Will Democrats be held accountable for diverting attention from border crisis when there was time to fix it?
By Nolan Rappaport
As Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, Congressman Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) must know what is happening at the border. Yet he asserted at a recent hearing that President Donald Trump issued a national emergency declaration on the basis of a “nonexistent emergency” at the border.Thompson claimed that when it comes to border security, the Trump administration is misleading the American people. Maybe, but I watched a video of the hearing and it seemed to me that the Democrats are the ones who are misleading the American people.According to the testimony of the hearing’s only witness, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, the country is facing a very real humanitarian and security crisis. Uncontrolled illegal migration is posing a serious and growing risk to public safety, national security, and the rule of law.She is not the first DHS Secretary to make that claim. Every DHS Secretary since the Department’s inception has sounded the alarm about our unsecured border.Nielsen testified that DHS expects to apprehend more migrants crossing the border illegally in the first half of fiscal 2019 than it did in the entirety of fiscal 2017, and the numbers are rising. This, however, is not the only problem.There also has been a change in who is making the illegal crossings.Historically, illegal crossers were predominantly single adult males from Mexico who generally could be removed within 48 hours if they had no legal right to stay. Now, more than 60 percent of them are family units and unaccompanied alien children.The detention facilities were intended to be short-term processing centers that would hold adult men for 72 hours or less. They are not suitable for lengthy detentions of women and children.Read more at https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/435994-will-democrats-be-held-accountable-for-diverting-attention-from-borderPublished originally on The Hill.
********************************************
Please go on over to The Hill at the link to read Nolan’s complete article.
- Based on EOIR’s own statistics, the actual overall 2018 asylum grant rate on the merits in Immigration Court was 36.7%.
- The actual merits asylum grant rates for 2018 for applicants from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala were 23%, 20% and 18% respectively. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2018/12/11/upi-analysis-of-latest-eoir-asylum-stats-actually-shows-that-many-from-northern-triangle-particularly-el-salvador-have-valid-claims-for-protection-but-sessionss-political-actions-and-contr/
- There is little actual risk to releasing families who apply for asylum pending Immigration Court hearings. Most released on “alternatives to detrention” appear for their hearings, regardless of expected outcome. And, for those represented by counsel the appearance rates are very high — over 90%. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/11/how-big-a-risk-is-it-to-release-migrant-families-from-custody-before-evaluating-asylum-claims/
- The Trump Administration has manipulated both the asylum legal system and asylum statistics in an attempt to prove their false narrative about widespread fraud and abuse. Indeed, it’s notable that even with all these political machinations and roadblocks to fair asylum adjudication, approximately 20% from the Northern Triangle succeed — certainly a significant number. Moreover, many of those who fail actually face danger if returned — they just can’t fit it within our somewhat arcane asylum system. Failing to be granted asylum is not an indication of fraud and has little or nothing to do with our obligation to provide fair and unbiased asylum adjudications consistent with Due Process. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/02/15/heidi-altman-heartland-alliance-how-eoir-other-trump-toadies-lie-distort-statistics-to-support-a-white-nationalist-immigration-agenda/
- Something that jumps out: those who are represented succeed at a significantly higher rate, understand the system better, and are highly likely to appear. Therefore, the single most cost efficient and obvious measure to take would be providing funding for universal representation of asylum seekers. It’s much cheaper than cruel, expensive, and unnecessary “civil” detention and walls that will have no effect on the current rule flow of asylum seekers. And, as more cases are granted the less necessary it becomes for DHS to waste court time by contesting every case and the more the “problem of removals” diminishes. Those granted asylum don’t have to be removed or monitored — they can actually go to work and begin contributing to our society.
- Addressing the causes of the human rights debacle in the Northern Triangle would also be more helpful, logical, and cost effective in the long run than more gimmicks and futile attempts to solve a refugee situation unilaterally at the “receiving” end by “designed to fail” enforcement efforts, while ignoring or intentionally aggravating the causes of the refugee flow.
PWS
03-28-19
As always, Nolan’s complaint is that we have too many immigrants. And at a time when the USA birthrate has fallen down to 1.6 births per woman, what Nolan, Trump and his supporters really mean is that we have have too many dark skinned New Americans.
The “Rule of Law’? Spare me that piety. What about the law that says that if you have a well founded fear of persecution you should get asylum, and we need people who understand that American Democracy is fragile and needs more Freedom lovers.
As Lincoln explained at Gettysburg, “our Founding Fathers… established a New Nation based on the proposition that all men are created equal and now we are engaged in a mighty struggle …whether a nation so devised can long endure”.
When 63 million Americans vote for an ignorant bigot lying crook who works for the Russians… we need better people. Whether we have evidence beyond reasonable doubt that Trump knows he works for Putin.
After all, both Trump’s First Secretary of State (Tillerson) and his last Chief of Staff (Kelly) told us Trump is an “idiot”. We should seriously consider that Trump is what the Russians call a “Useful Idiot”. Lenin used that term of art to describe people who do what the Russians want without realizing it. Scientists call that kind of Idiot an “Idiot Savant”.
Remember “Raymond” the Dustin Hoffman character in “Rainman”? That’s an “Idiot Savant”. Retarded and yet able to do amazing Math in his head to consistently win in Las Vegas. Trump, as Romney once explained, is a Con Man. Trump has a similarly uncanny ability to con other people out of their money, and convince our least educated 25% that other Americans who look and sound different are the real problem.
The French had it right. Liberty, Equality and Fraternity are the keys to real Democracy. And because Equality and Liberty are inherently always competing, Fraternity is the necessary Third Leg for that precarious stool to stand.
When a Demagogue like Trump injects extra divisiveness and ethnic hatred into our fragile stool, Democracy collapses because Fraternity towards our neighbors disappears. The Human Hate gene takes over as we see others as dangerous, i.e. “Caravans”, “Muslims”, “LBGTQs”, etc.
First we get a Kakistocracy like Trump’s. Government by the Least Qualified and Least Scrupulous. And as De Tocqueville explained, when the Tyranny of the Majority takes hold, people develop a taste for corruption that benefits them economically at first and tolerate a police state.
Remember how Germany boomed economically from the Great Depression as the Third Reich’s massive rebuilding of Germany’s industry and military put the unemployed back to work. And Mussolini famously made the Trains Run on Time”.
Meanwhile all the Democrats want to talk about is “Climate Change”. And when voters have to choose between a Crook and a Fool, they always choose the Crook. Indeed we are in a “Mighty struggle… whether a Nation so conceived can long endure”. Good Grief!
Recently Nolan explained that Birthright Citizenship is the exception, not the rule in World History. Duh! That’s the point. Birthright Citizenship is the newer Rule, and prevalent in the Americas. All American Countries have Birthright Citizenship. And the Old World had different rules.
Same for Slavery. Look at History. Only recent History made Freedom from Slavery the Desired Policy. And we still have many countries with some form of involuntary servitude today. That doesn’t mean Slavery should be an acceptable alternative in 2019.
But of course. If you start from the perspective that all the other American countries are not really American? And that to be a real American you have to come from White Northern European ancestors?
And if you think we are heading towards a future that looks demographically like the 19th Century USA and defy our geography with Walls. Like Yogi Berra explained. “If you don’t know where you’re going, You May Not Get There.”
• Paul says, “Based on EOIR’s own statistics, the actual overall 2018 asylum grant rate on the merits in Immigration Court was 36.7%.”
The DHS Secretary also pointed out that the Northern Triangle migrants who lose in court and are ordered deported abscond, and with an average wait for a hearing of 2.7 years, it isn’t possible to detain them while they are waiting for a hearing or to keep track of them.
• Paul says, “The Trump Administration has manipulated both the asylum legal system and asylum statistics in an attempt to prove their false narrative about widespread fraud and abuse. Indeed, it’s notable that even with all these political machinations and roadblocks to fair asylum adjudication, approximately 20% from the Northern Triangle succeed — certainly a significant number. Moreover, many of those who fail actually face danger if returned — they just can’t fit it within our somewhat arcane asylum system.”
Yes, it is a significant number, but that means that the applications of 80 percent of them are denied.
• Paul says, “Something that jumps out: those who are represented succeed at a significantly higher rate, understand the system better, and are highly likely to appear. Therefore, the single most cost efficient and obvious measure to take would be providing funding for universal representation of asylum seekers. It’s much cheaper than cruel, expensive, and unnecessary “civil” detention and walls that will have no effect on the current rule flow of asylum seekers.”
I doubt that there are enough lawyers who are qualified and willing to represent them, but even if there are, who will pay for their representation?
• Paul says, “Addressing the causes of the human rights debacle in the Northern Triangle would also be more helpful, logical, and cost effective in the long run than more gimmicks and futile attempts to solve a refugee situation unilaterally at the “receiving” end by “designed to fail” enforcement efforts, while ignoring or intentionally aggravating the causes of the refugee flow.”
I agree, but I don’t think it is possible to make the Northern Triangle countries safe from crime and gang violence, or to provide acceptable economic opportunities there.
In any case, I encourage you to read the rest of my article. Paul wasn’t able to post all of it. The Hill limits how much can be posted.
For instance, the Secretary also talked about rings that provide children for migrants who don’t have them; and I added some statistics about the problems the sheer volume of asylum seeking illegal crossers is causing. The immigration court backlog is closing in on 900,000 cases.
EOIR is trying to increase the number of judges but it would have to double or triple the number to bring the backlog under control, and it already is having difficulty finding lawyers who have enough immigration experience to be immigration judges. Most of the 31 recently appointed judges have no immigration experience, and I presume that most of the readers of this blog know how complex immigration law is.
That there is a long wait for hearings is not the fault of applicants. It’s largely the result of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by DHS & EOIR. Thanks why we need an apolitical, professionally managed independent Immigration Court.
But, given the time lag, it’s possible that, for example, 80% of the newly arrived cases have merit. If they pass credible fear even after Sessions’s discredited attempts to “game” the asylum system against them, they must have something going. But, until they have their day in court we simply don’t know. It’s interesting that folks like Nielsen and CBP officials who don’t know a hill of beans about asylum law claim to be so clairvoyant about the merits of cases they know nothing about.
There undoubtedly are ways that Northern Triangle cases could be prioritized if that were in fact a legitimate goal independently determined by a real court system. But, it would require that DHS remove many of the low priority cases now clogging the docket. Taking off all the Non LPR Cancellation cases and giving them to USCIS should be a no-brainer. I’ll bet that’s about half the pending docket right off the bat. Private attorneys and the judges actually hearing cases need to have a say in docketing. Having it dictated by DHS Enforcement is both unfair and “built to fail” as has been proved. Everything can’t be a “priority.” In Arlington, I was actually able to move a number of well-documented Central American cases up for “short docket” hearings that were basically stipulated grants based on documents and short testimony. That’s actually how dockets can be “moved” consistent with Due Process. But, this Administration has basically disabled the things that actually worked in the system.
The denial rate for Northern Triangle cases would certainly fall with representation and an unbiased system. Most familiar with the situation believe that the majority of Northern Triangle cases could be granted some type of protection in a fair and unbiased system.
Whether 80% denials is a big number or not is irrelevant to Due Process which we owe all applicants. It has nothing to do with percentages.
Moreover, a better question would be with horrible conditions in the Northern Triangle driving forced migration, why are grant rates so unrealistically low?
How would we know if there are enough lawyers available to represent asylum applicants? This Administration has refused to work cooperatively with NGOs, states, and pro bono group a to facilitate representation. There are many great lawyers out there working tirelessly and pro bono against the Administration’s many illegal schemes and gimmicks. I’ll bet they would be happy to turn their efforts to helping individual applicants if the Administration stopped overloading the courts with unnecessary litigation. Certainly, Federal money spent on promoting pro bono would be better spent than money wasted on detention, walls, and “dumb initiatives” like “Return to Mexico” (which actually slows things down and contributes to the backlogs). Few things produce as much “bang for the buck” as increasing immigration representation. Much more could also be done with training more authorized “non-attorney reps.” And unlike the failed enforcement initiatives, we know that more representation improves outcomes and thereby helps achieve Due Process and fairness — the primary objective of any court system.
Additionally, many of those arriving are family groups. So, the total number of lawyers needed would probably be less than a third of the total number of arrivals.
EOIR hiring has been broken for years. That’s why we need an independent Immigration Court with a more transparent, efficient, merit-based judicial hiring system. Notably, ABA says hiring more judges in the current system is a waste of money. We all know well-qualified applicants who have inexplicably been passed over in favor of obviously lesser qualified individuals. There is now the additional problem that this Administration’s “dumbing down” of the judge positions so that they resemble “enforcement clones on an assembly line” discourages many of the best candidates from applying. With the improvements that will come with an independent system, there will be plenty of well-qualified candidates available. While the current judges will have to be carried over into the independent system, over time they will all have to “re-compete” for their jobs in a merit-based system that will consider “user input” in making recommendations. But, everyone should have a fair chance to demonstrate judicial competence in the new independent system.
PWS
03-27-19