming to the border had passed their initial “credible fear” hearing, they were released to relatives and sponsors while they waited for their immigration court date. At that time, an immigration judge would assess their claim and, on the basis of testimony and supporting evidence, determine whether or not they warrant asylum.
The vast majority of claimants appeared for their second hearing. The percentages vary depending on the source, but the Department of Justice statistics show that 89.4% of claimants showed up in 2018. Syracuse University’s tracking system shows that nearly 98.5% appeared before a judge. It also showed that 97.5% of mothers with children who are represented by legal counsel attended the hearings. Unaccompanied minors with legal representation appear at a rate of 98.1%.
In short, the “Remain in Mexico” policy is mere chicanery, intended to dissuade individuals from even applying for asylum. Opponents of immigration often invoke the rule of law as their justification. Okay, then lets follow the “law.” The asylum process is governed by international law and the US is in violation of its obligations.
