Mediaboss Marketing

13 April 2023, 01:47 BST

Image source, Moussa family

Christian Ally Moussa did not tell anyone that he had decided to get in a small boat to make the 350km (220-mile) trip across a treacherous stretch of the Indian Ocean between Madagascar and the French island of Mayotte.

He was desperate and he had made the risky crossing twice before.

He needed to return to the place from where he was deported a few weeks earlier as he was supposed to appear at a hearing about his application for French citizenship.

After years of saving to pay his legal fees, the 42-year-old hoped he would finally be able to claim the European passport that was his birth right.

He had the right to a passport as his father was a French citizen from Mayotte, a French overseas territory, 8,000km (5,000 miles) away from Paris. In almost every respect it is supposed to be treated like any part of mainland France.

But because Mr Moussa was born and raised in Madagascar, an island to the south of Mayotte, he had struggled to gain recognition as a French citizen.

He had been living and working in Mayotte on and off since 2004 without the correct paperwork, while, like many others, supporting his wife and children in Madagascar.

But a French passport would allow him to become a legal resident giving him greater opportunities.

Famous for its stunning coral reefs and lagoon, Mayotte is home to an estimated 300,000 people.

It is the poorest part of France yet wealthy compared to the neighbouring islands of Madagascar and Comoros, off the south-east coast of Africa.

Image source, Getty Images

The beaches, the sea and the coral reef offer an idyllic view of Mayotte

With only weeks to go until his citizenship hearing, Mr Moussa was unexpectedly arrested by French immigration police and deported to Madagascar.

"[The police] barged in and wanted to take Christian away," his relative, who we are not naming for security reasons, says.

"He asked me to go and get his shoes but by the time I came back with them, they had already taken him."

Mr Moussa was tracked down to the only detention centre in the main city, Mamoudzou.

"We spoke on the phone. He was crying a lot and said he didn't want to go back to Madagascar," the relative says.

The family then contacted a lawyer who launched an emergency appeal to stop the deportation.

Mr Moussa was set to appear in front of a judge at 11:00 the next day but by this time he was already on a flight to Madagascar, less than 48 hours after being detained.

But it was the court hearing on his bid to become a French citizen that he did not want to miss. That was when he hatched the risky plan to return to Mayotte on a small fishing boat, known locally as a "kwassa kwassa".

"I didn't know he wanted to make the trip back to Mayotte," the relative says.

"He didn't say anything to me or his friends. He just asked for money as he said he was sick and needed medicine because they had no drinking water in the village."

That was the last the relative ever heard from him.

"When the authorities called to tell me he had been found dead, I told them: 'No it's not him. It can't be him'. They then sent photos and I recognised his face."

Mr Moussa died with at least 34 others - all discovered drowned off the coast of Madagascar on 12 March.

What happened to Mr Moussa was not unusual.

"The lagoon around the island is an open-air graveyard," says Daniel Gros, from the Human Rights League NGO in Mayotte.

But, he adds, there is no official attempt to find out how many perish on the journey from either Madagascar or the Comoros.

"When I [started working here] in 2012, the authorities used to say that about 10,000 people were estimated to have died there [since 2002]. And today, they give the same figure."

Mayotte has been in the headlines for riots and unrest, with islanders experiencing rising poverty.

They complain about an increase in immigration mainly from the Comoros, which has put pressure on public services.

The French government says one in two people living on the island are "foreign" and has vowed to crack down on illegal immigration. It has stepped up its presence at sea as well as aerial surveillance and currently deports 24,000 people a year.

As part of a plan to tackle the migration, the French government is planning a major demolition operation, known as Operation Wuambushu, to get rid of what it says are illegal dwellings or shanty towns.

It has also boosted the police and paramilitary presence on the island to 1,300 officers.

North of Mamoudzou, in a shanty town called Majikavo, officials are already marking some of the corrugated iron dwellings for destruction.

The police believe most of the residents in this poor area are there illegally, but regardless of their status many are getting caught up in the operation.

"We live under constant threat," says Fatima, who has lived there for 15 years. "They said: 'Whether you accept it or not, this place will be destroyed'."

Some homes in Majikavo have been tagged, making residents fear that they will be demolished

Fatima, not her real name, is originally from the Comoros but holds a residency permit which allows her to remain on the island, though not travel to mainland France.

Under French law, the government has to offer "suitable alternative accommodation" to those whose homes are set to be destroyed. But up until now, no clear relocation plan has been released though some residents have been offered emergency accommodation for six months.

French member of parliament for Mayotte, Estelle Youssouffa, who asked for the operation to take place, says it is urgent that the state regain control of these areas.

She is one of two representatives that the island sends to Paris.

"It is about destroying an illegal habitat that shelters a population that is mostly foreign or recently regularised," she tells the BBC.

"These shanty towns are built on private or public land that has been stolen because it is illegally occupied. The shanty towns are dangerous areas for the safety and health of those who live there. They are also environmental hazards: destroying them is an emergency for the return of republican order and the security and health of all."

She has also called on Paris to take a tougher stance with the Comoros islands and wants the national navy to set up a permanent base on the island, solely dedicated to fighting clandestine immigration.

"There is no point in carrying out such large-scale slum-demolition operations if the borders are not closed."

But the Comorian government, which claims the island of Mayotte as an integral part of the Comoros, has called out the danger of such an operation and asked the French authorities not to proceed with it.

In a statement this week it said that "the electoral promises made in Mayotte of 'spectacular action' to destroy shanty towns and expel their inhabitants, judged to be in an irregular situation, must not lead to the destabilisation of an entire region".

With Mayotte being majority Muslim, the operation is set to start straight after Ramadan at the end of next week.

Human-rights activist Daniel Gros is highly critical of what he describes as the "heavy-handed actions" of the French state.

"If you chase people away, you shouldn't be surprised that they come back. We deport hundreds of people a day yet we have boats arriving with a similar number of people at the same time."

The tragedy for Mr Moussa was that he was entitled to be French all along, but his desperation to get the citizenship cost him his life.

"His dad was French, his grand-parents were French. Why did he have to die in the sea?," his relative asks.

Here is the original post:
France's plan to crack down on Indian Ocean migration - BBC

OPINION:

Congress, as the American peoples elected representatives, should decide where taxpayer dollars go not boards populated by agenda-driven charities seeking to line the pockets of a vast network of open borders non-governmental organizations.

The latter is exactly what is happening with government funds at the Department of Homeland Security specifically, through the Federal Emergency Management Agency. DHS is using FEMA to make an end-run around the traditional appropriations process, to facilitate the worst border crisis in American history.

In a recent bombshell report, the DHS Inspector General revealed that NGOs receiving money provided by the American Rescue Plan of 2021 through FEMAs Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP) abused at least $7.4 million, more than half of an audited $12.9 million provided through the program. The organizations in question failed to adhere to the law, submit receipts, and keep the required documentation. The audit found that these NGOs spent money on those who crossed the border illegally and are not lawfully present in the United States.

Its also worth noting that the $7.4 million in misused funds reported by the audit is only a small portion of the funds doled out in 2021. The audit reviewed $12.9 million of $80.6 million that was awarded out of a total of $110 million. Its safe to say the total fraud is far worse.

In the last 2 years, nearly $1 billion has been appropriated to the EFSP, whose National Board distributes humanitarian funds to local social service organizations assisting individuals and families encountered by the Department of Homeland Security. The program received $150 million in FY22. Of the $785 million appropriated for the EFSP in the FY23 Omnibus, $350 million has been awarded thus far by the National Board comprised of representatives from the American Red Cross, United Way Worldwide, and four religious charitable organizations.

The recent uncovering of funding abuse is not a standalone event but the latest example in a pattern of the federal government funneling exorbitant amounts of money to NGOs operating at the border with little to no accountability.

This practice is continually becoming more widespread at DHS, and the agency is always looking to expand it in other arenas. For example, the recently created Case Management Pilot Program (CMPP), which is overseen by Church World Service, an NGO that has advocated for the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, provides taxpayer-funded aid to illegal aliens facing deportation.

This controversial pilot program, which the Biden administration is seeking to expand with additional funding from Congress, makes funds available to local governments and/or nonprofits to provide case management to noncitizens in immigration removal proceedings who affirmatively volunteer to participate in the program. CMPP funds are awarded to eligible sub-recipients through the Board. The Board is charged with awarding funds to eligible local governments and nonprofit organizations and managing the pilot program.

The plethora of funding allotted to DHS grant programs operated by prominent charities, NGOs, and sub-recipients cannot be overstated.

In the FEMA case, the DHS Inspector Generals recommendations for the agency to merely resolve the $7.4 million in questioned costs and ensure the EFSP National Board implements oversight measures in the future should raise red flags for every member of Congress.

Such measures are useless against the backdrop of the current border crisis. They do nothing to address the root of the problem. The solution to eliminating humanitarian relief fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars is to pass meaningful legislation securing the border and to defund the NGOs doing the Biden administrations dirty work of illegal alien processing, human smuggling, and incentivizing mass migration.

Lets be clear: Congress is supposed to control the purse strings. Appropriators must not fall into the trap of process reforms and instead need to eliminate the entire existence of these corrupt funding streams.

Its time for those on Capitol Hill to demand accountability from DHS and defund these open-borders operations, instead of abdicating their responsibility to use American taxpayer dollars responsibly and lawfully.

Visit link:
Congress should stop funding the Biden administration's open-borders - Washington Times

Theres an absence of prosecution, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said. Theres also an absence of demonstrated chilling effect.

But the courts liberal justices said the concerns sounded far from hypothetical. Justice Sonia Sotomayor posited a potential prosecution of a child for encouraging a grandmother in the U.S. to stay while knowing she was not here legally.

The grandmother tells her son shes worried about the burden shes putting on the family and the son says, Abuelita, you are never a burden to us. If you want to live here and continue living here with us, your grandchildren would love having you. Can you prosecute this?

I think not, Justice Department attorney Brian Fletcher said, defending the statute. I think its very hard.

Stop qualifying with think, Sotomayor interjected. Because the minute you start qualifying with think, then youre rendering asunder the First Amendment.

The case the justices heard Monday, arising from California man Helaman Hansens conviction in an adult-adoption immigration fraud scheme, is a difficult one for the Biden administration and arises at an awkward time for the White House.

The Justice Departments defense of the law puts them at odds with immigrant-rights groups who say they fear prosecution under the statute.

The showdown also comes amid growing anger by immigrant-rights activists over several recent policy moves. The administration wants to make it harder for migrants to claim asylum at the border and Biden is weighing a return to a policy of large-scale detention of immigrant families who arrive at the border without permission to enter the U.S.

Fletcher did not address those political issues, but he did urge the justices to adopt a narrow reading of the statute and clarify that its seemingly broad language covers only speech that amounts to soliciting or aiding and abetting someone to remain in the country illegally.

However, the lawyer representing Hansen, Esha Bhandari, said Fletchers proposed interpretation is an attempt to rewrite the statute.

That is Congress job, she said, appealing to conservative justices who favor literal readings of legal texts.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed a similar concern, noting that Congress removed language about aiding and abetting seven decades ago.

I guess Im worried about an active, conscious effort on Congress part to exclude certain words that I now hear you wanting us to read back into this statute, Jackson said.

Rather than adopting the governments technical interpretation of the statute, Bhandari said, the justices should uphold a lower courts ruling that declared the statute unconstitutional.

Early in the argument, conservative members of the court like Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch seemed to question the laws scope.

Kavanaugh said charitable groups that provide food, water and shelter to immigrants seemed to have sincere worries about being prosecuted under a broad reading of the law.

Gorsuch initially expressed concern about the Justice Departments attempt to reinterpret the laws language, but he later seemed even more troubled by the notion of allowing Hansen to use his criminal case to raise arguments about how the law could affect others.

It is an extraordinary thing for this court to grant third-party standing, which is effectively what were being asked to do here, Gorsuch said.

But Jackson responded that courts entertain such overbreadth arguments because it can be difficult to know who or how many people are limiting their activities because of fears of prosecution.

Is it possible to really figure out how many people have been chilled? she asked. We dont know how many other people would have engaged in that kind of speech and action if it werent for this law.

Justice Samuel Alito pointed to one unusual aspect of the statute: It criminalizes encouraging someone to remain in the U.S. illegally, but staying in the country without permission is not usually a crime. Its typically a civil violation dealt with in immigration court.

Fletcher said court precedents permit making it a crime to encourage someone to violate a law punishable only by a civil penalty. He argued Congress had good reason to do so because it was worried about people taking advantage of undocumented migrants.

However, Bhandari said the government runs afoul of the First Amendment anytime it seeks to impose more severe punishment for encouraging an act than for the underlying act itself.

She also noted that some immigrants who are currently in the U.S. illegally are pursuing pathways Congress has created for them to obtain legal status, so it would be illogical to punish those who encourage such individuals to remain.

Hansens case is the second time in the past few years that the Supreme Court has considered possible First Amendment problems with the federal law against encouraging or inducing immigrants to stay in the U.S. illegally.

In 2020, the justices heard arguments in another case from California where the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the same law violated free-speech rights. However, the Supreme Court ultimately punted on the central issue, instead faulting the appeals court for raising the First Amendment question without it being raised by either the government or the defense.

The maximum penalty for violating the law can reach 10 years in prison if a defendant intended to benefit financially from an immigrant staying in the U.S. illegally.

See the original post here:
Justices poised to uphold federal ban on encouraging illegal immigration - POLITICO

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court heard arguments on Monday in a First Amendment challenge to an unusual federal law that makes it a crime to encourage unauthorized immigrants to come to or stay in the United States.

Read literally, several justices suggested, the law would chill constitutionally protected speech.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked about a grandmother living in the United States without authorization. The grandmother tells her son shes worried about the burden shes putting on the family, the justice said. And the son says: Abuelita, you are never a burden to us. If you want to continue living here with us, your grandchildren love having you.

Justice Sotomayor asked whether the government could prosecute the son.

Brian H. Fletcher, a lawyer for the federal government defending the law, did not give a definitive answer. I think not, he said.

That frustrated Justice Sotomayor. Stop qualifying with think, because the minute you start qualifying with think, then youre rendering asunder the First Amendment, she said. People have to know what they can talk about.

Justice Elena Kagan said it was not hard to imagine violations of the law based on the ordinary meaning of the word encourage.

What happens to all the cases where it could be a lawyer, it could be a doctor, it could be a neighbor, it could be a friend, it could be a teacher, it could be anybody says to a noncitizen, I really think you should stay? she asked.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wondered about charitable organizations. Theres still going to be a chill or a threat of prosecution for them for providing food and shelter and aid and recommending people for scholarships, he said.

Mr. Fletcher said the justice was describing conduct rather than speech. Justice Kavanaugh responded that the charitable aid might be accompanied by a statement like, I want you to stay here and Im going to help you.

Even as they posed questions about hypothetical prosecutions, the justices appeared to have little sympathy for the defendant in the case before them, Helaman Hansen, who was convicted of violating the law, along with mail and wire fraud, for taking large fees to help undocumented immigrants obtain citizenship through adult adoption. It was a scam.

It is a little awkward, though, that this case comes up in a posture with Mr. Hansen, who I dont think anybody could say hes been chilled from speaking, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said. I mean, hes had no problem soliciting people here in this country and defrauding them to the tune of lots and lots of money.

Mr. Fletcher said the key word in the law encourages was a term of art that required complicity in a crime and did not apply to casual exchanges.

Esha Bhandari, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Mr. Hansen, said that was at odds with ordinary usage. The government concedes that the statute is unconstitutional under its plain meaning, she said.

Mr. Fletcher said that Mr. Hansens case, involving outright fraud, was the typical one and that prosecutions of charities and grandmothers were far-fetched.

Justice Sotomayor countered that there was at least one questionable prosecution under the law, citing the 2012 conviction of a Massachusetts woman, Lorraine Henderson, for hiring an unauthorized immigrant to clean her home and offering general advice about immigration law.

In that case, Judge Douglas P. Woodlock, of the Federal District Court in Boston, wrote that the plain and unadorned language of the law can be read to cast a wide net over those who interact with illegal aliens by offering employment.

In the case before the justices, United States v. Hansen, No. 22-179, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Mr. Hansens fraud convictions, which resulted in 20-year prison sentences. But it reversed his convictions under the law for encouraging immigrants to overstay their visas, which would have come with 10-year sentences to be served at the same time as the sentences for fraud.

The law, Judge Ronald M. Gould wrote for the panel, was unconstitutional. Under it, he wrote, many commonplace statements and actions could be construed as encouraging or inducing an undocumented immigrant to come to or reside in the United States. All it would take to turn an utterance into a felony, he wrote, was knowingly telling an undocumented immigrant, I encourage you to reside in the United States.

Last year, a divided three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit, in Denver, joined the Ninth Circuit in striking down the law, saying that it was surely violated scores of times every day.

Follow this link:
Supreme Court Hears a Free Speech Challenge to an Immigration Law - The New York Times

WASHINGTON

Is it a crime or free speech for someone to encourage immigrants to come to this country illegally, or remain here after their visas have expired?

The Supreme Court grappled with that question Monday in a clash between immigration law and the 1st Amendment.

It arose in the case of Sacramento man who charged immigrants $500 to $10,000 and falsely promised he could help them obtain U.S. citizenship. More than 470 immigrants paid for the bad advice from Helaman Hansen, and he was convicted of 15 counts of fraud as well as two counts of encouraging two immigrants to overstay their visas.

That latter charge won him a partial acquittal before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and sent his case to the high court.

Since 1952, federal law has made it a crime to encourage or induce an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that doing so would be illegal.

Pointing to those broad words, the 9th Circuit ruled that the provision violated the 1st Amendment because it could be read to make it a crime for family members or friends to encourage a person to come to this country or to remain here illegally.

We apply the overbreadth doctrine so that legitimate speech relating to immigration law shall not be chilled and foreclosed, the San Francisco-based appeals court said. The 15 fraud counts against the defendant were upheld along with a 20-year prison term.

The justices agreed to hear the governments defense of the encourage provision of the law, and most of them sounded skeptical of the free-speech claim, at least in this case.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said it was odd to argue that Hansens right to free speech was violated.

I dont think anybody could say hes been chilled from speaking. Hes had no problem soliciting people here in this country and defrauding them to the tune of lots and lots of money, Gorsuch said, adding this law has been on the books for 50 years.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed, noting there is no record of the law being used to prosecute otherwise innocent people for encouraging immigrants to stay in this country.

The statutes been on the books for a long time. Theres an absence of prosecutions. There is also an absence of demonstrated chilling effect, she said.

But the courts liberals said they saw a potential free-speech problem.

Were criminalizing words related to immigration, said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. So why should we uphold a statute that criminalizes words and makes the punishment five years, which is rather significant?

Justice Elena Kagan said the laws wording is so broad that it could threaten everyday conversations. What if a lawyer, doctor or neighbor advises someone they should stay in this country even if they are undocumented, she asked.

A huge number of such communications are taking place every day, because for every person whos in this country unlawfully, there are probably some number of people who want that person to stay, family members, you know, whatever, she told Deputy Solicitor Gen. Brian Fletcher. They say, I really think you should stay. What happens?

He replied the government has not and will not prosecute people for such family or friendly conversations. He argued the government takes a narrow view of the words encourage or induce.

Everyone agrees that in criminal law, the terms encourage and induce are terms of art that can refer narrowly to soliciting or aiding and abetting unlawful activity, he said. They do not extend to abstract or general comments about immigration, he said. In prosecutions, the government must show the defendant intended to violate the law.

If someone is prosecuted for giving friendly advice about immigration, the defendant should invoke the 1st Amendment as a defense, he said.

He urged the court not to strike down the encourage or induce provision based on absurd hypotheticals or because of the fear it could be potentially misused in future cases.

Several of the justices also noted that Hansen may be entitled to win a retrial for part of his case because the jury instructions were flawed.

The case was United States vs. Hansen, and a written opinion is expected by late June.

See the rest here:
Is it a crime to 'encourage' illegal immigration? - Los Angeles Times