Kim Holloway’s Post

The American Immigration Council has calculated the economic cost to the US if Donald Trump were to carry out his malicious plan to deport 11M undocumented immigrants. When you go to vote on Nov. 5th keep these numbers in mind. And the fact that such a plan would knock 4%-6% off GDP sending the country into a deep recession. "About 11 million undocumented immigrants lived in the United States as of 2022—3.3 percent of the country’s overall population. An additional 2.3 million removable immigrants were released into the United States between January 2023 and April 2024 and would also be targeted in any mass deportation operation. A one-time operation to deport these immigrants would cost at least $315 billion, broken down as follows: The government would have to spend $89.3 billion to conduct sufficient arrests. The government would have to spend $167.8 billion to detain immigrants en masse. The government would have to spend $34.1 billion on legal processing. The government would have to spend $24.1 billion on removals. Deporting one million immigrants per year would incur an annual cost of $88 billion, with the majority of that cost going towards building detention camps. It would take over ten years, and the building of hundreds to thousands of new detention facilities, to arrest, detain, process, and remove all 13.3 million targeted immigrants—even assuming that 20 percent of that population would depart voluntarily during any multi-year mass deportation effort. The total cost over 10.6 years (assuming an annual inflation rate of 2.5 percent) would be $967.9 billion. The annual costs would break down as follows: The government would have to spend an average of $7 billion per year to conduct one million arrests annually. The government would have to spend an average of $66 billion per year to detain one million immigrants annually, or surveil them on alternatives to detention programs while detention capacity ramps up to one million. The government would have to spend an average of $12.6 billion per year to carry out legal processing for an average of one million immigrants annually. The government would have to spend an average of $2.1 billion per year to remove one million immigrants annually. To carry out over 13 million arrests in a short period of time would require somewhere between 220,000 and 409,000 new government employees and law enforcement officers, which would be nearly impossible given current hiring challenges across law enforcement agencies. Even carrying out one million at-large arrests per year would require ICE to hire over 30,000 new law enforcement agents and staff, instantly making it the largest law enforcement agency in the federal government.

Canada curbing asylum seekers. From Mexico. Because there are too many seeking asylum in Canada and only a small percentage get accepted. (Is it safe to say the system is working to ensure only those who need protection get it?) Are we open to more of the story? From 2014-2023, there were 7,454 people from Mexico who had their asylum claim approved. That means, their claim of needing protection was deemed credible; a claim they would not have been able to make had the visa rules been in place over that 10 year period. Ah, but there was a jump in claims in 2023, from 7,500 in 2022 to over 25,000 in 2023. They must be gaming the system! How about this from the Mexico News Daily: There were 27,354 homicides in the first 11 months of 2023, according to government data, for a DAILY AVERAGE of 82 murders. Compare that to Canada. The most recent data is for 2022 showing 874 homicides for the WHOLE YEAR! "Arrests are made in connection with some homicides, but impunity remains extremely commonplace in Mexico, with less than 4% of criminal investigations solved." What would we say if our police reported a 4% solve rate on crime in Canada? How many Canadians would be looking for protection in another country if this was our reality? Or this from Mexico's National Human Rights Commission which has published 54 reports detailing abuses by immigration officials and private security personnel at migrant detention centers since 2019: "Torture, sexual assault and extortion are some of the abuses migrants have allegedly suffered while detained at government detention centers since Francisco Garduño became Mexico’s immigration chief." What would we say if our immigration minister, Marc Miller, had the same allegations against him? Or, in terms we all understand: the money in our wallets. We say 13% tax (in ON) on purchases is too much, but a 15.3% claim approval rate for Mexican asylum seekers over 10 years is not enough to warrant keeping the possibility of seeking asylum in Canada open to those who need it by not imposing a visa. It's only 7,400 lives (or more) at risk. Or this from Global Affairs Canada re: Canada-Mexico relations: "In 2022, a record of close to 40,000 workers were welcomed to Canada under the Temporary Foreign Workers Program. This recognizes the foundational role Mexican nationals play as a source of labour for Canada specifically in sustaining the domestic agricultural sector." So, it's okay for 40,000 to come and work in our fields so we can put food on our table because we won't do the work ourselves, but 25,000 coming and asking to please let them stay and be safe: no way! Who is gaming whom here? This is what happens when we don't have a national strategy for dealing with forced migration, and we won't counter the false rhetoric that "they" are taking our jobs, houses, and healthcare. If we can't afford to protect a few thousand people who need it, in a country with 38 million people, those few are not the problem - we are!

Mixed reactions trail UK-Rwanda asylum operation | The Guardian Nigeria News https://ift.tt/5vzd2Oo • ‘Rwanda accepted agreement because it joined Commonwealth despite being a Belgian colony’ • ‘It’s surprising Rwanda is accepting a policy that’ll dehumanise Africans’ • ‘Over 140,000 Nigerians moved to UK in past two years’ • Ireland wants to return asylum seekers to UK Eleven weeks earlier than stated, the British Home Office seeks to launch a surprise operation to detain asylum seekers across the UK today in preparation for deportation to Rwanda.    There are thoughts that this step is timed to coincide with Thursday’s local council elections in England, to boost Rishi Sunak’s claims of cracking down on illegal migration.    In addition to picking people up across the country during a two-week experiment, officials intend to detain refugees who show up for scheduled encounters at immigration service offices.    They will be taken right away to detention facilities that have been set up for the operation, where they will be detained until later flights to Rwanda. There are already others scheduled for these flights that are being held.    Following the passage of a bill that legalises flights through Westminster, the prime minister announced last week that the first flights to Rwanda would begin in “10 to 12 weeks.”    Police in Scotland have been put on alert because of the high risks of street protests and attempts by pro-refugee campaigners to stop detentions.Local communities in Scotland have twice prevented deportations by staging mass protests on Kenmure Street in Glasgow, in May 2021, and in Nicolson Square, Edinburgh, in June 2022.    On both occasions, hundreds of people surrounded immigration enforcement vehicles to prevent asylum seekers from being removed after tense standoffs between protesters and police.    Demonstrators were alerted by a protesters’ network to the detentions on Kenmure Street, and two men were eventually released from Border Force custody after a six-hour confrontation to avoid violent clashes.    Meanwhile, Ireland has expressed its intent to send asylum seekers back to the UK. The Taoiseach (Irish prime minister), Simon Harris, has asked Ireland’s justice minister to bring legislation to the cabinet to enable asylum seekers to be sent back to the UK.    Deputy Prime Minister of Ireland, Micheál Martin, said the UK’s Rwanda policy was already impacting Ireland. Legislation to revive the UK’s Rwanda policy became law on Thursday.  Ireland’s Justice Minister, Helen McEntee said: “There are many reasons we have seen an increase in migration toward Ireland.    “What’s clear in the decision that the UK has taken in choosing Brexit, is they have seen an increase in people seeking asylum in their country. The way that they deal with that, it’s their policy.    “My focus as minister for justice is making sure that we have an effective immigration structure and system.    “That’s why I’m introducing fast proc...

Chicago residents are angry. Americans don’t want to live in the Hellholes that sanctuary lcities are endemic of. Dem. Gov. Pritzker is hiring illegal aliens for his properties. The Dem. Mayor doesn’t give abdamn about law l-abiding Americans, or those with disabilities. Old, young, Hispanic, Black, Asians & Veterans will vote Republican and throw all Democrats out of office. Americans are treated in a substandard way compared to illegals. Why? Because Joe Biden and the Democrats will ensure that the pampered 10 million illegals and felons will vote for Democrats. Democrat’s greed for power and control is destroying cities and communities. We see clearly that the promises of Democrats are lies, unless you’re an illegal. In Chicago, and elsewhere, illegals are provided free hotels, credit cards, cell phones, food, medical care, transportation, while Americans who pay taxes struggle to find safety in their once pristine communities. There’s an old saying that if what you’re doing ISN’T WORKING, TRY SOMETHING ELSE! That time is now. Illegals must go. VOTE REPUBLICAN and SAVE YOUR CITIES and communities.

With illegal immigration as the main issue voters seem concerned about, Democrats and the media have decided to push back. The message is, who are you going to believe us or your lying eyes? The experts and the data show that crime is actually down in sanctuary cities. NBC News reports "available data from major-city police departments show that despite several horrifying high-profile incidents, there is no evidence of a migrant-driven crime wave in the United States." You see, it is all a "messaging" issue. You have former President Trump and Fox News discussing the brutal murders and rapes of women and children by migrants in sanctuary cities, and then suddenly everyone thinks that every migrant who enters the country illegally is a potential Jack the Ripper. How jejune? How unfair to the millions of illegal immigrants who are entering the country with no desire but to take jobs Americans don't want. These are not criminals, they are day laborers who mow your lawns, babysit your children, make your hotel beds, and butcher your chickens. Yes, there are a few rotten eggs who are getting in, but that is insignificant compared to the rotten eggs already in the country. Not that any of these home grown rotten eggs are to be blamed either since they are just historically oppressed people just like the migrants. Basically, there are two types of people. Those who are law abiding, and those who are criminals whose behavior can be traced to systemic racism. But how does Trump get away with fooling more than half of the American people into thinking that there is a migrant crime wave. NBC informs us "Trump has undoubtedly tapped into the rising anger over crimes allegedly committed by undocumented migrants that have gained national attention — most recently, the killing of college student Laken Riley in Georgia last week, after which an undocumented migrant from Venezuela was arrested and charged with her murder, and the much-reported fight between New York police officers and a group of migrant teens. And if you have leaders, political leaders who are really pushing that narrative, I think that would have the tendency to sort of push up the myth.” Simple, if you are afraid of crime, especially migrant driven crime, you are a victim of racist "myths" perpetrated by Donald Trump. Just like Trump's claims that the 2020 election was stolen, there is no evidence that migrant crime is a problem beyond just a "few" horrifying examples. So, the message from the Biden White House and the media is "get over it." You have nothing to fear, but fear itself.

ECtHR: immigration detention cannot be used to prevent security threats The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided in April on the M.B. v. the Netherlands case. M.B. asked for asylum upon entering Netherlands, but shortly after he was detained and convicted for the participation in a terrorist organisation. After his release from prison, due to ongoing asylum proceedings and for national security reasons, he was placed in immigration detention. The ECtHR reminded that Article 5 ECHR does not mention security reasons as a permissible ground for detention. Immigration detention must be either to prevent an unauthorised entry (first limb) or with a view to deportation or extradition (second limb). The M.B.'s detention was covered by the first limb of Article 5(1)(f) ECHR, according to the Court. While M.B. was detained for immigration purposes only after spending almost a year in the Netherlands, his asylum application was still considered then. Moreover, he had a right to stay in Netherlands pending asylum proceedings, but it was not an authorization required under Article 5(1)(f) ECHR. However, the M.B.'s detention was arbitrary, mostly due to the fact that he was not detained immediately upon seeking asylum and no steps were taken within the asylum proceedings while he was in the pre-trial detention. Accordingly, the Court did not find "a sufficiently close connection between his immigration detention and the aim of preventing his unauthorised entry." Thus, in the M.B. case, the ECtHR: 1. confirmed a close connection between detention pending asylum proceedings (as provided for in the EU law) and detention ordered to prevent an unauthorised entry (as specified in the ECHR); 2. but reminded that the passage of time may affect the connection between detention and the aim of preventing unauthorised entry; 3. and strongly stated that “preventive detention” of convicted terrorists under Article 5(1)(f) ECHR is not allowed. Immigration detention cannot be used for solely security-driven reasons. The case also offers an interesting insight into the interplay between the ECHR and EU law. The Court reminded that: 1. it is not its role to assess whether national laws concerning detention are in accordance with the EU law; 2. "Although Article 8(3)e of the Reception Conditions Directive permits, from an EU-law standpoint, detention when national security or protection of public order so requires, this has no bearing on the fact that Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention only allows for immigration detention to prevent unauthorised entry or to effect deportation." However, it is also took into account Article 9 of the Asylum Procedures Directive in order to understand the rules concerning the asylum seekers' right to stay in the Netherlands. M.B. v. the Netherlands, no. 71008/16, 23.04.2024, https://lnkd.in/eWufhPrC.

ECtHR: immigration detention cannot be used to prevent security threats The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided in April on the M.B. v. the Netherlands case. M.B. asked for asylum upon entering Netherlands, but shortly after he was detained and convicted for the participation in a terrorist organisation. After his release from prison, due to ongoing asylum proceedings and for national security reasons, he was placed in immigration detention. The ECtHR reminded that Article 5 ECHR does not mention security reasons as a permissible ground for detention. Immigration detention must be either to prevent an unauthorised entry (first limb) or with a view to deportation or extradition (second limb). The M.B.'s detention was covered by the first limb of Article 5(1)(f) ECHR, according to the Court. While M.B. was detained for immigration purposes only after spending almost a year in the Netherlands, his asylum application was still considered then. Moreover, he had a right to stay in Netherlands pending asylum proceedings, but it was not an authorization required under Article 5(1)(f) ECHR. However, the M.B.'s detention was arbitrary, mostly due to the fact that he was not detained immediately upon seeking asylum and no steps were taken within the asylum proceedings while he was in the pre-trial detention. Accordingly, the Court did not find "a sufficiently close connection between his immigration detention and the aim of preventing his unauthorised entry." Thus, in the M.B. case, the ECtHR: 1. confirmed a close connection between detention pending asylum proceedings (as provided for in the EU law) and detention ordered to prevent an unauthorised entry (as specified in the ECHR); 2. but reminded that the passage of time may affect the connection between detention and the aim of preventing unauthorised entry; 3. and strongly stated that “preventive detention” of convicted terrorists under Article 5(1)(f) ECHR is not allowed. Immigration detention cannot be used for solely security-driven reasons. The case also offers an interesting insight into the interplay between the ECHR and EU law. The Court reminded that: 1. it is not its role to assess whether national laws concerning detention are in accordance with the EU law; 2. "Although Article 8(3)e of the Reception Conditions Directive permits, from an EU-law standpoint, detention when national security or protection of public order so requires, this has no bearing on the fact that Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention only allows for immigration detention to prevent unauthorised entry or to effect deportation." However, it is also took into account Article 9 of the Asylum Procedures Directive in order to understand the rules concerning the asylum seekers' right to stay in the Netherlands. M.B. v. the Netherlands, no. 71008/16, 23.04.2024, https://lnkd.in/eWufhPrC.

Six years ago, a former Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières - USA colleague and I published this piece on the violence in the Northern Triangle of Central America, a huge source of forced migration to the US. I met many people along the Mexico and Central American migration route at that time. Given the ongoing immigration debate amid the US presidential election process it is important to remember that US policy (both today and in the past) has helped to form the context we are operating in today. Regardless of who wins in November, tens of thousands of migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees will again start the Central American migration pattern -- some fleeing . How they are handled once they arrive there will be significantly different: "Over the past 35 years, under Republican and Democratic administrations, U.S. policy decisions have sown the seeds of this crisis. At the height of the Cold War, the Reagan administration’s support for Contra rebels in Nicaragua and repressive governments in El Salvador and Guatemala contributed to political turmoil and the exodus of more than a million refugees. The Reagan administration considered the vast majority of Central Americans arriving in the United States as “economic migrants.” As a result, approval rates for Salvadoran and Guatemalan asylum cases were under 3 percent in 1984, in contrast to the much higher approval rates for those fleeing U.S. enemies in Iran, Afghanistan, and Poland at that time. In this respect, the politics of refugee protection have changed little over the decades. Some of the most powerful transnational criminal gangs currently wreaking havoc in the Northern Triangle—including MS-13 and the 18th Street Gang— originated in Los Angeles and grew out of a wave of U.S. deportations ordered by the Clinton administration in the late 1990s. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 changed U.S. immigration laws by making minor offenses such as shoplifting and unlawful overstaying in the country causes for deportation. Following its passage, the Clinton administration began deporting illegal immigrants, many with criminal convictions, back to the region. Many experts contend that gang-deportees “exported” a Los Angeles gang culture to Central America and recruited new members from local communities. Between 1998 and 2014, U.S. authorities deported almost 300,000 immigrants with criminal records to Central America. In El Salvador specifically, deportations between 1996 and 2002 led to the return of thousands of Salvadoran gang members who had fled their homeland during the war." https://lnkd.in/eXUmiDQz

Immigrants make up almost 1 in 7 of the US population but contribute almost 1 of every 6 tax dollars collected in the country. Immigration Impact highlights their contributions to the healthcare, agriculture, construction, and entrepreneurship and innovation sectors. “As of 2022, an estimated 21.6% of immigrants living in the United States are undocumented,” in an irregular immigration status. *** A Cato policy analysis investigating the relationships between migrants and crime in Texas finds that irregular migrants are “26 percent less likely than native-born Americans to be convicted of homicide, and (regular) immigrants were 61 percent less likely… The conviction and arrest rates of (irregular) and (regular) immigrants, separately and together, were lower than those of native-born Americans for homicide and all crimes in Texas during the 2013–2022 period.” *** A CGO working paper analyzes migrant deaths before and after the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (SFA), finding a “substantial increase” in deaths following the Act and that “the SFA did not entirely deter migration but induced migrants to take alternative, more dangerous routes.” “Under increasing pressure to migrate, more women are dying at the US-Mexico border. Historically, men made up the majority of those dying in the border desert. But the balance is shifting.” (The 19th) “Asylum Seeker Requests Civil Rights Investigation Of Unlawful Deportation Under Biden Expedited Removal Policy” (National Immigration Justice Center) *** US and Panama signed an agreement to address irregular migration through the Darien Gap with US funding. . . . (press release, Latin America Daily Briefing) “Under the terms of the agreement, U.S. Homeland Security teams on the ground in Panama would help the government there train personnel and build up its own expertise and ability to determine which migrants, under Panama’s immigration laws, could be removed from the country, reports the Associated Press.” (via Latin America Daily Briefing) DW highlights skepticism about the speed with which Panama will be able to begin deportations, noting a lack of necessary infrastructure and logistical challenges. The flights will begin “in the coming weeks,” according to a US official cited by Reuters. The externalization of US border enforcement is not a new practice, explains Pirate Wire Services. infrastructure and logistical challenges. *** “Illegal crossings along the U.S. southern border fell to a 3-year low in June following President Biden's drastic move to curtail asylum and continued efforts by Mexico to stop migrants heading north,” reports CBS. “The Mexican and U.S. governments boast about the decline in immigration arrests on their common border, but this reality contrasts with Mexico's southern border, where encounters of irregular migrants have tripled in Chiapas,” says SwissInfo. THANKS TO JORDI AMARAL, AMERICAS MIGRATION BRIEF FOR THE FOREGOING! DPF😎