The Trump administration’s move to separate immigrant parents from their children on the US-Mexico border has grabbed attention around the world, drawn scorn from human-rights organizations and overtaken the immigration debate in Congress.
It’s also a situation that has been brewing since the week President Donald Trump took office, when he issued his first order signaling a tougher approach to asylum-seekers. Since then, the administration has been steadily eroding protections for immigrant children and families.
“They’re willing to risk harm to a child being traumatized, separated from a parent and sitting in federal detention by themselves, in order to reach a larger policy goal of deterrence,” said Jennifer Podkul, director of policy at Kids in Need of Defense, which represents children in immigration court.
To those who work with immigrants, the parents’ plight was heralded by a series of measures making it harder for kids arriving on the border to get released from government custody and to seek legal status here.
The administration says the changes are necessary to deter immigrants from coming here illegally. But a backlash is mounting, fueled by reports of children being taken from mothers and distraught toddlers and elementary school age children asking, through tears, when they can see their parents.
About 2,000 children had been separated from their families over a six-week period ending in May, administration officials said Friday.
Among the parents caught up in the new rules is 29-year-old Vilma Aracely Lopez Juc de Coc, who fled her home in a remote Guatemalan village after her husband was beaten to death in February, according to advocates. When she reached the Texas border with her 11-year-old son in May, he was taken from her by border agents, she said.
Her eyes swollen, she cried when she asked a paralegal what she most wanted to know: When could she see her son again?
“She did not know what was going on,” said paralegal Georgina Guzman, recalling their conversation at a federal courthouse in McAllen, Texas.
Similar scenarios play out on a daily basis in federal courtrooms in Texas and Arizona, where dozens of immigrant parents appear on charges of entering the country illegally after traveling up from Central America. More than the legal outcome of their cases, their advocates say, they’re worried about their children.
Since Trump’s inauguration, the administration has issued at least half a dozen orders and changes affecting immigrant children, many of them obscure revisions. The cumulative effect is a dramatic alteration of immigration policy and practice.
The measures require a senior government official to sign off on the release of children from secure shelters and allow immigration enforcement agents access to information about sponsors who sign up to take the children out of government custody and care for them.
The crackdown expanded in April, when the administration announced a “zero tolerance” policy on the border to prosecute immigrants for entering the country illegally in the hopes they could be quickly deported and that the swift deportations would prevent more people from coming.
Parents are now being arrested and placed in quick federal court proceedings near the border. Since children cannot be jailed in federal prisons, they’re placed in shelters that have long existed for unaccompanied immigrant children arriving on the border alone.
The administration insists the new rules are necessary to send a message to immigrants.
“Look, I hope that we don’t have to separate any more children from any more adults,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said last week. “But there’s only one way to ensure that is the case: It’s for people to stop smuggling children illegally. Stop crossing the border illegally with your children. Apply to enter lawfully. Wait your turn.”
Immigration on the southwest border has remained high since the zero-tolerance policies took effect. Border agents made more than 50,000 arrests in May, up slightly from a month earlier and more than twice the number in May 2017. About a quarter of arrests were families traveling with children.
In addition to those trying to cross on their own, large crowds of immigrants are gathered at border crossings each day to seek asylum. Some wait days or weeks for a chance to speak with US authorities. On a Texas border bridge, parents and children have been sleeping in sweltering heat for several days awaiting their turn.
Under US law, most Mexican children are sent back across the border. Central American and other minors are taken into government custody before they are mostly released to sponsors in the United States.
The arrival of children fleeing violence in Central America is not new. President Barack Obama faced an even larger surge in border crossings that overflowed shelters and prompted the authorities to release many families. Nearly 60,000 children were placed in government-contracted shelters in the 2014 fiscal year.
Obama administration lawyers argued in federal court in Los Angeles against the separation of parents and children and in favor of keeping in family detention facilities those deemed ineligible for release.
Immigrant and children’s advocates said the new measures are not only cruel but costly. They argued that children fleeing violence and persecution in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras will continue to come to the United States and remain in government custody longer, costing taxpayers more money.
The government pays more than $1 billion a year to care for unaccompanied immigrant children, Sessions has said.
In May 2014, the average length of stay for children in custody was 35 days. So far this fiscal year, it’s taking 56 days for children to be released to sponsors — in most cases, their own relatives.
Many children were released to sponsors who did not have legal immigration status. That’s yet another concern child advocates now have since the Trump administration is requiring fingerprints of sponsors and their household members and will turn that data over to the immigration agency in charge of deportations.
Advocates say the new information sharing might lead some parents to shy away from sponsoring their own children and ask others to do so, a situation that can lead to cases of trafficking or neglect.
Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, legal director of the immigrant advocacy program at the Legal Aid Justice Center in Virginia, said he’s never worked with immigrants who said US policies influenced their decision to move. They are fleeing violence and persecution, and he doesn’t see that changing even if the government deports parents.
“Look six months out from now,” he said. “Are these moms going to stay in Guatemala? Hell no, they’re going to come back looking for their kids.”
Erosion of immigrant protections began with Trump inaugural
Erosion of immigrant protections began with Trump inaugural
- The US administration says the changes are necessary to deter immigrants from coming to America illegally
- Six months out from now are these moms going to stay in Guatemala? Hell no, they’re going to come back looking for their kids, says lawyer
Warrants of ICC are binding, Borrell says
- I have the right to criticize the decisions of the Israeli government without being accused of antisemitism. This is not acceptable
NICOSIA: EU governments cannot pick and choose whether to execute arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court against two Israeli leaders and a Hamas commander, the EU’s foreign policy chief said on Saturday.
The ICC issued the warrants on Thursday against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his former defense minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Ibrahim Al-Masri for alleged crimes against humanity.
All EU member states signed the ICC’s founding treaty, the Rome Statute.
Several EU states have said they will meet their commitments under the statute if needed, but Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has invited Netanyahu to visit his country, assuring him he would face no risks if he did so.
“The states that signed the Rome convention must implement the court’s decision. It’s not optional,” Josep Borrell, the EU’s top diplomat, said during a visit to Cyprus for a workshop of Israeli and Palestinian peace activists.
Those same obligations were also binding on countries aspiring to join the EU, he said.
“It would be very funny that the newcomers have an obligation that current members don’t fulfill,” he said.
The US rejected the ICC’s decision and Israel said the ICC move was antisemitic.
“Every time someone disagrees with the policy of one Israeli government — (they are) being accused of antisemitism,” said Borrell, whose term as EU foreign policy chief ends this month.
“I have the right to criticize the decisions of the Israeli government, be it Mr. Netanyahu or someone else, without being accused of antisemitism. This is not acceptable. That’s enough.”
In their decision, the ICC judges said there were reasonable grounds to believe Netanyahu and Gallant were criminally responsible for acts including murder, persecution, and starvation as a weapon of war as part of a “widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza.”
The warrant for Al-Masri lists charges of mass killings during the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks. Israel says it has killed Al-Masri.
Turkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has praised the “courageous decision” of the International Criminal Court to seek the arrest of Netanyahu and Gallant.
“We support the arrest warrant. We consider it important that this courageous decision be carried out by all country members of the accord to renew the trust of humanity in the international system,” Erdogan said in a speech in Istanbul.
“It is imperative that Western countries — who for years have given the world lessons on law, justice, and human rights — keep their promises at this stage,” added Erdogan, whose country is not a state party in the
ICC accord.
Erdogan has become a fierce critic of Israel since the start of its military offensive on Gaza in October 2023.
He has vowed several times to make sure that Israel’s prime minister is “brought to account” over the Israeli military campaign in the Palestinian territory.
Turkiye and 52 other countries this month sent a letter to the UN demanding an end to arms sales and deliveries to Israel.
Mozambique opposition leader Mondlane sets conditions for post-election talks
- We are open to dialogue. It has to be a genuine dialogue. It cannot be full of traps
MAPUTO: Mozambique’s opposition leader said he would accept the president’s offer of talks after deadly post-election unrest on terms including their being held virtually and legal proceedings against him being dropped.
President Filipe Nyusi invited Venancio Mondlane to his office in Maputo on Nov. 26 after the killing of dozens of people in a police crackdown on demonstrations against the results of the Oct. 9 election.
Mondlane, who says the election was rigged in favor of Nyusi’s Frelimo party, is believed to have left the country for fear of arrest or attack, but his whereabouts are unknown.
“We are open to dialogue,” Mondlane said in a Facebook live address. “It has to be a genuine dialogue. It cannot be full of traps.”
A written reply to Nyusi’s invitation lists as one condition for the meeting: “That the participation of the elected candidate Venancio Mondlane is virtual.”
Authorities have laid criminal and civil charges against him, including for damages caused during protests by his supporters, which has led to his bank accounts being frozen.
Another condition in the document made public by Mondlane’s office is that “the judicial proceedings in question must be immediately terminated.” It also lays out 20 points that Mondlane wants on the agenda for talks, including “restoring electoral truth” and prosecuting anyone involved in vote-rigging.
Others are a public apology and compensation for the deaths during the demonstrations, as well as constitutional, economic, and electoral reforms.
Rights groups have accused Mozambique authorities of using live ammunition on demonstrators in the country, which has been governed since independence from Portugal in 1975 by Frelimo.
The Center for Democracy and Human Rights civil society group says around 65 people have been killed. Mondlane on Friday gave a toll of more than 60.
Nyusi said Tuesday 19 people had died, including five police officers.
The president is meant to hand over to Frelimo candidate Daniel Chapo in January, whom the election authority says won 71 percent of votes against 20 percent for Mondlane.
The unrest was discussed Wednesday by regional leaders at a summit of the 16-nation Southern Africa grouping Southern African Development Community, or SADC, which said in a statement afterward that it “extended condolences to the government and people” for the lives lost.
Human Rights Watch criticized the SADC, for failing to denounce Mozambique for excessive use of force.
“SADC has squandered an opportunity to condemn human rights abuses against post-election protesters in Mozambique publicly,” it said in a statement.
The rights watchdog urged the grouping to tell Nyusi’s government to respect the right to peaceful protest and cease using unnecessary and excessive force.
EU recalls its ambassador from Niger
- The EU expresses its profound disagreement with the allegations
NIAMEY: The EU will recall its ambassador from Niger after the country’s ruling military questioned an EU delegation’s management of humanitarian aid meant for flood victims, the European External Action Service, or EEAS, said on Saturday. Niger’s junta issued a statement on Friday accusing the EU ambassador in the West African country of dividing a 1.3 million euro fund to assist flood victims between several international NGOs in a non-transparent manner, and without collaborating with the authorities.
It ordered an audit into the fund’s management as a result.
The EU “expresses its profound disagreement with the allegations and justifications put forward by the transitional authorities,” the EEAS said in a statement.
“Consequently, the EU has decided to recall its ambassador from Niamey for consultations in Brussels.”
Niger has been under military rule since the junta seized power in a 2023 coup.
Afghanistan bets on ‘red gold’ for global market presence
- Afghanistan is the world’s second-largest saffron producer, after Iran
- Afghan saffron has been for years recognized as the world’s best
Kabul: As the saffron harvest season is underway in Afghanistan, traders are expecting better yields than in previous years, sparking hopes that exports of the precious crop, known locally as “red gold,” will help uplift the country’s battered economy and livelihoods.
Afghanistan is the world’s second-largest saffron producer, after Iran, but it ranks first in terms of quality. In June, the Belgium-based International Taste Institute for the ninth consecutive year recognized Afghan saffron as the world’s best.
Saffron is the world’s most expensive spice, selling for about $2,000 per kilogram. Its exports provide critical foreign currency to Afghanistan, where US-imposed sanctions have severely affected the fragile economy since the Taliban took control in 2021.
With this year’s production expected to exceed 50 tons — about double that of the 2023 and 2022 seasons — the government and the Afghanistan National Saffron Union are trying to boost exports abroad.
“The harvest of saffron this year is good. During the first nine months (of 2024), Afghanistan exported around 46 tons of saffron to different countries,” Abdulsalam Jawad Akhundzada, spokesperson at the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, told Arab News.
“Everywhere our traders want to export saffron, we support them in any part of the world through air corridors and facilitating the participation of Afghan traders in national and international exhibitions.”
Known to have been cultivated for at least 2,000 years, saffron is well suited to Afghanistan’s dry climate, especially in Herat, where 90 percent of it is produced. Most of the spice’s trade is also centered in the province, which last weekend inaugurated its International Saffron Trade Center to facilitate exports.
“The new international saffron trade center is established with global standards and will bring major processing and trade companies to one place providing a single venue for farmers to trade their products with the best possible conditions,” Mohammad Ibrahim Adil, head of the Afghanistan National Saffron Union, told Arab News.
The union’s main export market is India, where saffron is a common ingredient in food, followed by Gulf countries — especially Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
“Saffron exports bring the much-needed foreign currency to Afghanistan contributing significantly to stabilization of the financial cycle in the country,” said Qudratullah Rahmati, the saffron union’s deputy head.
The union estimates that saffron contributes about $100 million to the Afghan economy a year.
Most, or 95 percent, of the workers are women, according to the saffron union.
“Saffron production is supporting many families, especially women, during the harvest and processing phase through short-term and long-term employment opportunities. There are around 80-85 registered small and big saffron companies in Herat and the small ones employ four to five people while the bigger ones have up to 80 permanent staff,” said Qudratullah Rahmati, the saffron union’s deputy head.
Harvesting the little purple saffron crocus flowers is heavily labor intensive, as each of them needs to be picked by hand. Once the flowers are picked, their tiny orange stigmas are separated for drying. About 440,000 stigmas are needed to produce one kilogram of the fragrant spice.
The harvest season usually begins between October and November are lasts just a few weeks before the flowers wilt.
Pressure ramps up at UN talks to reach a deal for cash to curb and adapt to climate change
- The rough draft of a new proposal circulating in that room was getting soundly rejected, especially by African nations and small island states
- The “current deal is unacceptable for us. We need to speak to other developing countries and decide what to do,” Evans Njewa, the chair of the LDC group, said
BAKU: As nerves frayed and the clock ticked, negotiators from rich and poor nations were huddled in one room Saturday during overtime United Nations climate talks to try to hash out an elusive deal on money for developing countries to curb and adapt to climate change.
But the rough draft of a new proposal circulating in that room was getting soundly rejected, especially by African nations and small island states, according to messages relayed from inside. Then a group of negotiators from the Least Developed Countries bloc and the Alliance of Small Island States walked out because they didn’t want to engage with the rough draft.
The “current deal is unacceptable for us. We need to speak to other developing countries and decide what to do,” Evans Njewa, the chair of the LDC group, said.
When asked if the walkout was a protest, Colombia environment minister Susana Mohamed told The Associated Press: “I would call this dissatisfaction, (we are) highly dissatisfied.”
The last official draft on Friday pledged $250 billion annually by 2035, more than double the previous goal of $100 billion set 15 years ago but far short of the annual $1 trillion-plus that experts say is needed. The rough draft discussed on Saturday was for $300 billion, sources told AP.
Accusations of a war of attrition
Developing countries accused the rich of trying to get their way — and a small financial aid package — via a war of attrition. And small island nations, particularly vulnerable to climate change’s worsening impacts, accused the host country presidency of ignoring them for the entire two weeks.
After bidding one of his suitcase-lugging delegation colleagues goodbye and watching the contingent of about 20 enter the room for the European Union, Panama chief negotiator Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez had enough.
“Every minute that passes we are going to just keep getting weaker and weaker and weaker. They don’t have that issue. They have massive delegations,” Gomez said. “This is what they always do. They break us at the last minute. You know, they push it and push it and push it until our negotiators leave. Until we’re tired, until we’re delusional from not eating, from not sleeping.”
With developing nations’ ministers and delegation chiefs having to catch flights home, desperation sets in, said Power Shift Africa’s Mohamed Adow. “The risk is if developing countries don’t hold the line, they will likely be forced to compromise and accept a goal that doesn’t add up to get the job done,” he said.
Cedric Schuster, the Samoan chairman of the Alliance of Small Island States issued a statement saying they “were not part of the discussion that gave rise to these imbalanced texts” and asked the COP29 presidency to listen to them.
A climate cash deal is still elusive
Wealthy nations are obligated to help vulnerable countries under an agreement reached at these talks in Paris in 2015. Developing nations are seeking $1.3 trillion to help adapt to droughts, floods, rising seas and extreme heat, pay for losses and damages caused by extreme weather, and transition their energy systems away from planet-warming fossil fuels and toward clean energy.
For Panama’s negotiator Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez even a higher $300 billion figure is “still crumbs.”
“How do you go from the request of $1.3 trillion to $300 billion? I mean, is that even half of what we put forth?” he asked.
On Saturday morning, Irish environment minister Eamon Ryan said that there’ll likely be a new number for climate finance in the next draft. “But it’s not just that number — it’s how do you get to $1.3 trillion,” he said.
Ryan said that any number reached at the COP will have to be supplemented with other sources of finance, for example through a market for carbon emissions where polluters would pay to offset the carbon they spew.
The amount in any deal reached at COP negotiations — often considered a “core” — will then be mobilized or leveraged for greater climate spending. But much of that means loans for countries drowning in debt.
Teresa Anderson, the global lead on climate justice at Action Aid, said that in order to get a deal, “the presidency has to put something far better on the table.”
“The US in particular, and rich countries, need to do far more to to show that they’re willing for real money to come forward,” she said. “And if they don’t, then LDCs (Least Developed Countries) are unlikely to find that there’s anything here for them.”
Anger and frustration over state of negotiations
Alden Meyer of the climate think tank E3G said it’s still up in the air whether a deal on finance will come out of Baku at all.
“It is still not out of the question that there could be an inability to close the gap on the finance issue,” he said. “That obviously is not an ideal scenario.”
Jiwoh Emmanuel Abdulai, the Sierra-Leone environment minister, echoed that sentiment, saying “a bad deal may be worse than no deal for us.”
Nations were also angry at potential backsliding on commitments to slash fossil fuels. German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock called out rich fossil fuel emitters who she said have “ripped off” climate vulnerable states.
“We are in the midst of a geopolitical power play by a few fossil fuel states,” Baerbock said. “We have to do everything to come toward the 1.5 degree (Celsius, 2.7 Fahrenheit) pathway” of keeping warming below that temperature limit since preindustrial times, she said.
But despite the fractures between nations, some still held out hopes for the talks.
“We remain optimistic,” said Nabeel Munir of Pakistan, who chairs one of the talks standing negotiating committees.
When asked how, COP29 climate champion Nigar Arpadarai chimed in. “We have no choice,” she said, as the harms of climate change continue to worsen.
