"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
January 15, 2025
We are former Immigration Judges and former Appellate Immigration Judges of the Board of
Immigration Appeals. Members of our group were appointed to the bench and served under
different administrations of both parties over the past four decades. Drawing on our many years
of collective experience, we are intimately familiar with the workings, history, and development
of the immigration court from the 1980s up to present.
The Laken Riley Act presently before the Senate contains provisions for mandatory detention of
non-citizens charged with certain crimes. We have been asked in the past to weigh in as amici in
federal litigation on the impact of detention on the working of the Immigration Court system. We
would like to share our expert views on the topic given its application to the Laken Riley Act.
In 2020, we served as amici in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
Velasco Lopez v. Decker, 978 F.3d 842 (2d Cir. 2020). Our full brief is attached, and we
summarize some of the points we made regarding detention below.
First, it is important to realize that non-citizen respondents in removal proceedings are not
afforded the rights enjoyed by defendants in criminal proceedings. In Immigration Court, there
are no limitations on the Government’s ability to detain respondents, and no right to a court
appointed attorney. For those non-citizens who are eligible for bond hearings, there is no
consideration of the respondent’s financial circumstances as a factor in setting the bond amount. 1
Furthermore, there is no Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, and a very limited right to seek
judicial review.
Second, when we discussed in our 2020 brief the strain detention places on an already
overburdened Immigration Court system, we cited a backlog of under one million cases. Today,
1
An exception exists only within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
which requires consideration of financial ability to pay a bond. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976
(9th Cir. 2017).
the backlog has grown to 3.6 million, an increase of more than 350 percent. Thus, our 2
previously stated concerns about the impact of more cases in which too few judges hear cases
involving highly complex legal issues, and in which most hearings require interpreters, have
become far more urgent. We also note an increase in the number of non-citizen respondents in
Immigration Court who are unrepresented by counsel. As we stated in our brief, detention creates
a significant barrier to obtaining counsel, with detained respondents far more likely to be
unrepresented. 3
Based on our many years of experience on the bench, the increase in the number of cases on
detained dockets would greatly hamper any attempt to decrease the presently staggering case
backlog. As noted, the need for interpreters can easily double the length of hearings, and increase
the chance of translation errors in cases in which nuance can be determinative. Furthermore, the
growing number of pro se respondents, many of whom have no experience with or understanding
of how legal processes work, or of what is required of them to prevail in their claims for relief,
creates additional burdens on Immigration Judges charged with ensuring that each respondent
receives a fair hearing, including the right to present all applications for relief.
Immigration Judges are therefore required to carefully explain the process, through an
interpreter, to unrepresented respondents, whose detention greatly hampers their ability to defend
themselves by providing them with very limited ability to seek legal guidance, conduct research,
or gather documents or witnesses.
Our many decades of experience has also taught us the benefits of allowing judges to assess on a
case-by-case basis the danger posed to society and the likelihood that the individual will appear
for future hearings.
As we stated in our attached brief:
Fifty years ago, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) stated that “[i]n our system of
ordered liberty, the freedom of the individual is considered precious. No deportable [non-
citizen] should be deprived of his liberty pending execution of the deportation order
unless there are compelling reasons and every effort should be made to keep the period of
any necessary detention to a minimum.” Matter of Kwun, 13 I. & N. Dec. 457, 464 (BIA
1969).
2
See Congressional Research Service, Immigration Courts: Decline in New Cases at the End of FY2024
(Nov. 26, 2024) (available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12463) at 1 (stating that
the Immigration Court backlog “exceeded 1 million for the first time in 2019…and was approximately 3.6
million at the end of FY2024.”).
3
This is in part due to the fact that detention centers are often located far from cities with a sufficient
number of immigration lawyers; representing a detailed client from hundreds of miles is often untenable.
This goal is best accomplished by allowing experienced Immigration Judges to reach case-by-
case determinations regarding the need for detention.
We hope that Senators will take the above considerations into account in their deliberations
regarding the Laken Riley Act.
For additional information, contact Hon. Eliza C. Klein, Immigration Judge, Miami, Boston,
Chicago, 1994-2015; Senior Immigration Judge, Chicago, 2019-2023, at elizakl@gmail.com.
Here’s the text without the footnotes. To get the “footnoted version,” please click on the above link.
ASYLUM AT THE END OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: A Disturbing, Dangerous, Dehumanizing Legacy of Betrayal, Missed Opportunities, and Abandonment of Humane Values!
Originally Delivered in December 2024
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Successive Administrations, aided by Congress and abetted by the Federal Courts, have broken the U.S. asylum adjudication system almost beyond recognition. Yet, they now have the audacity to blame their victims, hapless asylum applicants and their dedicated, hard working advocates, for the Government’s grotesque failures to carry out their statutory and constitutional duties to establish a fair, efficient, timely, humane, accessible system for asylum adjudication in the U.S. and at our borders.
I. INTRODUCTION & DISCLAIMER
Please listen very carefully to the following important announcement.
Today, you will hear no party line, no bureaucratic doublespeak, no sugar coating, no BS, or other such nonsense. Just the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, of course as I define truth and see it through the lens of my five decades of work with and in the American immigration system.
I hereby hold you and anybody else associated with this event harmless for my remarks. The views expressed herein are mine, and mine alone, for which I take full responsibility. They also do not represent the position of any group, organization, individual, or other entity with which I am presently associated, have associated with in the past, or might become associated with in the future.
Because we are approaching Christmas, I have a special gift for each of you. It’s a free copy of my comprehensive 3-page mini-treatise entitled “Practical Tips for Presenting an Asylum Case in Immigration Court.”
I also want to caution you that much of what I’m telling you about asylum might become “OHIO” — that is “of historical interest only.” That’s because many believe that that if not living at the end of time, we are living at the end of asylum, at least as we know it.
America has elected a party that basically pledges to destroy asylum along with many of our other precious democratic institutions. But, tragically, the so-called “opposition party” is running scared and has gone “belly up” on asylum and human rights. Not only are they unwilling to defend legal asylum seekers, but they are actively engaged in dismantling the legal asylum system at our borders with some of the worst regulations and policies since the enactment of the Refugee Act of1980.
It’s truly an appalling situation. We seem determined to repeat some of the most disgraceful parts of our history. I call it a “return to 1939” when xenophobia, myths, and lies about our ability to absorb refugees sent the German Jews aboard the notorious “St. Louis” back out to sea, where most of them eventually perished in the Holocaust. I ask you: “Is that really the world you want for yourselves and future generations?”
What I’m giving you today, is a very broad overview of U.S. asylum law. By necessity, there are many complexities, exceptions, special situations, and variables that I will not be able to cover in this type of survey.
II. REFUGEE DEFINITION
I’m going to start with the definition of the term “refugee” in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) which was derived in large part from the U.N. Convention on Refugees, created after World War II to deal with the unacceptable response of Western democracies to the mass persecutions that lead directly to the Holocaust. Sadly, how soon we forget where we came from, in more ways than one.
Basically, a “refugee” is:
any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality . . . and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, . . . . The term “refugee” does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion . . . .
I have omitted special provisions relating to statelessness, certain refugees in their native countries, and so-called “coercive population control.”
Under U.S. law, the term “refugee” generally refers to those who apply under our statutory overseas refugee system. Refugees who apply for protection from within the U.S. or at our border are referred to as “applicants for asylum” or, if successful, “asylees.” It is this group that I will discuss further.
III. ELEMENTS
Persecution
Interestingly, the Act does not define the key term “persecution.” Courts and administrative authorities are literally “all over the place” on determining where “mere discrimination” or “harassment” ends and “persecution” begins. These determinations are often referred to as “rise to the level.”
During my days on the bench, at both levels, I observed some judges who, remarkably, purported to believe that having a coke bottle shoved up your rectum, being made to stand in a barrel of cold water for days, or being beaten “only” a few times with a belt buckle was “just another bad day at the office” for hapless asylum seekers. I, on the other hand, was a little less immune to pain, my own or others.
On the trial bench, I eventually found helpful guidance in a definition developed by the well-known former 7th Circuit Judge and prolific legal scholar Judge Richard Posner. In distinguishing among the three foregoing concepts, he stated:
Persecution involves, . . . the use of significant physical force against a person’s body, or the infliction of comparable physical harm without direct application of force (locking a person in a cell and starving him would be an example), or nonphysical harm of equal gravity —[for example,] refusing to allow a person to practice his religion is a common form of persecution even though the only harm it causes is psychological. Another example of persecution that does not involve actual physical contact is a credible threat to inflict grave physical harm, as in pointing a gun at a person’s head and pulling the trigger but unbeknownst to the victim the gun is not loaded.
B. Protected Grounds
Significantly, not all forms of severe harm, even those “rising to the level of persecution” under the foregoing definition, qualify an individual for asylum. The persecution must be “on account of” one of the five so-called “protected grounds:” race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
Of these, the first four are fairly straightforward. It’s the last ground “membership in a particular social group,” that is “where the action is” these days.
That’s because the meaning of particular social group or “psg” is not readily apparent, and therefore somewhat malleable. For advocates, this presents a chance to be creative in behalf of clients. But, for government bureaucrats, including Immigration Judges, it often creates the fear of “opening the floodgates” and therefore becomes something that should be restrictively construed and sparingly applied.
My decision in Matter of Kasinga,represents an early positive application of the “immutability or fundamental to identity” characteristic to grant psg protection to a young woman who feared female genital mutilation, or “FGM.” Since then, however, following the so-called “purge” of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) by Attorney General Ashcroft, the requirements of “particularity” and “social distinction” have been added in an attempt to restrict the psg definition.
C. Two schools of thought
As we move further into the refugee definition, I will introduce the “two schools of thought” or philosophies prevalent among government asylum adjudicators, including Immigration Judges.
Some believe that asylum law should be construed and applied to further the aims and purposes of the Refugee Convention and the Refugee Act: that is, to generously protect individuals fleeing persecution whenever possible. I’ll call this school “Mother Hens.”
The other school consists of those who believe that asylum is a “loophole” to “normal immigration” and therefore must be construed as narrowly and restrictively as possible in support of DHS enforcement. I call this school “Dick’s Last Resorters.”
Since the Immigration Judiciary and the Asylum Office come disproportionately from the ranks of former prosecutors or government officials, “resorters” overall outnumber the “hens.” Conveniently, denying asylum is generally thought to be less likely to come to the attention of, and annoy or displease, the political officials who control both the Asylum Office and the Immigration Courts. Therefore, denial is often perceived to be more “career friendly” than being in the forefront of those generously granting protection.
D. Nexus
Since many applicants are able credibly to establish that they have, or will face, severe harm upon return, the immigration bureaucracy has developed several methods for limiting the number of successful claims.
One is by “downplaying” the level of harm and straining to find that it “does not rise to the level of persecution.” That explains the “coke bottle up the rectum not a problem if you can still walk afterwards group” that I mentioned earlier.
Another way ofdenying facially legitimate claims involving severe harm is to actively search for ways to “disconnect” that harm from any of the five protected grounds. This works even in cases where the harm is very severe, clearly rising to the level of persecution. This focus on causation is called “nexus.”
The “no nexus approach” often requires the adjudicator to ignore or circumvent the applicable doctrine of“mixed motive.” By law, a protected ground does not have to be the sole, primary, or even predominant ground for the persecution. It is enough if a protected ground is “at least one central reason” for persecuting the applicant. But, by mis-characterizing the protected motive as merely “trivial” or “tangential” an adjudicator can attempt to avoid “mixed motive.”
Normally, in law, an adjudicator would apply the “but for” test for determining causation. That is, if the harm would not have occurred “but for” the characteristic, then a chain of causation for that factor is established.
However, in immigration, the rules have been turned upside down so that the adjudicator is encouraged to look for any “non-protected motive” and characterize that as the real overriding cause or motivation. Thus, in one infamous precedent involving harm to a family involved in a land dispute,the BIA found, in the words of my esteemed colleague retired Judge Jeffrey S. Chase, that “another non-protected ground renders the family membership ‘incidental or subordinate’ and thus lacking the nexus required for asylum.” In other words, the BIA converted the “but for” test that likely could have been met here into an “anything but” test that searched for a non-protected motive to defeat the claim.
E. Burden of proof/standard of proof
Moving on, the applicant has the burden of proof on asylum. To carry this burden, they must show a “well-founded fear” of future persecution.
The Supreme Court in 1987 established that the standard for a well-founded fear was significantly less than a probability, the position unsuccessfully argued by the Government, and suggested that it could be as low as a 10% chance.
Following that decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals, the “BIA,” the highest administrative tribunal in immigration, expressed the well-founded fear standard as a “reasonable likelihood” or “reasonable person,” a familiar legal rubric.In doing so, the BIA specifically noted that asylum could be granted even where persecution is substantially less than probable. In other words, the asylum applicant should be treated generously in accordance with the “benefit of the doubt” described in the U.N. Handbook for adjudicators under the Refugee Convention, a guide that actually was given significant weight by the Supreme Court.
Despite these overt expressions of legal generosity in applying the well-founded fear standard, the reality has proved quite different. Some Immigration Judges, BIA Appellate Judges, and Circuit Court Judges do generously adjudicate asylum claims in accordance with these legal precedents. But, for many, these standards have become mere “boilerplate citations” that are too often not actually followed in practice. Thus asylum denial rates, even for substantially similar cases, have varied widely depending on the predilections of individual Immigration Judges.
F. Past Persecution
You might remember that, in addition to referencing a well-founded fear of future persecution, the refugee definition also states that “persecution” can be a basis for asylum eligibility. This has been taken to refer to “past persecution” as a potentially independent basis for establishing asylum eligibility.
In one of the few administrative actions that actually benefits asylum seekers, and helps implement a more generous and legally appropriate construction of well-founded fear, there are regulations that combine the concepts of past and future persecution.
Thus, an individual who can establish that they have suffered past persecution is entitled to a regulatory presumption of a future well-funded fear of persecution in that country. The burden of proof then shifts to the DHS to rebut that presumption.
The DHS can achieve this in two ways. One is to show that the applicant has a “reasonably available internal relocation alternative” within the country that would allow them to avoid future persecution. The other is to demonstrate “fundamentally changed circumstances” that would obviate the well-founded fear of future persecution.
However, even if the DHS succeeds in rebutting the presumption, asylum may still be granted in the absence of a current well-founded fear, as a matter of discretion, in two situations.
One is if the applicant can establish “other serious harm” — not persecution but harm of a similar level — if returned to their native country. This can be things such as natural disaster, famine, civil disorder, or environmental catastrophe.
The other is if the applicant can show “compelling reasons” arising out of the severity of the past persecution. These are sometimes known as “Chen grants,” after a landmark BIA precedent.In that case, asylum was granted to an applicant whose family had suffered terribly during China’s “cultural revolution,” even though the cultural revolution was by then over.
These are also sometimes described as discretionary grants of “humanitarian asylum.” However, it is wrong to assume that Immigration Judges have a general authority to grant asylum in any humanitarian situation.
These discretionary grants are available only if and when an applicant successfully establishes past persecution and the DHS rebuts that presumption. As we can see, therefore, the concept of “past persecution” is important and carries a number of important benefits for an applicant who can establish it. I will now turn to an additional benefit.
G. Countrywide Fear
Normally, the burden is on an applicant to establish that the well-founded fear of persecution operates “countrywide.” In other words, that they can not reasonably avoid persecution by relocating internally.
However, in two common situations under the regulations, the applicant enjoys a rebuttable presumption that the danger exists countrywide. One is where the government is the persecutor. The other is where the applicant establishes past persecution. In both these instances, the burden would then shift to the DHS to rebut the presumption.
H. Other Key Elements: Credibility, Corroboration, Pattern Or Practice
In any asylum adjudication, the credibility of the applicant is a key factor.Although the regulations state that credible testimony could be enough to support asylum eligibility, this is more theoretical than real. In most asylum cases, a combination of credible testimony supported by reasonably available corroborating evidence will be necessary for success.
There is also a regulatory provision allowing individuals to qualify for asylum, if they can establish a “pattern or practice” of persecution in their home countries. All of the foregoing are important and complex concepts that could easily be the subject of a full class or even a course. Needless to say, they are beyond the scope of this presentation.
I.Exclusions From Asylum
There are a number of categories of individuals who are specifically excluded from asylum eligibility by statute or regulation. Some of these provisions relate directly to exclusions contained in the Refugee Convention. Others do not.
Individuals are ineligible if they are “firmly resettled” in another country.
They are also ineligible if they fail to file for asylum within one year of arriving in the United States. There are exceptions for “exceptional circumstances” directly related to the delay in filing and “materially changed circumstances.”
Persecutors, such as Nazi war criminals, are excluded, as are terrorists and national security risks. It’s worth remembering, however, that “one person’s terrorist could be another’s ‘freedom fighter.’” Ironically, George Washington and other leaders of the American Revolution would be “terrorists” under the INA’s expansive definition.
Another significant class of ineligibles are individuals who have committed “particularly serious crimes” in the U.S. Those convicted of “aggravated felonies” under state or federal law — a statutorily defined category that covers some crimes that are neither felonies nor particularly “aggravated” — are specifically covered by this definition. But, other crimes may also be found to be “particularly serious” on a case by case basis involving the weighing of the circumstances surrounding the crime.
Additionally, some individuals who had an opportunity to apply for asylum in what is deemed to be a “safe third country” are also excluded from asylum in the U.S. Right now, the only specifically designated “safe third country” is Canada. Nevertheless, both the Trump and Biden Administrations have de facto treated other countries, some demonstrably dangerous and without functioning asylum systems, as “safe” for various purposes without regard to the law or reality.
Moreover, in what are known as the “Death to Asylum Regulations,” promulgated just before they left office in 2021, the Trump Administration tried to expand the exclusions from asylum to include just about everyone who conceivably could have otherwise qualified. The implementation of these regulations remains enjoined by court order. Nevertheless, the Biden Administration was able to implement forms of some of these exclusions at the border. Undoubtedly, the attempt to finally kill off asylum will be renewed under “Trump 2.0.”
J. Discretion
The granting of asylum is not mandatory. Individuals who “run the gauntlet” to establish eligibility must still merit a favorable exercise of discretion from the adjudicator.
The standard for exercising discretion in asylum cases was previously set forth in my decision in Matter of Kasinga.Consistent with the generous purposes of the Convention and the Refugee Act, asylum should be granted to eligible applicants in the exercise of discretion in the absence of any “egregious” adverse factors.
The previously-mentioned “Death to Asylum Regulations” would have encouraged Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers to deny asylum in the exercise of discretion to almost anyone who might have survived their expanded proposed categories of “mandatory exclusions.” Although those particular regulations remain enjoined, the Biden Administration has invoked various presumptions and restrictions that use discretion to basically shut out most applicants not using their defective “CBP One App” to schedule an appointment at a port of entry.
IV. BENEFITS OF ASYLUM
Among the many benefits of asylum, an asylee is authorized to work in the U.S., can bring in dependents derivatively, can travel with a Refugee Travel Document (although not back to the home country), and has automatic access to the process for a green card after one year of “good behavior.” That, in turn, eventually can lead to eligibility for citizenship.
V. WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL AND CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE (“CAT”)
Those denied asylum for mandatory or discretionary reasons can still apply for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, affectionately known as the “CAT!” Although similar in some ways to asylum, there are some major differences, which I can’t go into in detail here.
Generally, withholding and CAT have higher standards to qualify and are mandatory, rather than discretionary in nature. However, they offer less advantageous protection in a number of ways: they don’t protect against removal to third countries; they don’t allow the recipient to bring dependents; they provide no permanent status, path to a green card, or route to U.S. citizenship; they require individual applications for work authorization; and they don’t allow travel. In fact, departure from the U.S will execute the underlying order of removal and bar reentry!
For many who will be denied asylum at the border and beyond under restrictions imposed by Biden and Trump, withholding and CAT, notwithstanding their drawbacks, might become the sole remaining methods for securing protection from persecution and or/torture.
VI. ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM
The INA states that:
Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum . . . .
Individuals arriving at our border are supposed to be asked about fear of return and screened by a trained Asylum Officer for “credible fear” a lesser standard that determines if they have a plausible claim that should be given a full adjudication by EOIR.
Within the U.S., individuals can apply for asylum “affirmatively” to the USCIS Asylum Office or “defensively” before the Immigration Court. Those “affirmatives” not granted by the Asylum Office after interview are “referred” to EOIR for a full hearing on their application.
These very straightforward statutory rights have been violated in numerous ways by the last two Administrations, so much so that the asylum system at border is close to extinction.
We don’t have time to go into all the complex and often incomprehensible details of this scurrilous “bipartisan attack on the legal right to asylum.” Basically, the Biden Administration recently finalized highly restrictive regulations that most experts find blatantly illegal. Essentially, anybody who applies for asylum between legal ports of entry is “presumed ineligible” unless they meet narrow exceptions.
The only somewhat viable alternative is waiting in extremely dangerous, and often squalid, conditions in Mexico to schedule an appointment through a notoriously inadequate “CBP One App” — a process that can take many months, at best. However, the incoming Trump Administration irrationally has pledged to eliminate CBP One thus effectively cutting off access to asylum at the border.
Disgracefully both the Trump and Biden Administrations have encouraged Mexico, Panama, and other countries in Central America to stop migrants from reaching the U.S., often using force, without any access to fair asylum adjudication. Sometimes, the U.S. actually funds these lawless deportations by so-called “transit countries.”
VII. WOES OF ADJUDICATING BODIES
Both the Asylum Office and EOIR are running ungodly backlogs, including well over one million un-adjudicated asylum cases at each agency! Additionally, EOIR has an overall backlog of Immigration Court cases approaching four million, and growing as we speak.
Both the Asylum Office and EOIR suffer from endemic inefficiency, antiquated procedures, severe quality control issues, shortage of staff, and chronic leadership problems that Administrations of both parties have failed to address in a serious manner. In fact, each of the last few Administrations has aggravated these problems in many ways, leading to an astounding level of dysfunction and systemic unfairness.
Moreover, in Immigration Court, there is no right to appointed counsel, despite the “life or death” stakes. So, many applicants are forced to face the system unrepresented or with woefully inadequate representation. Detention of many asylum seekers in substandard, inherently and intentionally coercive conditions, in obscure locations compounds these problems. EOIR also has a huge inconsistency problem with individual Immigration Judge asylum grant rates “ranging” from 0-99%.
Somewhat ironically, despite all of the anti-asylum bias and roadblocks in the system, individuals fortunate enough to get well-qualified representation, and to have applied before the onslaught of “death to asylum regulations and policies,” win their asylum cases on a daily basis. This adds to the “crap shoot” atmosphere for “life or death” justice that disgracefully has been fostered by Administrations of both parties. Nevertheless, we must remember that even in these challenging times, there are many thousands of lives out here that can be saved through great lawyering!
VIII. CONCLUSION
In summary, successive Administrations, aided by Congress and abetted by the Federal Courts, have broken the U.S. asylum adjudication system almost beyond recognition. Yet, they now have the audacity to blame their victims, hapless asylum applicants and their dedicated, hard working advocates, for the Government’s grotesque failures to carry out their statutory and constitutional duties to establish a fair, efficient, timely, humane, accessible system for asylum adjudication in the U.S. and at our borders.
Nobody in the “power structure” of any branch of the Government, in either party, appears seriously interested in fixing this dysfunctional travesty of American justice. The result has been a series of gimmicks, restrictions of access, skewed results, and failed “deterrents” that have put lives in jeopardy and undermine our entire justice system.
One political party “gins up” fear mongering, hate, and lies about asylum seekers in an attempt to eradicate them for political advantage. The other party is too cowardly to defend them.
Few, if any, politicos on the national level have the moral courage and clear vision to mount a well-justified, evidence-based defense of asylum seekers and other migrants. Likewise, few of them advocate for investing in achievable improvements in the system. Instead, they seek partisan political advantage, on the backs of the desperate and disenfranchised, by eagerly and cynically pouring money and manpower into cruel, ultimately ineffective, enforcement and “deterrence” gimmicks.
The latter, not incidentally, have spawned a highly profitable and politically potent industry that benefits from every deadly, failed border deterrence “enhancement.” No wonder positive change and creative problem solving are so elusive, and so many of our politicos lack the guts effectively to protect immigrants’ lives, human dignity, and rights at the border and beyond!
More than 50 years of experience working in our immigration systems, at different levels, and from many angles, tell me the following inalienable truths:
Human migration is real;
Forced migration is exactly that;
It won’t be stopped by walls, prisons, deterrents, or other cruelty;
Asylum is a human and legal right;
Immigrants are good for America; and
Due process for all persons in the U.S. is essential.
My time on the stage is winding down. But, yours, my friends, is just beginning. I call on you to join our New Due Process Army (“NDPA”), use your skills, commitment, and power to resist the haters, oppose the wobbly enablers, expose political bullies who trade away lives and rights that aren’t theirs, and fight to finally deliver on our nation’s yet-unfulfilled promise of due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all in America!
Jimmy Carter (1924-2024), the 39th President of the United States is an anomaly among modern U.S. Presidents. He is probably better known and more widely respected for his post-Presidency achievements and work than for his accomplishments during his single four-year term (1977-81).
After losing the 1980 election to Ronald Reagan in a landslide, Carter devoted himself to humanitarian work on a national and international scale. He founded the Carter Institute. He and his wife Rosalynn (1927-2023) were famous for their never-ending work personally of building housing for communities in need for Habitat for Humanity.
Carter wasn’t just a “mouthpiece,” promoter, or financial supporter. He and Rosalynn could often be found with their sleeves rolled up digging, pounding, sawing, and painting with the rest of the crews. Individuals in the District of Colombia fondly remember him working side-by-side with community members to build housing that they still proudly reside in!
Carter is generally regarded as one of the most intelligent and fundamentally decent Presidents. However, his term was largely viewed as unsuccessful at the time. Economic woes, an energy shortage, the Iranian hostage crisis, tensions with the Soviet Union, and the Cuban boatlift overshadowed his meaningful achievements such as the Camp David Peace Accords and creation of the Department of Education.
As a career civil servant, I worked for the Carter Administration in several senior positions at the “Legacy” Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”). Although I never met the President in person, I certainly saw his facsimile signature on many official documents.
One of the first of these was a Presidential Pardon for Vietnam Era Draft Evaders that he issued shortly after taking office. As the then legislative and regulations expert in the INS Office of General Counsel, I was charged with figuring out the practical effect of the somewhat vague language of the pardon on cases of former U.S. citizens who had renounced their citizenship abroad, primarily in Canada, during the war years.
Human Rights Focus
The Carter Administration was the only one in my lifetime that made human rights around the world a key focus of policy. While it was a great and noble idea in theory, it often clashed with the political and international realities of governing during the waning stages of the Cold War.
From my “deep in the bureaucracy” perspective, the Carter Administration also too often exhibited a “tone deafness” when it came to dealing with the “old line Democrats” and Committee Chairs who then controlled Congress. For example, I was asked to draft a comprehensive legalization and employer sanctions immigration bill, but instructed not to consult with any Committee staff. Needless to say, the final product went over like a lead balloon. As I remember, the Dem Committee Chairs balked at even introducing the bill and it got a “DOA reception” from both Dems and the GOP.
INS Commissioner Leonel Castillo: The Fall of a Rising Star
It probably didn’t help that Carter’s Commissioner of Immigration was Leonel Castillo. Immediately prior to appointment, Castillo was the City Controller of Houston, the first Hispanic-American to hold the job, and was considered a “rising young star” in Texas Democratic politics. (Yes, there was such an animal in those days.)
Unfortunately, it wasn’t a very good fit. Perhaps, it was simply “mission impossible” for an Hispanic leader then. Leonel was mostly interested in getting out, pressing some flesh, and the “big picture” of immigration. But, many of INS’s problems and challenges involved “nitty gritty” technical issues, fending off interference from a small army of “whiz kid” special assistants at the DOJ, and dealing with the always prickly Congressional Committees who controlled agency funding.
This wasn’t Leonel’s strong suit. He surrounded himself with his own group of young special assistants, executive assistants, and analysts, many from Texas, who didn’t “mesh well” with the career bureaucrats in the INS Central Office, the largely “good old boy” field management structure, the egos in the DOJ, and the “Kings of the Hill.”
Leonel never established rapport with Sen. Ted Kennedy, then the most recognizable Democrat in Congress and, beginning in 1978, Chair of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, which exercised INS oversight. Kennedy later went on to unsuccessfully challenge President Carter for the 1980 Democratic Presidential nomination. Nor did he have a good working relationship with powerful Chair Peter Rodino (D-NJ) of the House Judiciary Committee, who had been deeply involved in INS issues for many years.
Additionally, Leonel had a rocky relationship with the formidable Rep. Elizabeth Holtzmann (D-NY), the Chair of the House Immigration Subcommittee. Holtzmann was “all over INS” for what she deemed to be inadequate efforts to locate, investigate, and denaturalize former Nazi war criminals living in the U.S. who had been erroneously admitted as refugees following World War II.
At the time, I was responsible for drafting Leonel’s congressional testimony and accompanying him to congressional hearings. As he was struggling through one contentious hearing with Chairperson Holtzmann, Leonel inadvertently knocked over the water pitcher, soaking the witness table. Holtzmann reached under her dais, grabbed a towel, and unceremoniously threw it at the hapless Commissioner with an implicit admonishment to “clean up his mess.” Committee staff later quipped that perhaps it was time for INS to “throw in the towel.”
Needless to say, that wasn’t one of the “high points” in the Carter Administration’s dealings with Congress. Chairperson Holtzmann eventually succeeded in wresting control of all Nazi immigration investigations and prosecutions away from the INS and vesting it in a newly-created Office of Special Investigations (“OSI”) in the DOJ’s Criminal Division.
While my “political bosses” tended to view this as a “bureaucratic defeat,” I told them it was anything but. Not having to deal with the Chairperson on Nazi investigations on a daily basis turned out to be a huge “plus” for INS, particularly the OGC, where the “Nazi Unit” was then located. It was well worth the “loss” of the half-dozen positions to the Criminal Division, which then greatly expanded the OSI.
General Counsel/Acting Commissioner David Crosland
At the end of the Ford Administration, INS General Counsel Sam Bernsen was serving in the position as a “rehired annuitant.” That meant technically he had already retired and was continuing to serve on a special arrangement. The new Administration “finalized” Sam’s retirement and appointed a new General Counsel, David Crosland, a civil rights attorney from Atlanta, Georgia with ties to the “Georgia Mafia” that surrounded Carter and his first Attorney General, former Fifth Circuit Judge Griffin Bell.
Dave had once worked in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ under then AG Ramsey Clark. After Carter left office, Dave remained in the immigration field for the rest of his life. Indeed, we were both Immigration Judges at the Arlington Immigration Court, and he was still on the bench at the Baltimore Immigration Court at the time of his death in 2022.
Shortly after Dave’s appointment as General Counsel, the then Deputy General Counsel, Ralph Farb was elevated to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). I became Dave Crosland’s Deputy.
Sam Bernsen, however, landed on his feet. Although he had 40+ years of Government service, he was relatively young, perhaps 57, having begun his career as a messenger at Ellis Island in his late teens. After a short period of private practice with Larry Latif (who later was my law partner at Jones Day), he became a name and managing partner of the Washington, D.C. Office of Fragomen, Del Rey, and Bernsen, a leading immigration “boutique.” I later succeeded him in that position in 1992. Immigration is a small world!
There was an old anecdote (perhaps apocryphal) that Judge Bell once said that at INS, “Castillo represented the White House, Deputy Commissioner Mario Noto represented House Judiciary Chair Peter Rodino, Special Assistant to the Commissioner David Dixon represented Senate Judiciary Chair Jim Eastland, and Crosland represents me!”
Ben Civiletti Succeeds Judge Griffin Bell as AG
Judge Bell eventually gave way to Attorney General Ben Civiletti in 1979. Among the many “Special Assistants” working for AG Civiletti was young Harvard Law grad, Merrick Garland. His meteoric career trajectory occasionally crossed paths with my role at INS. I remember him from those days as a smart, serious, ambitious, earnest guy.
Also in 1979, Leonel Castillo resigned as Commissioner and returned to Houston to run for Mayor. But, his tenure at INS proved no help. He finished third in that race and was unsuccessful in three additional bids for local elective office. INS proved to be a political “career killer” rather than a “career enhancer.”
Meanwhile, no successor to Castillo as Commissioner was ever nominated and confirmed during the Carter Administration. My “boss,” David Crosland became the Acting Commissioner of INS, and I became the Acting General Counsel, a situation that continued for the balance of the Carter Administration.
For me, the Carter Administration was one of the formative periods of my legal career. At 31, I became the top legal official at INS which involved running the nationwide legal program, advising the Acting Commissioner and other senior managers at INS, and also being the “point person” for Immigration litigation, legislation, and other issues with the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and heads of other DOJ divisions and offices.
I remember once returning to my office after a long day of meetings to be handed a stack of yellow message slips (no voice mail or e-mail in those days) by our receptionist. One thing that I always did at the OGC and that served me well thereafter was to faithfully return all phone calls and answer all my personal correspondence.
The receptionist told me in an excited voice that“Mr. Letti’s” office had been trying to get ahold of me all day, and that I had to return that call first! I puzzled over who “Mr. Letti” was, because it didn’t ring a bell, offhand. “You know Mr. Letti,” said the receptionist, “Mr. Benson Letti, (as she had written on the message slip), said it was very important.” Finally, the light bulb went off, “Ah, you mean Ben Civiletti, the Attorney General,” said I. Yes, said the receptionist, “THAT Mr. Letti.”
During 1979, I was involved in a notable incident involving Lyudmila Vlasova , a star Russian ballerina, in a plane halted on the tarmac at JFK. The issue was whether she was leaving the U.S. of her own volition, as her husband, Aleksandr Godunov, also a dancer with the Bolshoi Ballet, had defected and sought asylum in the U.S. (In a strange time warp, in those days a Dem Administration was actually more concerned about individuals being denied their right to seek asylum here than in “deterring” legal asylum seekers from “darkening our doors!”)
Part of the “Plan B” hatched for determining her situation was to designate AG Civiletti as an “Immigration Officer” authorized to detain and examine foreign nationals. I duly drafted up a legal document so designating the A.G. Fortunately, the situation was resolved (she voluntarily departed the U.S.) without resorting to Plan B. Several weeks later, I received the “appointment document” back by mail with a handwritten note by AG Civiletti that said something like: “With thanks and great relief it wasn’t needed!” The 1985 movie “Flight 222” was loosely based upon this incident.
Four Issues That Changed U.S. Immigration: The Refugee Act of 1980; The Cuban Boatlift; The Iranian Hostage Crisis; The INS Attorney Reorganization
Four issues stand out for me from the Carter years. The first was the enactment of the Refugee of 1980. It was the first codification and legal affirmation of our International obligations to refugees and asylum seekers under the United Nations Convention and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
It gave me a chance to work closely with two of my contemporaries in the Administration who later went on to become “intellectual giants” in the field of human rights. One was David A. Martin, then Special Assistant to Patt Derian, the Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs at the State Department. David went on to become a famous Professor at UVA Law, co-author of leading textbooks, the General Counsel of INS in the Clinton Administration, and Principal Deputy General Counsel of DHS during the Obama Administration (then DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano was his student at UVA Law).
The other was Alex Aleinikoff, then an attorney in the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel. Alex also went on to become a professor, co-author (with David Martin) of textbooks, an INS Senior Executive, Dean of Georgetown Law, and Deputy UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
I also worked closely with Committee staff in Congress, particularly the late Jerry Tinker who was Senator Kennedy’s staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I can still remember getting a phone call one evening from Jerry saying “Schmidt, I’m in a jam. Could you draft me some legislative history for the Refugee Bill and send it over. You know what the Senator wants.” It was sort of a “hinky” request, given the state of relations between the Carter White House and Senator Kennedy. But, I figured it would be “career preserving” to give Jerry ahand, without mentioning it to anyone else.
A second major event, unfortunately coinciding the the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, was the so-called Mariel Boatlift. INS hadn’t had time to fully implement that Act before we were confronted with another in a long line of “refugee crises.” This one involved Castro’s unexpectedly and temporarily “opening” some ports in Cuba and a flotilla of small boats going from Florida to pick up friends and relatives.
We had to call upon FEMA — who famously introduced themselves as the “Masters of Disaster” — and the Orange Bowl became the initial “processing center” for new arrivals. The vast majority of those who came were quickly screened and released into the community. They eventually were able to get green cards, without applying under the Refugee Act, under the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966.
However, there was a proportionately small, yet highly visible, group of individuals who had been released from Cuban jails, obviously without documentation of the crimes for which they had been imprisoned. They were processed for possible exclusion and deportation, which invoked the asylum and withholding of removal provisions of the new Refugee Act.
Since INS had no suitable housing for “high risk” criminals, we had to enter agreements with the Bureau of Prisons to reopen some “dormant, high-security facilities” — like the Atlanta Penitentiary and McNeil Island Penitentiary in the State of Washington. Additionally, we were allowed to use military bases such as Fort Chaffee, Arkansas; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin; Fort Drum, New York, and Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania to detain those suspected of criminal activity who required Immigration Court hearings. The then “Boy Governor” of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, blamed well-publicized escapes from Fort Chaffee as a factor leading to his re-election defeat.
We also lacked sufficient Immigration Judges in those locations to hear the cases. That required an emergency effort to assemble and train a corps of “Temporary Immigration Judges” from the ranks of active and retired Administrative Law Judges and DOJ Attorneys.
The Cuban Boatlift got the Refugee Act of 1980 off to a rocky start. Many of the initial “precedents” on asylum issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) involved Cuban applicants with criminal records, not the most sympathetic group. That, combined with some sensationalist dramatic portrayals of criminals among the arrivals, such as the movie “Scarface,” starring Al Pacino, hardened attitudes towards refugees generally, while also producing some relatively restrictive initial interpretations of the Act.
Additionally, the Boatlift ushered in an era of mass long-term immigration detention. While the Boatlift eventually subsided, the phenomenon of large-scale immigration detention has continued to grow over the years. It has become a controversial “staple” of U.S. immigration enforcement and “deterrence.” It has been used, in some form or another, by all Administrations since Carter.
The “Carter experience” also hardened views toward large-scale migration in the Executive Branch, as both politicos and bureaucrats vowed “never again!” During the Reagan Administration, the new and oft-criticized device of “high seas interdiction” was used to stop further vessels from Cuba and Haiti from even reaching the U.S. and invoking the Refugee Act protections. Some individuals were brought to the U.S. after preliminary screening onboard Coast Guard vessels. But, most were returned without hearings (Haitians) or sent to the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Cubans).
A third pivotal event, which also played a role in the demise of President Carter, was the so-called “Iranian Hostage Crisis.” Most of the “action and drama” took place in and around the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. But, there was also a “domestic component.”
Then Attorney General Griffin Bell was shocked to learn that the INS at that time had no national database on the number, location, and status of Iranian students studying in the U.S. This led to new efforts and regulations to require all such Iranian students to “register” with the INS and imposed penalties, including deportation, on those who failed to do so or committed crimes in the U.S. — even if those crimes in and of themselves were not specified as grounds of deportation.
While the frustration and outrage of Administration officials was quite understandable, the whole exercise was was somewhat like “kicking the cat after a bad day at the office.” Almost all the Iranians studying in the U.S. at that time were supporters of the deposed Shah’s U.S.-backed government. The “radicals” who were holding hostages in the Embassy weren’t anywhere near the U.S.
Most of the enforcement efforts against Iranians in the U.S. became embroiled in never-ending litigation. However, the concept of “special registrations” for groups of non-immigrants, particularly from Middle Eastern countries, became part of the “immigration regulation toolbox.” It was repeated after “9-11” and is also one of the antecedents to Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban.”
Finally, my fourth main eventfrom the Carter Administration was “phase one” of the INS attorney reorganization, which created the Chief Legal Officer for each INS district in the U.S. Started under General Counsel/Acting Commissioner Dave Crosland, the second phase of the reorganization was completed during the Reagan Administration under the leadership of General Counsel Maurice C. “Iron Mike” Inman, Jr. Along the way, Mike changed the name from “Chief Legal Officer” to “District Counsel.” They were the forerunners of today’s “full service” Offices of Chief Counsel at ICE, an integral part of DHS’s operations.
Prior to Crosland and me, the INS Trial Attorneys, although selected by and under the “program management” of the General Counsel, worked for the District Directors, their clients, and were supervised and evaluated by them. Additionally, an even larger group of INS attorneys, Naturalization Examiners, also worked for the District Director, although they were selected and under the program direction of the Assistant Commissioner for Naturalization in the Central Office.
Using a plan developed by then Regional Counsel for the West, Bill Odencrantz, we reorganized the program along the DOJ’s traditional “attorney-client” model to place assignment, supervision, and evaluation of all INS attorneys under the General Counsel. This also gave the General Counsel, in consultation with the Assistant Commissioner, authority to use legal resources in any district “across programs” when needs dictated.
As you might expect, this move was met with fierce opposition from District Directors, Regional Commissioners, and some naturalization attorneys. As the “point person” for the reorganization, I became the recipient of some of the most vehement and vocal objections.
During “phase two,” completed during Mike Inman’s tenure, the attorneys were moved out of the naturalization program into the Offices of District Counsel and replaced with non-attorney examiners in the naturalization program, which, in turn, merged with the overall adjudications program.
This is much the way these programs operate today within DHS, with the legal program being part of ICE and the naturalization function part of USCIS. It would have been hard to create the DHS, with all its legal issues, litigation, and complexities, without the “groundwork” being laid during the Carter Administration, and later the Reagan Administration, for a modern, quasi-independent legal program reporting to the ICE Principal Legal Advisor.
Those Were The Days, My Friend
Looking back, I appreciate the seriousness and integrity with which President Carter and those around him took governing. (I also got frequent calls from Vice President Mondale’s office about immigration issues.) I will always remember the Carter years as a time of both excitement and professional growth. I started as one of a handful of attorneys on the staff of the INS General Counsel and ended up running the INS’s nationwide legal program and being the agency’s top lawyer, albeit in an acting capacity while Dave Crosland was the Acting Commissioner.
I appreciated and learned from the opportunities that came my way. I particularly enjoyed helping to select, form, organize, and work with the many outstanding attorneys, agents, and staff at INS and DOJ, a number of whom remained my friends and sometimes became colleagues again as my career continued into the Reagan Administration and eventually, beyond INS. The “team approach” to the law and problem-solving that I developed and honed during the Carter years stayed with me and became key to the rest of my career.
Paul Wickham Schmidt, a former immigration judge at the Arlington, Virginia courthouse, described immigration courts as the “Wild West” when it comes to security. While federal court judges typically have separate entrances, Schmidt said he’s shared an elevator with attorneys and immigrants who appeared before him.
“The courtrooms are so small. The whole atmosphere, I think, is a stress builder,” Schmidt said. “I did have the thought of, you know, it’s just a matter of time before there is some disaster.”
Reminded me of one of the first pieces I published on Courtside back in December 2016 (republished in 2023). Although I’ve been retired from the bench for more than eight years, it appears that not much has changed. And, certainly, our political leaders have failed to learn and just keep making the same horrible mistakes, over and over.🤬
Immigration will be a key issue in the next administration. Join a panel of experts from the Cornell Law School immigration law and policy research program to learn what immigration laws and policies might change, both in the lame duck session and in 2025.
You go, my friend and colleague! Thanks for running and for standing up for a better, fairer America! Building a “values based movement” starts at the “grass roots level.” You’re getting it done, Cecelia!
I set out to build a new political home in West Michigan, and with this decisive victory, we’ve proven that what we made is built to last. It truly is a new day in West Michigan. It has been the honor of my lifetime to serve you in Congress, and I’m ready to get back to work.
42-years-old, brilliant, practical, solution-focused, works well with others, dedicated to family, flipped a formerly GOP seat in 2020. As Dems examine the “carnage of 2022,” maybe it’s time to thrust this rising superstar 🌟 into a more prominent leadership role!
“I think that we have sufficient stock in America now for us to shut the door.”
That sounds like Donald Trump, right? Maybe on one of his campaign stops? It certainly fits the mood of the country. This year, immigration became voters’ “most important problem” in Gallup polling for the first time since Central Americans flocked to the border in 2019. More than half of Americans perceive immigrants crossing the border illegally as a “critical threat.”
Yet the sentiment expressed above is almost exactly 100 years old. It was uttered by Sen. Ellison DuRant Smith, a South Carolina Democrat, on April 9, 1924. And it helped set the stage for a historic change in U.S. immigration law, which imposed strict national quotas for newcomers that would shape the United States’ ethnic makeup for decades to come.
. . . .
The renewed backlash against immigration has little to offer the American project, though. Closing the door to new Americans would be hardly desirable, a blow to one of the nation’s greatest sources of dynamism. Raw data confirms how immigrants are adding to the nation’s economic growth, even while helping keep a lid on inflation.
Anyway, that horse left the stable. The United States is full of immigrants from, in Trump’s memorable words, “s—hole countries.” The project to set this in reverse is a fool’s errand. The 1924 Johnson-Reed immigration law might have succeeded in curtailing immigration. But the restrictions did not hold. From Presidents Johnson to Trump, efforts to circle the wagons around some ancestral White American identity failed.
We are extremely lucky it did. Contra Sen. Ellison DuRant Smith’s 100-year old prescriptions, the nation owes what greatness it has to the many different women and men it has drawn from around the world to build their futures. This requires a different conversation — one that doesn’t feature mass expulsions and concentration camps but focuses on constructing a new shared American identity that fits everyone, including the many more immigrants who will arrive from the Global South for years to come.
*******************************
Gordon F. Sander, journalist and historian, also writes in WashPost, perhaps somewhat less optimistically, but with the same historical truth in the face of current political lies and gross misrepresentations:
Johnson and Reed were in a triumphant mood on the eve of their bill’s enactment. “America of the melting pot will no longer be necessary,” Reed wrote in the Times. He remarked on the new law’s impact: “It will mean a more homogenous nation, more self-reliant, more independent and more closely knit by common properties and common faith.”
The law immediately had its intended effect. In 1921, more than 200,000 Italians arrived at Ellis Island. In 1925, following the bill’s enactment, barely 6,000 Italians were permitted entry.
But there were less intended consequences, too, including on U.S. foreign relations. Although Reed insisted there was nothing personal about the act’s exclusion of Japanese people, the Japanese government took strong exception, leading to an increase in tensions between the two countries. There were riots in Tokyo. The road to Pearl Harbor was laid.
During the 1930s, after the eugenics-driven Nazis seized control of Germany, the quotas established by the act helped close the door to European Jews and others fleeing fascism.
At the same time, the law also inspired a small but determined group of opponents led by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-N.Y.), who were committed to overturning it. Celler’s half-century-long campaign finally paid off in 1965 at the Statue of Liberty when, as Celler looked on, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act, which ended national origin quotas.
But with anti-immigration sentiment on the rise and quotas once again on the table, it’s clear that a century after its enactment, the ghost of Johnson-Reed isn’t completely gone.
Gordon F. Sander is a journalist and historian based in Riga, Latvia. He is the author of “The Frank Family That Survived: A 20th Century Odyssey” and other books
***********************
Many thanks to my friend and immigration maven Deb Sanders for alerting me to the Sander article. I strongly urge everyone to read both pieces at the links above.
Perhaps the most poignant comment I’ve received about these articles is from American educator, expert, author, and “practical scholar” Susan Gzesh:
And because of the 1924 Act, my grandparents lost dozens of their siblings, parents, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews to the Holocaust in the 1940s because Eastern European Jewish immigration to the US had been cut off. They would have been capable of sponsoring more family to come to the US in the late 1920s and 30s, but there was no quota for them.
I have no words to describe my feelings about so-called experts who would praise the 1924 Act. I know that Asian Americans must feel similarly to my sentiments.
Well said, Susan!
I’ll leave it at that, for you to ponder the next time you hear Trump, DeSantis, Abbott, and the like fear-monger about the bogus “invasion,” spout “replacement theory,” and extoll the virtues of extralegal cruelties and dehumanization inflicted upon “the other” — typically the most vulnerable who areseeking our legal protection and appealing to our senses of justice and human dignity! And, also you can consider this when the so called “mainstream media” pander to these lies by uncritically presenting them as “the other side,” thereby echoing “alternative facts!”
It’s also worth remembering this when you hear Biden, Harris, Schumer, Murphy, and other weak-kneed Dem politicos who should know better adopt Trumpist White Nationalist proposals and falsely present them as “realistic compromises” — as opposed to what they really are —tragic acts of political and moral cowardice!
Eventually, as both of the above articles point out, America largely persevered and prospered over its demons of racism, anti-Catholicism, and anti-immigrant nationalism. But, it would be wrong to view this “long arc” analysis as “zeroing out” the sins and horrors of our past.
Susan Gzesh’s relatives died, some horribly and painfully, before their time. That can’t be changed by future progress. Nor can the children they might have had or the achievements they never got to make to our nation and the world be resurrected.
As Susan mentions, the 1924 Act also reinforced long-standing racism and xenophobia against Asian Americans that led to the irreversible harm inflicted by the internment of Japanese American citizens, continuing Chinese Exclusion, and a host of state laws targeting the Asian population and making their lives miserable. Belated recognition of the wrongfulness and immorality of these reprehensible laws and actions does nothing for their past victims.
Many Irish, Italian, and other Catholics and their cherished institutions died, lost property, or were permanently displaced by widespread anti-Catholic riots brought on and fanned by the very type of biased and ignorant thinking that undergirded Johnson-Reed. They can’t be brought back to life and their property restored just by a “magic wave of the historical wand.”
U.S. citizens of Mexican-American heritage were deported and dispossessed, some from property their ancestors had owned long before there was even a United States. Apologizing to their descendants and acknowledging our mistakes as a nation won’t eliminate the injustices done them — ones that they took to their graves!
Despite the “lessons of the Holocaust,” America continues to struggle with anti-Semitism and anti-Islamic phobias and indifference to human suffering beyond our borders.
And, of course, the poisonous adverse impacts of slavery on our nation and our African-American compatriots continue to haunt and influence us despite disingenuous claims to the contrary.
My friends immigration experts Dan Kowalski and Hon. Jeffrey Chase also had some “choice words” for the “false scholars” who extol the fabricated “benefits” of White Nationalism and racism embodied in “laws” that contravened the very meaning of “with liberty and justice for all” — something to reflect upon this Memorial Day. See https://dankowalski.substack.com/p/true-colors.
Thank you, Dan! In memory of my Gzesh, Wolfson, Kronenberg, and Kissilove relatives who were victims of the Holocaust – after their U.S.-based relatives failed to get visas for them.
Heed the lessons of history, enshrine tolerance, honor diversity, and “improve on past performance!”We have a choice as to whether or not to repeat the mistakes of the past — to regress to a darker age or move forward to a brighter future for all!Make the right one!
Immigration law and policy are very complex, and truly boring for everyone except those who have to deal with them. But we live in an instant gratification, fast food culture. Immigration is a Hot Topic, folks want a Solution Now, so journalists naturally write about it…some better than others.
David Leonhardt, a senior writer at the New York Times, is a smart fellow who has won awards. But his “wheelhouse,” as the kids say, is mostly business and economics. I wish he (and/or his editors…where were they?) had consulted a panel of experts before hitting “send” on this piece.
Thanks for reading Dan’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Pledge your support
Now, I’m not an expert, but I did practice immigration law for almost 40 years, and today my social media feeds and email listservs are burning up with negative reactions to Leonhardt’s piece from true immigration experts.
Responding to every one of the problems in the piece would make this post too long, and would put you to sleep rather quickly, so I’ll touch on just a few highlights that really chapped my professional hide.
First, Leonhardt said, “Biden … changed the definition of asylum to include fear of gang violence.” That is simply false. The definition of who qualifies for asylum is based on the “refugee” definition, is fixed by statute, and only Congress can change that. Congress did NOT make any such change, and neither Biden nor any president could. Fear of gang violence as a basis for an asylum claim is a continuing subject of litigation at the Board of Immigration Appeals and in the federal courts, but the statute remains unchanged.
Second, Leonhardt states that Biden could have issued executive orders to mitigate the situation at the border. Oh, but “Yes, federal judges might block some of these policies… .” Maybe because they are illegal orders? No matter, “sending a message” is more important than legality.
Third, on the matter of admission into the U.S. via “parole,” Leonhardt implies that Biden expanded the use of parole beyond its “case-by-case” legal limits. Maybe Leonhardt did not know that “parole was … used to resettle over 360,000 Indochinese refugees between 1975 and mid-1980” and that “[b]etween 1962 and the end of May 1979, over 690,000 Cuban nationals were paroled into the country, “the largest number of refugees from a single nationality ever accepted into the United States.” ” – Amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court in Clark v. Martinez.
Finally, the overall thrust of Leonhardt’s piece seems to be that the border is a “problem” that can and should be “solved” by some combination of legal and physical deterrents. This is a misperception common to educated elites as well as regular folks, and it is based on an ignorance of the full panoply of historical, economic, geographic and political forces that combine to make true border “control” a fantasy. Go to the border, look at the miles of desert, mountain and river and you will conclude that border walls are nothing more than a contractor’s financial wet dream. Talk to a woman from Central America who has risked everything to come here and you will conclude that no laws, no walls, no “message” would have deterred her.
I usually ignore much of what the MSM publishes about immigration, but the Times and Leonhardt carry a certain weight, so here I am, typing away. You’re welcome.
[The Comments are open, so fire away!]
Thanks for reading Dan’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Pledge your support
***************
Here’s the letter that Professor Karen Musalo, Director of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at Hastings Law wrote to the NYT:
Before David Leonhardt writes another piece on immigration, he should make sure he has his facts straight. He erroneously claims Biden “changed the definition of asylum to include fear of gang violence.” Biden did no such thing. What his Justice Department did was overturn a Trump-era ruling attempting to foreclose asylum claims by victims of domestic and gang violence, regardless of their legal merits. That decision was widely criticized, including on your pages in an op-ed I co-authored with Jane Fonda. Attorney General Garland rightfully vacated it, leaving the issue to be resolved by regulations [which to date have not been issued].
Leonhardt is incorrect in his assertion that more “aggressive” moves will mitigate challenges at the border, or score points with voters who overwhelmingly opposecruel and exclusionary policies. The Senate bill touted as a step in the right direction would have codified failed policies that only create more chaos.
Executive actions reportedly under consideration would similarly exacerbate operational challenges and inevitably get tied up in litigation.
And yes, Republicans’ sabotage of the bill was “transparently cynical.” Just as cynical, however, was the president’s choice to back anti-immigrant legislation he knew was doomed. In their attempts to out-Trump Trump, the president and his allies have betrayed their values and the voters who put them in office.
Karen Musalo
San Francisco, CA
*******************
Thanks, Dan and Karen! Turning Leonhardt loose on a subject he’s obviously unqualified to write about — “stunning ignorance” in the words of one world-renowned expert — is nothing short of journalistic malpractice on the part of the NYT!
Immigration is a serious topic with life or death implications for migrants and the future of our nation. It deserves serious, informed, professional journalism by experts who are familiar with the plight of forced migrants and the actual legal requirements for asylum and due process as well as the realities of the border and the anti-immigrant absurdities of our dysfunctional Immigration Courts and non-legally-compliant asylum adjudication system.
There are lots of well-qualified folks around who could inform the public. Needless to say Leonhardt is not one of them. Unhappily, few “mainstream media” journalists have the necessary creds. That’s one reason the toxic national debate is so dominated by right wing White Nationalist media spreading lies and myths with little critical pushback from the “MSM.”
Ironically, the same day’s Washington Post had an article by Rachel Siegel about how robust immigration of all types has saved the U.S. economy and how many economists believe Trump’s mindless, restrictionist, and likely illegal nativist policies could slow growth, devastate the U.S. workforce, and exacerbate inflation! https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/05/20/trump-immigration-undocumented-economy/. At the same time, he would create chaos and waste billions in public funds.
Recently, I publisheda number of articles by experts debunking many of the very anti-immigrant myths that Leonhardt disingenuously repeats or enables:
In one of many bad moments, Leonhardt uncritically “parrots” the oft-debunked fiction that changes in U.S. immigration policies and “deterrents” like walls, detention, and racially-driven cruelty are primary long-term “drivers” of forced human migration. Undoubtedly, in the complex interrelated world of migration, such policies do have some fairly marginal, largely short-term effects, causing changes in migration paths, adjustments in smuggling methods, changes in smuggling fees, more deaths and unreported irregular entries (when enforcement “gimmicks” are irresponsibly expanded), and enough “statistical variance” to allow proponents of these futile policies to falsely claim “victory” before the system reverts to a new “equilibrium.”
But the truth is inescapable, even if inconvenient for Leonhardt and other dilettantes: Human migration is a complex worldwide phenomenon driven by forces beyond the ability of any single nation, even one as powerful and influential as the U.S., to control by harsh deterrence and restriction, no matter how cruel, deadly, and wasteful.See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/about.php (“Migrants will continue to flee bombs, look for better-paying jobs and accept extraordinary risks as the price of providing a better life for their children. . . .No wall, sheriff or headscarf law would have prevented [forced migrants] from leaving their homes.”).
As cogently stated by Robert McKee Irwin, an immigration scholar at U.C. Davis:
Leonhardt also suggests, quite incorrectly, that Biden’s (limited) attempts to increase pathways for legal immigration and return to the rule of law at the border somehow benefitted and encouraged smugglers and cartels. NOTHING could be more wrong-headed!
It is Trump and his restrictionist allies and enablers who have been a huge boon for human smugglers! As legal pathways are eliminated or unreasonably restricted, the entire “protection” system falls into the hands of smugglers and other trans-border criminal organizations who become “the only game in town” for those seeking protection! Smuggling prices go up and the risks to migrants increase, even as profit margins for the smugglers skyrocket! Equally bad, law enforcement is diverted from real criminals to playing a bogus “numbers game” at the expense of those who seek only to have their life-determining claims heard fairly, timely, and humanely in accordance with the rule of law!
If our country builds a fair, timely, and humane system for considering asylum claims, something that succeeding Administrations have shamefully eschewed, the majority of asylum applicants will use it, which at the same time would allow border law enforcement to focus on real security issues rather than contrived ones. Similarly, more realistic and robust paths for legal immigration, both temporary and long term, will reduce the pressure and incentives for irregular migration. These measures would also tap into the truth about migration being ignored by politicos of both parties:
These [restrictionist] political reactions fail to grapple with a hard truth: in the long run, new migration is nearly always a boon to host countries. In acting as entrepreneurs and innovators, and by providing inexpensive labor, immigrants overwhelmingly repay in long-term economic contributions what they use in short-term social services, studies show. But to maximize that future good, governments must act -rationally to establish humane policies and adequately fund an immigration system equipped to handle an influx of newcomers.
Notably, the Biden parole program criticized by Leonhardt not only has been upheld in Federal Court, but has generally been praised and recognized by experts as a great, largely under appreciated, success in both creating an orderly process and reducing border pressures while benefitting American families and fueling our economy. See, e.g., https://www.fwd.us/news/chnv-parole/. (I’ll admit to not initially being a “fan,” but hey, results matter so I’ve come around). The most legitimate criticism is that it has been too limited both in terms of numbers and nationality restrictions!
Bad journalism promoting myths like those spouted by Leonhard misleads the public and enables politicos to get away with policies that are not only illegal, but often harm and even kill the very vulnerable migrants we are supposed to be protecting, or at the very least treating with fairness, respect, and human dignity. America and the migrants who still (against the odds) see us as a beacon of hope in a cruel world deserve better from the NYT!
Judge Lister also has a plan to donate patented “healthy, sustainable textile technology” developed during the pandemic that could be used to create good jobs in Mexico and other countries beyond our borders.
Professor Michele Pistone at Villanova Law has developed a “scalable” online training course (“VIISTA Villanova”) that is currently being used to graduate more highly-qualified non-lawyer “Accredited Representatives” to close the burgeoning and critical representation gap in Immigration Court, thus “delivering due process with efficiency.” She believes that with more funding, this program could be “ramped up” to produce 10,000 new Accredited Representatives annually! See, e.g., https://www1.villanova.edu/university/professional-studies/academics/professional-education/viista.html.
With so many brilliant, informed, and involved experts out here, with creative positive ideas for improving immigrant justice and restoring the rule of law, it is very disappointing that the NYT and Leonhardt have chosen to uncritically recycle and repeat cruel, failed, legally problematic proposals by irresponsible politicos that would make things worse. Rather, the media should be consulting the experts actually involved in immigration at the “grass roots level” and pressing politicos on both sides of the aisle and the Administration as to why they aren’t concentrating and investing in humane potential solutions rather than deadly and discredited “deterrence through cruelty!”
As Erica Bryant of the Vera Institute of Justice, someone who, unlike Leonhardt, is actually qualified to write about migration, stated in an article I recently republished:
This November, and beyond, voters need to reject lies that demonize immigrants and demand policies that treat each person with dignity and fairness, no matter where they were born.
Obviously, neither Leonhardt nor the NYT editors got the message. They should!
Thanks again, Dan and Karen, for being the first to speak out and challenge Leonhardt’s dangerous, misleading, and highly irresponsible nativist nonsense!
As critical elections approach, voters are being bombarded with harmful myths, misrepresentations, and outright lies about people who are immigrants. More than 45 million people living in the United States were born elsewhere. Despite their proven contributions to communities nationwide, people seeking office call them “invaders” and make campaign promises for the “largest domestic deportation operation in history.” Inflammatory talking points about “border security” and the “migrant crisis” come from candidates across the political spectrum.
What is missing from this rhetoric is simple: the truth. The United States has failed to align its immigration laws and practices with 21st-century realities, leaving a system that is cruel, dysfunctional, and widely criticized. Bringing the country’s approach to immigration in line with the needs of the moment and building an immigration system that is both functional and humane will require serious effort. False information distracts from the solutions that we know work.
Here’s the truth.
It is perfectly legal to request asylum. People who come to the United States border to ask for help are not breaking the law.
Asylum is a form of protection that allows people to remain in the United States and avoid deportation back to a country where they fear persecution or harm because of their identity, religion, or political beliefs. Under both U.S. and international law, people who face danger in their homelands have the right to go to other nations to seek safety and to have their requests for asylum considered.
Asking for asylum is not a “free ticket” into the United States.
Applying for asylum is a long and complex process. Asylum cases completed in fiscal year 2019 or later took an average of 5.2 years to resolve, according to unpublished analysis of government data conducted by Vera. Currently-pending removal cases have been on the docket for an average of 1.9 years. Dangerous conditions around the world have forced record numbers of people to flee their homes and seek safety. This increase in need, exacerbated by a decades-long lack of investment in infrastructure and capacity to humanely process asylum claims, has created an enormous backlog in processing requests. Vera’s unpublished analysis of government data showed that, as of January 31, 2024, there were 3,353,199 cases pending removal proceedings in the United States.
Undocumented people have far lower crime rates than U.S. citizens.
Political candidates often falsely link undocumented people to crime in the United States. Yet an extensive study of crimes in all 50 states and Washington, DC, from 1990 to 2014, found that undocumented immigration does not increase violent crime. A study of arrests in Texas found that, relative to undocumented people, U.S.-born citizens are more than twice as likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and more than four times more likely to be arrested for property crimes. Another study in Texas found that the criminal conviction rate for undocumented immigrants was 45 percent below that of native-born Texans. Immigrants of any legal status are typically found to be less involved in violence than native-born Americans.
Undocumented people pay taxes and help prop up social security by paying into the system—without receiving benefits.
Undocumented people pay an estimated $31 billion dollars in federal, state, and local taxes each year, including billions of dollars into a social security system from which they can draw very few, if any, benefits. The Social Security Administration (SSA) itself estimated that it collected $13 billion in payroll taxes in 2010 from workers without documentation, while only disbursing about $1 billion in payment attributable to unauthorized work. In a 2013 report, SSA estimated that “earnings by unauthorized immigrants result in a net positive effect on Social Security financial status generally. . . . We estimate that future years will experience a continuation of this positive impact on the trust funds.”
Virtually no fentanyl has been seized from people seeking asylum.
Fentanyl overdoses are increasing in the United States, and real solutions will require investments in treatment and preventative health care infrastructure. Instead, far too many politicians seek cheap political points by falsely blaming people seeking asylum at the southern border for this serious problem. In fact, virtually no fentanyl has been seized from people seeking asylum. In 2023, 93 percent of fentanyl seizures occurred at official border crossings or legal checkpoints. Nearly all of these seizures involved people permitted to cross the border, and more than 70 percent were U.S. citizens.
People with pending immigration cases show up to their court hearings.
Evidence clearly shows that, over the past two decades, most immigrants have shown up for the immigration court hearings that determine whether they have legal standing to remain in the United States. They do not slip into the country and disappear, as some political leaders claim. In fact, those who attend immigration court outside detention, on what are known as “non-detained” dockets, almost always continue to appear for their hearings when they are able to secure legal representation. There is no need to confine people in costly and inhumane immigration prisons.
Not all people at risk of deportation cross the border without documentation. Visa holders, long-term permanent residents, and even U.S. citizens are at risk.
While the spotlight often shines on people who cross the southern border without documentation, there are many ways that people can face the threat of deportation in the United States. Indeed, there are 22 million people in the United States who are at risk of being separated from their families and sent to countries where they may face danger. Tens of thousands of children who were adopted from outside the United States, for example, do not have documentation and are vulnerable to deportation because their complex citizenship paperwork was improperly filed. Additionally, more than one million people were brought to the United States as children by parents who entered the country without documentation or overstayed their visas. And, in 2022, more than 850,000 people from countries around the world overstayed their visas, making their continued presence in the United States unauthorized. Lawful permanent residents, current visa holders, and even U.S. citizens have been subjected to the risk of deportation and forced to defend their right to remain home with their families and in their communities.
Many people at risk of deportation actually have a legal right to remain in the United States—but are deported anyway.
Unlike in criminal court, people facing deportation in immigration court are not entitled to an attorney if they cannot afford one. Immigration attorneys can cost thousands of dollars, making them unaffordable for many. As a result, people seeking asylum, longtime legal residents, parents of U.S. citizens, and even small children are forced to appear in immigration court without an attorney to protect their rights. This makes it much more likely that they will be deported, even if they could have established a legal right to stay in the United States. The Fairness to Freedom Act, which was introduced in Congress last year and would establish a right to federally funded attorneys for all people facing deportation, would help fix this injustice.
Immigrants participate in the labor force and start businesses at higher rates than the native-born population.
One in six people in the United States workforce are immigrants. In fact, immigrants participate in the labor force at a higher rate than the U.S.-born population. Immigrants are also more likely to start businesses than native-born U.S. citizens. Furthermore, millions of people in the United States are employed by immigrant-founded and immigrant-owned companies.
People in the United States view immigration as a positive that benefits the country, and they support protections for people fleeing danger.
The majority of the public believes that immigration brings benefits to the United States, including economic growth and enriching culture and values. Nearly three-quarters of people polled said that people immigrate to the United States for jobs and to improve their lives, and more than half say that the ability to immigrate is a “human right.” Multiple polls show that the majority of people in the United States support protections for people who are trying to escape persecution and torture in their homelands. According to one Pew Research Center poll, 72 percent believe that accepting civilians trying to escape war and violence should be an important goal of U.S. immigration policy.
The United States has much work ahead to reform its dysfunctional and often cruel immigration system. This November, and beyond, voters need to reject lies that demonize immigrants and demand policies that treat each person with dignity and fairness, no matter where they were born.
**************************
Erica’s “spot on” last sentence is certainly worth repeating:
This November, and beyond, voters need to reject lies that demonize immigrants and demand policies that treat each person with dignity and fairness, no matter where they were born.
While migrants might be the “easy target” of politicos and nativists, because they are vulnerable and “the usual scapegoats” for problems created or fostered by those very politicos and nativists themselves, in the end we ALL are the targets of those who want to inflict gratuitous cruelty while destroying our precious democracy.
As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Each of us has a vested interest in “not looking the other way” while our fellow humans unfairly are stripped of their rights and humanity with “harmful myths, misrepresentations, and outright lies.” YOU could be “next on the list!”
New Report! “Two-Thirds of Court Asylum Applicants Found Legally Entitled to Remain.”
Out of 1M+ asylum cases decided by immigration judges over the past decade, 685,956 (66%) were legally entitled to remain in the United States due to asylum or other relief.
Remember, this is in a system that has, over decades, been intentionally rigged, manipulated, and skewed AGAINST legal asylum seekers, particularly those of color from certain arbitrarily “disfavored” countries! (Think Haiti, The Northern Triangle, and many African Nations). While this anti-asylum bias has “peaked” in GOP Administrations, Dems have also been guilty including the Biden Administration’s flailing, legally problematic efforts to abuse the asylum adjudication system as a “deterrent” to those legally seeking asylum!
Austin’s post triggered this exchange between Beckie “Deportation Defender” Moriello and me on LinkedIn:
BECKIE: It’s really higher than that, once we factor in all the wrongfully denied cases for clients who can’t afford to appeal.
PWS: Thanks for speaking truth, Beckie! If true asylum experts were on the BIA, IJs were experts who applied or were held by the BIA to the Cardoza, Mogharrabi, Kasinga, 8 CFR 208.13 framework, the asylum adjudication system had dynamic leadership, and individuals were competently represented, many more cases would be granted much more efficiently and backlogs would eventually come under control and start to diminish. In fact, individuals should be considered eligible for asylum even where persecution on a protected ground is “significantly less than probable” — the 10% rule! Moreover, asylum seekers who testify credibly are supposed to be given “the benefit of the doubt.” These and the presumption of future persecution established by past persecution, thereby shifting the burden to DHS, are still too often ignored, misapplied, or manipulated against asylum seekers. There is nothing that will make a backlog at least a decade in the making disappear overnight. But, a legitimate, legally compliant, properly generous asylum adjudication system would benefit all involved. It’s sad that Biden, Harris, Garland, and Mayorkas are afraid to comply with the rule of law for asylum seekers and other migrants!
Restrictions To An Already Compromised Asylum System
This week we talk about a proposed rule from the Biden Administration that may change asylum proceedures and allow adjudicators to turn away people without proper research on their background.
Read the proposed rule: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/13/2024-10390/application-of-certain-mandatory-bars-in-fear-screenings
Read the NIJC’s breakdown: https://immigrantjustice.org/press-releases/nijc-denounces-new-biden-rule-adding-restrictions-already-compromised-asylum-system
Next week we should have a call to action with templates for you to help submit your comment. Watch this space!
********************
Thanks, Craig, for speaking up! Why does the Administration keep proposing likely unlawful restrictionist regulations that won’t help the situation at the border?
As Craig notes, there are “many positive ways” to improve the treatment of legal asylum seekers and promote fair and efficient consideration of their claims! Why is the Biden Administration “tuning out” the voices of those with border expertise who are trying to help them make the legal asylum system work?
Proposed Asylum Bar Regs Are At Odds With International Law (And Why That Matters)
In 2003, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees published Guidelines for applying the bars to asylum known internationally as the “exclusion clauses” (because they exclude an applicant from being recognized as a refugee under international law). Addressing the proper procedure for applying these bars, the UNHCR Guidelines state:
Given the grave consequences of exclusion, it is essential that rigorous procedural safeguards are built into the exclusion determination procedure. Exclusion decisions should in principle be dealt with in the context of the regular refugee status determination procedure and not in either admissibility or accelerated procedures, so that a full factual and legal assessment of the case can be made.1
This week, the Biden Administration published a proposed rule seeking to do precisely the opposite of what UNHCR advises.2 The rule would empower USCIS asylum officers to apply certain bars to asylum eligibility up front, at the border, as part of a preliminary admissibility determination. The goal is to effect the immediate deportation of certain asylum seekers, foreclosing their ability to have their eligibility for asylum decided by an Immigration Judge pursuant to a full-fledged hearing.
Advocates have already pointed out the dangers of the proposed approach, which will require quick decisions on highly complex issues at a point at which applicants very rarely have access to lawyers or evidence; their responses should be read.3 However, I would like to focus here on the rule’s conflict with international law, and why this is problematic.
Since 1804, the Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy 4 has required domestic statutes to be interpreted consistently with international law whenever possible.5
This general requirement carries a particular urgency in its application to refugee law. The purpose of the 1951 Refugee Convention (which applied to those made refugees by World War II), and the 1967 Protocol (which extended the 1951 Convention’s definitions and protections to all) was to create a single, universal refugee standard to replace the patchwork of protections that reflected individual states’ own political preferences and biases.
This is not a small matter. International refugee law scholars James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster have warned that “[i]nconsistency and divergence in interpretation of the Convention definition would clearly undermine the principled goal of ensuring a single, universal standard for access to refugee protection.”6 They further quote a decision of the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal in support of this contention: “[i]nconsistency is not merely inelegant; it brings the process of deciding into disrepute, suggesting an arbitrariness which is incompatible with commonly accepted notions of justice.”7
Congress apparently agreed with this approach when enacting the 1980 Refugee Act. In its landmark 1987 decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the Supreme Court pointed this out:
If one thing is clear from the legislative history of the new definition of “refugee,” and indeed the entire 1980 Act, it is that one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.8
And in adhering to Congress’s clear intent, the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca looked for guidance in interpreting the 1980 Refugee Act to UNHCR, citing its Handbook first issued in 1979 as an important tool for interpreting the Convention’s provisions. In a footnote, the Court found that while it was not binding, “the Handbook provides significant guidance in construing the Protocol, to which Congress sought to conform. It has been widely considered useful in giving content to the obligations that the Protocol establishes.”9
As leading scholar Deborah E. Anker has noted, “One of the most important developments in U.S. asylum law is the weight that U.S. authorities – including the USCIS Asylum Office, the Board, and the federal courts – give to the UNHCR’s interpretation of the refugee definition contained in its 1979 Handbook….” Anker noted that UNHCR has issued other interpretive documents since 1979 that “complement and expand on the Handbook.”10 I would argue that those other documents (which include the 2003 guidelines addressing the exclusion clauses that is quoted above) are deserving of the same interpretive weight.
So given (1) the Supreme Court’s Charming Betsy doctrine mandating conformity with international law whenever possible; (2) the stated intent of Congress to bring U.S. asylum law into conformity with international refugee law (as recognized in Cardoza-Fonseca); and (3) the purpose of the 1951 Convention to “ensure a single, universal standard” for refugee status, according great weight to UNHCR guidance in interpreting the Convention provides the best means of adhering to all of the above requirements.
However, another leading scholar, Karen Musalo, provided a recent reminder of how far U.S. law has strayed from international law standards for determining nexus (i.e. when persecution is “on account of” a statutorily protected ground), and in determining the validity of particular social groups. Musalo posits that realignment with international standards would resolve the erroneous interpretations that have arisen under present case law, and would remove unwarranted barriers to protection that presently exist.11 But with its new proposed regulations, the government instead seeks to veer even further off course in its procedures for determining bars to asylum eligibility.
In December 2020, I presented in a blog post a “wish list” for the incoming Biden Administration. One of the items on my list was to create a “Charming Betsy” regulation requiring adherence to international law refugee standards. It included the hope “that the Biden Administration would codify the Charming Betsy doctrine in regulations, which should further require the BIA, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to consider UNHCR interpretations of the various asylum provisions, and require adjudicators to provide compelling reasons for rejecting its guidance.”12
I am not so naive to expect that a regulation like this will be proposed anytime soon. But I do believe that the direct contradiction of the proposed regs with international law guidance should be included in comments and talking points by those both inside and outside of government. Through these rules, the Biden Administration seeks to engage in the type of politically-motivated action that the Refugee Convention and 1980 Refugee Act sought to eliminate. For the above reasons, such action would violate the intent of Congress, our treaty obligations, and over two centuries of U.S. case law.
Moving forward, whether an asylum-related law, rule, policy, or case holding conforms with international law should instinctively be the first question asked by all of us. When refugee protection is viewed in such neutral, legal terms, the urge to politicize decisions will be lessened.
As those scholars referenced above have been saying far longer and more articulately than myself, it is only when international law becomes normalized in the process that our asylum law will function as it should.
Copyright 2024 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
See Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 32 (1982) (noting that construing federal statutes to avoid violating international law has “been a maxim of statutory construction since the decision” in Charming Betsy).
James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status (Second Ed.), (Cambridge, 2014) at 4.
Hathaway and Foster, supra at n.18 (quoting Brennan, J., in Re Drake and Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 (Aus. AAT, Nov. 21, 1979) at 639.
480 U.S. 421, 436-37 (1987).
Id. at 439.
Deborah E. Anker, Law of Asylum in the United States (2023 Ed.) (Thomson Reuters) at 20-21.
Karen Musalo, “Aligning United States With International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims,” International Journal of Refugee Law (2024).
Thanks, “Sir Jeffrey” for a great and timely analysis!
For the second successive Administration, we have an Attorney General who does not take seriously his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States when it comes to those seeking asylum.
Garland has too often signed off on regulations and policies that are clearly at odds with domestic and international law as well as our Constitution. The current abominable proposed regulations, referenced by Jeffrey and opposed by all experts on asylum law and human rights, are just the latest example. Those politicos behind these toxic policies won’t confront in person or acknowledge the well-documented unnecessary human trauma and degradation caused by scofflaw actions and policies that intentionally fail to make fair, humane, safe, and timely asylum processing available to all who come to legal ports of entry as required by law (not to mention human decency)!
🇺🇸⚖️🗽HUNDREDS GATHER FOR MPI’S GALA CELEBRATION OF THE INCOMPARABLE DORIS MEISSNER, THE CONSUMMATE “PRACTICAL SCHOLAR/PUBLIC SERVANT!”
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Exclusive
May 16, 2024
Washington, D.C. — More than 300 “movers and shakers” of the migration world came together last night at the Intercontinental Hotel — Wharf in Washington D.C., to recognize and celebrate the continuing life’s work and leadership of Doris M. Meissner, former Commissioner of Immigration and a Justice Department policy official under administrations of both parties. The event was sponsored by Doris’s current employer, the Migration Policy Institute (“MPI”) where she is Senior Fellow and Director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program.
I first met my fellow Wisconsinite and University of Wisconsin alum in 1975, during the Ford Administration, when she was a White House Fellow assigned to the Attorney General, and I was a young attorney working in the “Legacy” Immigration & Naturalization Service (“INS”) Office of General Counsel, then part of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”). Our careers intertwined, and Doris was one of my role models and inspirations over five decades of work to make fairer and better immigration, justice, and human rights policies for America. Those are values we both believed in and strived to promote!
The gala raised over $1,000,000 for the newly-established Doris Meissner Innovation Fund” at MPI.
Somewhat predictably, the “Honorary Co-Chairs,” Former President Bill Clinton and Former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, did not attend in person, although Senator Simpson contributed a video tribute. Nevertheless, there were plenty of prominent speakers including Muzzafar Chishti (Senior Fellow, MPI), The Honorable Roberta Jacobson (Chair, MPI Board of Trustees), Anthony D. Romero (Executive Director, ACLU), Helene D. Gayle (President, SpelmanCollege, by video), Soren Bjorn (CEO, Driscoll’s, which donated fresh raspberries for the dessert), Andrew Selee (President, MPI), and The Honorable Alejandro Mayorkas (Secretary, DHS).
The highlight of the evening was a short video starring some of Doris’s fellow social justice luminaries sharing their personal recollections of her many achievements and her impact on them. That was followed by some “family commentary” from Doris’s daughter, Christine Meissner and her brother Andy that also brought into the equation the work of their father and Doris’s beloved husband, the late Charles “Chuck” Meissner. “Teamwork” is critical to success, particularly on the family level!
In her remarks, Doris emphasized the influence of family on her work and the cosmic continuing importance of robust migration policies to our “nation of immigrants.” Among the most touching recollections were of those Americans she encountered later in life who had gotten their start as immigrants and naturalized citizens during her tenure at INS. One was a talented physician who performed essential surgery for both Doris and her daughter.
My main “takeaway” was her challenge to “keep the dream alive” — even through tough times — and her recognition of and lifelong commitment to “the human potential of migrants.”
On a personal level, it was great to see many friends and colleagues who had served as senior executives at INS, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), and “Main Justice” during my 35 years at the Department, spanning five decades, as well as folks I worked with during my time in private practice.
I was particularly delighted to chat with my and Doris’s long-time mutual friend and colleague Jean Lujan. Jean, Doris, and Delia Combs Riso were part of the famous (or infamous) “Asylum Sisters’ Trio” who occasionally entertained at “Legacy INS” events! Sadly, MPI didn’t include an “encore performance” on the night’s program!
It was also wonderful that Doris got this well-deserved acclaim and recognition while her career is ongoing and she is actively inspiring those around her. Too often, I fear, we wait until the “truly great ones” are gone to recognize what we gained by their lives and lost upon their departure. Doris promised that she isn’t going anywhere for a long time! That’s fine and dandy with all of us!
At the same time, I experienced a bit of wistfulness. Here we were in a gathering of perhaps the best minds and problem solvers in the history of American immigration; yet, both the messages of the past and the potential promise for the future are being lost on today’s feckless political leaders and media pundits as they spout myths, spread fear, and recycle failed cruel, ineffective, and wasteful “mega enforcement and rights’ reductions or outright violations” on today’s migrants.
Indeed, some of those in the room had likely come to Washington for “dual purposes:” Not only to honor Doris, but also to valiantly try to inform and convince Congress and the Administration of the cruel, inhuman, and too often deadly results of years of “brain dead” enforcement policies and suppressing or eradicating the due process and human rights of migrants, all while intentionally eschewing enlightened, achievable, common sense reforms to our badly outdated and often intentionally dysfunctional immigration system.
One would search in vain for political leaders with the intellectual prowess, moral courage, human decency, and practical problem solving abilities of Doris Meissner among those driving, influencing, and seeking to dictate today’s misguided, ineffectual, and wildly inconsistent Government immigration policies. Without a moral compass on deck, the ship is veering badly and dangerously off course!
I am, of course, hopeful and encouraged that the new Doris Meissner Innovation Fund at MPI will fulfill its vision of creating “new opportunities to advance pragmatic solutions that work in the interests of all segments of society.” Yet, I am objectively fearful that such essential and potentially transformational efforts will “go in one ear and out the other” of our current political leaders and “pass over the heads” of the voting public which, in the overwhelming majority, owe their very existence to the phenomenon of human migration — of all kinds, types, and populations. How soon we forget where we all came from, and where we are going!
Thanks again, Doris, my friend and fellow Badger, for your unyielding efforts to “keep us on the high road!”
America’s misunderstood border crisis, in 8 charts
For all the attention on the border, the root causes of migration and the most promising solutions to the US’s broken immigration system are often overlooked.
There is a crisis on America’s border with Mexico.
The number of people arriving there has skyrocketed in the years since the pandemic, when crossings fell drastically. The scenes coming from the border, and from many US cities that have been touched by the migrant crisis, have helped elevate the issue in voters’ minds.
But for all the attention the topic gets, it is also widely misunderstood. The last few decades have seen a series of surges at the border and political wrangling over how to respond. The root causes of migration and why the US has long been ill-equipped to deal with it have been overlooked. Understanding all of that is key to fixing the problem.
Yes, border crossings are up. But the type of migrants coming, where they’re from, and why they’re making the often treacherous journey to the southern border has changed over the years. The US’s immigration system simply was not designed or resourced to deal with the types of people arriving today: people from a growing variety of countries, fleeing crises and seeking asylum, often with their families. And that’s a broader problem that neither Biden, nor any president, can fix on their own.
Here’s an explanation of the border crisis, broken down into eight charts.
. . . .
**********************************
I highly recommend reading Nicole’s entire excellent article, with informative charts, at the link.
When both sides in the political debate eschew truth in favor of dehumanization, scapegoating, and pandering to nativist interests, it’s easy to see why real solutions to immigration issues are elusive. But, it needn’t be this way if politicos, the public, and the mainstream media looked for humane, practical, solutions that dealt with the realities of forced migration in the 21st Century, including the inherent limitations of “deterrence,” overt cruelty, disregard of known consequences, and unilateral actions.