A quick search on Google pulls up a Snopes fact check asserting that "the Department of Health and Human Services said Tuesday (May 29th, 2018) that it had 10,773 migrant children in its custody, up from 8,886 on April 29". Despite the President's and other's assertions that this policy is based on a 2008 law enacted by a Democratic Congress, it is his policy. It might be law, but the policy prior to this President was "Catch and Release". That is what started this whole controversy. It was this President, or actually his Attorney General announcing a policy of "zero tolerance".
Specifically, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said:
"I have put in place a “zero tolerance” policy for illegal entry on our Southwest border. If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple. If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, then we will prosecute you. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law." Snopes, Are More Than 10,000 Children in U.S. Detention Centers?
So a law passed in 2008 and passed by a Democratic congress, and signed by President Bush is being reinterpreted. It is policy. Again, Jeff sessions asserted "Zero Tolerance" is a policy. With that policy change, that law no longer applies only to those charged with felonies, but now to any and all crossing the border "illegally". With this announcement, we have gone from a policy of "Catch and Release" to one of "Zero Tolerance". And both of these policies include those applying for asylum.
Another search of the web brought me to Elle magazine, and an article or essay they published,"I Spoke With the Female Asylum Seekers Being Held in Prison. What They Told Me Is Haunting", For me, Elle is typically more involved with fashion and beauty. Yet here they offered an essay written by US Representative Pramila Jayapal from the state of Washington's 7th District. Jayapal went to one of the detainment camps, which is in fact located in her state of Washington, and is actually a prison. In the essay she recounts her conversations with some of the 170 women she met with there, and who had been arrested at the border, and who had been separated from their children.
It is a powerful piece. What most grabs me is that the article illustrates this administration's disregard for asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are now being treated as criminals. They are treated as are the "coyotes" and those who actually repeatedly cross the border illegally or have a history of criminal behavior. Asylum seekers do not engage in such. Rather, asylum seekers typically arrive at an entry point into the United States and ask for asylum. They look for and present themselves to authorities, the US Border Patrol.
Traditionally, this would lead to a legal review of their claim and if their claim was found true or with merit, they would be granted entrance into the US - they would be allowed to stay in the US. And yes, that did not happen instantly, they would be allowed to stay in the US till a decision was made, and this did take some time. And it should be noted that in most cases, they would appear in court. Most were not disappearing. That procedure, however, has been replaced by one of "Zero Tolerance". Again, asylum seekers today are being arrested and separated from their children.
And it is this group, the asylum seekers, that intrigues me. Asylum seekers are now seen as criminal. To ask for asylum at the United States southern border does not allow you access to a hearing, but rather gets you into a detention center / prison, and separated from your children.
Now this action of the US government is tragic. The President himself acknowledges that. He has said he does not like it. Now of course he claims he has no choice, that it is the law of the land, but as pointed out, it is in fact his policy, his interpretation of the law. And the cost, the emotional and psychological damage to the children is there. The American Academy of Pediatricians has asserted such in a formal statement.
I do not want to take away from these issues, the pain inflicted, the policies, and the misstatements and even outright lies of this administration. That said, I am interested in the history of asylum seekers and refugees. I feel there is a larger point to be made here. In short that the actions alluded to here are violations of these immigrants' human rights. Specifically, the detainment of those charged, the separation of the children from their parents, and lastly the detainment of the children. Sadly, each of these will take years to sort out, but the assertion that each of these actions is a violation of their human rights can be made. In short, nothing like this policy has ever been conducted in the United States before. The closest we come are the detainment camps set up for the Japanese during World War II, which today are acknowledged to have been human rights violations.
Now the interesting thing is that there were no "human rights" in 1942 or 1944. The concept of such rights, "Human Rights", was introduced in late 1948 when the fledgling United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then the United Nations and its members have reinforced this concept or Declaration in 1951, when it ratified the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. This later document basically defines a set of rights to individuals who are granted asylum and the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum. In 1966, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was adopted by the United Nations. Together, these are seen as an "International Bill of Human Rights".
Now what do I mean that there was no concept of "Human Rights" prior to the United Nations and the above? Obviously, the Bill of Rights can be found on the opening pages of the US Constitution, which was written in 1789. The concept of political rights has been discussed at least since the enlightenment of the seventeenth century. Further, you have the Magna Carta and the evolution of the English and American political systems. The difference is that all of these are the inner workings of a nation-state. The rights of an individual are always in relation to a nation-state. Never before had it been pondered whether these rights were portable, or transferable. Perhaps political philosophers such as Locke pondered such, but certainly never in practice. Never has a state pondered or claimed that its citizens are entitled to such rights beyond its borders. Such is the work of statecraft, diplomacy, and treaties.
The United Nations basically made the assertion with such treaties that individuals had human rights not only within the boundaries of a particular state, courtesy of that nation-state or country's government, but now across borders. Regardless of which border you were crossing, regardless of which country you were departing and which country you were entering, you now had certain inalienable rights.
And there is a reason for all of that happening in the period that it did. Again, this began in 1948, three years after the end of World War II, which was preceded by the first World War twenty years earlier. These were the most horrific and brutal wars ever witnessed. Both truly consumed the world like no other war previously. In no war prior were civilian populations effected as they had been in these two. Especially in the second, where we had massive aerial bombardments, firebombings, and the use of two nuclear devices. Plus the wholesale slaughter of millions, who died in the Nazi concentration camps and beyond. Never had civilians suffered the brunt of war as we had seen in these, especially the second. And with this suffering came massive numbers of refugees both during and after the war. People simply trying to survive. It was in response to these events that we have an International Bill of Human Rights.
In its zeal to protect civilian populations, to protect individuals, the United Nations, it could be argued, diminished the role of the nation-state, and its borders. The individual now has certain rights and privileges, regardless of where he or she is, and what relation, what standing, he or she has in relation to the nation-state or territory he or she is standing in. Further, the state is diminished in that it is now a member of the United Nations, which will impose its edicts, its dictates, upon the state. The state must now be in abidance with the treaties signed at the United Nations.
The point is that this is the core of globalism. Globalism is the disregard of the nation-state and its borders. The United Nations is the paradigm of globalism, (that and international business entities - but hold that thought). Historically, American conservatives have never held the United Nations in high regard, but it was typically due to the UN being seen as bureaucratic. It is a bunch of bureaucrats that consume our dues and fees, take up a big chunk of prime New York real estate, and provide us with little. At times the UN was and is annoying in that it challenges or criticizes US policy. Further, the UN has routinely condemned the actions of Israel, and the US being the ally that it is to that nation, has responded in kind.
Today, however, we challenge not the United Nations, but the treaties and documents, which are at its heart, the International Bill of Human Rights. Whether intentionally or not, the US is in these actions not only speaking to those who would cross its southern border "illegally"; the US is challenging the proposition that anyone has the right to cross that border claiming asylum, claiming to be a refugee, and appealing to such things as the International Bill of Human Rights. In the actions we are witnessing today, the United States, on its southern border, is making history. With each detainment of those claiming asylum, which each detainment of a child, the United States is asserting that such people have no rights in the United States. The United States today is stating in its actions that it does not recognize an International Bill of Human Rights.
World War II and the long shadow which followed it is being forgotten. That is what we are witnessing. I am suggesting that the impetus for tolerance, and all that it entails, is fading into the sunset. The skirmishes that we experience today, what we routinely witness on our southern border, do not compare to two World Wars. By themselves, today's events, do not stir up sufficient public opinion. And that which did, those two wars, do in fact have have expiration dates. They are being forgotten.
No comments:
Post a Comment