.@newyorker is following the developing story about the newly announced agreement between the US and Guatemala. Check back tomorrow/over the weekend for the full story. For now, a few place-holding observations. 1/
The way this agreement has been described by DHS makes clear that it is, at the very least, a "safe third agreement." DHS tries to avoid that term bc the Guatemalans hate it (very bad PR). And the Guatemalan government, which has published the text, doesn't use those words. 2/
BUT, according to the language in Spanish, it may go farther than the terms of a safe third. There are only two exceptions I see in the deal. 1) Guatemalans 2) unaccompanied kids. What does that mean? 3/
That anyone who arrives at U.S. border seeking asylum can be sent to Guatemala. DHS said that it has Salvadorans and Hondurans in mind, but the language of the agreement leaves open a broader possibility, consistent with the document I saw a week + ago 4/ https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-poised-to-sign-a-radical-agreement-to-send-future-asylum-seekers-to-guatemala …
Last thought for now: Guatemalan Constitutional Court did not rule on the substance of an agreement. It ruled on the idea that Morales attempted to negotiate the agreement without Congressional approval. So it's still hard to see how this agreement skirts the court's ruling. end/
You can follow @JonathanBlitzer.