Yesterday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals instructed immigration officials to consider recognizing young Guatemalan women as a “particular social group” for asylum purposes. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) an individual qualifies for asylum only if that person meets the legal definition of a refugee. Traditionally, asylum petitions from Latin Americans have been dismissed outright as “fraudulent or frivolous.” Refugees are often viewed as people “fleeing oppressive political regimes or have been members of religious or ethnic minorities facing persecution.” However, as violence soars in Mexico and parts of Central America, judges are faced with a growing need to take asylum claims from Latin America much more seriously than they did before.

An immigration judge initially denied Guatemalan immigrant Yajayra Perdomo asylum, arguing that women between the ages of 14 and 40 should not be recognized as a “particular social group.” The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed. However, the 9th Circuit repealed the decision, calling the board’s ruling “inconsistent with its own precedent and this court’s case law.” “[W]e clearly acknowledged that women in a particular country, regardless of ethnicity or clan membership, could form a particular social group,” Judge Richard Paez wrote. The 9th Circuit left it up to the Board to issue a decision whether Perdomo qualifies for asylum.

The court also ruled that fear of “femicide” constitutes a valid asylum claim. Since the year 2000, more than 3,800 women and girls (mostly from ages 13 to 36) have been murdered in Guatemala. The Hastings College of Law has noted in the past that “Guatemala’s legal system is rife with provisions that minimize the seriousness of violence against women.” Amnesty International writes that “investigations into crimes against women, including transgender women, are often inadequate and obstructed by investigating police who act with a gender bias.”

Watch a report by Al Jazeera on femicide in Guatemala:

While females are often killed “simply because of their gender,” violence cuts across gender lines in Guatemala and other neighboring countries. The United Nations Development Program found that “Central America is the most violent region of the world, with the exception of those regions where some countries are at war or are experiencing severe political violence.” More than 5,600 murders were registered in Guatemala in 2009. Ninety-eight percent of those murders went unpunished. El Salvador ended 2009 with a “historic number” of 4,365 homicides. Honduras is said to have the highest murder rate: 66.8 for every 100,000 inhabitants. Mexico, which is significantly larger and more populous than three other Central American countries has a homicide rate of 12 per 100,000.

In August 2009, A DHS spokesman told the Wall Street Journal that the government is “developing regulations to better define grounds for asylum.” In 2009, the government reopened the monumental case of a Salvadoran family who argue that the Court should consider resistance to joining gangs as grounds for asylum. However, not everyone is so lucky. Last month, the New York Times reported that Benito Zaldívar, a Salvadoran immigrant who was deported back to El Salvador after a court denied his asylum petition was shot in the face as “revenge” for speaking against the gang. “I’ve done about a hundred cases of Salvadoran males who refused to join gangs,” said Roy Petty, Zaldívar’s lawyer. “I have to tell them you are probably going to lose. The immigration system did not believe these people were really in danger.”

In Washington, there’s little appetite amongst politicians to deal with the “illogical” and “perverse” legal hurdles of the U.S. asylum system. In March, Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) boldly sponsored the Refugee Protection Act which “addresses shortfalls in current law that place unnecessary and harmful barriers before refugees with legitimate asylum claims.” The bill is currently stalled in Congress.

Reports have emerged this week on the group Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI), an organization led by pro-war neocons and evangelical Christians seeking to attack President Obama’s Middle East policy. The group launched an ad this week bashing Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) for allegedly not understanding that Israel is a U.S. ally.

War hawk flack John Bolton commented on the new group today in an email to right-wing Commentary Magazine:

I don’t understand why so many people accept the Obama Administration’s ritualistic recital of the pro-Israel catechism, rather than looking at its specific policies and actions. You can say “unbreakable relationship” as many times as you want, but it has no real-world impact. I don’t see how anybody can object to a new group that simply points out the obvious disjunction between what Obama and his acolytes are saying and what they are actually doing.

So what is this “obvious disjunction” between ECI and “what Obama and his acolytes are saying and what they are actually doing?” The President has made it clear that the United States will achieve its foreign policy goals in the Middle East, particularly regarding Iran’s nuclear program, through diplomatic means — a position that both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen support. What are those on the right like Bolton supporting? The former U.N. ambassador outlined his views today in the Wall Street Journal:

[Opinion leaders need] to increase political support for an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile facilities. [...] What outsiders can do is create broad support for Israel’s inherent right to self-defense against a nuclear Holocaust and defend the specific tactic of pre-emptive attacks against Iran’s Esfahan uranium-conversion plant, its Natanz enrichment facility, and other targets.

Indeed, the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol — a member of ECI’s leadership board — has been supporting and advocating a strike on Iran’s nuclear program for quite some time. So yes, Bolton is right, there is an “obvious disjunction” between ECI and the Obama administration’s policy; despite the debacle in Iraq, the former still appears to believe that war will achieve peace in the Middle East, while the latter has learned from the neocons’ mistakes in favor of negotiation and diplomacy.

Picking up my earlier post, Ben Smith does some further reporting on Gary Bauer’s position on a Palestinian state, in light of Bauer’s previous statement that “God granted the Land of Israel to the Jewish people and there is an absolute ban on giving it away to another people.” Smith notes that “Bauer didn’t specify exactly how far east his divine ban extends, and he’s suggested elsewhere that he does accept plans to create a Palestinian state.” I’m not sure how these two views are at all reconcilable, but of course Bauer could clear up the confusion by simply answering the question of where he stands on two states for two peoples.

Even more revealing about where ECI is coming from, however, is the response from spokesman Mike Goldfarb, who told Smith that “the group doesn’t have a position on the creation of a Palestinian state”:

“ECI is for a strong US-Israel relationship and a strong, secure Israel at peace with the Palestinians and all its neighbors — but Israel is a democratic ally that must determine for itself the best way to achieve this goal,” he said.

If there were only one country’s interests at stake here, this might be true. But the U.S. is deeply involved in the region, and is deeply implicated in, and affected by, policies and actions carried out by Israel, and therefore has a legitimate and vital national security interest in helping to determine the best way to achieve the goal of two states.

As I wrote earlier, support for the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza became official U.S. policy under President George W. Bush, and President Obama has continued this policy, making it clear at the outset of his presidency that he considered the resolution of the conflict to be in both the U.S. and Israeli national security interests.

In his written testimony to Congress in March (pdf), Gen. David Petraeus affirmed this view, stating that “Insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace” is among the “root causes of instability [and] obstacles to security” in the region, and that progress on Middle East peace and the creation of two secure states was imperative to achieving U.S. goals.

But according to the Emergency Committee for Israel, apparently, the national security interests of the United States in the Middle East should be subordinated to whatever the current Israeli government wants. I find this bizarre, and I think most Americans would probably agree.

Last week, shortly after the federal government announced its legal challenge to Arizona’s immigration law, SB-1070, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) proclaimed, “It is obviously political.” The sponsor of SB-1070, state Sen. Russell Pearce (R-AZ), similarly blasted President Obama, stating, “[t]he Obama administration simply is filing suit, a political lawsuit if you will, [be]cause they have no leg to stand on.” Now the Obama administration is getting hit by uneasy Democrats, who are worried about the political impact of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) lawsuit. “I might have chosen both a different tack and a different time,” said Gov. Bill Ritter (D-CO).”This is an issue that divides us politically, and I’m hopeful that their strategy doesn’t do that in a way that makes it more difficult for candidates to get elected, particularly in the West.” Gov. Phil Bredesen (D-TN) stated, “[i]t is such a toxic subject, such an important time for Democrats.”

However, both Republicans and Democrats need to realize the DOJ lawsuit really is motivated by something much more significant than cheap political points. “The basis for this was a legal determination by those of us at the Justice Department that the law was inconsistent with the Constitution,” said Attorney General, Eric Holder, this Sunday. Holder additionally denied suing Arizona simply to brand Republicans as “anti-immigration” or “anti-Hispanic.” If the purpose of the lawsuit were simply meant to motivate immigrant or Latino voters, Holder probably would’ve been better off pursuing racial profiling charges since that is their main concern. However, though Holder might sue Arizona again if there is evidence of racial profiling once the law goes into effect, the current lawsuit sticks to the claim that SB-1070 is preempted by federal law. “We can’t have a patchwork of 50 states developing their own immigration policy,” explained White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod.

Practically speaking, the decision to file a lawsuit was pretty much out of President Obama’s hands once he directed the DOJ to review it. From there, Holder didn’t confer with political strategists or pollsters, but rather, legal experts, community stakeholders, and local police. Nine police chiefs from across the country met with Holder to voice their concerns about the law. “Laws like this are put forward as a public safety issue, but they are not a public safety solution,” said Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck, who attended the meeting. “These laws will actually increase crime, not decrease crime. Witnesses won’t come forward. And they break down the trust we’ve been building for decades. On many levels, these laws don’t work.” In late May, Justice Department lawyers reportedly visited Phoenix to speak with lawyers from the offices of the state attorney general, Terry Goddard, and Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) about the possibility of litigation.

Ultimately, the political consequences that the lawsuit will undoubtedly produce are complicated. Newsweek declared that the lawsuit is “good politics” for Obama because “it undermines criticism that the president has done nothing when it comes to immigration reform.” Yet, if anything, SB-1070 and the corresponding lawsuit are perceived as the products of a broken immigration system that Washington, DC has yet to tackle. It doesn’t help that, overall, Americans oppose the suit by 50% to 33%. However, while the lawsuit doesn’t sit well with most voters and fails to take the place of immigration reform for Latinos who support it, it’s biggest political impact will likely be in the long-run. Holder doesn’t have to bother “branding” Republicans as anti-immigrant — they tend to dig their own ditch when it comes to that label. With that said, the more the lawsuit galvanizes the GOP’s right-wing base, the stronger the association between nativism and the Republican Party will grow in the minds of Latinos. As the shameful link intensifies, President Obama has provided Democrats with a golden opportunity to set themselves apart. “The Obama administration is playing more for the history books than for the midterm elections,” concluded Frank Sharry of America’s Voice.

Picking up on Eli Clifton’s reporting, Ben Smith tells us a little more about the Emergency Committee for Israel, neocon svengali Bill Kristol’s latest astroturf anti-Obama effort:

The Emergency Committee for Israel’s leadership unites two major strands of support for the Jewish state: The hawkish, neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, many of whom are Jewish, and conservative Evangelical Christians who have become increasingly outspoken in their support for Israel. The new group’s board includes Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol and Gary Bauer, the former Republican presidential candidate who leads the group American Values.

Just so we know where this group is really coming from, Gary Bauer opposes the creation of a Palestinian state. Here’s what Bauer said in a speech several years ago:

God granted the Land of Israel to the Jewish people and there is an absolute ban on giving it away to another people.

Support for the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza — which Bauer regards as unacceptably “dividing” the Land of Israel — became official U.S. policy under President George W. Bush. President Obama made it clear at the beginning of his presidency that he considered the creation of a Palestinian state and the resolution of the conflict to be in both the U.S. and Israeli national security interests. In his written testimony to Congress in March (pdf), Gen. David Petraeus affirmed this view, stating that “Insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace” is among the “root causes of instability [and] obstacles to security” in the region, and that progress on Middle East peace was imperative to achieving U.S. goals.

Gary Bauer has a different view, and thinks Middle East peacemaking is a waste of time. In addition to being far out of the American foreign policy/national security mainstream, Bauer’s position as actually to the right even of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who accepted a Palestinian state in his June 2009 Bar Ilan speech.

ThinkProgress contacted Bauer to see if it was still his position that the creation of a Palestinian state was a violation of The Lord’s “absolute ban” against dividing the land. Bauer’s press representative Kristi Hamrick said that Mr. Bauer “declines the opportunity to comment” on this. Politico’s Ben Smith reports that Michael Goldfarb, an adviser to the Emergency Committee, told him that the group doesn’t have a position on the creation of a Palestinian state.

Picking up on Eli Clifton’s reporting, Ben Smith tells us a little more about the Emergency Committee for Israel, neocon svengali Bill Kristol’s latest astroturf anti-Obama effort:

The Emergency Committee for Israel’s leadership unites two major strands of support for the Jewish state: The hawkish, neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, many of whom are Jewish, and conservative Evangelical Christians who have become increasingly outspoken in their support for Israel. The new group’s board includes Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol and Gary Bauer, the former Republican presidential candidate who leads the group American Values.

Just so we know where this group is really coming from, Gary Bauer opposes the creation of a Palestinian state. Here’s what Bauer said in a speech several years ago:

God granted the Land of Israel to the Jewish people and there is an absolute ban on giving it away to another people.

Support for the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza — which Bauer regards as unacceptably “dividing” the Land of Israel — became official U.S. policy under President George W. Bush. President Obama made it clear at the beginning of his presidency that he considered the creation of a Palestinian state and the resolution of the conflict to be in both the U.S. and Israeli national security interests. In his written testimony to Congress in March (pdf), Gen. David Petraeus affirmed this view, stating that “Insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace” is among the “root causes of instability [and] obstacles to security” in the region, and that progress on Middle East peace was imperative to achieving U.S. goals.

Gary Bauer has a different view, and thinks Middle East peacemaking is a waste of time. In addition to being far out of the American foreign policy/national security mainstream, Bauer’s position as actually to the right even of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who accepted a Palestinian state in his June 2009 Bar Ilan speech.

I contacted Bauer to see if it was still his position that the creation of a Palestinian state was a violation of The Lord’s “absolute ban” against dividing the land. Bauer’s press representative Kristi Hamrick said that Mr. Bauer “declines the opportunity to comment” on this.