"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
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!”
This guy’s ugly presence and vile racist views hang over the 2024 election campaign and Congressional negotiations. Why? Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) says he has transported 95,000 migrants from the Texas border to New York, Washington, DC, and other cities. On New Year’s Eve, Abbott flew hundreds of migrants — including many children — to the Rockford airport in Illinois, 30 miles outside of Chicago. It was snowing upon their arrival, and some of the migrants had no coats or shoes. Others were wearing flip-flops. The migrants were then loaded onto buses chartered by Abbott and dropped off in various suburbs.
Abbott says that he is transporting migrants to “sanctuary cities” as punishment for the cities’ permissive policies. A “sanctuary city” is a derisive term used by the right to describe a city that chooses not to volunteer local law enforcement resources to assist federal immigration agents. But in this case, the issue is largely irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of people being used as pawns by Abbott are in the United States legally.
One approach to deterring migrants is ignoring human rights and making the ordeal as traumatic as possible. That appears to be Abbott’s strategy. But it is not the law.
The Refugee Act of 1980, which passed Congress unanimously, gives migrants inside the United States the right to claim asylum based on “a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” It was enacted “in part to make amends for the country’s shameful refusal to accept Jewish refugees during the Holocaust.”
Previously, most people seeking to cross the southern border of the United States came from Mexico. They were generally seeking seasonal work inside the United States and, therefore, sought to evade detection by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). But beginning in 2010, there was an influx of migrants from Central America fleeing gang violence, racial discrimination, and extreme poverty. More recently, political and economic disruption has prompted an increase in migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Haiti. These new migrants are seeking legal asylum and want to present themselves to border agents — not evade them.
Migrants are being transported by Abbott to places where housing is expensive and in short supply. Most asylum-seekers would like to work to support their families, but the law does not allow them to receive a work permit for 180 days. Because of bureaucratic delays, asylum-seekers often wait a year or more before they are able to work legally.
Abbott also says his efforts are in protest of President Joe Biden’s “open border policies.” Biden has not opened the border. He did recently repeal Title 42, the Trump-era program that denied migrants the right to seek asylum, citing the public health emergency created by the COVID pandemic. Title 42 was legally questionable from the outset, but its continued use after other pandemic-related restrictions were lifted was indefensible. Title 42 also encouraged repeated border crossings. After Title 42 was imposed, “migrant encounters reported by CBP increased every month for 15 straight months.” Under Title 42, many migrants were deported immediately, and no record was created. This meant there was an incentive for migrants to attempt to cross the border again and again until they were successful.
Despite the rhetoric of Abbott and other prominent Republican officials, Biden has taken a hard line against migrants. Some advocates believe that Biden’s efforts to deter migrants from crossing the southern border have exceeded his legal authority.
The truth about Biden’s immigration policy
During his campaign for president in 2020, Biden vowed to undo Trump-era immigration policies. His promises included not building “another foot of wall” on the border and a pledge to stop using private prisons as immigration detention centers. On day one of his presidency, Biden proposed legislation “to restore humanity and American values to our immigration system.” His plan, known as the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, would have created pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, increased assistance to Central America, and strengthened oversight and accountability of border operations.
The bill, however, died in Congress. Since then, Biden has only managed to make modest changes to immigration — like overruling Trump’s Muslim Ban and creating a task force to reunify separated migrant families. For the most part, experts say, Biden has continued many of Trump’s policy decisions.
Earlier this year, for example, Biden imposed new restrictive rules for asylum seekers who are not from Mexico. Dubbed by critics as the “Asylum Ban,” the rule assumes most migrants are ineligible for asylum and were similar to ones previously proposed (but never implemented) by Trump. In most cases, migrants will only be considered for asylum if they make an appointment in advance through a smart phone app, CBP One. There are far more people seeking asylum each day than appointments available through the app. In October 2023, the Biden administration announced that it was waiving 26 federal laws to construct up to 20 miles of the border wall in Texas.
A Washington Post analysis found that “nearly 18,000” family members were deported in fiscal year 2023 – about 3,000 more than were deported under Trump in fiscal year 2020. Since Biden took office, the number of migrants detained by ICE has also more than doubled. The majority of these people, the ACLU says, are held in private detention facilities. According to the group, the share of migrants detained in facilities “owned or operated by private prison corporations” has increased under Biden. In some instances, the administration has even kept open detention facilities “that its own oversight agencies have recommended for closure in light of abusive conditions and safety risks.”
Last month, immigration advocacy groups alleged in a federal complaint that officials have “forced asylum seekers to remain in CBP custody in open-air detention sites along the U.S.-Mexico border in California.” The group accuses CBP agents of forcing migrants to wait in “dangerous, exposed conditions” and “failing to provide the adequate food, water, sanitation, shelter, and medical care required under the law.” So far, at least one migrant has died while waiting outside.
Texas passes its own immigration law
On December 18, Abbott signed a law, Senate Bill 4 (SB 4), that will allow state law enforcement to arrest migrants in Texas. The new state law would make it illegal to cross into Texas from Mexico without using an official port of entry. This practice is already illegal under federal law. But now state law enforcement officers will be permitted to arrest individuals based on their suspected immigration status.
SB 4 includes exceptions for migrants in “public or private schools; churches and other places of worship; health care facilities; and facilities that provide forensic medical examinations to sexual assault survivors,” but does not protect those on college or university campuses. The law does not require that law enforcement officers complete any additional training on immigration law, “despite the fact it would authorize them to quickly make decisions about a person’s immigration status.”
Opponents argue that SB 4 is unconstitutional because the federal government, not Texas, is responsible for enforcing immigration laws. On December 28, the Justice Department sent a letter to Abbott stating that SB 4 “violates the United States Constitution.” Yesterday, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Texas and Abbott. The lawsuit states that “Texas cannot run its own immigration system” and that SB 4 “intrude[s] on the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate the entry and removal of noncitizens, frustrate[s] the United States’ immigration operations and proceedings, and interfere[s] with U.S. foreign relations.”
In response to the December letter, Abbott posted on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “The Biden Admin. not only refuses to enforce current U.S. immigration laws, they now want to stop Texas from enforcing laws against illegal immigration,” Abbott said in the post. According to NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth, when signing SB 4 into law, Abbott said, “We think that Texas already has a constitutional [right] to do this but we also welcome a Supreme Court decision that would overturn the precedent set in the Arizona case.”
HISTORICAL NOTE: The article states that the Refugee Act of 1980 “passed Congress unanimously.” But, that isn’t completely accurate.
There was indeed very strong bipartisan support for that Act. It passed the Senate, 88-0.
A different version of the bill overwhelmingly passed the House, 328-47. Therefore, a Conference Committee was formed to resolve differences.
The Conference Committee report largely adopted the Senate version. The Conference bill unanimously passed the Senate again. But, the vote in the House was closer, 207-192, with 34 Representatives abstaining.
The above summary was reconstructed from the outstanding historical article by refugee guru Professors Deborah Anker and Michael Posner in the San Diego Law Review (1981) with an assist from my own recollection of events in which I long ago participated. https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1735&context=sdlr.
Another helpful resource that I consulted is Ballotpedia.
The Popular Informationarticle reprinted above does very accurately set forth the lies, misinformation, and invidious intent behind the GOP’s attack on and attempt to dehumanize legal asylum seekers!
When a party has no issues, no accomplishments, and no plans for governing in a responsible way, “ginning up” hate, resentment, and “revenge” with lies, misrepresentations, and myths becomes a “strategy.” And somehow, the mainstream media largely falls for it.
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.
Turning this group loose on asylum seekers is an act of gross legal, judicial, and political malpractice by the Biden Administration and Merrick Garland! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“Here, the IJ and BIA found, and the government does not dispute, that Espinoza-Ochoa credibly testified that he experienced harm and threats of harm in Guatemala that “constitute[d] persecution.” But the agency concluded that Espinoza-Ochoa was still ineligible for asylum for two reasons. First, it held that Espinoza-Ochoa had failed to identify a valid PSG because the social group he delineated, “land-owning farmer, who was persecuted for simply holding [the] position of farmer and owning a farm, by both the police and gangs in concert,” was impermissibly circular. Second, the IJ and BIA each held that, regardless of whether his asserted PSG was valid, the harm Espinoza-Ochoa experienced was “generalized criminal activity” and therefore was not on account of his social group. We conclude that the BIA committed legal error in both its PSG and nexus analyses. We first explain why Espinoza-Ochoa’s PSG was not circular and then evaluate whether his PSG was “at least one central reason” for the harm he suffered. Ultimately, we remand to the agency to reconsider both issues consistent with this opinion. … For all these reasons, we agree with Espinoza-Ochoa that legal error infected both the PSG and nexus analyses below. Accordingly, we GRANT the petition, VACATE the decision below, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats way off to Randy Olen!]
***********************
You’ve been reading about this damaging, deadly legal travesty going on during Garland’s watch:
How outrageous, illegal, and “anti-historical” are the Garland BIA’s antics? The classic example of Marxist-Leninist revolutionary persecutions involve targeting property owners, particularly landowners. Indeed, in an earlier time, the BIA acknowledged that “landowners” were a PSG. See, e.g., Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985).
But, now in intellectually dishonest decisions, the BIA pretzels itself, ignores precedent, and tortures history in scurrilous attempts to deny obvious protection. These bad decisions, anti-asylum bias, and deficient scholarship infect the entire system.
It makes cases like this — which couldand should have easily been granted in a competent system shortly after the respondent’s arrival in 2016 — hang around for seven years, waste resources, and still be on the docket.
This is a highly — perhaps intentionally — unrecognized reason why the U.S. asylum asylum system is failing today. It’s also a continuing indictment of the deficient performance of Merrick Garland as Attorney General.
Obviously, these deadly, festering problems infecting the entire U.S. justice system are NOT going to be solved by taking more extreme enforcement actions against those whose quest for fair and correct asylum determinations are now being systematically stymied and mishandled by the incompetent actions of the USG, starting with the DOJ!
As predicted by experts from the “git go,” AG Merrick Garland’s indolent, half-baked approach to his most important responsibility — bringing justice and functionality to his Immigration Courts, has been a disastrous failure endangering our entire democracy! PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons Amateur Night
Here’s the latest report from TRAC documenting how former Federal Judge Merrick Garland’s failure to fulfill his most important duty — reforming and fixing the U.S. Immigration Courts, has built backlog at record paces and undermined our democracy:
Here’s the “action plan” that’s been publicly available since July 2023 — “Rethinking The U.S. Immigration Court System” — yet largely, and disastrously ignored by Garland, his lieutenants, and the Biden Administration:
The U.S. immigration courts—and the nation’s immigration enforcement system they support—face
an unprecedented crisis. With a backlog of almost 2 million cases, it often takes years to decide cases. Moreover, the recent growth in the caseload is daunting. In fiscal year (FY) 2022, immigration courts received approximately 708,000 new cases, which is 160,000 more than in any previous year. Such numbers, coupled with the courts’ resource constraints and decision-making processes, ensure that the court system will continue to lose ground.
For asylum cases, which now make up 40 percent
of the caseload, the breakdown is even more dire. Noncitizens wait an average of four years for a hearing on their asylum claims to be scheduled,
and longer for a final decision. Those eligible for protection are thus deprived of receiving it in a timely manner, while those denied asylum are unlikely
to be returned to their countries of origin, having
established family and community ties in the United
States during the intervening years. The combination
of years-long backlogs and unlikely returns lies at the
heart of our broken asylum system. That brokenness contributes to the pull factors driving today’s migration to the U.S.-Mexico border, thereby undermining the integrity of the asylum and immigration adjudicative systems, and immigration enforcement overall.
Many of the factors contributing to the dramatic rise in the courts’ caseload have deep and wide-reaching roots, from long-standing operational challenges in administering the courts to new crises in the Americas that have intensified both humanitarian protection needs and other migration pressures. The scale of these twin challenges has made it more urgent than ever to address them together. In the aftermath of lifting the pandemic-era border expulsion policy known as Title 42 in May 2023, the Biden administration is implementing wide-ranging new border policies and strategies that establish incentives and disincentives linking how migrants enter the United States with their access to the asylum system. But timely, fair decisions are also central to the success of this new regime.
While many other studies have outlined wholesale changes in the immigration court system that only Congress can enact, such legislative action seems unlikely, at least in the near term. Thus, this report calls
for changes that can be made by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the agency within the Department of Justice (DOJ) that houses the immigration courts, as it is presently organized. Because the immigration courts are administrative bodies, the executive branch has considerable latitude in determining their policies and procedures. The changes laid out in this report hold great potential to improve the courts’ performance and, in turn, enhance the effectiveness of the U.S. immigration system more broadly.
Some steps in this direction are already being taken. The Biden administration has streamlined certain important policies and procedures at EOIR. Nonetheless, these courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals
2 million
cases in the backlog
About 650
immigration judges nationwide
Less than 500
cases completed per judge in most recent years
1
AT THE BREAKING POINT: RETHINKING THE U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM
(BIA), which reviews appeals from immigration court decisions, fall short of meeting the hallmarks of a well- functioning adjudicatory system: that decisions be accurate, efficiently made, consistent across both judges and jurisdictions, and accepted as fair by the public and the parties in the case.
Related issues of caseload quantity and decision quality have given rise to the difficulties EOIR is confronting. Under the Trump administration, the reopening of thousands of administratively closed cases and increased interior enforcement led to rising court caseloads. And since 2016, increased border crossings have accounted for growing numbers of new cases, many of them involving asylum claims.
Cases are also taking longer to complete. While pandemic-related restrictions played a role in this slowdown, case completion rates had in fact already been declining. In FY 2009, each immigration judge completed about 1,000 cases per year. By FY 2021, the completion rate had decreased to slightly more than 200 cases per year, even as the number of immigration judges grew. Thus, more judges alone are not the answer. Slow hiring, high turnover, and a lack of support staff have resulted in overwhelmed judges whose productivity has decreased as the backlog has grown.
Concerns about the quality of decision-making by immigration courts and the BIA have existed for decades. More than one in five immigration court decisions were appealed to the BIA in FY 2020, and appeals of BIA decisions have inundated the federal courts. Federal court opinions have pointed to errors of statutory interpretation and faulty reasoning when overturning decisions. Policy changes at
the BIA, ever-changing docket priorities from one
administration to the next, and some recent Supreme
Court directives have contributed to the diminished
adjudicative quality. Wide variances in case outcomes among immigration judges at the same court and across different courts around the country further point to quality concerns; for example, the rate at which individual immigration judges denied asylum claims ranged from 1 to 100 percent in FY 2017–22.
EOIR has increasingly turned to technology to manage its dockets, primarily through video-conferencing court proceedings. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated its use of internet-based hearings. Four important, yet at times competing, considerations are central when evaluating how technology—and particularly video-conferencing tools—are used in immigration proceedings: efficiency, the impact of technical difficulties, security issues, and concerns about due process.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys who prosecute removal cases also play an important role in the court system. Their use of prosecutorial discretion, along with judges’ docket management tools, help shape which cases flow through the system, and how.
Legal defense representation—or the lack of it—is a critical issue plaguing the immigration court system. Noncitizens in immigration proceedings, which are civil in nature, are not entitled to free legal counsel, as
The rate at which asylum claims are denied varies widely, from
1% with one judge to
100%
with another in FY 2017-22
2
AT THE BREAKING POINT: RETHINKING THE U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM
defendants in criminal proceedings are. But they can face life-changing, and sometimes life-threatening, circumstances when subject to an order of removal from the United States. Studies have repeatedly found that representation in immigration proceedings improves due process and fair outcomes for noncitizens. It also improves efficiency, as represented noncitizens move more quickly through immigration court. Lawyers, accredited representatives, immigration help desks, and legal orientation programs aid some noncitizens through this process. But many more move through complex proceedings pro se (i.e., unrepresented).
Federal funding for representation of noncitizens in removal proceedings is effectively barred. Public funding at the state and local levels has increased the availability of representation for some noncitizens. A large share of representation is provided by nonprofit legal services organizations and pro bono law firm resources. Nonetheless, representation is fragmented and insufficient, given the scale of need.
One element of this system that has seen notable signs of change in recent years has been how border management feeds into the courts’ caseload. The Biden administration began implementing a new
asylum processing rule at the southwest border in June 2022 that aims to ease the growing pressures on immigration courts.1 The rule authorizes asylum officers, who are part of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to make the final decision in asylum cases instead of immigration judges. Asylum seekers whose claims are denied by an asylum officer can still appeal the decision, but on an expedited timeline. As such, the rule holds the potential to reduce the growth of the immigration court backlog and shorten adjudication times to months instead of years.
Since lifting the Title 42 expulsion policy, the Biden administration has paused implementation of the asylum rule due to competing demands for asylum officer resources. But returning to the rule, and strengthening EOIR’s functioning overall, will be important for managing the flow of cases into the immigration courts and the courts’ ability to keep pace with them. Doing so depends on the court system using technology better, more strategically exercising discretion in removal proceedings, and increasing access to legal representation so that courts deliver decisions that are both timely and fair.
This report’s analysis of the issues facing the nation’s immigration courts and its recommendations for addressing them reflect research and conversations with a diverse group of stakeholders—legal service providers, immigration lawyers and advocates, current and former immigration judges, BIA members and administrators, academics, and other experts who have administered, practiced before, and studied the immigration court system. The report urges EOIR and DHS, in its role as the agency whose decisions and referrals come before EOIR, to work together to:
Strengthen the immigration court system’s management and efficiency
► Schedule new cases on a “last-in, first-decided” basis. Such a reset to the system, which has proven successful in the past, could bring processing times on new cases down to months, rather than years.
1 This rule draws in part on proposals made in an earlier Migration Policy Institute (MPI) report: Doris Meissner, Faye Hipsman, and T. Alexander Aleinikoff, The U.S. Asylum System in Crisis: Charting a Way Forward (Washington, DC: MPI, 2018).
3
AT THE BREAKING POINT: RETHINKING THE U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM
Because this disadvantages cases that have already been waiting for a long time, it should be treated as a temporary, emergency measure alongside policy and procedural reforms that protect fairness and promote efficiency more broadly. Shifting resources back to adjudicating older cases, as timeliness is established with incoming cases, is essential for shrinking the growth and size of the backlog, which should be among the courts’ highest priorities.
► Terminate cases that do not meet the administration’s prosecutorial guidelines, which focus priorities on felons, security threats, and recent entrants. One approach to this would be to task ICE attorneys with triaging backlog cases to determine which could be fast-tracked for grants of relief or for removal. Such efforts would allow the courts and ICE attorneys to focus on more serious cases, especially those involving criminal charges.
► Centralize case referrals from DHS. Instead of the current practice of having all three DHS immigration agencies (ICE, USCIS, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection) refer cases separately to EOIR, ICE attorneys should initiate all cases. As de facto prosecutors, they are best positioned to determine the legal sufficiency and priority for moving cases the government has an interest in pursuing.
► Establish two tiers of immigration judges—magistrate and merits judges—modeled on existing state and federal court systems where judges and staff are assigned to different roles or dockets so that cases move through the adjudication system efficiently and expeditiously.
► Expand the use of specialized dockets or courts that handle cases involving specific groups of noncitizens or require certain subject matter expertise, such as juveniles, families, reviews of credible fear determinations, cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, and voluntary departure.Restart the asylum officer rule and provide the support needed to implement it
► Establish a dedicated docket for the asylum officer rule’s streamlined appeal proceedings. As the most far-reaching reform the Biden administration has introduced for strengthening management of the asylum and immigration court systems, implementing the rule effectively is key to reducing the pace of caseload growth in the court system and discouraging weak claims.
Upgrade how the courts use technology
► Ensure that technology is used to make immigration courts fairer for everyone involved, such as by holding hearings remotely when parties would be unable to attend an in-person hearing. Special attention should be paid to how the use of technology can affect detained noncitizens and vulnerable populations such as children.
Increase access to legal representation
► Establish a new unit within EOIR devoted to coordinating the agency’s efforts to expand representation. The unit should collaborate with nongovernmental stakeholders to make representation of detained noncitizens a priority and to allow partially accredited representatives— some of whom may be non-lawyers—to appear in immigration court for limited functions.
4
AT THE BREAKING POINT: RETHINKING THE U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM
► Develop new and innovative ways to scale up representation by coordinating with lawyers who take responsibility for specific aspects of cases or non-lawyers who are specially trained and supervised
to do so. Legal service providers should build a multi-stage, collaborative online system that enables representation by lawyers or non-lawyers in specific stages of a case for which they have the requisite expertise (e.g., filing forms, attending bond or master calendar hearings, or seeking relief ). This approach requires creating e-files for cases, with files moving from one representative or provider to another as cases progress, resulting in both expert representation at each stage and greater efficiency in moving cases forward overall.
► Encourage efforts by state and local governments to provide and/or increase funding to support representation, especially given current restrictions on federal funding of representation in most removal cases.
Despite efforts by successive administrations to bring
the immigration court system’s unwieldy caseload
under control and to improve the quality of its
decision-making, the courts remain mired in crisis.
And while many of the most pressing problems have
roots that stretch back decades, they have in recent
years reached a breaking point. The measures
proposed in this report hold the potential to reduce
case volumes, increase the pace of decision-making,
and improve the quality of adjudications. They would
also mitigate migration pull factors that result from
years-long waits for decisions. The deeply interconnected nature of the nation’s immigration court system and its immigration enforcement and asylum systems mean that such efforts to modernize and fully resource the courts are critical to the health of the U.S. immigration system overall.
The deeply interconnected nature of the nation’s immigration court system and its immigration enforcement
and asylum systems mean that such efforts to modernize and fully resource the courts are critical to the health of the U.S. immigration system overall.
BOX 1
About the Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy Project
This report is part of a multiyear Migration Policy Institute (MPI) project, Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy. At a time when U.S. immigration realities are changing rapidly, this initiative has been generating a big- picture, evidence-driven vision of the role immigration can and should play in America’s future. It provides research, analysis, and policy ideas and proposals—both administrative and legislative—that reflect these new realities and needs for immigration to better align with U.S. national interests.
The research, analyses, and convenings conducted for MPI’s Rethinking initiative address critical immigration issues, which include economic competitiveness, national security, and changing demographic trends, as well as issues of immigration enforcement and administering the nation’s immigration system.
To learn more about the project and read other reports and policy briefs generated by the Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy initiative, see bit.ly/RethinkingImmigration.
**************************
Read the full report at the link.
Not the first time I’ve said this, but it’s time for “Amateur Night @ The Bijou” (“A/K/A Merrick Garland’s failed EOIR”) to end! Reassign the EOIR senior management folks who have demonstrated “beyond any reasonable doubt” their inability to provide dynamic, due process with efficiency management and visiononary leadership and to solve pressing problems. (This includes the inability to stand up and “just say no” to bonehead “gimmicks” like Garland’s due-process-denying, quality diminishing, backlog-building, “expedited dockets”).
It’s not an exaggeration to say that the anti-asylum, anti-human rights, anti-reality charade now playing out in Congress is driven in large part by Garland’s three-year failure to do his job by getting functionality and due process focused leadership into EOIR.
Bring in a competent, expert executive team, hand them the MPI Plan, and empower them to move whatever “bureaucratic mountains” need to be moved to get results, including, but not limited to, major personnel changes at the BIA and in Immigration Courts and taking a “hard line” with counterproductive performance by DHS (actually “just a party” before the Immigration Courts, NOT “their bosses!”)
Bring in these experts:
Judge (Retired) Dana Leigh Marks
Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr
Dean Kevin Johnson
Michelle Mendez (NIPNLG)
Professor Michele Pistone
Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow
Wendy Young (KIND)
Task this “Magnificent Seven” — folks with centuries of practical expertise and creative ideas for actually solving humanitarian problems (rather than making them worse, as per the ongoing travesty on the Hill) — with turning around the EOIR disaster; support and empower them to achieve results and to reject politicized bureaucratic meddling from DOJ and elsewhere! Make the long-unfilled “promise of INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca” — a legitimate, properly generous, practical, efficient asylum and refugee adjudication system that complies with international and domestic law and simple human decency — a reality!
This is about rebuilding America’s most important and consequential court system, NOT running an “government agency!”
This is also the “demand” that Congressional Dems SHOULD be making of the Biden Administration, instead of engaging in disgraceful (non) “bargaining” with GOP nativists that seek an end to asylum and an increase to human suffering and ensure continuing humanitarian disaster at our borders!
Amy E. Pope Director General International Organization for Migration PHOTO: IOMFilippo Grandi United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees PHOTO: UNHCR
Pope is the Director General (DG) of the International Organization for Migration; Grandi is the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
F
rom the sands of the Sahel to the waters of the Mediterranean, from the wilderness of the Darien in Central America to the Bay of Bengal, millions of refugees and migrants journey along routes that are synonymous with desperation, exploitation and lost lives. As the heads of the two U.N. agencies that protect and support people on the move, we believe this is one of the great global challenges of our time.
The loudest political response has been to claim that only tougher action can resolve it. Most recently, a number European states have announced plans to “offshore” or simply deport asylum seekers and/or make conditions around immigration and asylum more hostile.
Such plans are increasingly in vogue. They are also wrong. They overly concentrate on deterrence, control and law enforcement, and disregard the fundamental right to seek asylum. This approach is ineffective and irresponsible, leaving people stranded or compelling them to take even greater risks.
We do not want to understate the scale of the challenge created by today’s population movements. But to meet it, bigger thinking and bolder leadership are needed. The right strategy would tackle every stage of the journey, through a comprehensive and route-based approach of engagement. So, what should such a strategy look like?
First, we need to address the issues that compel people to leave home in the first place. Resolving conflicts, improving security, reinforcing human rights, providing sustained and reliable financial support to boost growth and resilience—all address the root causes of displacement and migration by investing in people’s futures. Failing to make these investments and cutting development aid are false economies.
Nonetheless, millions of people have no choice but to leave home—protracted conflicts, widescale rights abuses, intolerable poverty, and the devastating effects of climate change are just some of the causes. Yet the same point applies: offer hope and opportunity and people will take it.
. . . .
Two ingredients are essential for our proposals to succeed: cooperation and real responsibility-sharing between governments, even in these divisive times; and attention to every part of the journey. An approach focused mainly on deterrence will fail—indeed, it is already failing.
“Offer hope and opportunity and people will take it!” That’s essentially what the Supremes said 35 years ago in the landmark decision INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca requiring a suitably generous interpretation and application of the international “refugee” definition that also governs asylum.
Over the next several decades, slow but noticeable progress was made toward “realizing the full promise of Cardoza.” At one point, largely as a result of some Court of Appeals interventions, and a few positive BIA precedents granting asylum in the mid to late 1990’s, the “combined protection granted rate” for asylum, withholding, and CAT by EOIR, the primary precedent-setter and adjudicator of asylum law in the Executive Branch, exceeded 60% for those actually able to get to merits hearings in the somewhat haphazard system.
However, over the past several Administrations most of that progress has been reversed, sometimes intentionally, other times negligently. The dysfunction, mounting backlogs, poor precedents, lack of asylum expertise, endless “any reason to deny gimmicks,” and the dreaded “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” have made a mockery of justice for asylum seekers at EOIR. It has also generated a tidal wave of failure and mindless attempts by the USG to evade the rule of law and their responsibilities to fairly adjudicate asylum claims that goes far beyond our borders.
None of the nativist, restrictionist, proposals now being discussed in the Senate would help this situation! Indeed, they would undoubtedly make everything worse in the long run! They will also compromise our national security and enrich and embolden human smugglers and cartels. Nativist deterrence is definitely a “lose-lose proposition” even if many U.S. politicos are unwilling or unable to admit that!
In many ways, the “head in the sand” approach of prosperous nations to human migration reminds me of their past attempts to deny or ignore the effect of climate change — something that is directly related to forced migration and not adequately addressed by the post WW II refugee framework.
I was heartened to see among the recommendations in this article:
But this is not just about policies and strategies. It means engaging more closely with the people in mixed movements, such as offering practical and legal advice on accessing protection, to guidance on applying for third-country options. Such a chain of engagement might require new, bespoke models of collaboration but, if done strategically, would address a range of situations.\
Volunteer retired judges from various State and Federal systems could potentially assist the USG and NGOs by advance screening applicants, inside and outside the U.S., for asylum with an eye toward helping individuals make good choices and directing those unable to meet the current refugee and asylum criteria to humane alternatives. It’s exactly the type of new, creative, “model of collaboration” (and cost efficiency) that the authors recommend!
Given the current state of the world, with active wars on several fronts, and many corrupt and/or repressive governments, it’s highly likely that forced migration will continue to increase in the foreseeable future. That makes it essential that developed nations work with each other and humanitarian experts on viable, durable solutions that recognize the complexity, the opportunities, and the inevitability of human migration.
On Meet the Press today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) spouted virtually every “border myth” in the book, without much effective pushback from moderator Kristen Welker. In particular, Welker continued her practice of not featuring any experts who actually work with forced migrants at the border. Meanwhile, Graham was unwilling to condemn Trump’s Hitlerian language about immigrants “poisoning the blood” despite numerous opportunities by Welker for him to do so.
What Graham didn’t do, and Welker didn’t press him on, was establish any connection between eliminating asylum and either reducing terrorist threats or fighting drug smuggling which has been shown time and again to have little or nothing to do with individuals struggling to get appointments through “CBP One” or turning themselves in to CBP upon entry to submit to asylum screening.
Additionally, Graham continued to repeat, without evidence (other than one lame anecdote), the nativist claim that almost nobody coming to the border has a legitimate fear of return. That contradicts almost all reports from those who actually work with forced migrants at the border and elsewhere. It’s also remarkable because the vast majority of those who have been allowed into the U.S. in the past year have not had an opportunity to document and present their claims in the fair merits hearing required by law. Yet the “border debate” remains largely one-sided and reality free!
That’s not to minimize the failure of the Biden Administration to heed expert advice and make major administrative, personnel, and expertise changes in the asylum adjudication system and the Immigration Courts on “Day One.” Nor does it excuse their failure to set up an organized, mutually beneficial, system for resettling those screened the into the country away from border points of entry.
Again, the absence of coherent rational discussion of asylum adjudication by experts by Meet the Press and other so-called “mainstream media” is both telling and disturbing. Certainly, internationally-recognized experts like Filippo Grande and Amy Pope must be available to Welker. Why don’t we ever hear from them?
Demand that Congress and the Biden Administration stop the toxic nonsense of “trading” the lives and rights of forced migrants for bombs and weapons to fight foreign wars. It’s time to get serious about developing immigration and refugee policies that operate in the “real world” of human migration, eschew expensive, cruel, proven to fail “deterrence only,” and give primacy to the humanity and rights of migrants and the opportunities they present for our world’s future!
Melissa Del Bosque Border Reporter PHOTO: Melissadelbosque.comCaitlyn Yates Fellow Strauss Center for International Law & Security PHOTO: Strauss Center
This podcast from Melissa Del Bosque of The Border Chronicle and Caitlyn Yates, who actually works with migrants in the Darien Gap, gives real life perspective on the humanitarian crisis and all the reasons why more cruelty, punishment, and deadly deterrence isn’t going to solve the flow of forced migrants. But, unhappily, policy makers aren’t interested in the voices of those who actually have experience with forced migrants, nor are they interested in learning from the forced migrants themselves — a logical — if constantly ignored — starting point for making sound policy decisions!
Migration and human rights experts have excelled in court and academia. Yet, they have been consigned to wander the political wilderness, their wisdom, expertise, and real world solutions are routinely ignored or mindlessly rejected by both political parties. Colmar – Unterlinden Museum – The Isenheim Altarpiece 1512-16 by Matthias Grünewald (ca 1470-1528) – Visit of Saint Anthony the Great to Saint Paul the Hermit in the Wilderness Creative Commons
Four “takeaways” on what a consensus on migration should be:
Human migration is real;
Forced migration is largely beyond the unilateral control of any one nation;
Deterrence alone won’t stop migration;
More legal pathways for migration are necessary.
We’re a long way from that needed consensus right now!
A robust asylum system is essential to national security. A closed border is as dangerous as an open border. If you close the asylum system, they will just cross illegally. Republicans need the border out of control. This is a trap!
*****************
That’s it in a nutshell! Reality and practicality have nothing to do with it. It’s about the GOP creating chaos and fanning hate! Unhappily, Dems fall for it — every time! That’s why American democracy is on the ropes!
The Dems have ready access to the greatest “treasure trove” of real life expertise and truth about the border in history. Yet, they routinely ignore it and let themselves be “hoodwinked” by GOP nativists peddling lies, hate, and myths. It’s seriously undermining our democracy while squandering human lives and potential!
There’s deep irony in “national security” being disingenuously parroted by a party lead by a demagogue who encouraged actual insurrection against the U.S. Government! Yet Dems and the “mainstream media” fall for it! Gimmie a break!
WASHINGTON (AP) – President Joe Biden is taking a more active role in Senate negotiations about changes to the immigration system that Republicans are demanding in exchange for providing money to Ukraine in its fight against Russia and Israel for the war with Hamas.
The Democratic president has said he is willing to make “significant compromises on the border” as Republicans block the wartime aid in Congress. The White House is expected to get more involved in talks this week as the impasse over changes to border policy has deepened and the money remaining for Ukraine has dwindled.
Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, who is leading the negotiations, pointed to the surge of people entering the U.S. from Mexico and said “it is literally spiraling out of control.”
But many immigration advocates, including some Democrats, say some of the changes being proposed would gut protections for people who desperately need help and would not really ease the chaos at the border.
Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, the top Democratic bargainer, said the White House would take a more active role in the talks. But he also panned Republican policy demands so far as “unreasonable.”
. . . .
Critics say the problem is that most people do not end up getting asylum when their case finally makes it to immigration court. But they say migrants know that if they claim asylum, they essentially will be allowed to stay in America for years.
“People aren’t necessarily coming to apply for asylum as much to access that asylum adjudication process,” said Andrew Arthur, a former immigration court judge and fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for less immigration in the U.S.
Some of what lawmakers are discussing would raise the bar that migrants need to meet during that initial credible fear interview. Those who do not meet it would be sent home.
But Paul Schmidt, a retired immigration court judge who blogs about immigration court issues, said the credible fear interview was never intended to be so tough. Migrants are doing the interview soon after arriving at the border from an often arduous and traumatizing journey, he said. Schmidt said the interview is more of an “initial screening” to weed out those with frivolous asylum claims.
Schmidt also questioned the argument that most migrants fail their final asylum screening. He said some immigration judges apply overly restrictive standards and that the system is so backlogged that it is hard to know exactly what the most recent and reliable statistics are.
. . . .
WHAT MIGHT THESE CHANGES DO?
Much of the disagreement over these proposed changes comes down to whether people think deterrence works.
Arthur, the former immigration court judge, thinks it does. He said changes to the credible fear asylum standards and restrictions on the use of humanitarian parole would be a “game changer.” He said it would be a “costly endeavor” as the government would have to detain and deport many more migrants than today. But, he argued, eventually the numbers of people arriving would drop.
But others, like Schmidt, the retired immigration court judge, say migrants are so desperate, they will come anyway and make dangerous journeys to evade Border Patrol.
“Desperate people do desperate things,” he said.
*****************************
Ignoring both the powerful forces that drive human migration and folks who actually work with migrants at the border and in foreign countries seems like a totally insane way to “debate policy.” But, then, whoever said this “nativist-driven debate” on enhanced cruelty, dismantling the rule of law, and de-humanization is rational?
You can read Rebecca’s full article, with an “accessible” explanation of what’s at stake and what’s being proposed at the above link.
BIA Asylum Panel In Action — After three years of ignoring experts on how to fix asylum and the border, the Biden Administration appears ready to join GOP nativists in throwing vulnerable legal asylum seekers and their supporters “under the bus.” Cartels and criminal smugglers undoubtedly are looking forward to “filling the gap” left by the demise of the legal asylum system! They will be “the only game in town’” for those seeking life-saving refuge! There is no record of increased cruelty and suspension of the rule of law “solving” migration flows, although an increase in exploitation and death of migrants seems inevitable. Perhaps, that’s just “collateral damage” to U.S. politicos. Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
[T]he Board found that Sebastian-Sebastian failed to demonstrate a nexus between her particular social groups and the harm she faced. In its denial of CAT protection, the Board found that Sebastian-Sebastian failed to demonstrate that she is more likely than not to be tortured if removed to Guatemala. On appeal, Sebastian-Sebastian argues that the Board’s conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Because the Board’s failure to make necessary findings as to the asylum and withholding of removal claims is erroneous, but its conclusion as to Sebastian-Sebastian’s CAT claim is supported by substantial evidence, we GRANT Sebastian-Sebastian’s petition for review in part, DENY in part, VACATE the Board’s denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal, and REMAND to the Board for reconsideration consistent with our opinion.”
[Hats off to Jaime B. Naini and Ashley Robinson! N.B., the motion for stay of removal was denied. I have a call in to the attorneys to find out if she was removed…]
Rather than looking for ways to restrict or eliminate asylum, Congress and the Administration should be concerned about quality-control and expertise reforms in asylum adjudication, including a long-overdue independent Article I Immigration Court! Once again, the BIA violates Circuit precedent to deny asylum.
The answer to systemically unfair, (intentionally) unduly restrictive interpretations, and often illegal treatment of asylum seekers by the USG should not be to further punish asylum seekers! It should be fixing the asylum adjudication system to comply with due process, fundamental fairness, best practices, and professionalism!
Casey Carter Swegman Director of Public Policy at the Tahirih Justice Center PHOTO: Tahirih Justice Center
Here’s a statement from the Tahirih Justice Center about the disgraceful “negotiations” now taking place in Congress:
The Tahirih Justice Center is outraged by the news that the administration appears willing to play politics with human lives. These attacks on immigrants and people seeking asylum represent not simply a broken promise, but a betrayal and we urge the President and Congress to reverse course.
“I am gravely concerned that, if passed, these policies will further trap and endanger immigrant survivors of gender-based violence. Selling out asylum seekers and immigrant communities under the guise of ‘border security’ in order to pass a supplemental funding package is absolutely unacceptable,” said Casey Carter Swegman, Director of Public Policy at the Tahirih Justice Center. “And we know the impact of these cruel, deterrence-based policies will land disproportionately on already marginalized immigrants of color. I urge the White House and Congress not to sell out immigrants and asylum seekers for a funding deal.”
Every day, people fleeing persecution – including survivors of gender-based violence – arrive at our border having escaped unspeakable violence. Raising the fear standard, enacting a travel ban, putting a cap on asylum seekers, and expanding expedited removal nationwide (to name just a few proposals that have been floated in recent days) will do nothing to solve the challenges at the southern border and serve only to create more confusion, narrow pathways to humanitarian relief, increase the risk of revictimization and suffering, and punish immigrants seeking safety and a life of dignity.
These kinds of proposals double down on the climate of fear that many immigrants in this country already face on a day-to-day basis and will disproportionately impact Black, Brown and Indigenous immigrant communities.Immigrants should not be met with hostile and unmanageable policies that violate their humanity as well as their legal rights. We can and must do better.
These are “negotiations” in which those whose legal rights and humanity are being “compromised” (that is, tossed away) have no voice at the table as politicos ponder what will best suit their own interests.
Rachel Perić Executive Director Welcoming America PHOTO: X
Rachel writes on LinkedIn:
As I head to Geneva to participate in the UN Global Refugee Forum, representing Welcoming America and also as a proud member of the Refugee Council USA (RCUSA), it’s timely to see this narrative-shifting story in the The Washington Post about the power of local leaders to advance a #welcoming infrastructure and reframe who #belongs in an era of migration.
I’m looking forward to presenting more on the movement to show that – far from the narratives of scarcity and chaos being presented by the far right – cities and towns, large and small, rural and urban, are showing that abundance, capacity, and human rights can be driving values.And also putting these values into practice through policies that earn them the designation of #certifiedwelcoming.
Thank you to Pittsburgh Mayor Gainey and his staff, especially Feyisola Akintola (formerly Alabi) MBA, MSUS, featured in this story, for your inspiring leadership and commitment.
And to so many others across the country and globe who are lighting the way.
You can read the WashPost article at the link above.
The WashPost article by Tim Craig is one of the more insightful pieces on migration and the border published by the “mainstream media” recently. This is a great story! Why has the Biden Administration done such a horrible job of asylum seeker resettlement? Also, seems like some missed potential for NGOs to fill the gap in getting folks to places where they are needed and will be appreciated.
“We are not here to reject any immigration. As a matter of fact, we want to make this the most safe, welcoming, thriving place in America, and you can’t do that without immigration,” Pittsburgh Mayor Ed Gainey (D) said in an interview, adding that he does not make distinctions on the basis of someone’s immigration status or how the person entered the country. “Why wouldn’t we want them?”
Thanks so much for your dynamic, inspirational, humanitarian leadership, Rachel! The Administration, Congress, and the media would do well to pay more attention to what experts like you are saying and reject the cruel, anti-humanitarian, false narratives that currently appear to be “guiding” the one-sided asylum “debate” in Congress!
LIKE
COMMENT
