"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.
“Thrown Under the Bus” Asylum seekers & advocates again expendable to Dems? That’s a political “strategy” as wrong as it is treacherous! Creative Commons 2.0 non-commercial license
More Than 2 in 3 Voters Support Having an Asylum System and Hiring More Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers
January 22, 2024
By Rob Todaro and Lew Blank
Members of Congress are once again engrossed in debate related to immigration and border security, issues that have seen little progress or reform in more than two decades. The current debate particularly focuses on the application process for asylum — a form of legal immigration that protects people who have faced persecution in their home country on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular political or social group.
A new Data for Progress survey asked likely voters in the U.S. about various funding measures and proposed policy changes related to the U.S. immigration system.
First, we find at least 80% of voters think reforming the legal immigration system and securing the border with Mexico should be priorities for the U.S. government. Seventy-one percent of voters also say addressing the root causes of migration from South and Central America through diplomatic relations and humanitarian aid should be a priority.
A strong majority of voters (69%) also support the U.S. having a system for asylum seekers to legally migrate to the U.S. to seek protection. When asked about potential changes to the asylum application process that would allow immigration officials to deport asylum seekers without allowing them to see a judge, voters prefer giving asylum seekers a meaningful opportunity to make their case before a judge rather than a higher standard that could lead to expedited removal.
Along these lines, a majority of voters, including 69% of Democrats and 58% of Independents, don’t think the U.S. should make it harder for asylum seekers to meet with an immigration judge.
When asylum seekers come to the U.S. and fill out an asylum application, they must wait a minimum of six months before they are able to apply for work authorization. Some lawmakers have proposed eliminating this six-month waiting period so that asylum seekers can support themselves instead of relying on others for assistance. Sixty-two percent of voters, including a majority of Democrats (73%), Independents (58%), and Republicans (54%), support eliminating the six-month waiting period for asylum seekers to apply for work authorization.
Since October, President Biden has been lobbying Congress to pass a more than $105 billion spending package for national security purposes that includes additional military aid for Ukraine and Israel, as well as roughly $14 billion for various funding measures related to immigration and border security.
Voters support many of the key immigration-related measures in this proposal, such as enhancing security at ports of entry (82%), increasing personnel and capacity to process immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border (75%), hiring new immigration judges (67%), and hiring new asylum officers (67%).
Lastly, 79% of voters, including 84% of Democrats, 78% of Independents, and 75% of Republicans, oppose separating migrant children from their parents or caregivers at the border.
These findings underscore that a strong majority of voters want the U.S. government to prioritize reforming the legal immigration system and securing the border, while also providing leniency to asylum seekers in regards to making their case before an immigration judge and being able to apply for work authorization.
Rob Todaro (@RobTodaro) is the communications director at Data for Progress.
Lew Blank (@LewBlank) is a communications strategist at Data for Progress.
Survey Methodology
From January 13 to 14, 2024, Data for Progress conducted a survey of 1,196 U.S. likely voters nationally using web panel respondents. The sample was weighted to be representative of likely voters by age, gender, education, race, geography, and voting history. The survey was conducted in English. The margin of error is ±3 percentage points.
***********************
Contrary to the myths spread by the GOP and the “scared to stand up for values” approach of the Administration and some Dem politicos, making the asylum, Immigration Court, work authorization, and resettlement systems work should have been one of the highest national priorities for the Biden Administration and Congress.
And, contrary to their misguided beliefs, throwing asylum seekers and their supporters under the bus by giving in to GOP White Nationalist demands is highly unlikely to be a “plus” for Dems going into the 2024 elections.
On Monday, the Supreme Court lifted an injunction that had prevented the Border Patrol from cutting and removing concertina razor wire that the state of Texas had installed along a migrant crossing at the Rio Grande.
Federal officials view the razor wire as exceedingly dangerous because it could trap bodies in rapid flowing waters, leading to drownings. According to officials, last week three family members—a mother and her two children—died at the river in part because Texas guard and state troopers prevented the Border Patrol from reaching them.
The conservative Fifth Circuit had ordered the injunction put in place pending its final decision, keeping the razor wire intact. But a slim majority of the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the three liberals, overruled the panel.
At stake is more than whether the Border Patrol can safely do its job and help prevent deaths like those that occurred last week. Our entire federal system is premised upon the principle that the federal government has exclusive authority to enforce border policy. States like Texas should not have the right to run interference or act as if they are the border patrol.
And yet, four extremist justices—Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh—would have left the federal government powerless for now to remove a dangerous barrier illegally erected by Texas.
The latest battle over the border should be viewed within the broader question of what is the proper role of the states when it comes to immigration. And this isn’t the only battle that Texas Governor Greg Abbott and extremist Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton have picked to try and claim more of that power for the states.
Today, I’ll discuss how the Supreme Court came to review this case about the cutting and removal of razor wire at the border. Then I’ll zoom out so we can see how this fits into a larger challenge to federal authority over immigration.
Subscribed
Razor wire and the Texas federal courts
When Texas first erected razor wire at the river—the kind designed to catch clothing and tear flesh—it was roundly condemned by human rights organizations, and legal scholars quickly pointed out that Texas was acting extrajudicially. After all, at the border, it is the federal government that oversees enforcement, including what kinds of barriers to erect and how to treat and handle migrants. Many of the border crossings are by asylum seekers, and they are therefore there legally in accordance with international law.
Allowing Texas to insert itself as a state actor would upend all traditional notions of federalism and the limit of states’ rights when it comes to questions of homeland security. But a federal district judge and later the Fifth Circuit didn’t see it that way. On December 19, 2023, a panel in New Orleans temporarily barred Border Patrol agents from cutting or removing the wire in the area around Eagle Pass, with an exception for “medical emergencies.” This was a shocking opinion given its apparent disregard of settled law establishing exclusive federal power over immigration policies and execution.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the injunction barred border agents from doing their jobs, specifically, from having clear access to the U.S.-Mexico border and “reaching migrants who have already entered U.S. territory.” Moreover, the exception for medical emergencies was insufficient because it takes time to cut through the wire, and while the clock is ticking there is a “very real” risk of serious injury or death for those trapped.
Texas claimed that federal border agents were not actually apprehending and processing migrants even after they passed through the gaps in the wire that had been cut by the feds some twenty times. The state had property rights of its own, Texas argued, as well as an interest in stopping “deadly fentanyl,” human trafficking,” and to “minimize the risks to people, both U.S. citizens and migrants, of drowning while making perilous journeys to and through illegal points of entry.” (The fentanyl argument is a red herring; the vast percentage of fentanyl entering the country arrives not via migrants crossing the river at the border, which would be a decidedly foolish way to try and transport drugs, but through smuggling by U.S. citizens and legal residents.)
In January, Texas upped the stakes by moving to block federal agents entirely from the area where they normally launch patrol boats and conduct mobile surveillance. This contributed to the three family members’ deaths because fedeal agents had no clear access to the river. In fact, they couldn’t even determine whether a “medical emergency” was occurring, as Prelogar pointed out.
Prelogar won her appeal for the U.S. government and got the injunction lifted by the High Court, but by only a single vote.
The State of Texas keeps trying to enforce national border policy
Governor Abbott has a multi-billion dollar program in place called “Operation Lone Star” that includes massive allocation of personnel to the border, the erecting of illegal and often dangerous barriers, and most recently a new law that authorizes state and local law enforcement to arrest migrants crossing from Mexico.
This has set up yet another showdown with the federal government. That law goes into effect in March, and it is seen as a test case to challenge a 2012 case, Arizona v. United States, that narrowly left the power to determine immigration policy to the federal government, not the states.
Texas and Louisiana already lost a case where they had challenged the Biden administration’s immigration guidelines and its deportation policies. Those guidelines had been halted nationwide by a federal judge in Texas, who ruled they violated federal law. In that case, by a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court initially and rather alarmingly had allowed the injunction to remain in place. But ultimately it ruled 8-1 in June of 2023 against Texas and Louisiana, with only Justice Alito in dissent, reaffirming the federal government’s central role on matters of immigration policy.
Where things go from here
Governor Abbott and state Attorney General Paxton remain keen to find where the new conservative majority on SCOTUS might rule their way. So they keep pushing and testing the limits. In the razor wire case, while there’s no way to know why four extremist justices dissented from the lifting of the injunction—and it conceivably could have been because the full matter will be taken up shortly anyway by the Fifth Circuit in February—the impression it has left is unmistakable.
As CNN legal analyst and University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck observed, “Whatever one thinks of current immigration policy, it ought not to be that controversial that states cannot prevent the federal government from enforcing federal law—lest we set the stage for Democratic-led states to similarly attempt to frustrate the enforcement of federal policies by Republican presidents.” He added, “That four justices would still have left the lower-court injunction in place will be taken, rightly or wrongly, as a sign that some of those longstanding principles of constitutional federalism might be in a degree of flux.”
In response to the loss before the Supreme Court, a spokesman for Abbott put out a statement claiming that the “absence of razor wire and other deterrence strategies encourages migrants to make unsafe and illegal crossings between ports of entry.” He added that the governor “will continue fighting to defend Texas’ property and its constitutional authority to secure the border.”
But this assertion about unsafe crossings was disputed by federal officials, underscoring the need for a single government policy. Said a White House spokesperson, “Enforcement of immigration law is a federal responsibility. Rather than helping to reduce irregular migration, the State of Texas has only made it harder for frontline personnel to do their jobs and to apply consequences under the law. We can enforce our laws and administer them safely, humanely, and in an orderly way.”
This was for now only a battle over a temporary injunction. The Fifth Circuit will next consider the full case in February, incluing whether to lift the injunction permanently. But it will do so with an understanding that five SCOTUS justices view Texas as unlikely to succeed on the merits. An appeal back up to the Supreme Court is likely, no matter which side prevails at the appellate level.
*****************
Texas’s legal argument was frivolous. The vote at the Supremes should have been 9-0. That it wasn’t should make us all fear for our country’s future as a nation that operates under the rule of law!
Jefferson Davis Racist, traitor, insurrectionist President of Confederate Stares of America Public RealmJohn C.Calhoun White Supremacist, racist, nullifier U.S. Vice President Public Realm
Jeff Davis and John C. Calhoun would be proud of the dissenters — although, ironically, those two “nullifiers” wouldn’t even recognize one of the dissenters, Justice Thomas, as a “person” with any rights at all, let alone the ability to sit on our highest Federal Court! Remarkably, despite claiming to be a student of history, Thomas was unable to connect the dots between Calhoun’s and Davis’s rebellious, racist, dehumanization of African Americans and Greg Abbot’s rebellious, racist, dehumanization of legal asylum seekers of color!
The Federal Government’s authority to stop State Governments seeking to nullify and deny Federal authority matters! That’s particularly true when those acts of nullification are based on racial animus! That today’s righty-dominated Supremes won’t unite behind this straightforward principle of Federalism is a blow to equal protection under the Constitution!
As of December 31, 2023, only the first quarter of FY 2024, the Biden Administration had already initiated 696,400 cases at EOIR. That’s more than the highest FULL FY (12 mo.) of the Trump Administration, 2019, in which 694,771 cases were started.
Moreover, in FY 2023, Biden filed an astounding 1,485,769 cases, more than twice the number that Trump did in FY 2019. Biden’s numbers in FY 2023 topped Trump’s other three years (278,218; 356,034; 216,589) BY MULTIPLES. In fact, Biden instituted approximately as many Immigration Court cases in FY 2023 as Trump did in his entire FOUR YEARS and is on a path to greatly exceed his 2023 total in FY 2024!
So the Trump/GOP blather about Biden not enforcing immigration laws is complete BS!
Biden’s muscular immigration enforcement efforts give lie to the GOP’s “open borders” claims, a point seldom made by the “mainstream media.” But, such over the top enforcement is NOT necessarily good news for America.
Even with more Immigration Judges under Biden — going on 700 — the annual decision-making capacity at EOIR is somewhere between 350,000 to 550,000. So, the Immigration Courts will not come close to keeping up with the flow of incoming cases, let alone reducing the backlog that has now mushroomed to more than 3,000,000.
There is no apparent plan for controlling the EOIR backlog and improving the much-criticized quality of decisions, which disproportionately harms legal asylum seekers of color while often adding to the backlog when rejected on review. That makes the Administration’s institution of new cases on a level guaranteed to create additional backlog appear irresponsible.
Moreover, it hasn’t helped that Attorney General Garland ignored pleas from most experts to make EOIR reform one of his highest, ideally his highest, national priority. Nor has Congress paid much attention to the glaring, chronic dysfunction at EOIR, despite pending legislation to create an Article I Immigration Court!
Biden is following in the footsteps of his Dem predecessors Obama and Clinton. In their initial election campaigns they “played to their base” by criticizing harsh GOP enforcement policies and extolling the benefits of immigration. Once in office, however, they became convinced that their credibility, and perhaps manhood, depended on out-enforcing and “out-crueling” their GOP predecessors.
Of course, this naive approach never produces the apparently desired result: That the GOP will acknowledge that Dems are serious about enforcement and strike the long needed “grand bargain” on immigration reform.
Predictably, that always backfires. The GOP just keeps repeating their “open borders” big lies, and the mainstream media provide little, if any, critical analysis or pushback. As long as kids aren’t being proudly exhibited in cages, the “mainstreams” quickly lose interest in the suffering, dehumanization, and death piling up on both sides of the border and in the “New American Gulag” as a result of the disastrously (and predictably) failed “enforcement-only” approach.
What Biden’s effort to “out-Trump Trump” REALLY shows is that more enforcement and attempting to use anti-immigrant legal decisions and a hopelessly backlogged adjudication system that keeps legal asylum seekers waiting indefinitely with a significant chance of wrongful denial if and when they are reached as a “deterrent,” doesn’t work, and in fact never has worked!
What’s needed is actually painfully obvious: A balanced approach that combines a properly generous asylum adjudication system, more avenues for legal immigration (both permanent and temporary), and an independent, functioning, expert, due-process oriented Immigration Court with reasonable, targeted, humane enforcement. That’s a message that both parties and the mainstream media are ignoring, to our national detriment. Too many Americans seem to have forgotten that in the process of dehumanizing and demonizing “the other” we degrade ourselves.
Or, put another way, we can diminish ourselves as a nation, but it won’t stop human migration!
President Biden is asking Congress for $13.6 billion to fund border enforcement operations, a significant portion of which will go to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain more immigrants. This strategy is reminiscent of President Trump’s administration, which also poured resources into ICE detention in 2018 and 2019, but that effort produced very little change in the number of ICE removals—the stated goal for both Trump and Biden.
. . . .
In fact, President Biden is proposing to increase ICE detention by only 9,000 beds, from the current 37,000 to 46,000. The federal government should detain and deport individuals who pose national security and public safety threats to the United States, but it should not spend taxpayer dollars on useless anti‐ immigrant theater. Moreover, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties has found that ICE detention sites routinely mistreat their detainees in ways that are “barbaric,” and there is no reason to expose anyone unnecessarily to this type of treatment.
A more effective approach to address the border issue is to facilitate legal immigration: let people come legally. This approach has been demonstrated to work, would reduce government expenditures, and make the immigration process more orderly.
****************
Read David’s full article, with charts and data, at the above link.
As David points out, the“New American Gulag” is bad for our nation and humanity. Unhappily, though, it’s good for the corporations who run private prisons. They also provide jobs in out of the way places where migrants are stashed. And, they contribute money and lobby politicos of both parties. That’s why human rights lose out almost every time in the immigration debate.
Immigration enforcement is an “industry” where failure = success! The more detention, apprehension, and deportation fail, the greater demand there is by politicos for more of it!
You can bet that when the coming waves of “enhanced” repression and human rights violations predictably fail, there will be demands for even harsher and more expensive enforcement, imprisonment, and deportations to deadly places!
It’s a dangerous, degrading, wasteful cycle that America just can’t seem to break. There are too many interests that see the human and fiscal misery of the “Gulag” as a profit center or a political advantage and therefore are disinterested in what works or the common good.
Even some Dems find that joining the white nationalist bullies in degrading and dehumanizing migrants of color is a “better political strategy” than standing up for the human rights of those who can’t vote! Bully – The Noun Project icon from the Noun Project Date 18 December 2017 This file is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication
As my friend Dan Kowalski often says, “the cruelty is the point.” Dehumanization, degradation, and gratuitous abuse of migrants of color is both highly profitable and politically advantageous for those on the right. So much so, that often even Democrats and some so-called “liberals” are afraid to oppose it and find their best “strategy” is to align with or enable the playground bullies! After all, they figure, it’s “only migrants from s—-hole countries whose lives and humanity are at stake.” Nothing to be gained from defending vulnerable persons!
That’s something for human rights activists and progressives to remember when some of these same spineless folks pelt your inbox with requests for your hard-earned dollars and your vote to help them save democracy — a democracy that they and their GOP nativist buddies don’t really believe in or defend!
Another example of truth losing out: Despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary, a substantial majority of GOP voters believe Trump’s “stolen election” lies. https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/70-percent-republicans-falsely-believe-stolen-election-trump/. And, whether or not they actually believe Trump’s falsehoods, almost no GOP office-holders, at any level, have the guts to challenge his absurdist claims.
States can’t use the federal courts to try to force the federal government to arrest and deport more people who are in the country illegally, the Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The 8-1 decision could cut down on a flood of lawsuits recent administrations have faced from state attorneys general and governors who disagree with Washington on immigration and crime policy.
The high court’s ruling found that Texas and Louisiana lacked standing to pursue litigation challenging immigration enforcement priorities established by President Joe Biden’s administration soon after he took office.
It’s the second decision in eight days in which the Supreme Court has rejected lawsuits from Texas on standing grounds. Last week, the court ruled that the state did not have standing to challenge a federal law that gives preferences to Native American families in the adoptions of Native children.
Six states are challenging the debt-relief plan, but it’s not clear if the states have suffered the sort of concrete harm that is typically necessary to challenge a policy in court. (In a separate case, two student-loan borrowers who oppose the plan are also suing. Their legal standing is also contested.)
In the immigration case, critics of the states’ approach said their claim of likely financial injury from unwarranted release of undocumented migrants was murky. But the court’s majority opinion written, by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, took a different tack and said the case was flawed because of a general principle against suits trying to force the executive branch to enforce the law against someone else.
“This Court has consistently recognized that federal courts are generally not the proper forum for resolving claims that the Executive Branch should make more arrests or bring more prosecutions,” Kavanaugh wrote, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three liberals. “If the Court green-lighted this suit, we could anticipate complaints in future years about alleged Executive Branch under-enforcement of any similarly worded laws — whether they be drug laws, gun laws, obstruction of justice laws, or the like. We decline to start the Federal Judiciary down that uncharted path.”
I suppose whether you “like” or “hate” this decision depends on who is in power and what you think about them. As my friend and immigration commentator Nolan Rappaport told me, immigrants’ rights advocates might cheer this decision today, but will not be happy if Trump is elected and they can no longer team up with Democrat State AGs to challenge alleged abuses of prosecutorial authority by Trump’s Administration.
Recognizing Nolan’s point that the “sword cuts both ways,” I think this is the correct result. Perhaps, that’s because it’s a derivation of a long line of cases on prosecutorial discretion that we often successfully invoked during my time in the “Legacy INS” OGC. Also, it seems correct from a “separation of powers” standpoint.
One of the cases that the Court relied upon is Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614 (1973). Interestingly, that case, then relatively recently decided, was one of the many I cited in the July 15, 1976 opinion that I drafted for then General Counsel Sam Bernsen approving the INS’s use of prosecutorial discretion.See https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Bernsen-Memo-service-exercise-pd.pdf.
The “Bernsen opinion” (FN 8) cited the various Lennon cases and made reference to Leon’s article in Interpreter Releases (1976) on the topic.
After five decades of working in the immigration field in different positions and different levels, I think it’s always interesting how things from my “early career” still have relevance today!
Indeed, although you wouldn’t know it from the mainstream media and the “alternate universe debate” now going on in Congress, the GOP claims of “open borders” and lack of immigration enforcement are total BS. In fact, the Biden Administration has far “out-deported” and “out-enforced” the Trump Administration. See, e.g., https://amsterdamnews.com/news/2024/01/03/deportation-numbers-under-biden-surpass-trumps-record/.
As experts and those who actually work with migrants at the border know, “enforcement only” doesn’t work at the border or anywhere else, although it does fuel political movements and powerful corporate interests. See, e.g., .https://open.substack.com/pub/theborderchronicle/p/prepare-yourselves-for-the-2024-border?r=1se78m&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post. But, truth, rationality, humanity, expertise, and the rule of law are largely absent from today’s one-sided immigration discussions. That doesn’t bode well for the future of our nation or the world.
MIAMI (AP) — Eight months after crossing the Rio Grande into the United States, a couple in their 20s sat in an immigration court in Miami with their three young children. Through an interpreter, they asked a judge to give them more time to find an attorney to file for asylum and not be deported back to Honduras, where gangs threatened them.
Judge Christina Martyak agreed to a three-month extension, referred Aarón Rodriguéz and Cindy Baneza to free legal aid provided by the Catholic Archdiocese of Miami in the same courthouse — and their case remains one of the unprecedented 3 million currently pending in immigration courts around the United States.
Fueled by record-breaking increases in migrants who seek asylum after being apprehended for crossing the border illegally, the court backlog has grown by more than 1 million over the last fiscal year and it’s now triple what it was in 2019, according to government data compiled by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.
Judges, attorneys and migrant advocates worry that’s rendering an already strained system unworkable, as it often takes several years to grant asylum-seekers a new stable life and to deport those with no right to remain in the country.
. . . .
Experts like retired judge Paul Schmidt, who also served as government immigration counsel while the last major reform was enacted nearly forty years ago, say the broken system can only be fixed with major policy changes. An example would be allowing most asylum cases to be solved administratively or through streamlined processes instead of litigated in courts.
“The situation has gotten progressively worse since the Obama administration, when it really started getting out of hand,” said Schmidt, who in 2016, his last year on the bench, was scheduling cases seven years out.
. . . .
******************
At the above link, read Giovanna’s excellent full article, based on interviews with those who actually are involved in trying to make this dysfunctional system function. Thanks, Giovanna, for shedding some light on the real, potentially solvable, “human rights crisis” enveloping and threatening the entire U.S. legal system. Contrary to “popular blather,” fulfilling our legal obligations to refugees is not primarily a “law enforcement” issue and won’t be solved by more border militarization and violations of individual rights of asylum seekers and other migrants!
There are lots of ways to start fixing this system!Gosh knows, most of them have been covered here on Courtside, sometimes several times, and they are all publicly available on the internet with just a few clicks. See, e.g.,
The “debate” on the Hill defines “legislative malpractice!” The voices of legal integrity, experience, and practicality aren’t being heard! Also, lots of great ideas from experts on fixing EOIR are stuffed in the “Biden Transition Team” files squirreled away in some basement cubbyhole at Garland’s DOJ.
But most politicos aren’t interested in listening to the experts, nor do they seem motivated to understand the real human problems at the border, in the broken Immigration Courts, and how many of the things they are considering will make the situation worse while empowering smugglers and cartels! Those are real human corpses piling up along the border, carried out of immigration prisons, being abused in Mexico, and floating in the river — mostly due to the brain-dead “enforcement only” policies now being given an overdose of steroids by congressional negotiators.
So, things just keep deteriorating. Many in the backlog who deserve a chance at a permanent place in our society, and the ability to contribute to their full abilities and potential, remain in limbo! That’s bad for them and for us as a society!
We all have heard the story about the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. the night before he was killed. How he’d seen the promised land and might not be with us when we got to the mountaintop. It’s important that we remember King incorporated the good Samaritan story into his speech.
He was in Memphis to aid sanitation workers, who were marching for a livable wage and safe working conditions. He went despite threats to his life and the fact that other civil rights leaders were present to march along with 1,300 Black workers on strike. He went because if not him, who? Here’s where he incorporated a Bible story we’ve heard before.
“And so the first question that the Levite asked was, ‘If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?’ But then the good Samaritan came by. And he reversed the question: ‘If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?’
“That’s the question before you tonight. Not, ‘If I stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to all of the hours that I usually spend in my office every day and every week as a pastor?’ The question is not, ‘If I stop to help this man in need, what will happen to me?’ ‘If I do not stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to them?’ That’s the question.”
King ended his speech by emphasizing the work we all need to do together to make this nation great, working toward justice not just for ourselves but for all those along the road we come across who require it.
“Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation. And I want to thank God, once more, for allowing me to be here with you.”
This is what I want to remember and honor this Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
Jill McKibben, Reston
*********************
Compare this message of self-sacrificing kindness toward fellow humans with the GOP “race to the bottom” taking place today during the totally overhyped and over-covered Iowa caucuses! (One more breathless account of the “enthusiasm gap” among Haley voters — not to mention her double-digit deficit in the endless “up to the minute” polls — could make a person want to puke.🤮)
There, dominant front-runner Trump promises not a better, fairer, more humane America for all, but rather a selfish, grievance-filled, program of hate, revenge, retribution, dehumanization, and exclusion on his “enemies!” And, his floundering GOP “rivals” promise the same nasty, deeply anti-American, agenda, but without the “distraction” of Trump’s “personality.” Hardly a winning message! If Iowa GOP voters want a true bottom-dweller, and it appears they overwhelmingly do, why not go with the “original” rather than “semi-sanitized imitations?”
Thank goodness for NFL playoff games today which should allow the rest of us to avoid the networks insipid “Iowa coverage!”
In the 18 months since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, Republican officials have had ample opportunity to prove they’re not merely antiabortion but also pro-child. They keep failing.
GOP politicians across the country have found new and creative ways to deny resources to struggling parents and children. Take, for instance, the summer lunch program.
Under a new federal program, children who are eligible for free or reduced-price school lunches can also receive food assistance during the summer. The policy, created as part of the bipartisan budget deal in 2022, gives eligible families $40 per month per child, or $120 total over the summer. It often works essentially as a top-up for food stamps, since these families must buy more groceries when their children lose access to nutritious school meals when classes go out of session. (It’s similar to a temporary program offered during the pandemic, though it’s much less generous.)
The federal government pays the entire cost of the benefits associated with this new food program and half the administrative costs. The program isn’t automatic, though; states had to opt in by Jan. 1.
Republican governors across 15 states chose not to, as my Post colleague Annie Gowen reported. Up to 10 million kids will be denied access to this grocery aid as a result.
Why have these governors rejected food assistance, even amid soaring grocery prices and pledges to help families strained by inflation?
Some states, such as Texas and Vermont, cited operational or budgetary difficulties with getting a new system running in time for this summer. These obstacles could presumably be surmounted in future years. In other states, GOP politicians expressed outright disdain for the program.
Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, for instance, said of the new program, “I don’t believe in welfare.” A spokeswoman for Florida’s Department of Children and Families cited vague unspecified fears about “federal strings attached.”
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds suggested there was no point in giving this grocery assistance to food-insecure children “when childhood obesity has become an epidemic.”
Reynolds is apparently unaware that obesity is linked to a lack of reliable access to nutritious food and that children in food-insecure homes face a higher risk of developmental problems. This suggests withholding this nutritional assistance hurts not only the state’s children today but also its workforce tomorrow.
This is hardly the only time GOP politicians have worked to swipe food from the mouths of hungry children — and their moms.
. . . .
Indeed, if a version of a child tax credit expansion ultimately materializes — and it might in the next few days — that will happen only because Democratic lawmakers explicitly held those corporate tax breaks hostage in exchange for aid to poor kids.
Republicans keep assuring the American public that they really, truly care about helping women forced into bearing children even when they’re not financially or emotionally ready to do so. They claim they want to protect youngsters and invest in their financial future.
Time for the GOP to put its money where its mouth is.
The outcry of those claiming the United States has an “open border” reminds me of the “everything must go” or “for a limited time only” advertisements. People come only to discover it’s a bait and switch. Let me be clear: Migrants are not risking their lives solely because they believe false claims that the border is open. The overwhelming majority are fleeing desperate situations in their home countries; however, the drumbeat of “open borders ending soon” lends an urgency to their plight. Apprehensions of migrants entering illegally in December 2023 are projected to be a record high of 302,000.
The irony is that many conservative members of Congress try to blame the Biden administration for the surge in migrants, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted the Constitution as giving Congress plenary power over immigration. Since the 19th century, this authority of Congress to control our national borders and determine whether a foreign national may enter or remain has been preeminent.
The executive branch is able to work only along the margins of immigration law through regulations and executive orders. When the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations tried to push these tools, the federal courts typically stopped them. Recent research by the Bipartisan Policy Center analyzing the border policies of the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations alongside apprehension data did not find clear-cut evidence that any particular executive branch action was more effective than another.
. . . .
As others and I have stated, the migration pressures at the U.S. southern border are not due to lack of enforcement of U.S. law; instead, these pressures result in part from laws written to address migration flows that differed sharply from the numbers of people we are dealing with today. Current law is based on the assumption that most migrants apprehended along the southern border are solo adults who can be turned back easily because they are motivated by economic reasons. Yet migrants today include many more families and children, people fleeing violence, people displaced by climate change, people leaving failed states, and people who are being persecuted — people who are afforded protections under U.S. law.
Regrettably, the House-passed border security legislation, as well as several of the other alternatives Congress is discussing, naively offers to tighten up the enforcement and narrow the categories of people who might be eligible to enter. Do they really think that raising the bar will deter people who are running for their lives? Such reforms portend an increase in the urgency of desperate people and ensuing chaos.
Immigration has always been a phenomenon that drives America’s success story, that undergirds our greatness. Time is overdue for us to reform our immigration laws — to create new pathways and update the old ones — to better reflect the national interest and our values. It will not be easy, as few critical issues are, but it is imperative that Congress gets to work.
Ruth E. Wasem is senior fellow at College of Public Affairs and Education, Cleveland State University. She has more than 30 years of experience in U.S. domestic policy, including immigration, employment, and social welfare policies.
************************
Read Ruth’s full article at the link! Also, congrats, Ruth, on your new appointment as Senior Fellow at the College of Public Affairs and Education, Cleveland State University!
As Ruth points out, the reason why all reputable studies show little if any relationship of forced migration to changing precedents and policies in “receiving nations,” is in the nature of forced migration. Forced migration is forced by combinations of conditions at or near the “sending” countries that operate largely without regard to unilateral actions in the U.S. or any other major receiving nation or group of nations.
At best, such futile unilateral actions have marginal, transitory effects, usually by forcing strategy adjustments and pricing changes within the world of human smuggling. But, like most markets, the human trafficking market eventually adjusts and the next, largely self-inflicted, “border crisis” ensues.
And thus, the cycle continues, with receiving nations investing more and more and doubling down on “proven to fail” cruelty and deterrence. Rather than acting rationally and responsibly — by listening to experts and those with experience managing refugee migrations — politicos falsely claim that the reason for their failed policies were that they weren’t draconian or expensive enough. But, throwing more money and personnel exclusively at enforcement and deterrence never works in a practical sense.
What it does do, however, is give certain moneyed groups a huge interest in uncontrolled border militarization. It also causes cynical politicos, largely but not exclusively on the right, to invest in sure to fail policies that will be a rallying point for White Nationalists without actual disrupting the supply of exploitable, disenfranchised, largely disposable “cheap labor” popular with many U.S. businesses and political contributors.
Ruth’s article states important truths about the border and migration echoed by expert after expert that are consistently, shamefully, and improperly being ignored by legislators and other politicos. For example, another leading “practical scholar,” Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr of Cornell Law recently “warned that detaining and quickly expelling migrants before asylum screenings would not solve the influx problem for cities like New York, which is grappling with a surge of migrants.” Read more: https://loom.ly/CLCoxqA.
Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr Cornell Law
So cowardly and misguided is the GOP’s approach that they waste public funds on a disingenuous “show trip” to the Texas border, but lack the guts and human decency to meet with and listen to the folks actually affected by their toxic policies and proposals.
Melissa Del Bosque Border Reporter PHOTO: Melissadelbosque.com
As reported by Melissa del Bosque in The Border Chronicle (in her overall discouraging and depressing forecast of the deadly political shenanigans that will be rolled out by GOP nativists during the 2024 campaign):
MAGA extremists in the House of Representatives, holding emergency funding hostage for Ukraine, cut out early from Congress for Christmas vacation, but they were willing to shorten their holiday break to make an appearance in Eagle Pass, Texas, on January 3, setting the tone for the coming months leading up to the general election. House Republicans will begin holding hearings on border security in February and are planning to impeach DHS secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
In Eagle Pass, House Speaker Mike Johnson, along with 60 other Republicans, held a press conference in front of coils of razor wire placed along the Rio Grande by Texas governor Greg Abbott’s Operation Lone Star. During the visit, Republicans declined to meet with local community leaders who had erected a public memorial in Eagle Pass for more than 700 people who had died trying to cross the border in 2023.
Expert organizations, like the Center for Migration Studies (“CMS”) with decades of experience studying what works and what doesn’t at the border have offered straightforward plans for “Managing the Border Without Sacrificing Human Rights,” only to have them arrogantly and insultingly ignored by Congress and the Biden Administration. See https://cmsny.org/statement-manage-border-without-sacrificing-human-rights/.
Michael Posner, Professor & Director, Center for Business and Human Rights at NYU Stern School of Business PHOTO: Linkedin
Long-time refugee expert/scholar Professor Michael Posner, writing in Forbes, also offers a far more nuanced and realistic approach to the b order that both parties are ignoring:
Rather than enacting the draconian measures Republicans are now proposing that will, in effect, deny everyone their right to seek asylum, the goal should be to strengthen the system so that the cases of genuine refugees are heard quickly, while those who don’t qualify are placed in deportation proceedings. The way forward is not to curtail everyone’s right to seek asylum, but to make the system both fairer and more efficient.
The idea that the constitutional right to due process and fundamental fairness and the right of refuge guaranteed by international agreements that we signed and long-standing domestic implementing laws are “negotiable” is simply outrageous and fundamentally un-American!
Meanwhile, Dems cower and run away from the border issue, apparently irrationally believing that ignoring it and ceding ground to the GOP will “make it go away” in 2024. News Flash: It won’t!
Sadly, while experts and advocates who actually understand the border and migration fruitlessly rally, demonstrate, write op-ed’s, and file research-backed reports in favor of protecting asylum rights, Senate Dems by most accounts are busy negotiating them away in response to GOP demands. See, e.g.,https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/10/senate-border-ukraine-negotiations/.
Ignoring the advice of experts and acting out of fear, myths, and bias seems to be the “order of the day” for both parties!🤯That’s a national problem that won’t be solved by ever more extreme and wasteful doses of cruelty, repression, and bogus “deterrence,” no matter how politically and financially profitable continued failure might be to some within our nation’s power structure.
Question: Is there anything more absurd than red state governors rejecting federal programs that directly benefit their constituents?
Easy answer: Yes. It’s the explanations they give to make their actions appear to be sober, responsible fiscal decisions.
The Republican governors of Iowa and Nebraska brought us the most recent examples of this phenomenon just before Christmas.
The issue in both states is a summer food program that provides $40 a month per child in June, July and August to families eligible for free or reduced-price school meals.
The program is known as the Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer Program for Children, or Summer EBT. Its purpose is to give the eligible families a financial bridge during the months when their kids aren’t in school.
The governors didn’t see it that way. Here’s how Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds justified her decision to reject the federal subsidy
for low-income Iowans: “Federal COVID-era cash benefit programs are not sustainable and don’t provide long-term solutions for the issues impacting children and families.”
Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen’s explanation was,
“I don’t believe in welfare.”
Both governors said their states already had programs in place to address food needs for low-income families, and that was enough.
It’s worth noting that the explanations by both Reynolds and Pillen are fundamentally incoherent. What does Reynolds even mean by calling the program “not sustainable”? It would be sustained as long as Congress continues to fund it, which is almost certain as long as Republicans don’t take control of both houses and kill it.
As for Pillen’s crack about “welfare,” he didn’t bother to explain what he believes is wrong with “welfare” as such; he just uttered the term knowing that it’s a dog whistle for conservative voters aimed at dehumanizing the program’s beneficiaries.
What makes these governors’ refusals so much more irresponsible is that the federal government is picking up 100% of the tab for the benefits; the states only have to agree to pay half the administrative costs. Their shares come to $2.2 million in Iowa and $300,000 in Nebraska, according to those states’ estimates.
In return, 240,000 children in Iowa would receive a total of $28.8 million in benefits over the three summer months, and 150,000 Nebraskans would receive a total of $18 million. Sounds like a massively profitable investment in child health in those states.
The governors’ defenses smack of the same strained plausibility of those statements made by banks, streaming networks and other commercial entities that explain that their price hikes and service reductions are “efforts to serve you better.”
. . . .
*************************
Read the complete article at the link.
Cowardly, irresponsible GOP governors pick on poor kids and their families.And, the other things that might lift families out of poverty:higher wages, shorter hours, more childcare, better health care, educational opportunities, vocational assistance, family planning assistance — the GOP opposes them all in their totally corrupt and disingenuous “race to the bottom.”
Just look at the amount of money GOP politicos have wasted on cruel stunts and gimmicks intended and guaranteed to make the humanitarian situation worse!
Mary Meg McCarthy Executive Director National Immigrant Justice Center PHOTO: LinkedinA girl peers out from an encampment at the U.S.-Mexico border where she and several hundred people waited to present themselves to U.S. immigration to seek asylum. Politicos of both parties disgracefully treat the lives of asylum seekers as “collateral damage” and apparently expect no consequences from their deadly, inhumane, and often illegal actions against legal asylum seekers! / Photo by David Maung
Elected officials must act to prevent more migrant deaths
The United States has the resources to welcome new neighbors, but it is going to take cooperation, from the White House to the mayor’s office, to prevent further loss of life and improve safety for migrants.
By Letters to the Editor Dec 21, 2023, 3:32pm CST
It was heartbreaking to learn of the death of 5-year-old Jean Carlos Martinez Rivero, who had been living with his family at a privately contracted Chicago migrant shelter. This tragedy must be a wakeup call for all levels of government to start working together to protect people’s basic human rights at a time of increasing global humanitarian displacement.
For months, community members raised concerns about conditions inside the city’s shelters and volunteered to help better meet migrants’ basic needs. The accounts of life inside the shelter now coming to light are disturbingly similar to those that my colleagues at the National Immigrant Justice Center hear from clients held in immigration detention centers.
The city and the companies profiting from shelter contracts must be held accountable.
No doubt, the city has been forced to face the unprecedented challenge of welcoming thousands of new neighbors with minimal support from the federal government. The Biden administration and Congress must also be held accountable to repair the broken immigration system, support cities like Chicago that are welcoming migrants, and provide legal pathways so new arrivals have access to employment, secure housing and safety.
Jean Carlos’ death occurred at the same time the Biden administration and some U.S. senators are considering signing off on extreme anti-immigrant legislation in exchange for military aid for Ukraine and Israel.
The proposals under negotiation would create permanent new barriers to asylum protection and put U.S. immigrant communities at heightened risk of mass deportations. The proposals are structured to put Black, Brown and Indigenous communities at most risk.
Biden seems to have lost sight of his prior promises to defend immigrants’ rights, not to mention the U.S. government’s obligations to uphold international human rights law. Chicagoans should be holding our own Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth accountable to loudly oppose these proposals.
The United States has the resources to welcome new neighbors, but it is going to take cooperation at every level — from the White House to the mayor’s office — to prevent further loss of life and improve access to safety for migrant communities.
Mary Meg McCarthy, executive director, National Immigrant Justice Center
***********************
Unfortunately, accountability seems unlikely unless it happens at the ballot box.The GOP has become the party of inhumanity, irresponsibility, and immunity. And, although the Biden Administration and “wobbly” Dems tend to avoid overtly dehumanizing asylum seekers with their language, their actions and attitudes too often mirror those of Trump, Miller, and the GOP nativists. Indeed, quite disgustingly, politicos of both parties appear to expect to harvest political gains from the blood of migrants! 🤮
The Senate is basically engaging in “bipartisan” negations to knowingly and intentionally violate domestic and international protection laws, abrogate constitutional due process, and increase the number of unnecessary deaths of asylum seekers. That arrogant politicos, on both sides of the aisle, although primarily the GOP, openly advocate for such actions shows just how little fear of any type of accountability they have.
In many ways, that’s precisely the message that Trump and his MAGAmaniacs have been pushing — intentionally hateful and inflammatory language, followed by horrible, sometimes deadly, actions with little or no fear of any type of accountability.Sadly, the Dems seem to think that a program of cowardly acquiescence, rather than principled opposition, is the key to political success.
Reading* the news, it appears that many are freaking out about the “crisis” along the U.S. / Mexico border.
In fact, there is no crisis. Yes, there are logistical problems around feeding and housing migrants, and legal problems around sorting out their legal claims in immigration court.
Thanks for reading Dan’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
But the numbers are the numbers: “[T]he past decade has seen unusually slow growth in immigration. In fact, the period from 2012 to 2022 saw slower growth in the immigrant share of the population than the 2000s, 1990s, 1980s and 1970s. You have to go all the way back to the 1960s, when the immigrant population actually shrank, to find a lower growth rate.” – David J. Bier, Oct. 3, 2023
America is graying. We need more immigrants, not fewer, and the younger the better. “With the national unemployment rate reaching a historic low of 3.4% in 2023—and states like Massachusetts (2.5%) and Pennsylvania (3.5%) reaching record lows—employers and elected officials have been desperate to find new workers.” – Andrew Kreighbaum, Dec. 29, 2023.
But under current law, it can take many months, if ever, for migrants to obtain work permits. Meanwhile, they are forced to work for cash, under the table, exposed to horrible working conditions, sub-market wages and the continual threat of deportation. Once they have work permits, however, they gain bargaining power.
Hein de Haas, professor of sociology at the University of Amsterdam, and the author of How Migration Really Works, says: “Fundamental choices have to be made. For example, do we want to live in a society in which more and more work – transport, construction, cleaning, care of elderly people and children, food provision – is outsourced to a new class of servants made up mainly of migrant workers? Do we want a large agricultural sector that partly relies on subsidies and is dependent on migrants for the necessary labour? The present reality shows that we cannot divorce debates about immigration from broader debates about inequality, labour, social justice and, most importantly, the kind of society we want to live in.”
Many years ago I was “on the bus” for a border journalism junket. With me was Wall Street Journal editorial writer Jason Riley. His 2008 book, Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders, is still fresh as a daisy.
Look I get it: I was lucky enough to grow up bilingual, enjoy the benefits of “higher ed,” and travel a lot, so I am not afraid of immigrants. Many Americans aren’t so lucky. Still, unless we are OK with China and India eating our economic lunch, we need to face facts and let in more immigrants, stat.
* Pro Tip: Never watch television.
Thanks for reading Dan’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
There’s plenty of empirical support for Dan’s view that we are largely creating a “crisis” while missing a golden opportunity. Indeed, while the U.S. is the world’s richest and most powerful nation, many smaller and poorer countries are able to resettle more asylum seekers, refugees, and other types of forced migrants, by both absolute numbers and proportion. See, e.g.,https://www.nrc.no/shorthand/fr/a-few-countries-take-responsibility-for-most-of-the-worlds-refugees/index.html.
What we appear to have is more of a politically-driven crisis of lack of confidence, political will, and basic competence to manage a humanitarian situation that is predictable, largely inevitable, and an opportunity to harness the human capital of migration — the same energy that actually built our nation and made it great. We’ve wasted huge amounts of money, resources, and time on cruel, failed, counterproductive enforcement gimmicks, while underfunding and failing to creatively update adjudication and resettlement functions.
Sadly and disturbingly, politicos of both parties and the Administration are basically pledging and scheming to ignore the advice of experts and creative problem-solvers and to do an even worse job next year and into the future. They will certainly leave a scurrilous trail of fraud, waste, abuse, cruelty, futility, failure, death, and missed oportunities in their wake — if we let them get away with it!
Austin Kocher, Ph.D. Research Assistant Professor TRAC-Syracuse PHOTO: Syracuse U.
Dan’s essay also reminds me of another recent Substack essay from immigration expert and statistical guru, Professor Austin Kocher. Austin’s theory is that backlogs in and of themselves might not be as bad as we often portray them — particularly in light of the alternatives and the intentional failures to make obvious reforms to improve the “robustness” and fairness of our immigraton system. Seehttps://austinkocher.substack.com/p/3-million-cases-are-now-pending-in.
Here’s the core of what Austin says:
First, it is worth questioning our basic assumptions about whether the “backlog”, as it is somewhat sensationally referred to, is actually a bad thing. Unlike the Obama administration, when the rapid growth of court cases was more attributable to people who lived in the U.S. for a long time getting caught up in interior enforcement, the recent growth is almost entirely due to the arrival of asylum seekers into the country. If you believe that asylum seekers deserve an opportunity to have their cases heard, then these numbers might be a positive sign. More people will have at least a nominal opportunity to apply for asylum instead of being turned away outright at the border.
Second, it remains absurd to me that the current practice in the U.S. is to force recently arrived asylum seekers into court in front of an immigration judge rather than to direct their cases toward asylum officers at USCIS who are trained for precisely this purpose. Immigration courts were designed to adjudicate cases of non-citizens who are suspected of violating U.S. immigration laws. The courts are adversarial environments that, as far as I can tell, require far more taxpayer resources and migrant resources than non-adversarial asylum interviews do. The fact that there are 3 million cases in court is, to me, an indictment of a system that treats humanitarian crises through the lens of quasi-criminalization.
Third, since no real change is likely forthcoming, I think we should rethink our sensationalization of the backlog number and simply accept the growing immigration court backlog much like we accept the U.S. national debt ticker in New York City.2 It’s just going to keep going up unless something absolutely fundamental changes about the world we live in. Get over it. This is how things work now. We need to end the delusional thinking that reforms—even much-needed reforms, such as the creation of an independent court system—are going to “solve” the backlog. The U.S. immigration system either needs radically rethought or we need to simply accept that the number of pending cases will reach 4 million, 5 million, or 6 million cases in the next few years.
Lastly, if we really want to solve the backlog, the easiest way to resolve the backlog is for Congress to give everyone with an NTA (i.e., everyone with a pending court case) and who meets certain minimal criteria a special visa that regularizes their status and puts them on a path to citizenship just like other lawful permanent residents. Yes, yes—I know that not everyone will like that solution for political reasons, but at least admit that you don’t like it for political reasons, not because it wouldn’t solve the backlog (because it would). After all, the US Census Bureau is already forecasting absolute population decline in the US within our lifetimes. Three million new citizens now wouldn’t solve that problem, but it might not hurt in the long run.
I was struck by his second point. One of the positive regulatory changes made by the Biden Administration was to confer authority on USCIS Asylum Officers to grant asylum immediately, at the border or in reception centers, rather than referring all arriving asylum seekers who pass credible fear to the Immigration Courts. Nevertheless, as I among many pointed out, the Administration had neither the personnel nor the training in place to make this change effective.
I also argued that without a new BIA of expert Appellate Judges and exceptionally-well-qualified asylum expert Immigration Judges assigned to key Immigration Courts to provide dynamic leadership, de facto supervision, and a series of far better positive precedents guiding adjudicators to grant asylum in many repetitive situations, this positive change was doomed to failure.
Sure enough, the Administration botched the implementation — running inept, timid, and minute “pilot programs” that could only be termed “sad jokes.” To make matters worse, when recently faced with a humanitarian situation at the border, where a “surge” of qualified Asylum Officers working with NGOs to screen arrivals could have made a huge difference, the Administration inexplicably “suspended” this most useful part of their regulations. Meanwhile, they opted to keep more problematic provisions in effect.
To compound the problem, nativist GOP State AGs mounted frivolous court challenges to the expanded role of Asylum Officers. Stripped of its legal gobbledygook, they essentially and absurdly argued that the Administration lacked authority to empower statutory Asylum Officers to grant asylum.
Dan’s essay found favor with well-known expert Careen Shannon:
This post about the opportunity presented by migrants who want to live in the United States is a sensible message with which to end the year. Kudos to Dan Kowalski for stating what should be obvious but apparently cannot be repeated often enough.
On the eve of a U.S. presidential election year and under the shadow of wars in Ukraine and Gaza, asylum seekers and refugees have become chips on the Capitol Hill bargaining table.
What risks being lost in this high-stakes game is a recognition that fundamental human rights are not negotiable, including “the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution” enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
. . . .
******************
Read the rest of Bill’s article at the link.
Echoes what many of have saying for a long time! The problem is that the politicos of both parties have abandoned due process (except as it applies to them personally or to their cronies) and human rights.
Description Immigrants & Refugees Welcome – Banner on Facade – Pilsen – Chicago – Illinois – USA Date Taken on 18 February 2017, 10:55 Source Immigrants & Refugees Welcome – Banner on Facade – Pilsen – Chicago – Illinois – USA Author Adam Jones from Kelowna, BC, Canada Creative Commons License
Migrants are cut from the same cloth as the rest of us
One of the words I have not heard to describe migrants — but is a more accurate than the negative portrayals — is “families.”
By Letters to the Editor Nov 30, 2023, 5:11pm EST
With the holidays upon us, there will undoubtedly be plenty of work parties, shopping sprees with kids in tow and the ubiquitous family gatherings. The coming months will also challenge us to wear layers of clothes and wrap ourselves and our loved ones in blanket-like coats. I am fortunate to have plenty of gloves, scarves, coats and boots.
Others are less fortunate. The unfortunate ones include the “new arrivals,” most of whom have never experienced a Chicago winter. Since the migrants’ arrival, critics have taken to the airwaves offering their comments about the tents, buses, use of police stations, encroachment on city streets, and, what they believe is the destruction of the city’s social and economic fabric. Descriptions of migrants are also disconcerting: liars, troublemakers, thieves, wayward parents using their kids to manipulate the immigration system and outsiders trying to live off the municipal dough.
One of the words I have not heard but is a more accurate depiction of the new arrivals is families. The buses full of people reflect a multi-generational exit from countries steeped in turmoil and unrest: infants, children, parents, or other caretakers. Describing those who arrive as families could lead us to consider them fully human, more like us. Instead, we use words that create a chasm that places the migrants at an arm’s distance from us, society and our city.
Throughout the next month, love, joy, harmony and peace will be words we will likely hear daily in songs, written in holiday cards and celebrated in plays and movies that bring friends and families together. Some will celebrate the season by remembering the birth of a unique child. Warned to flee to ensure the safety of his wife and newborn child, the family patriarch left for other lands. Wouldn’t it be remarkable if we could see the face of this child in the faces of the children we see coming here? Perhaps we can take the first step by using words that remove the stigma and distance between us and the “new arrivals.” The words? Families, of course.
Esther Nieves, Wicker Park
********************
Yup, contrary to the absolute, hateful, BS from Trump, Johnson, and the rest of the MAGA right, and the disgraceful indifference of too many Dems, most migrants want: 1) security, 2) opportunity, and 3) a better future, particularly for family. That’s what I found over more than 13 years on the trial bench at the Immigration Court. Basically, what all of us want from life!
Migrants deserve fair, humane, dignified treatment from the U.S. and our legal system, regardless of whether they ultimately are able to meet the legal criteria to remain!
Subscribed
