Sarah Cowgill
The country of Mexico is not publicly believed to torture its citizens. However, the US State Department seems to think its government is a direct and prolific violator of humanitarian rights. A 2022 report from the Bureau of Human Rights, Democracy, and Labor spells it out clearly: “Significant human rights issues included credible reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings by police, military, and other governmental officials; forced disappearance by government agents; torture or cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment by security forces; and harsh and life-threatening prison conditions.”
“But few, if any, Mexicans ever have valid claims for US protection,” Andrew R. Arthur, a Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at CIS, stated. “There’s nothing that suggests the Mexican government either tortures or acquiesces in the torture of its own nationals. And so, it makes no sense whatsoever to allow 57,000 Mexicans to make those claims.”
Arthur was an immigration judge for nine years and seems genuinely perplexed at the number of Mexican CBP One [US Customs and Border Protection mobile app] users. So is this guy, former CBP Commissioner Mark Morgan. After viewing the CIS report on the app, he commented – somewhat aghast: “Normally, Mexican nationals never claim or get asylum because they know they’re not going to get it. My only thought is that Mexicans started waking up to the fact that this administration is giving it to them now this way, that the administration is expanding the statutory limitation of our asylum laws that Congress clearly spelled out, and just not telling anyone. I wouldn’t put that past this administration to do something like that.”
Is the App Biased in Favor of Mexicans?
President Joe Biden has quietly allowed migrants entrance to American residency and benefits through the CBP One smartphone app, monitored by Customs and Border Protection, designed to accelerate the process of humanitarian aid for refugees. Thousands have taken advantage of the service and are roaming the country. But tucked into the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), 57,000 of the free-flowing migrants are Mexican nationals. Last we checked, there were no wars, massive discrimination, or political strife in that country, which begs the question: What is Biden up to?
A Biden Work-Around?
In January, the Biden administration proudly announced:
“Only noncitizens who can be considered for a humanitarian exception may use CBP One. Under this order, CBP is authorized to accept individuals on a case-by-case basis, based on the totality of circumstances, including considerations of humanitarian interests.”
According to the CBP One website, nearly 278,000 people have used this technology successfully in less than one year of utilization. Well, except for black asylum seekers from Africa and Haiti. “There are about 4,000 Black asylum seekers waiting in Reynosa and at least another 1,000 Haitians in Matamoros. Hardly anyone is getting an asylum appointment,” said Felicia Rangel-Samponaro, co-director of the non-profit Sidewalk School. Her organization provides educational programs for asylum seekers in the Mexican cities of Reynosa and Matamoros. “Neither population is being represented as it should.” Well, that seems to be due to facial recognition failing on the app – the darker the skin tone, the less able it is to process through watch lists and government databases.
But the Biden administration doesn’t agree. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas places the blame elsewhere: “The greatest challenge with respect to the CBP One app is not a technological challenge but rather the fact that we have many more migrants than we have the capacity to make appointments for.” Yes, connect the dots.
Perhaps Morgan is correct: There is a scheme afoot crafted by the Biden Bunch to open wider the gate for Mexicans and others – well, except those of a dark skin color – that effectively skirts immigration law. Or maybe the administration has no idea what it is doing. Either way, it’s highly irregular.
