UN CHIEF JOINS CALLS FOR END TO TRUMP’S POLICY OF SEPARATING MIGRANT FAMILIES
Intervention comes after days of nationwide protests, anger in Washington and first lady telling of her concerns
The United Nations’ human rights chief waded into the furore over the Trump government’s border policies, demanding an immediate halt to the practice of separating children from migrant parents.
Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein’s comments came hard on the heels of a domestic rift in the White House after Melania Trump, the first lady, on Father’s Day issued a statement making clear her concerns about dividing families.
“Mrs Trump hates to see children separated from their families and hopes both sides of the aisle can finally come together to achieve successful immigration reform,” her communications director, Stephanie Grisham, told a number of news outlets.
“She believes we need to be a country that follows all laws, but also a country that governs with heart.”
Mr Al Hussein’s intervention came after days of nationwide protests and growing unease among Republicans, anger among Democrats and Mrs Trump’s expressed hatred at seeing families divided.
There were new descriptions yesterday of how children as young as two were being separated from their parents in processing centres along the border with Mexico.
“The thought that any state would seek to deter parents by inflicting such abuse on children is unconscionable,” said Mr Al Hussein as he opened a session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The issue has taken on greater prominence after news media and Congressmen were on Sunday allowed inside a huge warehouse in McAllen, Texas, where children and adults are being held in separate pens.
They described mattresses on the floor covered with aluminium foil blankets, while families queued for processing – descriptions that sparked comparisons with some of the darkest periods of 20th-century history.
More than 1,000 people are being held in the windowless warehouse where the lights stay on 24 hours.
But border agents prevented news media from interviewing any of the detainees or taking photos inside the unit.
One photograph taken outside, which quickly went viral, showed a two-year-old girl screaming as her mother was detained at the border.
Stories emerged of parents being told their children were being taken for showers, only to be informed later that they would not be reunited.
The government has said nearly 2,000 minors were separated from their parents or guardians during a recent sixweek period. Under US law, they are required to be moved from the border service holding pens to shelters run by the Department of Health and Human Services within three days.
The result is a growing political row, with Donald Trump and his closest advisers appearing increasingly isolated as they push for tougher immigration legislation.
For his part, Mr Trump yesterday blamed Democrats for failing to help to fix US immigration policy, and said emergency measures were essential to protect Americans from gang members entering the country.
“Why don’t the Democrats give us the votes to fix the world’s worst immigration laws,” he asked on Twitter yesterday.
“Where is the outcry for the killings and crime being caused by gangs and thugs, including MS-13, coming into our country illegally?”
Although the White House has pointed the finger at the obstructionism of Democrats, the rate of separations accelerated early last month, when Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, announced that all migrants crossing illegally into the US from Mexico would be arrested.
Since children cannot legally be sent to units where adults are held, they are separated from their parents.
Mr Trump was elected on a populist platform that promised to end illegal immigration from Mexico to protect US jobs.
The president is due to meet senior Republican figures today to work out a legislative path forward, with votes expected on two competing bills this week.
The thought that any state would seek to deter parents by inflicting such abuse on children is unconscionable ZEID RA’AD AL HUSSEIN United Nations’ human rights chief
For those unimpressed by the US president, here is tomorrow’s news: Donald Trump will remain in the White House for quite a while. How do I know this? Because no US president in history has ever been removed from office by impeachment. Never, ever.
The supposed impeachment “case” against Mr Trump grabs headlines, encourages his enemies and journalistic wittering but faces insurmountable problems. Critics cite a stack of probable “high crimes and misdemeanours” – impeachable offences.
The Mueller investigation is picking off former Trump aides and associates to build a case around those prepared to save their own skins by cooperating with the FBI. Robert Mueller – and others – are examining in detail the business dealings of the Trump family, including the president. And politically Mr Trump risks becoming a Lilliputian president – or as Richard Nixon memorably called the US in 1970, a “pitiful helpless giant” – tied down by inquiries and unable to do much beyond tweeting his frustration and attacking what he claims is a conspiracy against him.
That might all be very entertaining (or depressing to those of us who value American leadership) but none of this amounts, at least so far, to a credible impeachment resulting in his removal from office.
The reason is simple. Impeachment sounds like a high-minded legal and constitutional process. It’s not. It’s bloody-minded, raw politics. It appears to be about right and wrong. It’s not. It’s about numbers and votes.
I chaired a discussion with US scholars last week in London’s British Library on precisely this topic. Presidents endure scandals but mostly survive them, often because they have plenty of practice.
There are three main categories: sex scandals, financial corruption scandals and constitutional disagreements about power. The sex scandals sell newspapers but, as Bill Clinton, Grover Cleveland and others have proven, they do not bring down presidents.
Besides, Mr Trump’s sexual proclivities were well-known to voters before they elected him to the White House. The corruption allegations (dodgy dealings with Russians, paying off Stormy Daniels and other money matters) might eventually produce a conviction and taint the presidency but Trump supporters tend to believe that their hero is “too rich to be bought” and will almost certainly stick with him regardless of the outcome of investigations.
Besides, Trump voters regard dubious agreements and transactions as the normal business of Washington and, at times, the normal business of business. That leaves impeachment caused by some kind of constitutional malfeasance.
Mr Trump recently tweeted that he has the absolute right to pardon himself, an assertion which many US scholars believe could be seen as an abuse of power and lead to impeachment under article II, section 2 of the US constitution. It confers pardon authority on the president and the “power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the US, except in cases of impeachment”.
But while some politicians need friends, Mr Trump needs enemies. He appears to be taking his cue on surviving enemy attacks by using Mr Clinton’s method of taking his case over the heads of Congress and straight to the American people.
Mr Clinton lied under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky and was impeached in the House of Representatives but, crucially, his Republican critics did not have the votes in the Senate to remove him. He survived by bypassing Congress and the media and appealing directly to Americans.
Hillary Clinton claimed her husband was the victim of a “vast right-wing conspiracy”. Mr Trump uses Clinton-style rhetoric when he tweets of a liberal “witchhunt” and derides accusations as conspiracies generated by a “fake news” obsessed media.
Mr Trump and his Democrat enemies will undoubtedly remember that Mr Clinton ended his post-impeachment presidency more popular than when it began. Mindful Democrats recognise that they themselves will be punished for embarking on a doomed impeachment campaign.
There is one further method to remove a president, the 25th amendment to the US constitution. But this demands that the Trump cabinet – appointed by Mr Trump, of course – and Vice President Mike Pence, also chosen by Mr Trump, would agree to dump their patron. That will not happen.
And so while impeachment talk invigorates Democrats and Republicans this summer and will probably continue throughout the Trump presidency, it is most likely to come to nothing.
Democrats might win control of the House of Representatives in November’s elections, which gives them more leverage to pursue Mr Trump and frustrate his plans.
But for Mr Trump, that could even be a bonus. He has few coherent policies and plenty of slogans. A hostile Democratic Congress will allow him to complain about “the swamp” and blame “the Washington elite” for all his many failures to come.
Voters will judge Mr Trump’s presidency not on morality or constitutionality but on the economy. If trade wars and conflict cause the US economy to weaken, the Democrats have a chance in 2020.
But if middle-income Americans feel they are better off, Mr Trump will win a second term.
And here’s another possibility. Might President Unpredictable decide at the last minute that he prefers Mar-a-Lago to Pennsylvania Avenue? Might, in classic Trump fashion, this oddball president decide not to run in 2020 because he wants to spend more time with his money?
If the average American feels better off under Donald Trump, then the US president will win a second term