U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials have accused the Texas Democrat elected to fill former Rep. Robert “Beto” O’Rourke’s El Paso district seat of sending representatives into Mexico to coach migrants on how to exploit a loophole in the Trump administration’s “return to Mexico” policy.
As reported by the Washington Examiner, staffers for Democratic Rep. Veronica Escobar have been reviewing thousands of migrant asylum seekers who have been sent to Mexico under the White House’s new policy, which was agreed to by our southern neighbor, to wait for their cases to be adjudicated in the U.S.
Some officials say Escobar’s representatives have been fraudulently tampering with the procedure.
“What we’re hearing from management is that they’re attempting to return people, and the story was changed in Mexico, where a person who understood Spanish before now doesn’t understand — where a person who didn’t have any health issues before now has health issues,” a representative for the National Border Patrol Council told the news site.
One of the stipulations of the administration’s “remain in Mexico” policy for those seeking asylum is that they can’t be forced to remain in Mexico unless they’re fluent in Spanish because it could be years before their cases are heard.
Some CBP officials say that Escobar’s representatives are bringing some people back from Mexico with them who claim they cannot speak fluent Spanish, though they could before her reps got to them.
The fear among Border Patrol officials, the Washington Examiner notes, is that Escobar and her staff will attempt to use these fabricated cases as a way to accuse the U.S Border Patrol — and, by default, the Trump administration — of improperly sending many immigrants back to Mexico.
“We had finally found a happy medium ’cause we always get crapped on when it comes to immigration laws, and then they’re finding loopholes to bring them back,” a Border Patrol official told the Examiner.
If true, it would mean that Escobar is actively undermining the terms of an international agreement as well as the Executive Branch, which could be a violation of the law.
Notes Frederic L. Kirgis, Law School Alumni Professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, in Lexington, Va.:
Treaties, in the U. S. sense, are not the only type of binding international agreement. Congressional-Executive agreements and Sole Executive agreements may also be binding. It is generally understood that treaties and Congressional-Executive agreements are interchangeable; Sole Executive agreements occupy a more limited space constitutionally and are linked primarily if not exclusively to the President’s powers as commander in chief and head diplomat.
Follow us on Parler — the Twitter alternative!
This article originally appeared at The National Sentinel and was republished with permission.