United States

Coronavirus Restrictions on Asylum Seekers May Be Pretext to Achieve Broader Immigration Policy in the United States

By: Hannah Gabbard

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor 

WASHINGTON, District of Columbia – As the rapid spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has garnered fear for vulnerable peoples such as individuals with underlying health conditions and the elderly, the United States has implemented measures that place asylum seekers at risk under the guise of coronavirus protections. 

Asylum seekers wear protective masks while they wait in Matamoros, Mexico. Photo Courtesy of Go Nakamura/Reuters.

Citing the need to protect United States customs officials and the general public from the spread of novel coronavirus by potentially infected migrants, President Trump implemented strict immigration controls along the United States-Mexico border. These controls empower Customs and Border Protection officers to “expeditiously expel” asylum seekers encountered between ports of entry and to turn asylum seekers back at the ports of entry despite their expression of credible fear. These measures implicate the United States’ obligations to asylum seekers under domestic and international law.

These measures require asylum seekers to remain in conditions which increase their risk of contracting the coronavirus. In Mexico, many asylum seekers live in overcrowded shelters near the United States border with limited sanitation facilities. As stay at home measures have been the “front-line defense against the coronavirus,” asylum seekers waiting in these conditions are inherently devoid of the opportunity to protect themselves against potentially contracting coronavirus. Human Rights Watch indicates that nearly 92 percent of asylum seekers have family or other close friends living in the United States. Access to these individuals by granting asylum seekers their right to access the United States asylum process would provide asylum seekers the opportunity to adequately self-isolate for the duration of the coronavirus crisis. 

The United States is not the only country to restrict asylum seekers travel through its international borders during the coronavirus crisis. In late March 2020, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that asylum seekers attempting to reach Canada between ports of entry will be automatically repelled.  Similar to the United States, the Canadian government cites the risk of public safety and security as the objectives of this policy. However, unlike the United States, the Canadian government has overtly indicated that these measures are temporary. 

Since President Trump took office, he has pursued policies which impose tough immigration restrictions including restrictions on asylum seekers. Critics of President Trump indicate that recent measures to reduce the spread of coronavirus in the United States may instead be a tool to accomplish the immigration policy objectives the Trump administration has pursued over the past three years of his presidency. Only the administration’s actions after the risks of coronavirus have subdued will indicate the true motives of this policy. 

For further information, please see: 

The Washington Post – Facing coronavirus pandemic, Trump suspends immigration laws and showcases vision for locked-down border – 3 Apr. 2020

Human Rights Watch – US: COVID-19 Policies Risk Asylum Seekers’ Lives – 2 Apr. 2020

The Guardian – Rapes, murders…and coronavirus: the dangers US asylum seekers in Mexico must face – 23 Mar. 2020

CNN – US is pushing to reject all asylum seekers, citing coronavirus worries – 17 Mar. 2020

Venezuela Refers US Sanctions to ICC for Crimes Against Humanity

By: Henry Schall

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

CARACAS, Venezuela – On February 13, 2020, the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela filed a request with the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.  This request has the purpose of seeking an investigation of United States sanctions against Venezuela, calling the sanctions “crimes against humanity.”

The current crisis in Venezuela is due to economic collapse after President Maduro took power in 2013.  This collapse caused widespread shortages in basic food and supplies causing 4.5 million people to flee. 

Strong opposition parties emerged around Maduro within the National Assembly culminating in the 2018 election, where Maduro was reelected.  This election was widely dismissed as rigged, and fifty other countries recognize the National Assembly leader Juan Guaidó as the rightful president. 

To pressure Maduro in hopes that he would step down, the United States imposed new sanctions in August 2019.  In a letter to Congress, President Trump wrote that the new sanctions were imposed due to the “continued usurpation of power by Nicolás Maduro and persons affiliated with him, as well as human rights abuses, arbitrary arrest and detention of Venezuelan citizens.”

President Trump signed an executive order which declared all property or interests in property owned by the government of Venezuela in the United States as blocked which cannot be used.   The new sanctions bar any transactions with Venezuelan officials whose assets are blocked.  President Trump’s order states, “the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.” 

These new sanctions expand pressure on Maduro by targeting his government, but also targeting individuals, companies, and countries doing business with the government.  The United States Security Advisor John Bolton said the new sanction could be imposed on any supporters of the Maduro government, since the sanctions would force countries and companies to choose between doing business with the United States or Venezuela.  Venezuela has long blamed the United States for the current economic crisis, but the sanctions do include exceptions for humanitarian goods, food and medicine.  

In a sixty-page brief, Venezuela referred the situation in accordance with Article 14 of the Rome Statute, declaring that the Unilateral Coercive Measures imposed impose negative impacts on the people in Venezuela.  Venezuela contends these sanctions contravene international law that prevent foreign intervention in internal affairs and have caused an enormous hardship for the people of Venezuela.  The brief further declares these sanctions as crimes against humanity, citing a study by Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs which provides statistical evidence that sanctions amount to a death sentence for tens of thousands of Venezuelan Citizens. 

On February 19, 2020, the Presidency of the ICC referred the situation in Venezuela to Pre-Trial Chamber III.  According to the ICC, a State Party referral does not automatically lead to an investigation, but it may speed up opening the investigation.  Now, the Prosecutor must consider issues of jurisdiction, admissibility and the interests of justice in determining if an investigation should be opened. 

For further information, please see:

International Criminal Court – Annex I to the Prosecution’s Provision of the Supporting Document of the Referral Submitted by the Government of Venezuela – 4 Mar. 2020

International Criminal Court – Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Mrs Fatou Bensouda, on the referral by Venezuela regarding the situation in its own territory – 17 Feb. 2020

BBC – Venezuela crisis in 300 words – 6 Jan. 2020

BBC – US imposes sweeping sanctions on Venezuelan government – 6 Aug. 2019

What is Happening Along the Border of Turkey and Syria?

By: Madison Kenyon 

Impunity Watch Staff Writer 

DAMASCUS, Syria — On Sunday, October 20, Syrian Kurdish forces began their withdrawal from Ras al-Ayn, a town along the Syrian border. This withdrawal is part of a cease-fire negotiated by the United States’ Vice President, Mike Pence, and Secretary of State, Michael Pompeo with Turkey’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. This cease-fire began Thursday, October 17, and will end on Tuesday, October 22. By Tuesday evening, the Kurdish forces must not only have all soldiers removed from Ras al-Ayn, but also, they must withdraw from a zone about 75 miles wide and 20 miles deep between Ras al-Ayn and the town of Tel Abyad.

The aftermath of a shelling by Turkish forces on a target in Das al-Ayn. Photo courtesy of NPR.

Despite the Kurdish forces’ withdrawal from this zone, Turkey states that this is not enough. Rather, Erdogan wants the Kurdish forces to withdraw more than 260 miles from the Syrian border.  He has vowed that if the forces fail to do so, he will “continue to crush the terrorists’ heads.” Erdogan’s persistency to remove the Kurds from the Syrian border comes from his belief that the presence of any Kurds along the Turkey border is an “existential threat” to Turkey.

This tension between Turkey and the Kurds stems from years of conflict. The Kurds, a largely Muslim ethnic group, are one of the largest groups of people without a state of their own (despite being promised one after World War I). Due to this, for years, a Kurdish militant group has launched attacks throughout Turkey in an attempt to achieve autonomy. Therefore, Turkey sees the Kurdish forces located in northern Syria as linked to this militant group. Thus, Turkey argues that it wants to create a “safe zone” between the Turkey-Syrian border. It also argues that it wants to resettle at least a million refugees living in Turkey who were displaced by the Syrian war into this zone.

Previously, the U.S. has backed the Kurds in their defense against Turkey. However, recently, President Donald Trump signed an executive order withdrawing U.S. troops from northern Syria. The Kurds have now had to turn to Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s leader, and Vladimir Putin, Russia’s President, for help in this conflict.

Since President Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria, over 200,000 people have been displaced. Many of these people blame President Trump for this displacement. One 70-year-old Kurdish man, forced to flee from his home in Ras al-Ayn, stated, “This was a clear betrayal by the Americans. The Turks never would have done what they did had the Americans stayed.”

This criticism is what led the U.S. to negotiate this cease-fire. However, despite the Kurds’ current withdrawal, both sides claim that the other side still repeatedly violates the cease-fire. For example, Turkey’s Defense Ministry stated that the Kurds killed one of its soldiers today during an attack.

It is hard to believe that this cease-fire will make any real difference in this conflict. Rather, the world is awaiting to see what happens at the Turkey-Syrian border Tuesday evening once the cease-fire ends.

For further information, please see: 

Time – Kurds Begin to Evacuate Besieged Syrian Border Town – 20 Oct. 2019

Washington Post – The Latest: Kurdish Fighters Pull Out of Syrian Border Town – 20 Oct. 2019

Bloomberg – Syrian and Kurdi News: Trump Approach to Turkey Syria Incursion – 20 Oct. 2019

Los Angeles Times – ‘How Long Can We Live Like This?’: Kurds in Growing Refugee Camp Plead for Help, End to Losses, Suffering – 20 Oct. 2019

CBS News – Turkey’s Involvement in Syria’s Civil War: The Complicated History of How We Got Here – 15 Oct. 2019