Republicans Voted to Block Jeff Sessions’ Attacks on Asylum-Seekers Fleeing Domestic Violence

“I have great compassion for those victims of domestic violence anywhere,” said GOP Rep. Kevin Yoder.

Evan Vucci/AP

A bipartisan group of representatives in Congress voted on Wednesday to block part of the Trump administration’s latest attack on migrants entering the country as asylum-seekers. Last month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions used his control over America’s immigration court system to rule that people fleeing domestic and gang violence will rarely be eligible for asylum. On Wednesday afternoon, the House appropriations committee voted across party lines to block the Department of Homeland Security from using any funds to implement Sessions’ decision, which is known as “Matter of A-B-.”

The amendment passed by the appropriations committee on Wednesday appears unlikely to become law, and would only apply to DHS, not the immigration courts that are part of Sessions’ Justice Department. But it is still a rare case of Republicans opposing the Trump administration’s attacks on migrants.

It’s a rebuke from the Congress to the attorney general for his interpretation set forth in Matter of A-B-,” says Gregory Chen, the director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association,  a group that represents more than 15,000 attorneys and law professors. “And that is a significant step to recognize, even if it’s just at the committee level.”

Rep. David Price (D-N.C.), who introduced the amendment, said on Wednesday that there was “no doubt” that Sessions’ decision “diminishes the already limited likelihood” that people fleeing gang and domestic violence will receive protection in the United States. “We’re not going to let this draconian directive stand,” he said.

Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-Kansas) joined Rep. David Price in supporting the measure. “As the son of a social worker, I have great compassion for those victims of domestic violence anywhere,” he said, “especially as it concerns those nations that turn a blind eye to the crimes of domestic violence.” Yoder cited his vote for the Violence Against Women Act as one of the reasons why he was backing the measure. (In 2013, Sessions was one of 22 Republican senators who voted against reauthorizing that law.)

The last time President Donald Trump wrote the world “asylum” on Twitter was nearly five years ago. He was tweeting about Edward Snowden fleeing to Russia, not US immigration policy. Amidst Trump’s incessant calls to “build the wall” and MS-13 fear mongering, it can easy to lose sight of the fact that his administration is working to systematically undermine longstanding protections for asylum-seekers.

Earlier this month, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, a DHS agency, told its asylum officers that Sessions’ decision meant that people fleeing domestic and gang violence would, in most instances, no longer qualify for asylum or and that those migrants could not establish the “credible fear” that prevents them from being quickly deported. Mother Jones reported on Thursday that:

Government data on the impact of the change is not yet available, but interviews with lawyers across the country suggest that the new standards are leading to more asylum-seekers’ cases being rejected during the credible fear interviews that determine whether someone can move forward with an asylum claim. Carlos García, a South Texas immigration lawyer who has been working with separated parents at Port Isabel, has seen an “overwhelming” number of credible fear denials since Sessions’ decision, known as Matter of A-B-. “It’s devastating,” García says.

Price made clear on Wednesday that Matter of A-B- is part of broader attack on asylum seekers. “It’s just one of the many heartless steps the Trump administration has taken to abandon our country’s promise to be a source of refuge for those escaping persecution and oppression,” he said.

Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) spoke briefly to oppose the measure. But no members could be heard saying “nay” when the amendment was put to a voice vote. Chen was a bit surprised. “We did not expect that there would be agreement on this amendment in the way it passed without significant objection,” he says.

 

OUR NEW CORRUPTION PROJECT

The more we thought about how MoJo's journalism can have the most impact heading into the 2020 election, the more we realized that so many of today's stories come down to corruption: democracy and the rule of law being undermined by the wealthy and powerful for their own gain.

So we're launching a new Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption. We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We'll publish what we find as a major series in the summer of 2020, including a special issue of our magazine, a dedicated online portal, and video and podcast series so it doesn't get lost in the daily deluge of breaking news.

It's unlike anything we've done before and we've got seed funding to get started, but we're asking readers to help crowdfund this new beat with an additional $500,000 so we can go even bigger. You can read why we're taking this approach and what we want to accomplish in "Corruption Isn't Just Another Scandal. It's the Rot Beneath All of Them," and if you like how it sounds, please help fund it with a tax-deductible donation today.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate