http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?9228-News-USCIS-to-Take-Action-to-Address-Asylum-Backlog
From ILW.Com:
*******************************************
LIFO, FIFO, LILO, FILO, ADR. Gimmicks, gimmicks, gimmicks, and smokescreens. They never work in the long run. Been there, done that, myself during my Government career. Never, ever, saw it work. Just moves the backlog to different places (sometimes more obvious, sometimes “semi-hidden” for a while) and makes things worse in the long run.
And, once the “newly expedited denials” get over to EOIR they will either 1) be put at the front of the line, an exercise in ADR that will move everything else backwards and make the Immigration Court backlog worse, or 2) take their place at the back of the current backlog for adjudication sometime after 2020, by which time the priorities will have been reshuffled numerous times anyway.
There is little or no “hard evidence” that I’m aware of that ADR like this has any material effect on the flow of asylum seekers. Using what are supposed to be “fair adjudication” systems as “deterrents” and part of the “immigration enforcement initiatives” does compromise the integrity of the adjudication process, but has little or no effect on enforcement.
Most asylum applicants, successful and unsuccessful, come because of conditions in their home countries, not because of “intelligence” or “messages” about waiting times at the Asylum Office or in Immigration Court. And, by sending more and more cases to the end of the line, where the message is that they might never be reached, the ADR process also creates a “De Facto TPS Program” of sorts at both the Asylum Office and the Immigration Courts.
What’s a “better solution?” Legalize or PD the folks currently in line who have no serious criminal record. Then, do the rest of the cases on a FIFO basis except for detainees. No, it’s not a “perfect solution.” But, it’s what works best in the long run. And, it does establish 1) achievable expectations, 2) predictability, and 3) at least some approximation of fairness.
BTW, the current Asylum Office “backlog” appears to be largely the result of the Obama Administration’s poor decision to up detention levels and take a huge proportion of the Asylum Officer workforce off of “Final Interviews” and instead send them to the Southern Border to do “Credible Fear Interviews” as a result of a so-called “Border Surge Strategy.” In other words, ADR by the Obama Administration begets ADR by the Trump Administration. When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn . . . ?
Many thanks to Nolan Rappaport for sending this my way.
PWS
02-01-18
Paul, back in 1993 or so, the then INS Director of Asylum tried the exact same thing. Of course, it didn’t work as planned. As it was explained to me at the time by the director, the theory was that if claims lacking merit were denied right away (i.e. before they obtained employment authorization), the flood of new applications would slow to a trickle, then allowing INS to put its resources into adjudicating the backlogged cases. Instead, many of the new claims were deemed meritorious and were granted, thus having the opposite effect of encouraging more applications.
My recommendation is, having already tried LILO, LIFO, FILO, etc. without success, DHS should try YOLO, which would involve granting the whole backlog and then heading to the beach to take up windsurfing, because You Only Live Once.
YOLO would certainly do more justice than the Trump/Sessions “denial program!”
Actually, pretty close to my recommendation of PD’ing or legalizing the huge law-abiding proportion of the “waiting list” and starting over with the FIFO system. And, as we have both pointed out, with a more intellectually honest approach to asylum law, almost all of the credible applications would be granted and we’d give humanitarian discretion to anyone who didn’t technically qualify but would face severe harm or death upon return. We’d actually become a better, and likely more prosperous country. Never met a person whose life had been saved who wasn’t grateful and anxious to contribute. Sharp contrast with Trump and his supporters who take their privileges for granted, deny the contributions of others, and promote selfishness and intolerance.
No, the adjudicators wouldn’t “smoke out” all fraud. But, eventually DHS enforcement catches up with most large-scale asylum fraudsters. It’s a sophisticated, legitimate law enforcement function that DHS does very well, but does’t get much credit for. What if DHS spent its time on real law enforcement issues, rather than busting maids, gardeners, and waiters and other counterproductive “Gonzo” enforcement?
Cheers,
P