Val writes:
EXCLUSIVE: Trump’s move to bus immigrants to sanctuary cities could actually HELP migrants by putting them in courts where judges are more likely to grant them asylum, experts reveal
- Sanctuary cities, counties and states are regions where officials have passed laws to protect immigrants who are in the country illegally – for example by limiting cooperation between ICE and local law enforcement
- Trump’s proposal to bus immigrants to sanctuaries could have an unintended effect by relocating migrants to immigration court districts where judges are statistically more likely to grant asylum, experts say
- Trump’s idea could backfire because the likelihood of whether an immigrant’s asylum application will be successful varies dramatically depending on the state in which their case is heard, federal data shows
- Many sanctuary cities are home to court districts that are statistically more likely to approve asylum claims
- For example, New York – a sanctuary city – was the most likely to welcome asylum seekers, with only 34% denied in 2018, while immigration judges in North Carolina and Georgia had a 96% denial rate
Donald Trump‘s proposal to bus immigrants to sanctuaries could have an unintended effect by relocating migrants to immigration court districts where judges are statistically more likely to grant asylum, according to multiple immigration experts and attorneys.
One major reason Trump’s idea could backfire is that the likelihood of whether an immigrant’s asylum application will be successful varies dramatically depending on the state in which their case is heard – and many of the courts that tend to favor granting asylum are located in sanctuary cities, said former immigration Judge Jeffrey S. Chase.
For example, New York – a sanctuary city – was the most likely to welcome asylum seekers, with only 34 percent denied in 2018, while immigration judges in North Carolina and Georgia had a 96 percent denial rate.
‘It not only gets them to the districts that have better courts and judges, but it gets them to where the pro bono lawyers and (immigration assistance) clinics are,’ Chase told DailyMail.com.
This map, created by the Center for Immigration Studies using ICE data, highlights the locations of sanctuary cities, counties and states around the United States. Yellow markers represent sanctuary counties, while red ones represent cities and green represent states
‘A lot of times when people do bond out they head straight to New York and San Francisco anyway, so they’re saving them the bus ticket,’ he added.
A Department of Homeland Security official declined to comment to DailyMail.com.
Sanctuary cities, counties and states are regions where officials have decided to pass laws that tend to protect immigrants who are in the country illegally.
For example, some sanctuary cities refuse to allow local law enforcement to hand people over to ICE after the immigrants were arrested on minor violations.
They were largely established and gained traction under the Obama administration as local officials sought to assert their own authority on immigration issues.
Trump has proposed busing immigrants to sanctuary cities because he says the mostly Democratic safe havens for migrants should be ‘very happy’ to take in people who have entered the country illegally.
It remains unclear if the White House will go through with the proposal, which the president said the administration was still strongly considering in a series of tweets on April 12.
. . . .
*************************************
Thanks, Val, for your thoughtful analysis. Go on over to the Daily Mail at the link to read Val’s complete article.
One thing the Trumpsters never want to be caught doing is something reasonable that will help the immigration system work the way it is supposed to. That’s why facilitating the assistance asylum seekers need to get fair and timely hearings before fair and impartial U.S. Immigration Judges under a correct interpretation of U.S. asylum law has never been part of this Administration’s equation.
Too bad it isn’t. While perhaps not what “the base” had in mind, a program of working with localities and NGOs to get asylum applicants represented and before fair and impartial Immigration Judges on a timely cycle would certainly be much cheaper and easier to administer than mass detention, wall building, child separation, “Return to Mexico,” and endless crippling backlogs in the Immigration Courts.
Undoubtedly, it would result in more asylum grants. It also would require a much more robust, sensible, and realistic use of prosecutorial discretion (“PD”) by the DHS to “free up” earlier time slots on the Immigration Court dockets without touching off yet another mindless round of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.”
But, it also should result in fairer, more timely, more humane removals of those who do not qualify for asylum or other protection under our laws as properly interpreted and fairly administered.
To the extent that such removals serve as a “deterrent” to future unqualified arrivals (something I doubt based on the evidence to date, but am willing to see what happens), the Administration would also have empirical evidence supporting at least part of its theory of “control through deterrence.”
A program such as I’ve outlined also could receive bipartisan support from Congress.
Won’t happen, at least under Trump. But, that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t.
PWS
04-25-19