Month: October 2018

U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday called a caravan of migrants bound for the United States “an assault on our country.” 

At a political rally in Houston, Texas, the president repeated his claim the caravan has “some very bad people in it.” Trump said he has spoken to Texas Governor Greg Abbott about the group of migrants and said Texas is going to “build another kind of wall” to prevent their entry. He didn’t provide further details.

Earlier, the president said the United States “will now begin cutting off or substantially reducing” the amount of foreign aid given to three Central American countries, saying they were “not able to do the job” of stopping migrants from leaving their countries and “coming illegally” to the U.S.

Thousands of Central American migrants resumed an arduous trek toward the U.S. border Monday, trying to get away from what they say is unbearable violence and poverty at home. Many bristled at Trump’s suggestions there could be terrorists among them and said the caravan is being used for political means by the U.S. president before the midterm elections.

Trump, in a tweet earlier in the day, claimed “criminals and unknown Middle Easterners are mixed in” the caravan, prompting him to alert the “Border Patrol and Military that this is a National Emergy (sic). Must change laws!”

Reporters traveling with the caravan say they have spotted no people from the Middle East in the group. 

Asked by a reporter on the White House south lawn what evidence he had of Middle Easterners in the caravan, Trump replied, “I had reports, and they have a lot of everybody in the group. It’s a horrible thing, and it’s a lot bigger than 5,000 people, and we got to stop ’em at the border. And unfortunately, you look at the countries, they have not done their job.”

When pressed further about his assertion, Trump told journalists that if they take their cameras into the caravan, “You’re going to find MS-13. You’re going to find Middle Eastern. You’re going to find everything. And guess what, we’re not allowing them in our country. We want safety.”

Cutting off aid

“Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador — they’re paid a lot of money,” Trump told reporters Monday afternoon. “Every year, we give them foreign aid. And they did nothing for us. Nothing. They did nothing for us. So, we give them tremendous amounts of money. You know what it is, you cover it all the time — hundreds of millions of dollars. They, like a lot of others, do nothing for our country.”

Two weeks ahead of U.S. congressional elections, Trump, a Republican, again laid the blame for the latest mass migration toward the southern U.S. border on opposition Democrats.

UNHCR assistance

The United Nations refugee agency said it has 32 workers in Mexico to provide humanitarian assistance to the migrants and legal advice, with its local partners offering asylum information to those who want to stay. 

The International Organization for Migration announced on Monday that large numbers of migrants arrived in Mexico, with many likely to remain for an extended period. IOM estimates that more than 7,200 people are in the caravan, with many of them planning to continue their march northward.

The Red Cross said Saturday that many of the people, including a large number of women and children it is helping along the caravan route, are suffering from dehydration, stomach infections and foot injuries.

“It is imperative that the dignity and security of families are safeguarded, and they are kept together,” said Walter Cotte, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies regional director for the Americas, in a statement. “It is imperative that the dignity and security of families are safeguarded, and they are kept together.”

Authorities in southern Mexico largely left the migrants alone Sunday as they walked toward the day’s destination in Chiapas state. 

The Mexican government has pledged to process asylum requests for migrants who apply. The country’s interior ministry reported that on Friday, Saturday and Sunday a total 1,028 people had requested refugee status.

Mexico’s National Migration Institute said it reiterates its duty to safeguard the human rights of migrants who enter its territory.

Pueblo Sin Fronteras, an organization that helps the migrant caravans in Central America, said governments in the region have adopted “a policy of fear and racism imposed by the United States” and are not considering the reasons why people are seeking somewhere new to go.

“They are walking in mass exodus because they cannot live in their country anymore due to extreme violence, lack of opportunity, and the corruption and impunity that has expelled them from their homes,” the group said in a statement Sunday.

Mexico’s incoming president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador told supporters at a rally Sunday in Chiapas that he would be sending a letter to Trump proposing Mexico, the United States and Canada work together to invest in development in Central America to address poverty.

 
…

An Ecuadorian pizza deliveryman who was held up as an example of zealous U.S. immigration enforcement has been arrested in a domestic violence case.

A criminal complaint alleges that Pablo Villavicencio pushed his wife against a wall, slapped her and grabbed her phone to keep her from calling police last Thursday at the couple’s Hempstead, Long Island home.

He was arraigned Saturday on a misdemeanor charge and remained jailed Monday afternoon.

Villavicencio’s lawyer, Bruce Barket, said the case against him is weak and that factual allegations didn’t match the crime charged.

“The criminal case is the kind of thing that really wouldn’t make it two weeks in criminal court if it weren’t for the attention,” Barket said. “Let’s see what happens.”

The Legal Aid Society, which represented Villavicencio in the immigration matter, said in a statement it was “hopeful that this matter will be resolved and that Pablo will secure valid status with the continued assistance of our counsel.”

“The past several months, including Pablo’s detention and threats of imminent deportation, have been traumatic for the Villavicencio family,” the organization said.

Villavicencio was detained on June 1 after delivering pizza to the Fort Hamilton Army base in Brooklyn. He was seeking to establish legal residency and overcome a 2010 order to leave the country. His wife and two young daughters are U.S. citizens.

Earlier this month, the government declined to appeal the July decision freeing him.

“The federal government is admitting what we already knew – there was absolutely no legitimate reason to lock Mr. Villavicencio up and take him away from his family,” Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, said at the time. The governor’s office did not immediately respond Monday to phone and email requests for comment.

When he ordered the release of Villavicencio over the summer, U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty said he didn’t believe the detention was “accidental or random.”

“It should not be difficult to discern that families should be kept together rather than be separated by the thoughtless and cruel application of a so called ‘zero-tolerance’ policy,” Crotty wrote. “This is especially so where the organization seeking removal has also provided a pathway for a person in petitioner’s position to regularize his immigration status with minimal disruption to his family life.”

The judge added Villavicencio “deserves it due to his hard work, his dedication to the family, and his clean criminal record.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered the “zero-tolerance” policy in April. More than 2,500 children were separated from their parents after the Trump administration adopted the policy to criminally prosecute every adult who entered the country illegally. Hundreds of parents were deported without their children.

Trump signed an executive order halting the “zero-tolerance” policy in June , but is considering new options to create deterrents for immigrant families coming to America.
…

The U.S. army has confirmed that a brigadier general was one of two Americans wounded in an attack last week in Afghanistan that fatally wounded a powerful Afghan police chief.

U.S. Army Brigadier General Jeffrey Smiley, in charge of NATO’s military advisory mission in Afghanistan, was shot when a gunman wearing an Afghan security forces uniform opened fire on a group of officials leaving a meeting with the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Scott Miller.

Miller escaped injury, but a U.S. civilian was also shot.

General Abdul Raziq, an anti-Taliban strong man, was mortally wounded, along with the local head of the NDS intelligence service General Abdul Momim.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack inside the highly secured compound, dealing a severe blow to the Afghan government in one of its most strategically important provinces. The incident demonstrated the insurgents’ ability to strike top leaders.
…

While domestic concerns dominate much of the political debate ahead of next month’s U.S. midterm elections, Democratic lawmakers say they are eager to assert themselves on foreign affairs and, when necessary, provide a check on the Trump administration if they win control of at least one chamber of Congress in November.

From trade to refugee quotas to regional concerns spanning the globe, a newly empowered Democratic majority would work energetically to hold the administration to account on its policies and potentially wield the power of the purse in areas of disagreement.

Republicans, who played a similar role for much of the previous Obama administration, are warning of a potential uptick in partisan discord on foreign policy, a realm that in past eras, such as the Cold War, often saw broad bipartisan consensus.

“The results of the election can create an opportunity to press issues in a way that, right now, can’t be done with Republican control of both the House and the Senate,” Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told VOA. 

“For example, our role in the world on refugees — this administration has dramatically cut back on refugees,” Menendez added. “And standing up for human rights and democracy — it doesn’t seem to be a significant priority, as it has been in other administrations, with the Trump administration.”

“We are the appropriators,” Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine said of Democratic lawmakers. “So when the White House sends a budget up every year and they propose dramatically reduced funding for USAID [foreign assistance] or diplomacy, we will be able to continue to robustly fund those priorities.”

Power of the majority

Republicans don’t dispute that a new Democratic majority in either house of Congress would flex its muscles.

“The primary role of Congress is to fund the government, including the Department of Defense, and Democrats could have a direct impact,” the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, John Cornyn of Texas, said.

“The Democrats could do a great deal with power in Congress,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “The president, by the Constitution, is granted diplomatic power. He’s also the commander-in-chief of the military, but only Congress can declare war. And also on many other issues, such as applying sanctions, Congress passes the laws.”

“You don’t need to worry about a dull period,” said national security expert Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “I don’t know that control of both houses [of Congress] is the issue. I think it might well be the partisanship of both houses and how hard it may be to agree on anything, move things forward, and avoid turning every foreign policy issue into a partisan issue.”

Current polling suggests that Democrats are more likely to win a majority in the House of Representatives than the Senate.

Recent months provide examples of House bipartisanship on international matters as well as partisan divergence.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, a California Republican, and the panel’s top Democrat, Eliot Engel of New York, recently wrote a joint letter to President Donald Trump demanding “swift action” regarding the disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Last month, however, Democrats took center stage in opposing the administration’s plan to provide $20 million to help Mexico deport Central American migrants passing through the country to reach the United States. In a statement, Engel labeled the plan “senseless” and an attempt “to use the State Department to force his [Trump’s] deportation crusade on other countries.”

Oversight role

A majority in either chamber of Congress would give Democrats broad power to scrutinize and draw attention to the administration’s decisions and initiatives on matters large and small.

“There are things I’d like to see done at the [Foreign Relations] committee that the Republican majority doesn’t have an interest in,” Menendez said. “For example, I get concerned about the allegations of political firings at the State Department. That is something I would press if we had a Democratic majority. I have a more robust view of oversight – we really don’t know, for the most part, what’s been happening in our engagement with North Korea.”

“A lot of Democrats are critical of President Trump on North Korea policy,” O’Hanlon said. “Certainly many Democrats think he’s been too friendly to Kim Jong Un or too unpredictable in his bluster and his tweets.”

O’Hanlon noted that Trump is constitutionally empowered to try to forge a nuclear treaty with North Korea, just as his predecessor, former President Barack Obama, pushed for an international nuclear accord with Iran. Ratification is another matter.

“Only the Senate can ratify treaties. Congress cannot write the treaty itself, only the executive can do that. But then the Congress has the power to say yea or nay,” O’Hanlon explained. “Ultimately it would be a question of whether Congress would bless any possible [North Korean nuclear] deal that required U.S. money or funds or a peace treaty.”

“Obviously the Democrats are going to pick at every possible weakness,” Cordesman said. “If the president is successful in dismantling the North Korean nuclear program, you might have some very loud Republican voices and some very silent Democratic ones. It’s going to depend on how people perceive the opportunity.”

A Democratic majority in either the House or the Senate could launch or reinvigorate investigations of the Trump administration, including its ties to Russia, an issue that is already the focus of a special counsel probe as well as bipartisan investigations by multiple committees on Capitol Hill. Republican and Democratic lawmakers also have joined forces to slap sanctions on Moscow for a variety of misdeeds.

Asked if a Democratic legislative majority would take an even tougher line with Russia, Kaine paused before answering.

“Certainly greater scrutiny,” the Virginia Democrat said. “You won’t see Congress turning a blind eye.”

“Russia is a place where it’s Donald Trump against the rest of the American foreign policy community, rather than President Trump against the Democrats,” O’Hanlon said. “Congress has been pretty adamant, both Democratic and Republican caucuses, against Russian behavior and anxious to apply punishment.”

Republican view

Regardless of the outcome of the elections, Republicans say lawmakers of both parties should work cooperatively with the administration on foreign affairs.

“There’s a lot going on in the world, so we need to try to be as unified as we can in working with the administration, rather than just joining the resistance,” Cornyn said. “There’s a lot of stake. I have not been encouraged by what we’ve seen of late. They [Democrats] seem more of the sand-in-the-gears mindset. This is a different political environment than any I’ve encountered during my adult life.”

Another Republican, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, scoffed when asked about Democrats asserting themselves on global affairs.

“I don’t know what their foreign policy is,” Graham said. “I know what Trump’s is. But what is the Democratic view of foreign policy? I don’t think they have one. They don’t like Trump, but what are they for? Should we stay in Syria? Should we stay in Afghanistan? What should we do with Iran? These are things they never talk about.”

Military engagements

Kaine has long urged Congress to pass a new authorization for the use of military force in the war on terror, updating a law passed after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

“I hope, on matters like trade and declaration of war, Congress will haul back some of its [constitutional] power,” the senator said.

Cordesman said the next Congress will confront multiple questions about ongoing U.S. military engagements at a time when America’s fiscal situation is worsening.

“On defense policy, in terms of basic spending levels, things are now relatively non-partisan,” Cordesman said. “If it came to a major new commitment in Afghanistan, any dramatic action in Iraq or Syria, or humanitarian aid, a lot would be debated there. Government spending and money may be a much more sensitive issue. Republicans may favor defense spending, Democrats may have more support for foreign aid. But exactly what’s going to happen is pretty hard to tell.”

“My expectation is that in most foreign policy issues we would not see a Democratic House, even a Democratic Senate, making huge changes in U.S. foreign policy because, in some ways, they lack the means,” O’Hanlon said. “But even more importantly, as much as they complain about Mr. Trump’s style and worry about his overall steadiness, it’s not clear how many of his policies they fundamentally disagree with in a way that would create a consensus they could write into law and change the nation’s basic foreign policy course.”
…