Smascherato un finto profugo originario del Gambia, ma pronto a compiere un attentato jihadista in Italia.
Questa mattina polizia e carabinieri hanno infatti arrestato – con l’accusa di terrorismo di matrice islamica – un immigrato che viveva in provincia di Napoli e che stava progettando un attacco terroristico nel nostro Paese.
L’uomo aveva richiesto l’asilo politico, ma la pratica per la concessione era ancora in valutazione. Gli agenti della Digos e i militari del Ros hanno perquisito il centro d’accoglienza dove viveva, trovando materiale ritenuto “di grande interesse” da parte degli investigatori, che ora stanno verificando anche i contatti che l’uomo aveva in Italia.
In particolare Alagie Touray – questo il nome del 21enne gambiano – aveva giurato fedeltà al califfo Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, capo riconosciuto dell’Isis. Da cieca un anno era a Pozzuoli in un centro d’accoglienza grazie a un foglio di soggiorno provvisorio in attesa di definizione di un procedimento dopo la richiesta di protezione internazionale.
Era entrato in Italia il 22 marzo 2017 nel porto di Messina insieme a 638 migranti – di cui 209 erano proprio provenienti dal Gambia – tutti i partiti dalla Libia. L’uomo, fermato il 20 aprile scorso, ha anche ammesso in sede di interrogatorio di aver prestato giuramento perché aveva ricevuto istruzioni via Telegram per lanciare un’auto contro la folla, anche se ha detto in maniera contraddittoria di non aver mai avuto una reale intenzione di compiere l’attentato.
“L’arresto fa cadere il castello di menzogne messo in piedi in questi anni dal Pd e dalla sinistra”, accusa Paolo Grimoldi (Lega), “Eccoli i poveri profughi: un jihadista che aveva giurato fedeltà all’Isis e che stava preparando attentati in Italia, dove era ospitato da un anno in un centro di accoglienza. Per anni il Pd e la sinistra boldriniana si sono riempiti la bocca di accoglienza verso chi fugge dalla guerra: questo gambiano non fuggiva da nessuna guerra e voleva farci un attentato a casa nostra. Ecco cosa ci hanno messo in casa i Governi del PD, abbiamo speso 15 miliardi per inocularci le metastasi del cancro del terrorismo islamico. Per la serie chi è cagion dei suoi mali…“
Napoli, migrante arrestato per terrorismo: chiese asilo politico, progettava attentati
NAPOLI – Un migrante originario del Gambia aveva chiesto asilo politico in Italia ed è stato arrestato a Napoli con l’accusa di aver progettato un attentato.
L’uomo era arrivato nel nostro paese e aveva avviato la pratica per la concessione dell’asilo politico, pratica che era ancora in fase di valutazione. Nel corso di una operazione congiunta tra Digos e Ros per il reato di terrorismo internazionale di matrice islamica, il nome del migrante è emerso ed è stato arrestato a Napoli. Tutte le notizie di Blitzquotidiano in questa App per Android. Scaricatela qui
Casi tres semanas después de conocerse planes del Departamento de Justicia (DOJ) de eliminar un programa que ofrece asistencia legal a inmigrantes, el fiscal general, Jeff Sessions, anunció durante una comparecencia ante el Congreso, que finalmente no será eliminado.
Sessions acudió el miércoles al Senado para justificar el presupuesto de su departamento para el año fiscal 2019. El fiscal dijo a senadores que “la mayoría de las drogas, casi todas entraron por la frontera sur”, y explicó que para terminar con la inmigración ilegal ha contratado 100 jueces de inmigración, y que a muchos de ellos ya los envió a la frontera.
Y luego sorprendió al subcomité y a muchos fuera del Congreso, al anunciar que un programa de asistencia legal creado en 2003 por el entonces presidente George W. Bush, continuará operando, por el momento.
El DOJ había anunciado a mediados de mes que, a partir del 30 de abril, el Programa de Orientación Legal(LOP) sería suspendido mientras lleva a cabo una auditoría para determinar el costo-efectividad del plan.
“He ordenado que no termine (el programa) mientras lo estamos revisando”, indicó Sessions. Y explicó que tomó la decisión después de conversar con congresistas de ambos partidos, quienes se oponían a la decisión de cancelarlo.
De qué se trata
El programa es administrado por el Instituto de Justicia Vera. El año pasado el programa ofreció asistencia a unos 50,000 inmigrantes en más de una docena de estados, entre ellos California y Texas, donde se concentra un alto número de casos en las cortes de inmigración.
El primer anuncio de la cancelación generó una avalancha de criticas al gobierno de Donald Trump por parte de organizaciones que defienden los derechos de los inmigrantes. El programa otorga asistencia legal a extranjeros en proceso de deportación.
El Instituto de Justicia Vera ha señala que el programa “atiende a más de 50,000 personas por año en 38 grandes centros de detención, y garantiza que todos los inmigrantes detenidos reciban la información esencial que necesitan para navegar nuestro complejo sistema legal”.
La entidad agregó que el LOP ” les permite a los participantes representarse a sí mismos si tienen un reclamo válido según la ley existente o determinar que su mejor opción es aceptar la deportación”.
El Instituto Vera indicó que el LOP “ es un salvavidas para muchos inmigrantes, refugiados, solicitantes de asilo y titulares de residencias legales permanentes, algunos de los cuales luchan por sus vidas”, y que de otro modo, “no conocerían los derechos que tienen o las probabilidades que enfrentan” para luchar por sus derechos de permanencia en Estados Unidos.
“El LOP salva vidas todos los días”, añade. “Si este programa no está en funcionamiento, pone en riesgo la unidad familiar, perjudica a nuestras comunidades e infringe el derecho de todas las personas a ser informadas antes de tomar decisiones sobre sus reclamos legales”.
La decisión del gobierno de suspender el programa tomó por “sorpresa” a los jueces de inmigración. “No habíamos escuchado nada anteriormente sobre la cancelación. Nos enteramos por la prensa”, dijo a Univision Noticias la jueza Dana Leigh Marks, portavoz de la Asociación Nacional de Jueces de Inmigración (NAIJ, por sus siglas en inglés).
Marks también dijo que dentro de un tribunal “es difícil que la persona reciba una asesoría legal. Eso toma mucho tiempo, es difícil y la gente está nerviosa. La ayuda es mucho más eficaz cuando se puede hablar con un abogado fuera de la corte, porque las personas se sienten más cómodas y pueden preguntar qué pueden hacer con sus casos”.
“Incluso este programa permite, aún cuando los individuos no tienen remedio dentro de la ley, acepten los dictámenes del tribunal de una manera más fácil porque entienden el proceso”, apuntó.
A finales de enero las Cortes de Inmigración tenían acumulados más de 700,000 casos, de acuerdo con datos del Centro de Información y Acceso de Registros Transaccionales (TRAC) de la Universidad Syracuse, en Nueva York.
El fiscal general Jeff Sessions ha ordenado a las cortes acelerar los procesos y fijado cuotas a los jueces como una forma de descongestionar los tribunales y al mismo tiempo acelerar las deportaciones, una de las promesas de campaña de Trump junto con la construcción del muro en la frontera con México.
Amber Rudd is facing fresh calls to quit as home secretary after it emerged officials were set targets for the removal of illegal immigrants.
On Wednesday Ms Rudd denied targets were used, when she faced MPs investigating the problems faced by the Windrush generation.
But she admitted on Thursday to “local targets” for “internal” use but said she had not known about them.
The Home Office is now scrapping them, the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg understands.
The instruction to axe them is likely to be sent out from Immigration and Enforcement, a division of the Home Office, in the coming days.
However, the government’s overall target of reducing net migration to under 100,000 a year will stay in place, the BBC’s political editor said.
Labour’s shadow home secretary Diane Abbott said Ms Rudd should resign as a matter of “honour” after confirming the existence of the targets, which union officials have said are prominently displayed on posters at regional immigration centres.
She told BBC News Ms Rudd was “trying to blame officials” but that was not how the Home Office worked and the “direction will have come from the centre”.
She did not see how Ms Rudd could survive in her job, she added, “unless she is only there as a human shield for Theresa May”.
Asked how the targets had impacted on Windrush migrants, Ms Abbott said: “Immigration officials may have been looking for soft targets in the shape of West Indian pensioners who don’t have hot shot lawyers.”
Her Labour frontbench colleague, Dawn Butler, told the BBC’s Daily Politics Mrs May was “presiding over a government that has policies that are institutionally racist”.
The SNP’s home affairs spokeswoman Alison Thewlis also called for Ms Rudd’s resignation, saying she was presiding over a department “out of control” and it was “no surprise” targets existed as there was “a litany of callous incompetence” at the Home Office.
Conservative backbenchers, including Sir Nicholas Soames and Philip Davies rallied behind Ms Rudd, with Mr Davies saying most members of the public backed tougher action against illegal immigration and accused Labour and the SNP of being “out of touch with working class communities”.
Answering an urgent question in the Commons, Ms Rudd said: “I have never agreed that there should be specific removal targets and I would never support a policy that puts targets ahead of people.
“The immigration arm of the Home Office has been using local targets for internal performance management.
“These were not published targets against which performance was assessed, but if they were used inappropriately then I am clear that this will have to change.
“I have asked officials to provide me with a full picture of performance measurement tools which are used at all levels, and will update the House and the Home Affairs select committee as soon as possible.”
The Windrush row erupted after it emerged relatives of migrants from Commonwealth Caribbean countries who settled in the UK from the late 1940s to the 1970s had been declared illegal immigrants if they could not provide a range of documentation which proved they had lived in the UK continuously.
Some of the Windrush generation have been threatened with deportation, lost their jobs or been refused access to medical treatment.
Addressing the Home Affairs Select Committee on Wednesday, Amber Rudd said she had asked for more removals of illegal immigrants to take place, but added: “We don’t have targets for removals.”
Lucy Moreton, general secretary of the Immigration Service Union, had told the MPs a national target, broken down regionally, had been set to remove people in the UK illegally, and staff were under “increasing pressure” to meet it.
There are three types of enforceable departures: deportations, administrative removals, and voluntary departures.
The term “voluntary” describes the method of departure rather than the choice of whether or not to depart, the Migration Observatory explains. Those leaving in this way are able to approach the Home Office for financial assistance with their travel arrangements.
The Green Party has echoed calls for Amber Rudd to quit, saying that her confirmation of the existence of targets had “confirmed our worst fears about the Home Office”.
“You can’t set targets for people you want to kick out without deciding that some people won’t get a fair hearing, because there’s a quota to meet by the end of the year,” said co-leader Jonathan Bartley.
Lib Dem leader Sir Vince Cable has raised concerns about the Home Office’s ability to process applications from millions of EU nationals who want to stay in the UK after Brexit if it cannot deal properly with the Windrush generation.
The government has set up a task force to help those affected by the Windrush cases formalise their status.
So far 3,800 calls have been made to the helpline, of which 1,364 were potentially Windrush cases, MPs were told on Wednesday.
Are you part of the Windrush generation that has been affected? Email us with your story at email@example.com.
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also contact us in the following ways:
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Francis Cissna speaking at a December 2017 White House press briefing. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
In an April 4, 2018 letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Francis Cissna laid out a series of measures to make it far more difficult for the most sought-after employees in the world – individuals with degrees in science and engineering fields – to work in the United States. Appropriately, this comes a few months after USCIS “eliminated the words ‘nation of immigrants’ from the agency’s mission statement.”
Cissna is part of a team of Trump officials who share a common mission: Reduce legal immigration and break the cycle whereby international students come to America, are later hired by U.S. companies and become Americans. Trying to end something so historically beneficial to America is wrong-headed and damaging to the country.
In practice, an H-1B visa is typically the only way a high-skilled foreign national or an international student from a U.S. university can work in the United States. That means new H-1B restrictions prevent foreign-born individuals from making their careers in America. (See this article for more background on H-1B visas.) Cissna’s letter to Grassley proudly notes USCIS has already implemented a policy (not deferring to prior agency determinations) that has caused many people working years in the U.S. to lose their jobs and be forced to leave the country after applications to extend their H-1B status were denied.
Here’s the “trick”: Trump officials themselves wrote the “Buy American and Hire American” executive order issued on April 18, 2017 – and since then have cited it regularly as a way to justify their actions to restrict immigration. The Cissna letter cites the executive order to justify prohibiting tens of thousands of women, the spouses of H-1B visa holders, from working in the United States.
However, real world facts, including low unemployment rates in technical fields and around the country, conflict with administration views that foreign-born individuals are preventing U.S. workers from finding jobs. “The U.S. labor market is the tightest it has been in nearly two decades,” reported the Wall Street Journal. “If every unemployed person in the Midwest was placed into an open job, there would still be more than 180,000 unfilled positions, according to the most recent Labor Department data.”
The April 4, 2018 USCIS letter to Grassley lists new restrictions the agency plans to impose:
Making it More Difficult for a High-Skilled Individual to Qualify for an H-1B Visa: USCIS “will propose to revise the definition of specialty occupation, consistent with INA§ 214(i), to increase focus on obtaining the best and the brightest foreign nationals via the H-1B program, and to revise the definition of employment and employer-employee relationship to better protect U.S. workers and wages,” according to the letter. “In addition, DHS will propose additional requirements designed to ensure employers pay appropriate wages to H-1B visa holders.”
Preventing H-1B Spouses – Primarily Women From India – From Working in the United States: “With regard to regulations, our plans include proposing regulatory changes to remove H-4 dependent spouses from the class of aliens eligible for employment authorization, thereby reversing the 2015 final rule that granted such eligibility,” the letter notes. “We announced this intention earlier this year in the semiannual regulatory agenda of the Department of Homeland Security. Such action would comport with the E.O. [executive order] requirement to ‘propose new rules and issue new guidance, to supersede or revise previous rules and guidance if appropriate, to protect the interests of United States workers in the administration of our immigration system.’”
Closing Off a Viable Option for a Foreign-Born Entrepreneur: “We are also drafting a proposed rule to remove the International Entrepreneur Rule (IER), as announced in the regulatory agenda,” notes the USCIS letter. “Due to the court order which invalidated the IER delay rule, the International Entrepreneur Final Rule is currently in effect. We have not approved any parole requests under the International Entrepreneur Final Rule at this time.”
The USCIS letter covers only part of the Trump administration’s anti-immigration agenda, omitting, for example, a future regulation that would restrict or even eliminate the ability of international students to work on Optional Practical Training.
The administration has already reduced refugee admissions to historically low levels, sought to make it more difficult to apply for asylum and instituted a travel ban on individuals from selected countries. Legislatively, the administration opposed relief for Dreamers (young people brought to America as children) unless Congress agreed to the largest reduction in legal immigrants since the 1920s. And Trump officials are poised to enact a questionable rule on “public charge” as a way to keep more legal immigrants out of the country.
Critics of Mr. Trump say they still believe the courts will rule against the president and declare his efforts unconstitutional.
Lower courts have blocked most of the president’s three attempts to write a travel ban, saying they violate either the immigration laws barring discrimination in the issuance of visas or the Constitution’s prohibition on religious discrimination. The Supreme Court’s decision in the travel ban case is expected in June.
“Over all, what the administration has been trying to do is contrary to the law,” said Omar Jadwat, the director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups that sued to stop the president’s first travel ban. “That’s what the courts should continue to hold.”
Mr. Jadwat said he believes the administration will lose in its legal appeals.
“There continues to be case after case where the administration violates the law and the courts say you can’t do that,” Mr. Jadwat said. “We will keep seeing that, I wager.”
Mr. Trump’s efforts to restrict immigration and increase deportations of undocumented immigrants began days after he took office when he signed the first temporary ban on travel from several mostly Muslim countries.
That ban was imposed with no notice and little discussion among federal agencies. A flurry of court rulings blocking the ban led Mr. Trump to abandon it in favor of a second version, which was also blocked by courts.
It wasn’t until the president’s third attempt that he found some legal success. While lower-court judges again sought to block the restrictions, the Supreme Court let the ban go into effect while it considered the case. And on Wednesday, the justices appeared inclined to uphold the president’s action, given his powers over immigration and national security, and to discount his campaign promises to impose a “Muslim ban.”
The president has also been fighting a legal battle over his decision to end the DACA program, which President Barack Obama put in place in 2012. The program allows young immigrants who were brought illegally to the United States as children to live and work without the fear of deportation.
About 700,000 immigrants signed up for the program, which requires them to renew every two years.
As a candidate and as president, Mr. Trump said DACA was an unconstitutional abuse of presidential power and vowed to end it. In September, he followed through, saying he would end the program by March and was acting on behalf of “the millions of Americans victimized by this unfair system.”
Courts intervened to save the program much the same way judges had blocked Mr. Trump’s actions on the travel ban. Within weeks of the March deadline, judges ordered the president to continue renewing participation in the program for those who had already enrolled.
On Tuesday, Judge John D. Bates of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia went one step further, saying that government officials must also allow new applicants to sign up for protections offered by DACA.
But Judge Bates, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said that he had ruled against the Trump administration because it had not offered a rationale for why the program should be ended. The decision to rescind DACA, he wrote in his decision, “was predicated primarily on its legal judgment that the program was unlawful.” He added, “That legal judgment was virtually unexplained, however, and so it cannot support” the administration’s decision.
The judge was explicit in laying out a way that Mr. Trump could move forward, and all but urged the secretary of homeland security to submit within 90 days a more complete explanation of the administration’s rationale. If the administration fails to do so, the judge said it must fully restart the program.
If the administration does submit a rationale acceptable to the judge, it’s possible that at least one court would allow it to end DACA this summer. That could come soon after a favorable ruling on the travel ban case at the end of June.
“Is it conceivable that this president could figure out harsh and unfair things to do that are legal within the letter of the law? Sure,” Mr. Jadwat said. But he added, “It’s not actually that easy to go back and do it over.”
Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, on Wednesday called Judge Bates’s ruling “extraordinarily broad and wrong on the law” and said it would serve as an incentive to attract more illegal immigration to the United States.
After objections from immigration lawyers and lawmakers, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Wednesday that he would not suspend a legal-aid program for detained immigrants while it undergoes a review.
The government-funded Legal Orientation Program, launched in 2003 under President George W. Bush, was created to ensure that immigrants know their rights and legal options in court. It serves more than 50,000 detained immigrants facing deportation proceedings each year.
Sessions, an immigration hawk, said the U.S. immigration courts had planned to suspend the program starting as early as next week. At a budget hearing before a Senate appropriations subcommittee, he signaled that he had received questions about pausing the program from lawmakers in both parties, including the subcommittee’s chairman, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), and its ranking Democratic member, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.).
“I have previously expressed some concerns about the program,” Sessions said. “I recognize that this committee has spoken on this matter, and, out of deference to the committee, I have ordered that there be no pause while the review is being conducted.”
Sessions said he also would not suspend a “help desk” run by the Vera Institute of Justice, the nonprofit entity that also holds the federal contract to run the Legal Orientation Program.
This month, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which runs the Justice Department’s immigration courts, said the government intended to evaluate both programs’ cost-effectiveness and determine whether they duplicated other efforts to inform immigrants of their rights under U.S. law. The help desk offers tips to non-detained immigrants facing deportation proceedings in courts in Chicago, Miami, New York, Los Angeles and San Antonio.
Approximately 8 in 10 detainees in immigration court face a government prosecutor without a lawyer, according to Vera. The Legal Orientation Program sends lawyers and paralegals to detention centers to hold hour-long group sessions with detainees to explain their rights, how the court process works and their possible defenses to deportation. They also meet with detainees individually and refer them to free or low-cost lawyers, but do not represent them in court.
Vera said the $8 million-a-year program provides “fundamental” information to “hundreds of thousands” of detained immigrants who are not entitled to public defenders, and has saved the government millions of dollars by helping to move cases more quickly.
The immigration judges’ labor union, immigration lawyers and leading Democratic lawmakers had criticized plans to suspend the program.
TIJUANA, BC.- El número de migrantes que han llegado a la ciudad, ha rebasado la capacidad del albergue Movimiento Juventud 2000, el cual está acondicionado para albergar a poco más de 150 personas, por lo que las personas que lleguen posteriormente serán enviadas a otros hospedajes que han comenzado a acondicionarse, informó su director, José María García Lara.
Pasadas las 14:00 horas de ayer arribó un camión al albergue con 48 migrantes, sumando con ellos 180 personas, entre los que se encuentran hombres, mujeres y niños; previamente a que llegara esta caravana, dos semanas atrás se recibió un grupo de 37 centroamericanos.
García Lara informó que aún están a la espera de dos camiones más, de los cuales no tenía conocimiento sobre la cantidad de migrantes restantes, pero dado que ya en el asilo que dirige no cuentan con espacio, los recién llegados serán canalizados a otros espacios como son la Casa Madre Asunta y el Ejercito de Salvación.
Explicó que será la dirección municipal de Atención al Migrante quien estará coordinando el traslado de los migrantes que lleguen en las siguientes horas hacia los diferentes albergues que se encuentran esperando dar asilo a esta caravana, además que en conjunto con la Secretaría de Desarrollo Municipal (Sedesom), estarán abasteciendo algunos insumos y alimentos que cada albergue requiera.
Sobre la fecha de cuándo comenzarán a solicitar el asilo político con Estados Unidos, manifestó que es una situación que dependerá de las personas, ya que ellos podrían ir a solicitar el asilo desde el momento que llegan a la ciudad, sin embargo, todo parece indicar que buscan acudir en grupo para obtener una mejor atención, pero en cualquier momento se podría dar este acercamiento con las autoridades norteamericanas.
Gobierno busca restringir vías legales que amparan a mujeres inmigrantes maltratadas en busca de asilo político
Crece la preocupación en la comunidad inmigrante por lo que sería una nueva medida que cierra la ayuda que presta hasta el día de hoy los Estados Unidos con inmigrantes que han sido víctimas de violencia doméstica.
La administraciónde Donald Trump trata de restringir las vías legales que amparan a mujeres inmigrantes maltratadas que buscan asilo político, advierten expertos.
El Fiscal General Jeff Sessions ha sido el encargado de revisar las normas que permiten a las inmigrantes víctimas de violencia doméstica o abuso sexual solicitar asilo político y obtener la protección en los Estados Unidos por esta causa.
El jefe del Departamento de Justicia encargó una amplia revisión sobre los casos y fallos a favor de estas mujeres; incluso ha cuestionado algunas decisiones de las cortes de inmigración.
La Profesora Karen Musalo, Directora del Centro de Estudios de Género y Refugio de la Escuela de Leyes de la Universidad de California Hastings calificó de “preocupante” las maniobras que el Fiscal General está desarrollando.
Musalo citó como ejemplo las acciones de Sessions en el caso conocido como “Matter of A-B”, en el que un juez de inmigración le concedió asilo político a una salvadoreña debido a los años en los que fue víctima de violencia doméstica.
La Junta de Apelaciones de Inmigración (BIA) dictaminó que por el tiempo en que sufrió el abuso, la cuzcatleca calificaba para el asilo político. No obstante, el fiscal pidió en las últimas semanas revisar el caso.
“Sessions está usando una regulación que le permite tomar jurisdicción sobre casos como este, pero es un movimiento inusual, no es la ruta normal que atraviesa un caso de asilo”, apunta Musalo.
Teresa Tejada, directora de la Asociación de Salvadoreños de Los Ángeles (ASOSAL), asegura que el riesgo de muerte de una mujer víctima de violencia doméstica y sexual en El Salvador es real, y que el gobierno no ha podido tomar las medidas suficientes para prevenir estos delitos.
“El Salvador está conmocionado con el cruel asesinato de una reconocida periodista. El principal sospechoso es su pareja y padre de su hijo. Si esto le pasa a las mujeres con cierta visibilidad, qué pasa con las otras?”, pregunta la activista.
La preocupación de los defensores de los derechos de la mujer por la postura del fiscal aumenta en estos días en que cientos de inmigrantes que llegaron a la frontera de California con México se disponen a pedir protección en Estados Unidos.
“No parece haber ninguna línea (legal) que este gobierno no esté dispuesto a cruzar”, resalta Katie Shepherd, vocera de la Campaña de Justicia de Inmigración, de la Asociación Americana de Abogados de Inmigración (AILA).
La portavoz de AILA explica que los abogados defensores de los inmigrantes han visto cómo la Administración se dirige cruelmente contra los no ciudadanos más vulnerables, incluidas las mujeres embarazadas, víctimas de abuso, detenidas.
Aunque es muy difícil elucubrar cuáles serán los movimientos de la Administración en contra de este grupo, Musalo teme que, con las revisiones, Sessions busca cambiar el precedente establecido en una decisión de 2014, conocida como “Matter of ARCG”, que establece que las mujeres que huyen de la violencia doméstica podrían calificar para asilo.
Aunque habían existido otros fallos a favor que concedían asilo político a mujeres víctimas de violencia doméstica o abuso sexual, esta decisión presentó un “precedente vinculante” que abogados pueden citar para ganar los casos.
En el caso “Matter of ARCG”, una inmigrante guatemalteca que ha preferido el anonimato señaló que fue golpeada reiteradamente por su esposo, le rompió la nariz y fue violada repetidas veces; cuando trató de realizar la denuncia ante las autoridades de su país, éstas supuestamente contestaron que no se involucran en una relación matrimonial.
“Tenemos años de lucha para convencer a la policía de nuestros países a que atienda estas denuncias y ponga más atención en los feminicidios, pero los avances son muy pequeños” aclara Tejada, de ASOSAL.
“Mientras el peligro inminente siga, ellas van a tratar de salvar su vida y la de sus hijos”, agregó.
Por el momento, los defensores de los inmigrantes, así como sus abogados, están tratando de brindar asesoría a las mujeres que llegan a la frontera en busca de asilo como parte de la caravana proveniente de El Salvador, Honduras y Guatemala.
No obstante, el futuro de estas inmigrantes sigue esperando por la inclusión en movimientos de defensa como “MeToo”.
“La Administración Trump las ve como inmigrantes ilegales, en lugar de solicitantes de asilo que merecen una audiencia imparcial sobre sus reclamos. No soy muy optimista de que serán tratados de manera justa”, proyectó la profesora Musalo.
Jeremy Corbyn has called on Theresa May to review her “cruel” immigration policy and abandon “bogus” targets, in response to the Windrush scandal.
He said the PM had been warned a 2014 law aimed at intensifying the “hostile environment” for illegal migrants would also affect those in the UK legally.
Mrs May said the public wanted action on illegal immigration.
She rejected Mr Corbyn’s call for Home Secretary Amber Rudd to quit in clashes at Prime Minister’s Questions.
Home Affairs committee chairwoman Yvette Cooper also claimed that Commonwealth High Commissioners had warned the Foreign Office about Windrush case problems back in 2016.
The BBC understands that the Home Office and No 10 were both told about the problem after the issue was raised in a letter to the Foreign Office sent by the Barbados government.
The Windrush cases – which includes anyone who moved to the UK from a Commonwealth country before 1973 – are in the UK legally but some have been threatened with deportation if they did not have paperwork to prove it. The government has set up a task force to help them formalise their status.
Clashing over the row in their weekly Prime Minister’s Questions Commons session, Mr Corbyn said Mrs May, when she was home secretary, had been warned by ministers and officials that the 2014 Immigration Act – which required migrants to show paperwork to access services such as healthcare and housing – would have dangerous repercussions.
“These policies swept up British citizens and legal migrants causing them immense suffering, as she was warned,” he told MPs.
“Can the PM send a clear message and tell us the hostile environment is over and that her bogus immigration targets that have driven this will be scrapped?”
He called for the 2014 Act and other related legislation – including curbs on legal aid – to be reviewed.
Urging the home secretary to quit, Mr Corbyn said Ms Rudd had “inherited a cruel policy” when she succeeded Mrs May in 2016 and had made it even tougher.
Mrs May rejected claims she was “ignoring” the plight of the families of Caribbean migrants who have had their residency rights questioned, repeating the government’s promise they and others from Commonwealth nations who came between 1948 and 1973 would now be offered British citizenship free of charge and would be helped in clarifying their status.
But she said a distinction should be drawn between those people who had settled in the UK legally and contributed to British life and those with no right to be in the UK.
“The Windrush generation are here legally but there are people who are in this country illegally,” she said.
“What the leader of the opposition is talking about is illegal immigration and what people up and down the country will tell him is that we should deal with illegal immigration.”
She cited a number of former shadow ministers, including Yvette Cooper, whom she said had backed action on illegal immigration but Ms Cooper, now Home Affairs committee chair, told the PM not to “hide” behind her but rather accept responsibility for government failings.
“Do not try to hide behind civil servants when she set the policies instilled in them under a culture of disbelief and when the High Commissioners told us this morning that they had warned the Foreign Office about the Windrush generation immigration problems in 2016,” Ms Cooper told MPs.
During the PM questions session, Labour MP David Lammy said he had raised a Windrush case with then Home Office minister Damian Green in 2011 and said that seven years on the man, who came to the UK at the age of six in 1959, had still not had his status confirmed.
The Prime Minister’s Questions clashes came amid evidence of tensions within the government over policy – the BBC understands that at a recent cabinet meeting Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson urged Theresa May to introduce an amnesty for illegal migrants in the wake of the Windrush scandal.
The foreign secretary was understood to have urged the prime minister to consider a “broader” amnesty for those migrants who may have been in the UK illegally but who have nevertheless played a “constructive” role in society.
He suggested these would be illegal migrants who had been in the UK for between 10 and 15 years but had “an impeccable record”, which would mean they had paid their taxes and did not have any criminal convictions.
It is understood Mrs May told Mr Johnson most opinion polls showed that both Remain and Leave supporters backed strong immigration controls.
A government source rejected press reports of a row between the two, saying they had had “a cordial and friendly exchange”.
The source added: “What are cabinets for if not to air these sort of issues?”
Mr Johnson first floated the idea of an amnesty for some illegal immigrants when he was Mayor of London.