Nolan writes:
“According to an Immigration Department memorandum which was obtained by the Canadian press under Canada’s Access to Information Act, as of the end of April, there were 12,040 asylum claims, and it was viewed as likely that there would be 36,000 of them by the end of the year. If this continues, the wait time for an asylum hearing could reach 11 years by the end of 2021.
The backlog of pending asylum cases reached 24,404 in June 2017.
The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada has deployed up to half of its capacity to address backlog claims, and it has established a process for disposing of straightforward cases with short hearings.”
*******************(**
Read Nolan’s complete article over on The Hill at the above link!
PWS
10-26-17
Interesting that Paul summarized my article by saying Canada may regret its “open arms” invitation to refugees. That reminds me of another “open arms” invitation.
During the height of the Cuban Boat Lift when Castro was letting Cubans leave to go to the US, Pres. Jimmy Carter was asked what he was going to do about the flood of Cubans coming illegally to the US. He said that he, “would continue to welcome them with an open heart and open arms.”
In fact, INS was fining boat owners $1,000 a head for bringing the Cubans to the US without visas and seizing the boats of the owners who couldn’t pay their fines, which typically was the case. If they had 100 Cubans, that was a $100,000, and many of them brought more than 100.
Wayne Stogner and I spent two years writing decisions for the Board on appeals from those fines.
I remember it well, as I was serving as the Acting General Counsel of the “Legacy INS” at the time trying to develop ways to halt the boat lift. Criminal prosecutions, seizures, fines, mass long term immigration detention, Exclusion Proceedings, “Temporary” IJs, restrictive interpretations from the BIA, endless litigation before Judge Marvin Schoob in the US District Court In Atlanta (we actually “reopened” the Atlanta Penitentiary) and the 11th Cir. Most of the same stuff the Trumpsters are pushing today! None of it really worked as a significant deterrent, though. What finally stopped the boat lift was Castro’s unilateral decision to close the port of Mariel. That’s how I can be pretty certain that the Trump Administration’s “Enforcement Only” approach to immigration will eventually fail but at great human and financial costs.
Eventually, the Reagan Administration came up with “high seas interdiction” which the Supremes ultimately ”punted on” while acknowledging that it violated at least the “spirit” if not the letter of the 1952 Convention. Not sure if even that would have stopped the Cuban boat lift though.
However, in addition to the questionable practice of interdiction, the Boatlift left two further negative legacies: the overuse of long term civil immigration detention and an overall jaundiced view of asylum seekers arriving at our borders.
I always wonder how the Refugee Act of 1980 might have played out if the Boatlift hadn’t been its first “real test.”
Little bits of immigration history that today’s “deterrent happy hard liners” have ignored. Unilateral enforcement actions by “receiving countries” have only a limited impact on mass human migratory movements.
PWS
10-27-17
And where is the explanation as to why “ Canada wakes up to immigration reality after ‘refugees welcome’ dream” The fact that Canada commendably is spending some money to pay for a government service for its new citizens it freely chose to provide? Where is Nolan’s beef?
I think this explains:
“insulted the president of the United States by implying that his travel ban order, which included a suspension of refugee admissions, was based on religious discrimination.”
“Insulted”? Isn’t that what every federal court has said about Trump’s travel ban? That Trump’s Travel Ban was issued to invidiously discriminate against Muslims unconstitutionally? Isn’t that what courts are supposed to do? Nolan thinks that insulting (questioning?) Trump is despicable.
And the feeble explanation given near the end, beside the reasonable administrative cost of documenting new Canadians is: “93 percent of the Canadians believe there is a risk that criminals will cross the border with the asylum seekers.” Oh wow! Now I have to start worrying every time I go to a public event, movies, games, etc., that “ there is a risk that criminals will come in along” with the non-criminal public. Transgenders too? Dark ones?
And what does the other 7% of Canadians think? That criminals don’t cross the border because a powerful laser beam from space identifies them and zaps them just in time? Does it work on future criminal babies?
I was afraid this would happen after the Supreme Court started disposing of Trump’s ill-conceived by Steven Miller (not the “Fly like an Eagle” guy-this Miller is Joseph Goebbels doppelganger. ) Travel Bans 1.0 and 2.0. Rather than thank God that Travel Ban 3.0 is much improved and might only need minor tinkering for constitutionality, the Trumpkins already returned to Steven Miller’s “The President May Not Be Questioned” dictate. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/videonational/trump-adviser-stephen-miller-says-the-presidents-power-will-not-be-questioned/2017/02/13/0f772184-f14f-11e6-9fb1-2d8f3fc9c0ed_video.html?utm_term=.8a6291e10336
I realized this was coming. Especially as Special Prosecutor Mueller gets close, issuing his first sealed indictments today. The End is Nearer! This past week alone, Trump’s alternative facts machine flooded the zone with shiny objects, and failed, trying to tie the Trump dossier to Hillary, rehashing Uranium One, stuff. Even new JFK Assassination stuff. That usually works. Benghazi is apparently out of bounds because it may bring up questions on Niger.
But after reading his recent trial balloon on the TPS being next for legalization, I didn’t expect my old friend Nolan would return so soon to the Trump is the Sun God meme. All Hands on Deck! Baghdad Bob’s Back! I hope he has saved up the $20K going rate for Russia Scandal defense attorney retainers.
I stick by my initial estimate that Trump’s impeachment will not start until after the 2018 primaries, unless Trump suddenly resigns, like Agnew, because his kids, especially Jared and Ivanka, face immediate danger of imprisonment because their money laundering for the Russian Mafia is too recent for statutes of limitation.
Trump did his Mafia money laundering after 1999, when his dad died and couldn’t cosign for Trump’s loans, all then in default and bankruptcy. Trump University tuition wasn’t paying the bills, and contractors refused to work without getting paid anymore. Then Putin came to power in Russia, also in 1999, and his friends began buying Trump apartments at a healthy premium. Just like Medellin and Cali cartels did in Miami in the 1980s.
Of course the best way to insure that criminals don’t come in with the migrants is through screening at the ports of entry. Unfortunately, the mechanics of the “Safe Third Country Agreement” makes that problematic for Canada and thereby forces refugees to cross illegally into Canada.
Sadly, the current US policy does the same at our Southern Border. Instead of encouraging individuals to present claims in an orderly fashion at our ports of entry, screening in and paroling those with a credible fear and no criminal record with careful instructions on reporting and how to get lawyers, and detaining only those where there is reason to suspect criminality and/or fraud, our current system threatens to detain everyone. Even more stupidly, DHS actually and unlawfully discourages those applying at ports of entry by refusing to let them apply or telling them they must wait in Mexico for a chance to apply at a future date. In other words, we discourage applicants from applying and being screened in an orderly manner. Even worse, the Administration has mindlessly terminated the limited programs we had established for “in-country processing in the Northern Triangle of refugees and family members.” In-country processing is the best method of screening out criminals in advance!
One thing the USG’s Boatlift system did succeed in doing was successfully screening and separating criminals from non-criminals. Notwithstanding all the anti-Cuban “hoopla,” the vast majority of the Boatlift arrivals were non-criminals who were screened, paroled, and eventually adjusted to LPR status under the Cuban Adjustment Act, and have made continuing contributions to American society. America owes much to Cuban immigrants. The minority of Cuban Boatlift arrivals with actual or possible criminal or national security issues were detained for Exclusion Hearings before Immigration Judges.
PWS
10-29-17
I agree with Paul that “In-country processing is the best method of screening out criminals in advance!” It serves other purposes as well. I think the idea for in country processing of unaccompanied alien children came from my article, “Is There A Better Way? – Meeting the Challenge of Unaccompanied Alien Children at the Southwest Border,” (July 10, 2014),
https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/archive/2014/07/10/nolan-rappaport-is-there-a-better-way.aspx?Redirected=true
But my proposal was to send them from the US when they are taken into custody to a safe location in a third country where UNHCR could process them using the procedures in a plan that was being developed at that time.
I encourage you to take a look at my proposal and let me know what you think of it. It is a better alternative than the prospect of switching them to expedited removal proceedings because of the immigration court backlog crisis, which could be done by amending the UAC trafficking provisions.
Nolan Rappaport
Nolan Rappaport
The primary “benefit” of transferring asylum seekers to a third country is to preclude them from constitutional protections due them as “persons” under the Fifth Amendment. Again, treating immigrants as a contagion to be prevented instead of an asset.
This was pointed out to Nolan by legal scholars blogging at ILW.com. And as I keep pointing out, refugees bring an appreciation for American Democracy sorely lacking in our public discourse, specially since Trump “normalized” ethnic cleansing as an acceptable political goal. Google Bannon, Russia, Northern White Christian and read all about it.
Interestingly, the one thing the neo-Nazis who invaded Charlottesville last August only criticized Trump for letting his daughter marry a Jew. See video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQeMQQ1OGjk
and chanting “Jews will not replace us” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n12sjwk9FBE
Refugees are new Americans who understand the value of our freedoms. Their vitality contrasts with the “blood and soil” half baked theories of White Nationalists trying to prevent our natural demographic evolution. As my favorite History Professor David Schoenbaum explained often: “A Country’s Geography is its History and Vice Versa. Ask Poland.”
We are lucky that in 2017, when the median age in the USA is 56 years old as we baby boomers crowd the exit ramp of life, the American dream still drives millions of freedom loving younger idealists from across the border to become Americans. And like past new Americans, they won’t take no for an answer. They are the Solution, not the problem.
I also agree with Gus that we must emphatically reject the concept that refugees should be viewed as a “negative factor” or a “unnecessary burden” for the US. Clearly, the US as a nation has benefitted greatly from the many positive contributions of refugees who arrived since World War II. Indeed, our position in the sciences, technology, and higher education would certainly not be what it is today without the contributions of refugees. Moreover, there is an inherent humane and moral value in accepting refugees that exceeds any measure of economic or social value.
That being said, I do see value in working with the international community to share the responsibility for protection. That was supposed to be what joining the UN Convention on Refugees was all about. Indeed, most of the rhetoric at the time (1968) involved an expectation that the U.S. would be taking a leadership role and setting a good example for other signatories to follow in generously accepting refugees and even “quasi-refugees” (something that the current Administration has abandoned in more or less “racing to the bottom”).
I do see value in developing a viable “temporary protection” system that would save lives while taking some of the pressure off of the formal asylum adjudication system. Certainly, the Convention encourages (without mandating) alternative systems for protecting those who might not easily fit within a strict construction of the “refugee” definition. (I believe it also encourages flexibility in applying the formal refugee definition so that the aims of protection are achieved. With a different BIA, more individuals fleeing the Northern Triangle could fairly easily be fit within conventional “refugee” protections.)
As with the “TPSers,” those with strong asylum claims could be allowed to seek permanent protection through the asylum adjudication system. But, the temporary protection program would take some of the “urgency” out of racing to adjudicate the asylum applications.
In any event, cooperative programs designed to protect and save lives, rather than to deny, return good people to danger zones, or discourage them from seeking life-saving protection, are certainly worthwhile exploring.
Sadly, I’ve seen nothing in the actions or words of this Administration to indicate a commitment to humanitarian goals or protection. On the contrary, their response to humanitarian emergencies seems to be consistently negative and tinged with both alarmist fears and not very subtile racism and religious bias. The only non-white lives that folks like Jeff Sessions, Steve Miller, and Steve Bannon seem to value are those of unborn children whose mothers seek abortions. And, that “valuing” seems to end abruptly if and when the children are actually born.
PWS
10-29-17
Thanks Paul. And again, treating immigrants as a Contagion, instead as the most valued asset, is historical myopia. America has never been greater than in 2017 as far as quality of life, security and opportunity. We need these new Americans to keep it going. And their kids too.
We can continue being the greatest nation since 1776, or make a hopeless attempt as the last 19th Century colonial power. 1898 marked our official entry into international primacy after the Spanish American War. We can go either way. WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq. We lean 19th Century Europe. Why do we keep calling the countries immediately to our West “the Far East”.
Governing as a kakistocracy to extend a myth about the 1950s being paradise won’t cut in 2017. Blacks were segregated, Hispanics busy picking veggies, gays in the closet and women in the kitchen. No way Jose! Even most “Whites” don’t want to go back. And the definition of “White” keeps changing. How about discarding it altogether? As PWS pointed out earlier, if these border crossers seeking relief under the 1980 Refugee Act were Northern European “Whites”, no problem.
Interestingly, 7% of Americans who self-described as Hispanics in the last Census, describe themselves as something else, usually “White” by the next Census. And as Obama once wisely said “We are all Mutts”.
This 2017 xenophobia is puzzling. Reminds me of President Ford’s 1975 Flu Vaccine. The Cure for which there was no Disease. But I would phrase it differently: Xenophobia. “The Curse Worse than the Disease itself”.
Seems like a possibility for following up on Nolan’s idea would be for the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and perhaps Costa Rica and other countries in the Americas to work together with the UNHCR to establish “temporary refuge programs” in various countries where something along the lines of “Temporary Protected Status” could be given to folks fleeing the violence and unrest in the Northern Triangle. I think the U.S. should take some of these individuals, but hopefully at least the beginnings of an “Americas’ Sharing Responsibility” program could be developed so the responsibility for providing protection could be shared equitably.
If combined with concerted work by countries in the Americas to stabilize the situation and the Governments in the Norther Triangle, this could open the future path to an orderly and safe return of at least some of those given temporary refuge when the situation in the Northern Triangle improves. It would also take some of the pressure off the asylum system, since generally “TPS-Type” decisions can be made efficiently by adjudicators outside the Immigration Court system.
Europe did something along these lines during the “Kosovo Crisis” and had at least some success with eventual repatriation of displaced individuals once the situation had stabilized. But, success would definitely require a cooperative venture with a group of countries and some leadership from the UNHCR.
PWS
10-29-17
I like Paul’s suggestion.