Nolan writes, in part:
. . . .
Unfortunately, Trump has made it easier for them by basing his request on claims about who is crossing the border that can be disputed readily, such as that many of them are terrorists or criminals.He should base his otherwise correct argument instead on the numbers — on the fact that the sheer number of illegal crossings has overwhelmed our immigration courts, creating a backlog crisis that has made it virtually impossible to enforce our immigration laws, and that the border cannot be secured when illegal crossers are allowed to remain here indefinitely.
**********************************************
Go on over to The Hill at the link for Nolan’s complete article.
- Democrats aren’t destroying Trump’s credibility; he’s doing that himself with his constant lies and false narratives; this is just the latest and one of the most egregious examples;
- By all reliable counts, illegal border crossings at the Southern Border are down substantially;
- What is “up” are crossings by unaccompanied children and families from the Northern Triangle seeking asylum;
- Such individuals present a humanitarian situation arising from a crisis in the Northern Triangle; but, they are not a “security threat” to the US; almost all turn themselves in at ports of entry or shortly after entering to apply for asylum under our legal system as they are entitled to do;
- Those (other than unaccompanied children) who don’t establish a “credible fear” can be returned immediately without ever getting to the Immigration Courts (except for brief “credible fear reviews” before Immigration Judges);
- The vast majority have a “credible fear” and should be referred to Immigration Court for full hearings on their claims in accordance with the law and our Constitution;
- When matched with pro bono lawyers, given a clear understanding of the requirements, and time to prepare and document a claim, they appear for court hearings almost all the time;
- Even with the Trump Administration’s “anti-asylum campaign” directed primarily at applicants from the Northern Triangle, and the lack of representation in approximately 25% of the cases, asylum claims from the Northern Triangle succeed at a rate of approximately 20%, https://wp.me/p8eeJm-3oo;
- Undoubtedly, there is a “crisis” in our U.S. Immigration Courts — a Due Process and mismanagement crisis;
- But, the Trump Administration with its often illegal actions and gross mismanagement, has actually managed to artificially increase the Immigration Court Backlog from just over 500,000 to more than 1.1 million in less than two years — despite having at least 100 additional Immigration Judges on duty, https://wp.me/p8eeJm-3qN;
- Indeed, Trump’s shutdown is unnecessarily “ratcheting up” the Immigration Court backlog and initiating a new round of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” right now;
- In addition to not understanding the true complexities of the immigration system, the Administration’s incompetent administration of the Immigration Courts is another reason why Trump might choose to shift attention elsewhere.;
- Somebody will have to address the Due Process and administrative mess in the Immigration Courts in a constructive manner, starting with an independent, apolitical, court structure; but it won’t be the Trump Administration.
PWS
01-10-19
Note. You should read my article if you want a full explanation of my side.
Paul says. By all reliable counts, illegal border crossings at the Southern Border are down substantially;
The counts are based on apprehensions, which are not reliable. CBP can’t apprehend all of the crossers, and there is no way of knowing how many have been able to evade the border patrol. It’s a 2,000 mile border and it has to be guarded 24/7.
Paul says. What is “up” are crossings by unaccompanied children and families from the Northern Triangle seeking asylum;
Paul is right that the increase in unaccompanied children and families has raised “apprehensions.” They don’t try to evade CBP. They know they will just be detained for a while and then release from custody to continue their journey.
Paul says. Such individuals present a humanitarian situation arising from a crisis in the Northern Triangle; but, they are not a “security threat” to the US; almost all turn themselves in at ports of entry or shortly after entering to apply for asylum under our legal system as they are entitled to do;
I never said they are a security threat. I said the immigration court backlog crisis is the threat. And these individuals contribute to that backlog as much as anyone Paul might think should be kept out of the country.
Paul says. Those (other than unaccompanied children) who don’t establish a “credible fear” can be returned immediately without ever getting to the Immigration Courts (except for brief “credible fear reviews” before Immigration Judges);
I wish Paul had provided statistics to support this claim. I don’t see how the expedited removal proceedings can handle so many people that quickly.
Paul says. The vast majority have a “credible fear” and should be referred to Immigration Court for full hearings on their claims in accordance with the law and our Constitution;
This brings us squarely to my point. The court has a backlog of more than a million cases. The judges are expected now to do at least 700 cases a year. As I point out in my article, at that rate, it would take them four years to clear the backlog if they don’t get any new cases.
Paul says. When matched with pro bono lawyers, given a clear understanding of the requirements, and time to prepare and document a claim, they appear for court hearings almost all the time;
This simply isn’t possible.
Paul says. Even with the Trump Administration’s “anti-asylum campaign” directed primarily at applicants from the Northern Triangle, and the lack of representation in approximately 25% of the cases, asylum claims from the Northern Triangle succeed at a rate of approximately 20%, https://wp.me/p8eeJm-3oo;
Doesn’t that mean that 80 percent are claims are being denied?
Paul says. Undoubtedly, there is a “crisis” in our U.S. Immigration Courts — a Due Process and mismanagement crisis;
The backlog of more than a million cases is not a crisis? If that is what Paul thinks, I wish he would explain why he thinks that.
Paul says. But, the Trump Administration with its often illegal actions and gross mismanagement, has actually managed to artificially increase the Immigration Court Backlog from just over 500,000 to more than 1.1 million in less than two years — despite having at least 100 additional Immigration Judges on duty, https://wp.me/p8eeJm-3qN;
Be specific. It’s EOIR’s management that controls how the cases are handled. It would be helpful if Paul would explain why he thinks they have made a mess of it.
Paul says. Indeed, Trump’s shutdown is unnecessarily “ratcheting up” the Immigration Court backlog and initiating a new round of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” right now;
I don’t like the shutdown either.
Paul says. In addition to not understanding the true complexities of the immigration system, the Administration’s incompetent administration of the Immigration Courts is another reason why Trump might choose to shift attention elsewhere.;
Again, he is talking about EOIR, not Trump.
Paul says. Somebody will have to address the Due Process and administrative mess in the Immigration Courts in a constructive manner, starting with an independent, apolitical, court structure; but it won’t be the Trump Administration.
I wish he had explained how that is possible with a backlog of more than a million cases, and rising.
I’ve answered most of Nolan’s comments about how this and other Administrations have screwed up the Immigration Courts in prior blogs over the past two years and in numerous speeches. I’ve also made many straightforward recommendations about fixing them. You either get it or you don’t.
Certainly, hiring more asylum officers would lead to faster processing of asylum applicants than building a ridiculous “walll which will have zero immediate effect on migration. And, the regs could be changed to actually allow the Asylum Offices to grant some of these applications without bothering the courts at all.
Fact is neither these asylum applicants, nor the vast majority of the 1.1 million individuals on the Court’s docket, nor, for that matter the vast majority of those here as “undocumented” (many of whom are actually “documented” and authorized to work — DACA, TPS, PD, etc.) no matter what that number might be, present a security threat to the US. They are actually part of our community and most are doing socially useful things. In all likelihood, our economy would collapse without their services. Treating folks who present no particular threat the way we treat bank robbers or other real criminals and the rather small number of security threats guarantees failed immigration enforcement. Thanks exactly what we have. Moreover, most of those on the Immigration Courts’ non-detained docket have been fingerprinted and screened as part of an application process. Those with criminal or other serious issues are moved to the detained docket and processed expeditiously. Those who screw up while waiting for hearings are normally moved to the detained docket and dealt with accordingly.
The court system can’t possibbly be fixed without getting it out of DOJ. You can’t achieve anything in long term Immigration policy without fixing the Due Process problems in Immigration Court. Once that is done, we’ll have a better idea of what the capacity is, how judicial time can best be used, and what the options might be for achieving greater efficiency without sacrificing Due Process. But, that can only be done by giving judges control over their court system. Having the system run by DOJ politicos is a proven failure.
There is no “silver bullet solution.” Solving problems that have built up over years and greatly aggravated under Trump, Sessions, and Whitaker will take time. But, we have start with reasonable and rational Immigration Court reforms at some point. And, it’s clear that Trump’s shutdown is pushing the Immigration Courts to the brink. That’s the fault of either asylum applicants or those who work in the courts.
PWS
01-12-19
I haven’t said that the immigration court backlog crisis is anyone’s “fault.” The problem is that there are too many asylum-seeking immigrants coming to the United States to get away from crime ridden impoverished countries. We simply do not have the ability to process their applications.
I don’t recall Paul’s proposal for solving that problem. Perhaps he will repeat it now.
Here’s a link to my article “Reclaiming the Vision” which sets forth a five part program for Immigration Court reform. http://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Green-Card-Winter-2017-Final.pdf
According to this link, the US received 122,000 asylum applications in the one year period ending April 2018. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/asylum-applications
That’s well within the annual capacity of a 400 Judge Immigration Court even without the unnecessary “quotas.” But, to make it happen, many of the hundreds of thousands of low priority non-detained, many time reshuffled cases occupying the backlog will have to be removed and dealt with by some other way, probably through a legalization program. The, DHS will have to prioritize enforcement. There simply isn’t room for millions of cases in any court system no matter how it’s run.
Also, “defensive” asylum applications filed at the border could be given to the Asylum Offices for an initial cut at some grants. Asylum Officers are “cheaper” than Immigration Judges. And, with an improved appellate body that set precedents on granting asylum consistent with Cardoza, Mogharrabi, and the Refugee Act, many more cases could and should be favorably resolved at the Asylum Offices.
Also, USCIS could hire more adjudicators to screen through the literally hundreds of thousands of cancellation-eligible removal cases to identify those that can be granted and placed on a waiting list without having to go to Immigration Court.Since those cases aren’t going anywhere any time soon, there would be nothing to lose by having USCIS screen them. They could even make some money on the application fees.
Finally, if we have lots of people applying for asylum, we should increase our refugee processing abroad which has fallen to disgracefully low numbers. And, as both of us have said we need to work with the UNHCR and other countries to 1) solve the problems in the sending countries; and 2) help other countries to upgrade and improve their refugee and asylum systems so that those fleeing will have realistic options other than the US.
Certainly, a wall solves none of this.
And, there are no “quick fixes. It takes a nuanced, good faith, team approach, drawing heavily on the expertise of NGOs and others involved in refugee resettlement. I’ve seen no evidence that the Trump Administration is capable of that, particularly in the area of immigration and with ignorant restrictionists like Stephen Miller leading the charge.
Too bad.
But, it is what it is.
PWS
01-12-19
If you want the republicans to be receptive to your ideas, it would be better not to call them ignorant restrictionists, or to say that they are not capable of a nuanced, good faith, team approach.
In any case, you can’t deal with the problem of too many asylum seeking aliens from impoverished, crime ridden countries by saying the numbers can be reduced with legalization programs and by using “prioritization” to limit enforcement to the aliens you think should be deported. In a democracy, our elective representatives in congress make that decision.
But I do like your suggestion that their applications can be considered outside of the US by UNHCR as refugee applications. I think that is a good, realistic way to handle the problem.
Paul says. Here’s a link to my article “Reclaiming the Vision” which sets forth a five part program for Immigration Court reform. http://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Green-Card-Winter-2017-Final.pdf
Court reform isn’t going to make it possible to clear the million-plus backlog and keep up with new cases.
Paul says. According to this link, the US received 122,000 asylum applications in the one year period ending April 2018. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/asylum-applications
That’s well within the annual capacity of a 400 Judge Immigration Court even without the unnecessary “quotas.”
Assuming that is true, what about the backlog and the rest of the cases the court gets? They aren’t all asylum cases.
Paul says. But, to make it happen, many of the hundreds of thousands of low priority non-detained, many time reshuffled cases occupying the backlog will have to be removed and dealt with by some other way, probably through a legalization program.
In other words, don’t enforce all of the immigration laws. Just deport people you think should be deported. Paul needs a benevolent dictatorship with a liberal democrat as the dictator. In a democracy, which is what we have, elected representatives decide who is going to be deported and express their decisions in statutory provisions, which our congress has done, i.e., the INA.
Paul says. The, DHS will have to prioritize enforcement. There simply isn’t room for millions of cases in any court system no matter how it’s run.
I agree that there isn’t room for millions of cases in any court system no matter how its run. That’s the point of my article. That’s the crisis I am talking about.
Paul says. Also, “defensive” asylum applications filed at the border could be given to the Asylum Offices for an initial cut at some grants. Asylum Officers are “cheaper” than Immigration Judges. And, with an improved appellate body that set precedents on granting asylum consistent with Cardoza, Mogharrabi, and the Refugee Act, many more cases could and should be favorably resolved at the Asylum Offices.
That would help, but I think Paul is assuming that the asylum officers could get the kind of guidance from EOIR that Paul thinks EOIR should provide and that the asylum officers would apply it correctly. His proposal could end badly if no one can persuade EOIR to interpret the law way he thinks it should or the asylum officers are as erratic in applying the law as the immigration judges have been. In fact, this is a problem I raise in my article. Too much depends on which judge an asylum applicant gets.
Paul says. Also, USCIS could hire more adjudicators to screen through the literally hundreds of thousands of cancellation-eligible removal cases to identify those that can be granted and placed on a waiting list without having to go to Immigration Court. Since those cases aren’t going anywhere any time soon, there would be nothing to lose by having USCIS screen them. They could even make some money on the application fees.
I am not familiar with a cancellation provision in the INA that could be applied that way.
Paul says. Finally, if we have lots of people applying for asylum, we should increase our refugee processing abroad which has fallen to disgracefully low numbers. And, as both of us have said we need to work with the UNHCR and other countries to 1) solve the problems in the sending countries; and 2) help other countries to upgrade and improve their refugee and asylum systems so that those fleeing will have realistic options other than the US.
I agree with this suggestion. In fact, I have made it myself a number of times. It gets at the crux of issue, which as I have said several times now, there are too many asylum seeking aliens from impoverished, crime ridden countries to process their applications in the United States…..and that will be true no matter what changes are made in our immigration court or by EOIR.
Paul says. Certainly, a wall solves none of this.
I disagree. A wall would force most of the asylum-seeking women and children to apply at ports of entry without making illegal crossings. Most of them wouldn’t be able to get across a 30-foot high wall or be willing to cross at the remote locations where crossing is difficult because of the terrain.
Paul says. And, there are no “quick fixes. It takes a nuanced, good faith, team approach, drawing heavily on the expertise of NGOs and others involved in refugee resettlement. I’ve seen no evidence that the Trump Administration is capable of that, particularly in the area of immigration and with ignorant restrictionists like Stephen Miller leading the charge.
The problem with Paul’s approach to these problems is that he sets out what he thinks should be done and then demonizes the people on the other side who disagree, e.g., calling Trump’s people ignorant restrictionists. I spent seven years negotiating immigration issues for the dems on the Judiciary committee, and I never heard a staffer or a member on either side use such derogatory language. Does that approach ever work in any situation?
Noted.
PWS
01-12-19