Asylum?

This is an April 17, 2019 reprint of a comment from a April 13, 2019 post:

It was announced this morning that U.S. Attorney General Barr has changed official policy active since 2005 regarding asylum seekers and refused to permit them to be released from detention on bond pending their hearings. It is important to watch where this decision goes and under what circumstances the U.S. is going to consider these asylum requests and other matters regarding those who are on the U.S.-Mexico border currently. It is also important to address considerations of Sanctuary City at this time and how it has been cast.

Please recall that in 2016-2017 the State of Texas experienced considerable contention regarding Sanctuary Cities when the Governor threatened to withhold funding from counties where the Sheriffs supported Sanctuary Cities. This was in connection with a bill by the Texas Legislature — SB 4 — regarding policy on Sanctuary Cities. This challenge to Sanctuary Cities and the means by which the state of Texas addressed it is instructive on a number of levels and very relevant in evaluating what is going on now. I will write another post on that at a later time.

A potential problem regarding sending people to Sanctuary Cities exists in the fact that some so-called "Sanctuary Cities" offer their own form of "municipal ID" — such as Chicago and Houston — but the question needs to be asked regarding to what are those municipal IDs pegged for those localities? To refuse to release detainees on bond from a federal facility can be potentially exploited by local municipal operators seeking to claim those seeking asylum as "local" assets versus the sort of paradigm that would exist were they to be released on bond from a federal facility. This is exactly the sort of "volleying" regarding the human trafficking for financial purposes that belies any media antics by the various actors in this situation.

When I first learned about the placement of immigrant children in tents or being taken to a military base in Texas in 2017 I was concerned about their assignment while aboard a DOD-sponsored facility as a DOD-asset. I even attempted to address this through the judicial system by filing with the Supreme Court of Texas and then appealing to the Supreme Court of the United States in 2018; I did not file as a "hedge" but am concerned that now despite being "denied" by the Courts others have used my efforts as such. Nonetheless — or with full conscience of forethought — I believe the advantage of developing a process through BRAC would provide greater possibility for de-militarization of the terms of the support offered while also balancing needs for security and protecting people from financial exploitation that would otherwise be part of the considerations regarding their access to benefits and resources. There are already models for civilian communities to negotiate with the U.S. military around transition of a military facility; I contend that these sorts of experiences provide another perspective through which to view the effectiveness of domestic emergency response efforts that are not predicated on catastrophe as much as preparedness as well as how to model and implement appropriate standards for how civilians and the military — as well as law enforcement — can engage in critical matters. The current paradigms of using immigrants as derivatives and attempting to "bargain" over who gets access to what assets to which they have been "bonded" as derivatives is unacceptable.

Texas has state laws around a special commission regarding military projects that includes projects that are meant for decommissioning. Other states have comparable laws for certain that must comport with federal policies; if they don't then precedent has been set for assuring that this is communicated between civilian local administrators and military representatives in the area of concern. A special consideration should be made for attending to already engaged paradigms around tracking and speculating on the movements of immigrants so that potential coercion or manipulation as a part of efforts to impact domestic security are not escalated or obscured. I believe there was more to the firing of the Director of the Secret Service and three leaders in the Department of Homeland Security than has thusfar been discussed by the media or Congress. I am hoping that it is not merely an Executive Office "capital outlay" on other possibilities.

Crouse for President

- Re-read on Nov. 16, 2019; two "typos" corrected