Two Russians detained in Sweden over hammer attack on Chechen blogger
STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Two Russians are being held in Sweden suspected of the attempted murder of a prominent blogger and critic of the Chechen government last month, authorities said on Friday.

Tumso Abdurakhmanov, who fled Russia several years ago, said he survived the Feb. 26 attack in the town of Gavle by overpowering an assailant armed with a hammer, according to local prosecutor Therese Stensson.

It was the third attack this month on a critic of Chechnya’s Kremlin-backed leader Ramzan Kadyrov, after the murder of blogger Imran Aliyev in France and an assault on journalist Yelena Milashina in the Chechen capital Grozny.

Abdurakhmanov live-streamed the aftermath of the attack, standing over a bloodied man on the ground, asking him in Russian: “Who sent you? Where are you from?”

The man replies: “From Moscow ... They have my mother.”

Stensson told Reuters the prosecution was working from the video, which was widely shared on social media but could not be independently verified.

A 29-year-old Russian man has been detained since Sunday on suspicion of attempted murder, the prosecutor said, while Gavle District Court remanded in custody on Friday an alleged accomplice, a 30-year-old woman also from Russia.

In online posts and videos, Abdurakhmanov has been highly critical of Kadyrov for oppressing opponents.

A former executive at an electricity company, he fled Chechnya after a dispute sparked by a road incident when his car accidentally blocked the motorcade of a Kadyrov family member in 2015, the Kommersant newspaper reported.

The blogger could not be reached for comment.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov last week played down the incident and the attacks on critics of the Chechen leader, saying: “We are not inclined to draw parallels.”

The incident was first reported by a Chechen rights group, though it had given the location as Poland.

Human rights workers have accused Kadyrov of widespread abuses in the region, allegations he denies. Supporters credit him with bringing relative calm to a region dogged for years by a simmering insurgency following two wars between Moscow and separatists after the 1991 break-up of the Soviet Union.

---30---

Judge orders deportation of ex-Nazi camp guard

March 5 (UPI) -- An immigration judge ordered the deportation of a Tennessee man who served as an armed guard of concentration camp prisoners in Nazi Germany during World War II.

Judge Rebecca L. Holt found German citizen Friedrich Karl Berger to be eligible for removal from the United States to Germany under the 1978 Holtzman Amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act citing his "willing service as an armed guard for prisoners at a concentration camp where persecution took place," the U.S. Department of Justice said Thursday.

"Berger was part of the SS machinery of oppression that kept concentration camp prisoners in atrocious conditions of confinement," said Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski of the Justice Department's criminal division. "This ruling shows the department's continued commitment to obtaining a measure of justice, however late, for the victims of wartime Nazi persecution."

The court found that Berger said he guarded prisoners to prevent them from escaping as they worked dawn to dusk and while they traveled to and from worksites and their Neuengamme sub-camp near Meppen, Germany.

He also said he never requested a transfer from concentration camp guard service and continues to receive a pension from Germany based on his employment there "including his wartime services."

The court also found that Berger had helped guard prisoners during their forced two-week evacuation from the site to the Neuengamme main camp as the Nazis were abandoning the location in March 1945 amid advancing British and Canadian forces.

The prisoners were evacuated under "inhumane conditions," resulting in the deaths of some 70 prisoners, the Justice Department said

The head of the Meppen sub-camps, SS Obersturmfuhrer Hans Griem, along with other Meppen personnel were charged with war crimes by British occupation authorities in Germany in 1946 for "ill-treatment and murder of Allied nationals."

"We will continue to pursue these types of cases so that justice may be served," said Assistant Director David C. Shaw of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Homeland Security Investigations.

Putin signs 15-year plan to invest in Arctic with jobs, military upgrades

By Ed Adamczyk

Part of the strategy aims to create tens of thousands of new jobs in Russia's Arctic, which will lead to a significant population shift. File Photo by Norwegian Polar Institute/UPI | License Photo

March 6 (UPI) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin has approved a 15-year plan to develop Russia's Arctic region, which will involve upgrading infrastructure and new military deployments.

The Kremlin said Putin signed the 17-page executive order, titled "Principles of Russian Federation State Policy in the Arctic to 2035," on Thursday.

The plan calls for private investment in Arctic energy projects, a population shift into the area via tens of thousands of new jobs and road developments. It also plans upgrades to Russian surveillance systems and construction of new military infrastructure. There is no mention of the plan's cost.

The status of Russia's mineral-rich Arctic area was elevated last year when an agency in charge of Far East development took charge of similar improvements. The Arctic Ocean is increasingly ice-free due to climate change and shipping natural gas and minerals through the Northern Sea route is now more attainable.

"The framework is a document of strategic planning ... for the purpose of protecting national interests of the Russian Federation in the Arctic," the order states.

Russia has invested heavily in the Arctic for years, as new shipping lanes have opened and more mineral deposits have been discovered.

Read More

Complex causes behind Arctic greening, researchers sayWithout sea ice, Arctic permafrost more likely to thawU.N. study says 2019 ended decade of 'exceptional' heat, ice loss

Agriculture secretary says no more trade aid after Trump raises possibility

President Donald Trump (R) said on Twitter that farmers would get more aid payments but Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue (L) said this weekthat more aid is unlikely. Photo by Kevin Dietsch/UPI | License PhotoANOTHER CLASH BETWEEN PERDUE AND TRUMP, SONNY'S DAYS ARE NUMBERED 
EVANSVILLE, Ind., March 6 (UPI) -- Farmers were left bewildered this week after Agricultural Secretary Sonny Perdue reiterated that another round of trade aid payments this year was unlikely despite what the president has said.

The announcement, made at a House Agriculture Committee meeting Wednesday, came less than two weeks after President Donald Trump tweeted that if farmers needed aid before the administration's new trade deals are fully implemented, "that aid will be provided by the federal government."

The mixed messages have left farmers uncertain what the year will bring.

"I don't think we can plan on [trade aid] happening," said Scott VanderWal, a South Dakota soybean grower and the president of the South Dakota Farm Bureau. "We have to put our budgets together without it."
RELATED Coronavirus could prevent China from meeting $80B agriculture trade pledge

That means a lot of uncertainty will prevail within the farming community this year, VanderWal said.

Commodity prices remain low as trade with China has yet to resume in earnest. China has promised under the phase one deal to buy large quantities of American agricultural products -- $80 billion over the next two years-- but industry experts question whether it is capable of fulfilling the promise.

Early signs are not good.
RELATED China suspends import tariffs for dozens of U.S. products


The outbreak of coronavirus in China has dramatically slowed trade and reduced demand. The movement of goods in and out of ports is slow as workers stay home.

"We've still not made one real sale [of soybeans] to China," said Mark Watne, president of the North Dakota Farmers Union.

It could be some time before China makes a large soybean purchase, Watne said. The phase one deal stipulates that China will make purchases based on market considerations. Currently, Brazilian soybeans are cheaper.
RELATED Coronavirus could impede U.S. trade with China, experts say

China might increase purchases of other agricultural products, such as dairy, meat and fresh produce, but that also is unclear. And until the coronavirus threat passes and normal trade resumes, little will be moving in and out of the country.

"Is the trade situation solved? It doesn't appear to be," said Mike Stranz, policy director for the National Farmers Union. "And if it isn't, why are we turning away from trade aid this year?"

The Trump administration has given farmers roughly $28 billion in assistance since the trade war with China began in summer 2018. High retaliatory tariffs on farm goods severely reduced trade between the two countries, causing commodity prices to plummet and leaving some goods -- like soybeans -- sitting in farm grain bins waiting for a buyer.

"The [Market Facilitation Program] payments made quite a difference for a lot of us," soybean grower VanderWal said. "For some, it was the difference between making a profit or not. For some, it just made the loss smaller. It might have kept some people in business."

Farms struggled despite the aid, he said. Farm bankruptcies in 2019 rose 20 percent, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.

"The phase one deal is a good sign," said Josh Gackle, a soybean grower in North Dakota. "But now we really need the beans to start moving. Prior to 2018, 70 percent of North Dakota's soybeans went to China. We need the ships to start moving. And that's not happening yet."

Despite Perdue's comments, Stranz said he believes that -- unless China suddenly starts making large purchases before summer -- the Trump administration will offer more trade assistance.

"The [United States Department of Agriculture] has to be a little more sensitive to making announcements that may or may not impact the market," Stranz said.

Wild horse killings leave Arizona community on edge
RANCHERS WANT FREE ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS FOR GRAZING THEIR ANIMALS  

THE HORSES ARE AN IMPEDIMENT, LIKE WOLVES AND OTHER PREDATORS RANCHERS WHINE ABOUT


More than 35 horses have died, mostly from gunshot wounds, near the Heber Wild Horse Territory in Arizona over the past 16 months. Photo courtesy of U.S. Department of Agriculture

DENVER, March 6 (UPI) -- Someone has been shooting wild horses in a national forest near Heber-Obergaard, Ariz., for the last 16 months, and the unsolved crimes are tearing apart the small community.

Some 35 horses have been found dead in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, with most of them killed by bullets, authorities said. Local horse advocates and those who don't like the horses' presence blame each other for the deaths.

Most recently, 15 horses were found shot between Jan. 9 and 12, said Kacy Ellsworth, spokeswoman for the U.S Forest Service.

No arrests have been made, and authorities declined to say if they believe the same person or multiple shooters have been committing the crimes.

RELATED Wild horse and burro numbers must be slashed, advisory board says

"The investigation is ongoing," Ellsworth said. A $5,000 reward is offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the shooter or shooters.

"The series of horse deaths in the vicinity of the Heber Wild Horse Territory, about 110 miles northeast of Phoenix, is an issue we are taking seriously and diligently investigating," the Forest Service said in a statement.

The horses are wild animals, but protected by the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. Killing a wild horse can lead to a fine of up to $2,000 and a maximum of one year in prison, or both.

RELATED New rules for managing wild horses, burros on horizon

Residents say the vacation and retirement Heber-Overgaard community, with a year-round population around 2,400, is rattled by the shootings. The most recent incidents took place behind a subdivision and off a local highway.

"These shootings are bringing out the worst in people," said Realtor Robin Crawford, who lives near the forest and spends hours every week photographing the animals.

Wild horses have been controversial in the area for decades because cattle producers consider them a threat to forest grazing lands and want them gone.

RELATED U.S. proposes rules that could cause faster destruction of national forests

Now, horse advocates and ranch-affiliated townsfolk are trading insults online like "whacktivist" for horse lovers and "welfare ranchers" for cattle ranchers who graze their cows on subsidized public rangeland.

Both sides say they've received veiled threats and taunts online, including recipes for horse meat and surveillance-style photos of their properties and livestock.

But some residents think fighting about the horses is bad for business.

"People come up here for recreation to escape from the heat. They come up to enjoy the mountains. If we put panic in the forest, that stops people from coming into the community," Navajo County Supervisor Daryl Seymore said.

"We have to be inviting. When we're fighting among ourselves, who wants to go into that hostile environment?"

But the most upsetting part of the battle is the dead horses, local residents said.

"It's been heartbreaking when I have come across the carcasses of the dead horses, a couple of which I had just videotaped the day before," said Betty Nixon, a retired U.S. Army intelligence officer and fraud analyst who said she spends about 30 hours a week in the Apache-Sitgreaves forest.

Nixon said many of the animals had been shot in the abdomen or neck.

"The cruelty of shooting them in the gut, that is just cruel. The shooter was not interested in killing them humanely," Nixon said.

The shootings began in October 2018, according to the Forest Service. Twelve horses were killed that fall, and four more were found dead in February 2019. Most had gunshot wounds, and some were too decomposed to determine the cause of death, the Forest Service said.

In April 2019, a locally famous stallion, Old Buck, was found shot to death. Two more dead horses were found in fall 2019.

In this January's incidents, two family bands of horses were shot in groups of eight and seven. The dead horses included foals and adults.

Some residents say they are frustrated by what they perceive is a lack of commitment by investigating agencies.

Bullets whizzed past the head of wild horse photographer Kathie Reidhead, of Payson, Ariz., last May as she was photographing horses near a watering hole. She said she saw a man with ear protection standing in front of a parked silver pickup truck with Kentucky license plates shooting a rifle toward the horses.

"I hid behind a big log, and then I jumped up with my hands in the air," she said, adding that the man stopped shooting and hurriedly put his rifle back in the truck.

Reidhead said she captured several videos and photos of the man, his truck and fleeing horses. But she said the Navajo County Sheriff's Office and Forest Service investigators were not interested in her eyewitness account.

"Nobody cares. It just seems like they don't want to solve this," Reidhead said. "It seems like there's a big good-ole-boys club in Heber."

The Forest Service is following through on tips that are received, spokeswoman Ellsworth said.

A spokeswoman at the Navajo County Sheriff's Office declined to discuss the horse deaths, saying the investigation was being led by the U.S. Forest Service.

Meanwhile, local ranchers who want the horses gone say they have been frustrated by the federal agencies and federal judges who have prevented removal of horses, which were formerly sold or slaughtered.

The number of horses has increased significantly over the past decades, county supervisor Seymore said.

"Some of those horses could have been turned loose by irresponsible animal owners who couldn't afford to keep them," he said. "We need to control that horse population for safety. Hitting a horse on the highway is more dangerous than a deer or elk."

After federal lawsuits from several animal rights and conservation groups, the District Court for the District of Arizona ruled in 2005 to grant an injunction that stops the Forest Service from selling or removing horses without first developing a wild horse management plan.

"I'm not advocating for killing of horses, but the land management agency's hands are tied and they are not allowed to manage them," said Kathy Gibson Boatman, granddaughter of a local rancher.

In February, the agency proposed its first wild-horse plan for the 19,700-acre Heber Wild Horse Territory. The public can comment through March 15 whether the Forest Service should reduce the herd to between 50 and 104 animals through a combination of bait-and-trap capture, birth control and sterilization.

The forest holds between 270 and 420 animals, according to the agency's counts, which are several years old.

The Forest Service has ruled all of the horses qualify for protection as wild. But the agency acknowledges that many of the animals are descended from escaped domestic horses that moved onto forest land from the Fort Apache Indian reservation nearby after a 2002 forest fire.

Resident Boatman bristled when she hears rumors that someone affiliated with ranchers might be shooting the horses. She called horse advocates the "bullies of the forest."

"Multiple local people here, whose families have been here since the 1800s, feel that it's a whacktivist killing the horses," Boatman said.

"The ranchers want the horses gone, but I don't think any of them would shoot them. They have too much to lose," Realtor Crawford said. "The locals are just trying to keep their way of life, and I get that, but why not just leave the horses alone? What is the big deal?"

The investigation is frustrating, she said, because so little information has been released.

"But we're not going to stop asking about it, and we're not going to let it go," Crawford said.


upi.com/6989281

DOJ to take DNA samples from immigrants in U.S. illegally

HUGS NOT DYING #HUGSNOTDYING

Families embrace between El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juarez, 

Mexico, on October 26, 2019. The Justice Department 

announced a plan Friday to enforce a law requiring that a

 DNA sample be taken, and stored by the FBI, from all

 people entering the United States illegally.

 File Photo by Justin Hamel/UPI | License Photo


March 6 (UPI) -- DNA samples will soon be taken from migrants crossing the U.S. border and stored in a federal criminal database, the Justice Department ruled Friday.

The move, a significant expansion of immigration law, is likely to be challenged in court.

The ruling authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to collect DNA samples from immigrants who illegally enter the country and are in federal custody. The collection is authorized by the DNA Fingerprint Act, a law passed in 2005. It requires a DNA sample, typically done with a simple swabbing of the mouth, from anyone arrested, facing charges or convicted, as well as from any non-U.S. citizen detained under federal authority.

Although 15 years old, the law has been only sporadically enforced. DHS, during the Obama administration, said it lacked appropriate manpower and sought an exemption from the law. In October, the Trump administration disclosed plans to enforce it, adding the technology and process is now easier and less expensive. The results will be sent to the FBI's Combined DNA Index System, known as CODIS, which the FBI defines as "the generic term used to describe the FBI's program of support for criminal justice DNA databases."

RELATED Supreme Court weighs due process rights of asylum seekers

It is similar to the FBI's fingerprint database, which is used to identify suspects through fingerprints found at crime scenes. Pilot programs for DNA collection began in January in Detroit and at the Eagle Pass entry port in Texas.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Mich., and Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, are critical of the DNA collection process, saying it "reinforces the xenophobic myth that undocumented immigrants are more likely to commit crimes."

US & SCOTUS Court rulings on crosses favor history over religion

CHRISTIANS CLAIM THEIR RELIGIOUS SYMBOL THE CROSS 

IS SECULAR FOR VETERANS PUBLIC MEMORIALS

An appeals court said the message conveyed by this cross 

in Bayview Park in Pensacola, Fla., has evolved into a neutral

 one since its erection in 1941.

 Photo courtesy of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

March 6 (UPI) -- Recent court rulings favoring historic preservation over religious implications may turn the tide in legal battles across the United States over crosses depicted on public property.

In Pensacola, Fla., an appeals court ruled that a 34-foot-tall cross can remain in a park, rejecting an argument that the display should be removed because its maintenance by the city violates the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over others.

In a 3-0 opinion, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the message conveyed by the cross has evolved into a neutral one since its erection in 1941 in Bayview Park. Furthermore, the passage of time has imbued the cross with historical significance. Removing it might appear to be hostile, rather than neutral, toward religion, according to the Feb. 19 ruling.

In finding the cross constitutional, the 11th Circuit was guided by a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that allowed a 40-foot-tall cross that commemorates area residents who died in World War I to remain on public land in Bladensburg, Md. That ruling -- in American Legion vs. American Humanist Association, which said the Bladensburg cross has taken on a secular purpose and acquired historical importance -- also was the basis of a decision permitting Lehigh County, Pa., to keep a Latin cross on its seal.

RELATED Supreme Court: WWI memorial cross doesn't violate church-state clause

Sam Gerard, a communications associate for the AHA, said the crosses are "explicitly religious" and violate the separation of church and state. The association, which, along with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, filed a lawsuit on behalf of four plaintiffs seeking removal of the Pensacola cross, is weighing whether to appeal.

The impact of the Supreme Court opinion will be felt in other cases, said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented Pensacola and Lehigh County in their battles over the crosses.

Courts will increasingly rely on the history of religious symbols in deciding challenges to their constitutionality, "which will produce more objective and religion-friendly results," Goodrich told UPI in an email.

RELATED Supreme Court to hear Philadelphia case on same-sex foster parents

"Bladensburg will lead to more rulings allowing religious displays (especially longstanding ones) in public places," Goodrich said.

Rebecca Markert, the foundation's legal director, said Bladensburg has opened the door to symbols that would have been considered religious a few years ago. She said the Bayview Park cross was built to serve as the centerpiece of annual Easter sunrise services.

"It's a blow to religious liberty," Markert said.

The ruling is a double blow, she added, because it will not lead to a lot of minority religious symbols on public property. Instead, the government, which decides what to display, will likely maintain traditional Christian symbols, Markert said.

'Presumption of constitutionality'

Construction of the Bladensburg cross -- called the Peace Cross -- began in 1918. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission acquired the cross and the land in 1961 and uses public funds for maintenance.

In 2012, the AHA and three residents of Washington, D. C., and Maryland, sued the commission in federal court. The plaintiffs alleged the cross's presence on public land and the commission's maintenance of it violate the Establishment Clause.

A district court judge ruled in favor of the commission and the American Legion, which had intervened in the suit to defend the cross. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which issued its 7-2 opinion June 20, giving a "presumption of constitutionality for longstanding monuments, symbols and practices."

"Even if the original purpose of a monument was infused with religion, the passage of time may obscure that sentiment," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. "As our society becomes more and more religiously diverse, a community may preserve such monuments, symbols and practices for the sake of their historical significance or their place in a common cultural heritage."

Lehigh County's seal was adopted in 1944 and depicts images reflecting its history, including a cross that honors the Christians who settled the area. Other images that reflect the county's history and culture are cement silos, textiles, a farm, the Liberty Bell and a lamp with books that represents schools.

The Wisconsin-based foundation and four of its members sued in 2016 to get the cross removed, and a federal judge ruled in their favor, saying the cross lacked a secular purpose and was unconstitutional.

The case went to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which put it on hold until the decision in the Bladensburg case was issued. On Aug. 8, the 3rd Circuit ruled 3-0 that the seal does not violate the Establishment Clause.

The ruling says the Latin cross on the seal "no doubt carries religious significance."

"But more than seven decades after its adoption, the seal has become a familiar, embedded feature of Lehigh County, attaining a broader meaning than any one of its many symbols," Judge Thomas Hardiman wrote for the court.

Religious and secular space

In Florida, the National Youth Administration erected a wooden cross in 1941 in the eastern corner of Bayview Park, and the Jaycees organized an annual Easter program that became a tradition. During World War II, people gathered there to pray for "the divine guidance of our leaders," the 11th Circuit decision says.

A small stage was built at the site in 1949, and the cross was replaced with a concrete version in 1969. The Jaycees later donated the cross to the city, which lights and maintains it at a cost of about $233 a year.

The suit challenging the cross as unconstitutional was filed in 2016. After a U.S. District Court judge ordered the cross's removalm and the 11th Circuit upheld that decision, Pensacola appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

While the Pensacola matter was pending, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Bladensburg. The high court vacated the 11th Circuit ruling upholding the removal order and sent the case back for reconsideration.

Writing for the 11th Circuit, Judge Kevin Newsom notes that a variety of religious and secular events have been held in the area of the cross and said the city made the space available on a neutral basis.

"The surest proof of that fact: Just two months before the filing of this lawsuit, the city granted plaintiff David Suhor's request to reserve the cross for his own 'satanic purposes,' which required a church that had already reserved it to move to another area of the park," the ruling says.

(Markert said the event never took place.)

The 11th Circuit also says the cross "has become embedded in the fabric of the Pensacola community."

"Removal of the Bayview Park cross at this point -- more than 75 years after its original erection and more than 50 years after its replacement with the current concrete version -- could well, in the Supreme Court's words, 'strike many as aggressively hostile to religion,' " as Justice Sam Alito said.

Watchdog: Trump officials ignored warnings about family separations

The inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services

said senior Trump administration officials failed to prepare for migrant

 family separations, making the reunification process more complicated. 

File Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo

March 5 (UPI) -- Senior Health and Human Services Department officials didn't act on staff's warnings of an increase in family separations at the border, leaving the department unable to provide adequate care for separated migrant children, a watchdog report released Thursday said.

The HHS inspector general's office conducted the study in response to the Trump administration's so-called zero-tolerance policy implemented in spring 2018 in which all adults accused of illegally crossing the southern border were prosecuted. Because of that, officials separated children from their detained parents and housed them at facilities across the United States.

Court battles later required the federal government to reunify migrant children with their parents. The inspector general's office said it investigated how the government responded to the zero-tolerance policy and the order to reunite families.

It found that a lack of communication across interagency channels meant there was a lack of planning for how to handle a larger number of children separated from their parents.

RELATED Court allows Trump administration to block migrants in Texas, N.M.

This "left the department unable to provide prompt and appropriate care for separated children when the zero-tolerance policy was implemented," the report said.

"Further, because no procedures or systems had been established to track separated families across HHS and [the Department of Homeland Security] for later reunification, HHS struggled to identify separated children."

One Office of Refugee Resettlement staff member told inspector general investigators they noticed an increase in children being separated from their parents a full year before zero-tolerance became the Trump administration's official policy.

RELATED Supreme Court weighs due process rights of asylum seekers

"I said ORR was seeing much higher levels of separation, and that those separations were impacting particularly babies and young children," the staffer said. "I said this so many times that I was called a broken record.

Another ORR staffer told the inspector general: "I told them it was going to traumatize children to separate them unnecessarily. I said that to anyone I could."

HHS officials declined to act on the warnings, though, the inspector general report said.

RELATED Judge rules Ken Cuccinelli was unlawfully appointed to head U.S. immigration agency

During the reunification process, the inspector general report said it found "significant operational challenges," which were complicated by poor guidance from the HHS. Manual processes made the reunification vulnerable to error, the report said.

The report recommended that the HHS take steps to prioritize children's interests and well-being. The agency also recommended the department enter into formal agreements with the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice to ensure better communication going forward.

The inspector general based its findings on case reviews, more than 5,000 documents, and interviews with staff, officials and provider facilities.

RELATED Federal court blocks 'Remain in Mexico' immigration policy

Exclusive: Guatemala seeks to limit migrants returned under U.S. asylum agreement


GUATEMALA CITY (Reuters) - Guatemala’s new government is trying to limit the number of foreign migrants the United States sends its way under an agreement that makes the Central American nation a buffer zone to reduce U.S. asylum claims.


The United States has sent hundreds of Honduran and El Salvadoran asylum seekers to Guatemala under the agreement implemented in November and is now seeking to expand the program.

However, Guatemala’s priority in ongoing talks with U.S. officials is to make sure the number sent back daily does not exceed its “very limited” capacity to process new arrivals, deputy foreign minister Eduardo Hernandez told Reuters.

“We have only one runway” and one migrant reception center, Hernandez said in an interview last week. The agreement “cannot exceed our installed capacity.”


As it stands, the deal is one of a series of overlapping measures the Trump administration sees as key to bringing down irregular migration into the United States. U.S. President Donald Trump has made his performance on controlling immigration a plank of his 2020 re-election campaign.

Known as an Asylum Cooperative Agreement and signed by the previous Guatemalan government, the deal is similar to the safe third country agreement under which asylum seekers who pass through Canada must apply for refuge there rather than in the United States.

Critics of the arrangement, and similar U.S. deals with Honduras and El Salvador, say those countries do not offer adequate conditions for protecting at-risk migrants and that their asylum systems are too rudimentary to cope.

Under President Alejandro Giammattei, who took office in January, the Guatemalan government has promised to give more information about the deal, which was negotiated behind closed doors and was only partially made public.

Hernandez said the government was working with U.S. counterparts to produce clear implementation rules governing issues such as how many families with children Guatemala accepts, whether to extend the deal to more nationalities, and how many foreign asylum seekers it would take per day.

“If it is possible, we want to add an annex, something succinct, simple, direct, clear and that leaves no space for interpretation,” he told Reuters last week.

Under the initial agreement, the United States agreed to only include individual adults, but Hernandez said it was later extended to include families with children.

Casa de Migrante, a non-governmental shelter that receives the returned foreign migrants, say pregnant women and young children showing signs of chronic stress were among the people U.S. officials had placed in the program.

Data released by the Guatemalan Immigration Institute, a government agency, show that through March 3 a total of 789 people have been returned, including 311 children.

The Trump administration on Thursday announced it set aside 10,000 H2-B temporary non-agricultural work visas for Guatemalans, El Salvadorans and Hondurans, as part of a broader expansion of such visas.

The nationality-specific set-aside is unusual for such programs, and appeared to be in recognition of the asylum deals.

The deal with Honduras could be implemented imminently, acting U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Mark Morgan said on Thursday. Morgan said the United States continued to negotiate to increase the number of asylum seekers taken by Guatemala.

Guatemala court overturns government's civil society restrictions

MARCH 6, 2020 

GUATEMALA CITY (Reuters) - Guatemala’s government on Friday said it will respect a ruling by the nation’s Constitutional Court that overturns a law allowing the government to pry into the affairs of and even dissolve non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Congress passed the law on Feb. 12 with the support of the ruling party and other conservative lawmakers who argue that foreign-backed NGOs violate national sovereignty.

The law had been questioned by the United States and human rights groups. The U.S. State Department had described the bill as putting “onerous” requirements on NGOs in Guatemala, saying such groups play key roles in functioning democracies.

Several civil rights organizations sued to overturn the law, saying it violated human rights. The court sided with the organizations.

The law forced NGOs to register, report their donations and allow their accounts to be inspected. Under certain circumstances, it would also allow NGOs to be dissolved, controlled and monitored.

“We will respect the ruling and call on Guatemalans to unite, to promote a culture of transparency, prosperity and development,” Guatemala’s government said.

Although the court’s ruling is provisional if Congress and the government want to re-impose the rules, the legislative process would need to start from scratch, former congressional legislative director Ana Isabel Antillon told Reuters.

Governments around the world, including Turkey and India, in recent years have made regulations more burdensome for civil society groups. In 2019, rights group Amnesty International released a report warning of a “global assault” on NGOs.

In Guatemala, civil society has often been at odds with governments, the army and business groups by seeking justice for victims of a 36-year-long civil war, as well as supporting anti-corruption efforts and peasant farmer and land-rights activists.