America risks global credibility with human rights, and the contradictions of the immigration policy

Recently, the reports of the US Department of Human Rights, which were issued, sparked a significant controversy over noticeable discounts in length and judicial coverage, delayed release, and perceived bias, especially for countries such as Hungary, Brazil and South Africa.

On an equal basis is the separation between immigration policy and the coverage of reports for countries such as Haiti, Ukraine and Afghanistan and the pink reporting of countries such as El Salvador. Each issue of this disturbing contradiction, as well as the willingness to deport people to dangerous situations – – is broader – a great difference from American foreign policy.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs must have a serious review of the concerns expressed by journalists and defenders of democracy on poor monuments in human rights positions in countries that are in line with the United States and those in which tensions are located.

The Ministry of Internal Security must review past or carefully suspended deportations to the countries that are not safe. Looking at the responsibility of important supervision, Congress must investigate whether the deportees immigrants are facing life -threatening situations due to the US deportation, because this will be inhuman and combat American democratic values.

The inconsistency between human rights reporting in the United States and the immigration policy is clearly evident in efforts to raise protection designations such as the temporary protected situation of some foreign citizens in the United States. This temporary legal classification is granted when the mother country is temporarily secure or unable to “deal” with the treatment of its citizens.

The Haitian initially received a temporary protected condition due to a natural disaster for the year 2010, followed by the extensions caused by the maximum security conditions that make the return unsafe. The human rights report found that the human rights situation there was “greatly worsened” due to “the lack of the ability to protect civilians from expanding gang violence and individuals’ rights in areas such as freedom of expression.”

However, the administration recently sought to raise the temporary protected situation of Hitien, end the conditional release program for Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, which allowed some citizens of those four countries to enter legally and work in the United States temporarily. The courts prevented the efforts made to remove the temporary protected situation of Hitty, but the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela program were allowed to end the conditional release. The administration’s position in these programs clarifies a disturbing gap between reports and human immigration policy.

Likewise, Minister of Internal Security Christie Naim announced in May that the United States will catch up with the temporary protest of Afghan citizens, many of whom supported the American goals in Afghanistan.

“Afghanistan has been improved to improve a security situation, and its stable economy no longer prevents them from returning to their home country,” Nim has argued that the conditions “no longer meet the legal requirements” of the temporary protected situation.

However, the human rights report stated that there is a “significant deterioration regarding women’s rights during the year” and that the Taliban members “said that the killing of persons was accurate because of their association with the government before August 2021.”

This is especially related to these Afghans who served us and face an increasing threat to revenge upon return. If we leave aside the moral argument against sending Afghans who helped the United States, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’s report clarifies the issue that puts them in great danger.

Likewise, the Ukrainians who fled the brutal Russian war were granted a temporary humanitarian position due to the war. The administration withdrew this situation, which means that more than 120,000 Ukrainians will have to return to their homeland during an active war if they lack the current asylum request.

The additional concern is the deportation of the United States to immigrants to the third countries that have severe human rights records, and have been clearly identified in human rights reports, such as South Sudan, Rwanda and Iswatini.

In the case of El Salvador, whose president is a partner close to the deportation efforts in the administration, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’s evaluations diverged from widespread evidence through respected sources that there are major human rights violations, including children. The country’s report states that “there are no reliable reports on major human rights violations,” which raises questions about its credibility.

While the deportation of people from the United States is within the jurisdiction of any American administration and the removal of people with criminal records is a standard policy, sending these individuals to countries where they may face great worse and dangerous is a disturbing difference from traditional American standards and simple fitness. Likewise, which cuts deals and provides the United States with financial and/or political support for the leaders leaders and leaders who host the deportees but also punish the United States, as with the Southern Sudanese leader Benjamin Paul Mail.

Historically, a powerful tool in the American policy industry, traditionally human rights reports have provided an objective source of foreign and local policy, reflecting the American values, the US Democratic World Democratic Leadership Project. Immigration enforcement, including removal, is an essential element for immigration policy. But he should not undermine American values ​​and foreign policy goals.

Any distance between American human rights standards and the treatment of our immigration policy undermines American values ​​and the position of the United States in the world. It also harms America’s credibility and its ability to secure its interests globally while these interests are threatened by international competitors.

Nicole Pepinz Sidaka is the colleague of Kelly and David Bakil at the George W. Bush Institute. Laura Collins is the director of the Economic growth initiative at the George W. Bush Institute at the George W. Bush Institute.