Journal on Migration and Human Security – Page 2

RUTH ELLEN WASEM @ THE HILL: Trump’s Bogus Terrorism Claims Endanger America!

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/424189-terrorism-is-not-a-thing-to-cry-wolf-about

Ruth writes:

In the manic push for a border wall, some officials in the Trump administration have cried wolf about the number of terrorists caught trying to enter the United States. Terrorism is a serious threat and should not be trotted out to justify an unpopular policy proposal. It is a false alarm that, as the ancient story of the shepherd boy who cried wolf teaches, results in no one believing the cry when the wolf eventually does come to eat the sheep.

On Jan. 4, 2019, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said that nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists were picked up trying to cross the southern border last year. She made the remarks in anticipation of President Trump’s meeting with congressional leaders on funding the government and his request for $5 billion for a border wall. When Fox News’ Chris Wallace challenged these claims of thousands of terrorists attempting entry that Sanders and Department of Homeland (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen have made, Sanders refused to correct the record, alleging that the southern border is the “most vulnerable point of entry.”

Obfuscation, misrepresentation and falsification of immigration statistics has become commonplace in the Trump administration, the most glaring of which is the 2018 report that the Department of Justice (DOJ) co-authored with DHS. Eighteen former national security experts who had worked at the highest levels in several administrations wrote a letterseverely critiquing the report. They identified a number of mischaracterizations in the report and sought its rescission under the Information Quality Act (IQA).

In doing so, the national security experts emphasized the damage such a misleading report inflicts on counterterrorism efforts. They concluded: “Terrorists’’ success or failure in spreading fear and provoking self-inflicted overreactions hinges, in significant part, on how the public understands the actual threat that terrorists pose. DOJ’s and DHS’s Report distorts that threat in ways that run contrary not only to the IQA but also to sound, responsible approaches to counterterrorism.” Although DOJ has acknowledged errors in the 2018 report, officials in the Trump administration refuse to correct the record and continue to the muddy and distort the research.

In fact, most of the suspected terrorists or suspicious foreign nationals are detected abroad and intercepted before they set foot on American soil or when they attempt to enter at a port of entry. Improvements in intelligence gathering and sharing, along with advances in technologies, have greatly enhanced the rigor of visa screening abroad. State Department consular officers use biometric and biographic databases to screen all foreign nationals seeking visas. They also use facial recognition technology to screen applicants against photographs of known and suspected terrorists obtained from the Terrorist Screening Center. Consular officials partner with the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) to utilize the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment on known and suspected terrorists and terrorist groups.

National security screenings do not end with consular visa processing. As I have written, commercial airlines are required to make passenger name record data available to DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP) up to 72 hours in advance of travel. Biographic traveler data is submitted to the Advance Passenger Information System. Passenger data are forwarded to CBP’s National Targeting Center (NTC), where they once again are vetted against intelligence and law enforcement databases. Finally, CBP inspectors examine and verify U.S. citizens and foreign nationals who seek admission to the United States at all ports of entry, linking with the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment on known and suspected terrorists and terrorist groups.

With such a rigorous and extensive web of national security screenings conducted on millions of foreign travelers, it is credible that the United States had almost 4,000 “hits” of suspicious individuals, including more than a few false-positive “hits” on people with similar names. What is not credible is the claim that 4,000 known or suspected terrorists attempted to cross the southern border.

The latest reporting on actual statistics presents a sharply different picture than the one drawn by Nielsen and Sanders. Julia Ainsley of NBCreports, “U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered only six immigrants at ports of entry on the U.S-Mexico border in the first half of fiscal year 2018 whose names were on a federal government list of known or suspected terrorists.” Nick Rasmussen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center from December 2014 through December 2017, characterized the threat of terrorists crossing the southern border as more of a “theoretical vulnerability than an actual one.”

If anything, Trump’s border wall would divert needed resources away from stymieing terrorist travel at land ports of entry. Terrorists are not likely to trek through the desolate lands along the southern border if our ports of entry are overburdened, understaffed and lacking in the latest technologies.

Ruth Ellen Wasem is a clinical professor of policy at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, the University of Texas in Austin. For more than 25 years, she was a domestic policy specialist at the U.S. Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Service. She has testified before Congress about asylum policy, legal immigration trends, human rights and the push-pull forces on unauthorized migration. Follow her on Twitter @rewasem.

*********************************************

Vladimir Putin must be in “celebration mode” to see all the damage that Trump is inflicting on America and our national security. Who needs an army, spies, missiles, drones, bombs, or any other type of weapons when they have Trump’s daily internal war on America and American institutions.

PWS

01-09-19

RUTH ELLEN WASEM @ THE HILL: “Trump’s Wall Would Be A Symbol Of Failure”

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/423079-trumps-wall-would-be-a-symbol-of-failure

Ruth writes:

If erected, President Trump’s border wall would be a symbol for America’s failure to implement effective immigration policies. It would be a tombstone marking the abandonment of our values that protect refugees and welcome immigrants. It would be a monument to our neglect to support healthy democracies in our hemisphere.

Most Americans, of course, do not support a border wall. Public opinion polls from December 2018 found that 54 percent to 57 percent of those surveyed did not support building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Most recently, the NPR/PBS/Marist Poll similarly reported that 56 percent of those surveyed thought President Trump should compromise on the border wall.

One only needs to turn to border security experts for reasons not to support a border wall. They note that the United States already has invested over $2 billion to build about 700 miles of fencing and has spent billions of dollars on border surveillance technologies. A 2016 study by the Migration Policy Institute that reviewed research from across the globe found little evidence that border walls stopped unauthorized migration. At best, the such barriers divert, rather than prevent, illegal flows.

It’s difficult to make a case for the border wall since unauthorized migration from Mexico has dropped to historic lows in recent years. The only significant uptick are the well-documented flows of asylum-seekers from Central America. Others more expert than I have warned about the dangers to our hemisphere if we turn our back on the violence and breakdown of civil society in the Northern Triangle. It is irresponsible to abandon Mexico to deal with the Central Americans displaced by the violence. Building Trump’s wall is not an honorable or a credible policy response, and it puts the stability of the whole region at risk.

The good news is that responsible and effective immigration policies do not need to be highly partisan issues. Democrats and Republicans are at an impasse only because President Trump insists that he needs $5 billionfor his border wall. When it comes to immigration reform and border control, there is considerable common ground among Republicans and Democrats.

Reasonable policymakers in both parties long have known that border security resources need to be committed to modernizing our ports of entry (POEs). As RAND border security expert Blas Nunez-Neto has written, “(P)olicymakers could consider investing in improvements to the ability to detect narcotics at ports of entry, the common entry point for the most dangerous drugs.” In addition, national security and commerce require that we upgrade the infrastructure at POEs to be able to handle the flow of people and goods in the 21st century. Neglecting the POEs in pursuit of a border wall is shortsighted and dangerous.

There long has been bipartisan support for increasing the number of immigration judges and asylum officers along the southern border. For example, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) have supported increasing the number of judges. We would not need to turn a Walmart into a detention center if there were sufficient adjudicators and judges to process credible-fear and asylum cases fairly and expeditiously. Asylum-seekers and other migrants would not be languishing along the border, and children would not be separated from their parents, if we funded adjudicators commensurate with border security.

Finally, for the past two decades, policymakers from both sides of the political aisle have recognized the need to reform legal immigration so that it better conforms to the national interest. Several times during the Bush and Obama administrations, comprehensive immigration reform billsdrafted by a bipartisan group of senators passed the U.S. Senate. Even the “Dreamers” who enjoy broad and bipartisan support have not seen legislation enacted to resolve their immigration status. In other words, there is agreement that immigration policy should be revised to reflect the national interest, but we have not yet reached a consensus on what constitutes the national interest. This, not the wall, is the debate that should engage us.

At the dawn of 2019, it is time to leave failed ideas behind and move immigration reform and control forward.

Ruth Ellen Wasem is a clinical professor of policy at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, the University of Texas in Austin. For more than 25 years, she was a domestic policy specialist at the U.S. Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Service. She has testified before Congress about asylum policy, legal immigration trends, human rights and the push-pull forces on unauthorized migration.

*******************************

I agree with Ruth that for $5+ billion we should get some real border security, which certainly should include fairer, more efficient, more humane processing of asylum applicants. That, rather than bogus “Walls” (which wouldn’t be built for years anyway), more expensive, needless, and inhumane detention, and gimmicks like “return to Mexico” and intentional slowdowns in applicant processing is the way to get individuals to apply for asylum at ports of entry.

That being said, I’m sure that border security could include some physical barriers in places where experts think they actually would assist humane, professional border enforcement.

I also think, as Nolan and others have suggested, that some form of “Dreamer Relief” could be part of a compromise border security that could gain bipartisan support.

PWS

01-07-19

RUTH ELLEN WASEM @ THE HILL REMINDS US THAT NOT ONLY IS “BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP’ ENSHRINED IN OUR CONSTITUTION, IT’S ALSO A GREAT CONCEPT —- Without It, Many Americans, Regardless of Parentage, Would Be Disenfranchised & America Would Be Creating Generations of “Stateless Individuals” In Our Midst!

https://itk.thehill.com/opinion/immigration/398865-theres-no-place-like-home

Ruth writes:

Lost in last month’s heroic drama rescuing the Thai youth soccer team is that three of the boys and their coach are stateless individuals; that is, they have no citizenship papers from any country. While they were trapped in the cave, it was the least of their problems. As their lives begin to return to a new normal, the obstacles of their statelessness are compounding their challenges.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), a stateless child is born every 10 minutes somewhere in the world. UNHCR estimates that at least 10 million people in the world are stateless and subject to severe consequences. Stateless people typically are denied the protections of the laws of the nation, limited in their access to labor markets, and restricted from the social safety net. Jacqueline Bhabha, professor of the Practice of Health and Human Rights at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, concludes that being stateless as a child can stunt opportunity, erode ambition and destroy the sense of self-worth.

In this context of an emerging crisis of stateless children, why would anyone propose legal and policy changes that would exacerbate statelessness?Those who argue that the United States should end birthright citizenship are doing just that. Recently, Michael Anton, who had been a national security adviser to President Trump, published an editorial arguing against birthright citizenship. Grounded in the Constitution, birthright citizenship is automatically granted to any individual born within and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. As a candidate, Donald Trump suggested ending birthright citizenship, labeling it the “biggest magnet for illegal immigration.” An excellent series of editorials debating the matter has ensued, largely centered on legal issues.

Beyond the legal debate lies the policy crisis that would unfold if the United States abandoned birthright citizenship: Ending birthright citizenship would place an undue burden on U.S. citizens as they scramble to obtain appropriate government documents to establish that they are U.S. citizens. Children of citizens as well as children of foreign nationals would run the risk of becoming stateless.

As respected immigration attorney Margaret Stock has noted, most U.S. citizens rely on the birthright citizenship rule to establish their citizenship. A birth certificate from a jurisdiction in the United States is all one needs currently. Each U.S. state has its own unique registry of births, and most vital statistic records are kept at the county level. These local birth registries do not verify the citizenship of the child’s parents.

Equally critical, a birth certificate is the linchpin of all other state and federal government identity documents. It is required for state-issued driver’s licenses and state ID cards, as well as federally-issued Social Security cards and passports. If a birth certificate issued by a local jurisdiction in the United States no longer establishes that the person is a U.S. citizen, what would be the qualifying document?

At this time, a passport is the only document the U.S. government issues that confirms both the individual’s identity and citizenship. Fewer than half (46 percent) of U.S. citizens have passports. A 2006 surveysponsored by the Brennan Center at New York University estimated that more than 13 million U.S. adults lacked readily available documentation of citizenship, and a birth certificate was one of the documents included as proof.

Imagine the steps new parents would have to go through to establish their child’s citizenship if birthright citizenship were abandoned. Expectant mothers would need to pack their passport or a bundle of identification documents in the overnight bag readied for the baby’s delivery.

These bureaucratic hurdles would be particularly onerous for low-income citizens or citizens living in rural or geographically underserved areas. The Brennan Center survey also found that citizens earning less than $25,000 per year are more than twice as likely to lack ready documentation of their citizenship as those earning more than $25,000. If a birth certificate no longer would be proof of citizenship, this disparity would rise substantially. Such citizens might find themselves stateless because they would not be able to acquire the documents needed to establish U.S. citizenship.

UNHCR cites three major causes of statelessness: discrimination, gaps in nationality laws, and lack of birth registrations. Would the political leaders who oppose birthright citizenship support the establishment and funding of a federal system of birth registration that provided citizenship documents to all U.S. citizen children?

Opponents of birthright citizenship may have their eyes set on the children of unauthorized migrants, but the impact would be equally acute on the children of U.S. citizens who do not have the wherewithal to maneuver the bureaucracy to acquire citizenship documents.

Ruth Ellen Wasem is a clinical professor of policy at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, the University of Texas in Austin. For more than 25 years, she was a domestic policy specialist at the U.S. Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Service. She has testified before Congress about asylum policy, legal immigration trends, human rights and the push-pull forces on unauthorized migration. She is writing a book about the legislative drive to end race- and nationality-based immigration.

*********************************************

Although this article originally was published in The Hill in July 2018, Ruth recently reminded me of its continuing relevance and timeliness.

The beauty of the 14th Amendment is that although Congress has been dilatory in resolving the status of millions of undocumented Americans who are significant contributors to our society and economy, because of the 14th Amendment, the issue is slowly but surely “self-resolving.”

As the “older generation” of undocumented Americans passes on, the overwhelming number of their offspring are full US citizens and are able to fully integrate into our society and have the advantages of belonging and full political rights that were denied to their parents. Rather than building generations of disenfranchised, underutilized, and likely disgruntled residents in our midst, the American citizenry automatically renews itself.

And, I’m sure that this new generation of Americans will give some careful thought to the hateful, wrong, and outright racist rhetoric being promoted by Trump, Sen. Lindsay Graham, and other GOP White Nationalists. That’s why real national leadership would be wise to unite, rather than divide America and to promote a humane and inclusive solution to the issue of undocumented immigration.

The totally bogus and disingenuous argument being pushed by Trump and the racist right is that children of undocumented individuals aren’t “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US. That is of course, total BS — doesn’t even pass the “straight face” test!” If it were true, no undocumented individual could be removed from the US because they would not be “subject to the jurisdiction” of our courts and legal system. Nor could they be punished for crimes or required to comply with our traffic laws, etc., because they would not be “subject to our jurisdiction.” What would happen to Ol’ Gonzo’s “zero tolerance” policy then. Indeed, our whole system for regulating, admitting, excluding, and removing foreign nationals is based on the reality that regardless of their status, they are subject to our laws and legal system.

In other words, we have “jurisdiction” over them, unlike foreign diplomats and heads of state who, to a large extent, are “diplomatically immune” from many of our laws and regulations. That’s actually the very limited category to whom Congress intended the term “subject to the jurisdiction” to apply.

PWS

10-31-18

THE HILL: RUTH ELLEN WASEM WITH SOME SAGE ADVICE ON THE CARAVAN — But, Is Anyone In The Administration Actually Interested In The Truth?

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/413206-caravan-hysteria-is-unwarranted-many-more-have-come-before

The hysteria over the caravan of Central American asylum-seekers traveling north towards the United States is spiraling out of proportion. A calm review of the facts and the historical context of migration from this hemisphere make clear that the United States has the laws and policies in place to respond humanely — in keeping with our values and our laws.

There are varied estimates of the number of people in the caravan, ranging from the Mexican government’s estimate of 3,630 migrants to the United Nations spokesperson’s estimate of 7,000 migrants. According to the Washington Post, Mexican officials report that they have processed 1,700 asylum cases. Whether the caravan will grow in numbers or dissipate remains to be seen.

What we do know is that the United States has handled much larger influxes of asylum-seekers. And we did so without sacrificing our laws and our values.

Cuba long has been a source of asylum-seekers, as Haiti has been. In 1980, for example, a mass migration of asylum-seekers, known as the Mariel boatlift, brought approximately 125,000 Cubans and 25,000 Haitians to South Florida over a six-month period. In 1992, the U.S. Coast Guard interdicted 37,618 Haitians who had set sail to the United States and took many of them to Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. While the treatment of the Haitians was not our finest hour as a nation, we did pre-screen those at Guantanamo for credible fear and return others to Haiti with the option of in-country refugee processing. The estimates of migrants in the caravan are comparable to the number of Cubans (7,163) the U.S. Coast Guard and Border Patrol picked up in fiscal year 1997.

The civil wars in Central America during the 1980s prompted asylum-seekers that numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Data on asylum cases filed with the then-Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) show that about 126,000 Nicaraguans, 126,300 Salvadorans and 41,942 Guatemalans applied for asylum in the United States from fiscal year 1981 through 1990.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch in November 1998, then-Attorney General Janet Reno designated temporary protected status (TPS) for unauthorized Hondurans and Nicaraguans in the United States. In 2001, the George W. Bush administration decided to grant TPS to Salvadorans following two earthquakes that rocked El Salvador. The number of Central Americans who received these various temporary protections approached 270,000.

For those who are fearful that bad actors are hiding amid the asylum-seekers in the caravan, rest assured that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) puts all such migrants through rigorous border security screening systems. CBP collects biometric data, performs background checks, and runs them through a host of criminal and national security databases.

Lest we forget, border apprehensions of all irregular migrants (including asylum-seekers) are now at historic lows. From a peak of 1.6 million in fiscal year 2000, the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended just under 304,000 last fiscal year. Research conducted by Stephanie Leutert at the University of Texas found that in fiscal year 2017 less than 0.1 percent of those apprehended — 228 migrants — were members of the MS-13 gang.

We do not need to send military troops to the border; rather, we need to adequately staff the asylum offices and immigration courts at the border. Funding for asylum officers and immigration judges has not been commensurate with the substantial increases in border security funding, despite the obvious interconnections among these functions. We also need to reinstitute in-country refugee processing in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, and extend it to include adults as well as minors. Cutting assistance to Mexico and Central America — which President Trump suggests would punish the source countries into stopping the migration — most likely would exacerbate the underlying problems and increase the number of people fleeing north.

It’s time to calm down and remember that we are a nation of laws and a people of values. We can handle this.

Ruth Ellen Wasem is a clinical professor of policy at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, the University of Texas in Austin. For more than 25 years, she was a domestic policy specialist at the U.S. Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Service. She has testified before Congress about asylum policy, legal immigration trends, human rights and the push-pull forces on unauthorized migration.

*****************************

Right on, Ruth! Couldn’t agree with you more. But, sadly, I doubt that anyone in this Administration is paying attention. They aren’t trying to solve the problem. Rather they see the humanitarian plight and misfortune of others as an “opportunity” to promote and advance their White Nationalist agenda of lies, racism, and fear mongering to “energize their base” in advance of the midterms (and also to divert attention from Trump’s failure to deliver on his promise to build that wall).

But, setting the record straight is always a good idea even when it falls on deaf ears. Someday, we will have wiser leaders who will be generally interested in understanding the past and using its lessons to build a better future for everyone!

PWS

10-26-17

THE HILL: RUTH ELLEN WASEM ON HOW THE WHITE NATIONALIST IMMIGRATION AGENDA IS PREVENTING US FROM HAVING REALISTIC DISCUSISONS ABOUT FUTURE IMMIGRATION!

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/406876-our-policies-on-immigration-should-be-forward-thinking

Ruth writes:

. . . .

In addition to inflating the number of immigrants, the political rhetoric coming from the right issues ominous warnings about immigrants from Mexico in particular. The nativist right fabricates a narrative that Mexican migration is a problem to be solved. While Mexico continues to be the largest single source country for immigrants, its relative share of the flow is diminishing.

In fiscal year 2000, immigrants from Mexico made up 20 percent of all people who became legal permanent residents (LPRs) of the United States. That percentage had fallen to 14.7 percent in fiscal year 2016. What characterizes Mexican immigration to the United States is that 68 percent in FY 2016 were the immediate relatives (spouses, minor children and parents) of U.S. citizens, the top priority of U.S. immigration laws since the 1920s.

A closer look at the recently released census data shows other trends that are positive for our nation. For example, foreign-born residents who are naturalized citizens have a median household income of $72,140 that compares favorably to native-born citizens’ median household income of $72,165. This income parity results in no small way from the growing number of Asian immigrants working in professional and managerial occupations and who are employed by educational and health sectors of the economy.

Although first-generation foreign-born families have higher poverty rates (15.7 percent) than the national overall rate (10.4 percent), second-generation families have lower poverty rates (9.3 percent) than the national rate.

This pattern of immigrant success, based on the talent and diligence of immigrants themselves, also has roots in the Immigration Amendments Act of 1990, which sought to increase avenues for “the best and the brightest” immigrants. By more than doubling the number of visas for persons of extraordinary ability, outstanding professors and researcher, or certain multinational executives and managers, and of persons with advanced degrees, immigrants with these traits have come to the United States in substantial numbers since its enactment.

The 1990 law also rewrote the H-1B visa for temporary professional specialty workers, which has been the leading pathway for immigrants to the United States and has been critical in the global competition for talent. The increased use of H-1B visas, as well as other nonimmigrant visas, has fostered much of the growth in immigrants with executive and professional occupations over the past two decades. My research offers fuller analyses of how policies directed at global competition, employment-based immigration and temporary professional workers have constricted, as well as fostered, the flow of immigration to the United States.

If there is anything made clear by these recent demographic trends it is that our policies on immigration should be forward-thinking, rather than backward-focused. Building a wall along the border with Mexico, a nation with a declining fertility rate and purportedly a positive employment outlook, is a Maginot Line for the 21st century. As I noted earlier, most Mexican immigrants are the immediate family of U.S. citizens.

Rather, we should be using these data to help us frame a debate about what the future of America will look like. We should be discussing policies such as: what are optimal levels of immigration? How should we balance this optimal level among family, employment and humanitarian flows? What role does temporary migration play in shaping future flows? These are not easy policy questions, so we need to get busy discussing our way forward.

Ruth Ellen Wasem is a clinical professor of policy at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, the University of Texas in Austin. For more than 25 years, she was a domestic policy specialist at the U.S. Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Service. She has testified before Congress about asylum policy, legal immigration trends, human rights and the push-pull forces on unauthorized migration.

***************************************

Read Ruth’s complete article over on The Hill at the link.

We should be discussing:

How best to integrate the millions of law-abiding undocumented residents currently in and contributing to the United States into our society;
How to increase legal immigration so that in the future these beneficial workers, family members, and refugees who are also beneficial to the United States can come thorough the legal system rather than being forced into the “extra-legal” system as has happened in the past.
Notably, doing the foregoing two things would not only reduce US Immigration Court dockets to manageable levels, but also would allow DHS enforcement to concentrate on the real “bad guys” rather than treating maids and gardeners like bank robbers.

Instead, we’re tied up fighting against the absurd White Nationalist restrictionist agenda that seeks to limit legal immigration to “white guys” and to wipe out our national commitment to refugees and asylees while artificially “jacking up” Immigration Court backlogs and misdirecting DHS immigration enforcement. Talk about the “worst of all worlds!”

PWS

09-17-18

PROFESSOR RUTH ELLEN WASEM IN THE HILL: SAVING ICE – Ditch The Wanton & Counterproductive Cruelty – Supplement “Essential Functions” With “Quality of Life Enforcement!”

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/395358-abolishing-ice-good-policy-bad-politics

Ruth writes:

. . . .

The privatization of ICE detention centers has exacerbated the problems the bureau faces and has given considerable fodder to media exposes of abuses. The DHS Office of Inspector General recently released a scathing report on failures of the private contractors to comply with detention standards. It’s time to restructure the responsibilities to administer detention and removal policies more humanely.

To its credit, ICE also performs critical assignments that include investigating foreign nationals who violate the laws. The main categories of crimes its agents investigate are suspected terrorism, criminal acts, suspected fraudulent activities (i.e., possessing or manufacturing fraudulent immigration documents) and suspected smuggling and trafficking of foreign nationals. ICE investigators are housed in the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) component and are among those who would dismantle ICE.

If ICE is not at the border performing critical background checks and national security screenings, who does? First, the State Department consular officers screen all foreign nationals requesting a visa, employing biometric technologies along with biographic background checks. In some high-risk consulates abroad, ICE assists in national security screenings. Then, DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspectors examine all foreign nationals who seek admission to the United States at ports of entry. CBP inspectors and consular officials partner with the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) to utilize the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment on known and suspected terrorists and terrorist groups.

They also check the background of all foreign nationals in biometric and biographic databases such the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System. Improvements in intelligence-gathering, along with advances in technologies and inter-agency sharing, have greatly enhanced the rigor of our national security screenings.

The most effective policy for interior immigration enforcement would be one prioritizing “quality of life” enforcement. As I have written elsewhere, it would be aimed at protecting U.S. residents from the deleterious and criminal aspects of immigration. Foremost, it would involve the investigation and removal of foreign nationals who have been convicted of crimes and who are deportable, thus maintaining the important activities of the current ICE investigators.

“Quality of life” enforcement, furthermore, would prioritize investigations of specific work sites for wage, hour and safety violations, sweatshop conditions and trafficking in persons — all illegal activities to which unauthorized workers are vulnerable. “Quality of life” enforcement also would encompass stringent labor market tests (e.g., labor certifications and attestations) to ensure that U.S. workers are not adversely affected by the recruitment of foreign workers, as well as reliable employment verification systems. Many of these functions once were performed by the Department of Labor (DOL), before funding cuts gutted its enforcement duties.

Prioritizing these functions likely would go a long way toward curbing unauthorized migration. Whether DOL or a revamped immigration enforcement be the lead on “quality of life” measures remains a key management question. There is a strong case for re-establishing DOL’s traditional role in protecting U.S. workers and certifying the hiring of foreign workers. Given the critical role that ICE investigators play, it is imperative that they be housed in an agency that provides them with adequate support. These are finer points that can be resolved as the functions are reorganized.

Including a multi-pronged agency or agencies charged with ensuring “quality of life” immigration enforcement measures as part of a package of immigration reforms would only increase the strong public support (roughly two-thirds favor) for comprehensive immigration reform. Good policy. Good politics.

Ruth Ellen Wasem is a clinical professor of policy at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, the University of Texas in Austin. For more than 25 years, she was a domestic policy specialist at the U.S. Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Service. She has testified before Congress about asylum policy, legal immigration trends, human rights and the push-pull forces on unauthorized migration. She is writing a book about the legislative drive to end race- and nationality-based immigration.

*******************************************

Hit the above link to read Ruth’s entire article over at The Hill.

I believe that both Nolan Rappaport and I have previously noted the importance of better wage and hour enforcement in preventing employer abuse of both the legal and extra-legal immigration systems. Sure make lots more sense than “busting” hard-working, productive members of our community who have the bad fortune to be here without documents in an era of irrational enforcement!

There are lots of “smart immigration enforcement” options out there. Although the Obama Administration for the most part screwed up immigration policy, toward the end they actually were coming around to some of the “smart enforcement” initiatives, particularly with DACA at USCIS and more consistent and widespread use of prosecutorial discretion (“PD”) at ICE.

Naturally, the Trump Administration abandoned all of the “smart” initiatives started by the Obama Administration and instead doubled down on every cruel, ineffective, and just plain stupid policy from the past. But, that’s because it’s never been about law enforcement or developing a rational immigration policy. It’s really all about racism and White Nationalism. This Administration, representing a minority of Americans, has absolutely no interest in democracy or governing for the common good.

That’s why it’s critical for the rest of us, who want no part of White Nationalist Nation, to begin the process for “regime change” at the ballot box this Fall! And, in the meantime, join the New Due Process Army and fight the horrible excesses and intentionally ugly policies of the Trumpsters!

PWS

07-11-18

NEW SCHOLARSHIP FROM PROFESSOR RUTH ELLEN WASEM, LBJ SCHOOL @ UT TAKES ON PROBLEMS OF 21ST CENTURY IMMIGRATION GOVERNANCE — “Immigration is not a program to be administered; rather, it is a phenomenon to be managed.”

Immigration Governance for the Twenty-First

Ruth Ellen Wasem The University of Texas at Austin

6 Journal on Migration and Human Security 97 (2018)

KEY QUOTE:

Even with fragmented governance and strained resources, the US immigration system has enjoyed successes. Each year, approximately one million foreign nationals legally become permanent residents in the United States. In FY 2015 and FY 2016, the Bureau of Consular Affairs issued over 10 million visas each year to foreign nationals coming to the United States as nonimmigrants (i.e., for a temporary purpose and a temporary period of time) and over half a million visas to LPRs (Bureau of Consular Affairs 2017). CBP admitted almost 77 million foreign nationals as nonimmigrant admissions to the United States in FY 2015 (Office of Immigration Statistics 2016). That year, DOL processed 711,820 employer applications for 1,580,778 positions for temporary and permanent labor certifications Immigration Governance for the Twenty-First Century 117 (Office of Foreign Labor Certification 2016). In FY 2015, there were 730,259 LPRs who became US citizens. That same year, the United States admitted 69,920 refugees, and USCIS approved 26,124 asylees. DHS apprehended 462,388 foreign nationals and deported 444,431 foreign nationals in FY 2015. Another 253,509 foreign nationals were denied entry, and 129,122 foreign nationals returned home without a formal order of removal (Office of Immigration Statistics 2016). In FY 2016, EOIR judges received 328,122 cases and completed 273,390, including those of 8,726 foreign nationals who were granted asylum (EOIR 2017). Considerable credit is due to the people carrying out immigration-related responsibilities across the federal government.

Immigration is not a program to be administered; rather, it is a phenomenon to be managed. While there are limits to how much one government can control migration, the building blocks in Figure 3 offer a reasonable set of priorities. Effective immigration governance, coupled with laws and policies that incorporate the national interests, is key to maintaining a robust sovereign nation.

Get the entire article, which I highly recommend, at this link:

Wasem,ImmigrationGovernance21st Century

*****************************************

Words of wisdom, to be sure. If only our policy makers had the same degree of understanding.

Today, we operate on an illusion that a few folks sitting in Washington, D.C. can “pull all the strings” to seal borders, override market forces, ignore international conditions and agreements, change behavior in foreign countries, and dominate forces of human migration that have been at work since before all of us were born and will continue long after we’re all gone. It’s a toxic mix of arrogance and ignorance that will leave immigration and refugee policy in tatters for years to come.

I can only hope that there are those out there in the upcoming generations who will bring to the immigration phenomenon practical scholarship, reason, humanity, fairness, and better ideas on management of our laws for the benefit of our country and humanity as a whole.

PWS

03-07-18

U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGE RODGER P. HARRIS REPORTEDLY STANDS TALL FOR DUE PROCESS AS NEW COURT SUIT ALLEGES THAT HIS COLLEAGUES ON THE IMMIGRATION BENCH IN CHARLOTTE, N.C. ARE SCOFFLAWS WHO FAIL TO HOLD LEGALLY REQUIRED BOND HEARINGS!

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/immigration-law-blog/archive/2018/01/18/lawsuit-challenges-immigration-judges-who-refuse-to-hold-bond-hearings-palacios-v-sessions.aspx?Redirected=true

From LexisNexis Immigration Community online:

“Lawsuit Challenges Immigration Judges Who Refuse to Hold Bond Hearings: Palacios v. Sessions

AIC, Jan. 17, 2018 –

“The government cannot lock people up without giving them access to prompt bond hearings and an opportunity to show that they should be released for the months or years that it takes to adjudicate their removal cases. This lawsuit challenges the actions of immigration judges in Charlotte, North Carolina who have done just that: refused to conduct bond hearings for people who properly file bond motions with the Charlotte Immigration Court. The case was filed as a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina by the American Immigration Council, the CAIR Coalition, and Cauley Forsythe Law Group.”

Complaint

Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification”

****************************************

Go on over to LexisNexis Immigration Community at the link for the complete story.

Check out paragraph 6 of the Complaint which contrasts the conduct of Judge Harris, who holds bond hearing in accordance with the law and established procedures, and the alleged conduct of his judicial colleagues in Charlotte.

Not surprising to me! Judge Harris was my colleague for years at the U.S. Immigration Court in Arlington Virginia where he had a reputation for scrupulously following the law and providing full due process to all who came before him. Just like a U.S. Immigration Judge is supposed to do.

On the other hand, prior to Judge Harris’s arrival, the Charlotte Immigration Court had a reputation among the private bar, commentators, and the press as a place where due process was often given short shrift, particularly in asylum cases.

Of course, these are merely allegations at this time. We’ll see what happens as the case progresses in Federal District Court.

While Sessions, McHenry, and the “Falls Church Crew” are screwing around with imaginary “goals and timetables’ — untethered to reality in a system with a 660,000 backlog and no real plan for resolving it — these are the real due process problems that are festering in the U.S. Immigration Courts and denying individuals their legal right to due process on a regular basis. Where’s the concern from “on high” with a court system that’s failing in its mission to provide due process to individuals under our Constitution? Obviously, the problem starts with a “Scofflaw Attorney General” who cares more about expediting removals and a White Nationalist immigration enforcement agenda than he does about the Constitution, Due Process, and the integrity of the U.S. Immigration Court system.

We need an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court now!

PWS

01-18-18

DUE PROCESS CRISIS IN THE U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS: New Report Finds That Detained Migrants In The Arlington & Baltimore Courts Face Severe Access To Counsel Problems Which Can Be “Outcome Determinative!”

This report (see link) was prepared and issued by the Center For Popular Democracy. Here are some key findings:

Every year, nearly 4,000 people in Washington, D.C. metropolitan area courts, Arlington, Virginia, and Baltimore, Maryland, face deportation in civil immigration court without the assistance of a lawyer. Based on original data analysis of Department of Justice records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, seven out of ten detained individuals in immigration court removal proceedings in Arlington, VA and eight out of ten in Baltimore, MD did not have any legal representation.
- ■ People without lawyers faced enormous odds in fighting their deportation cases. Among detained immigrants without lawyers, people in Arlington were only successful in their cases 11 percent of the time and unrepresented people in Baltimore only successful 7 percent of the time.
- ■ Having a lawyer in Arlington more than doubled a person’s chances of being able to remain in the U.S. and quadrupled a person’s chance of obtaining relief in Baltimore.
■ Between 2010 and 2015, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained nearly 15,000 people in local and county jails2 throughout the states of Maryland and Virginia. In both regions, people who did not have lawyers were more than twice as likely to remain detained during the entirety of their immigration case, even if they may have been eligible for release on bond.
**************************************

Read the entire report which has some case histories in addition to charts and graphs.

The findings are disturbing because the Arlington and Baltimore Immigration Courts generally are considered among the best in the nation in striving to provide due process. The judges in each court are committed to representation and often go out of their way to encourage and facilitate the appearance of counsel. The ICE Chief Counsel’s Offices also appreciate and support pro bono representation.

Additionally, as noted in the report, the DC-Baltimore metropolitan area has a number of great organizations dedicated to providing pro bono lawyers, as well as local practitioners, “big law” firms, and numerous outstanding law school clinics, all of which support the pro bono program.

Yet even under these generally favorable conditions, the overwhelming majority of individuals on the detained dockets in both courts appear pro se, without a lawyer. And, the results with a lawyer are very significantly better than for those forced to represent themselves.

I fear that the new program of expanded immigration detention being planned by DHS, with courts operating in obscure, out of the way locations along the Southern Border, will further impede already limited access to counsel and therefore further degrade due process in our U.S. Immigration Courts.

Frankly, I have not seen any mention of the importance of due process or facilitating access to counsel in any of the many Trump Administration pronouncements on immigration. It’s all about enforcement, detention, removals, and prosecutions. Fairness and due process, which should always be paramount concerns, appear to be ignored.

In the end, it likely will be up to the already overworked and stressed pro bono bar, human rights groups, and community-based NGOs to enforce immigrants’ rights to counsel and to full due process. And, ultimately, that’s probably going to require litigation and intervention by the Article III Courts.

Thanks to Adina Appelbaum, who worked on this report, for bringing it to my attention.

PWS

04/13/17

Spend A Few Minutes With Me Behind The Bench! — Read My “Detained Master Calendar” Vignette From The “Journal on Migration and Human Security!”

Part IV: The Immigration Judge

There is widespread consensus that immigration courts are overwhelmed with immense caseloads, inadequate staffing, and lengthy backlogs (Arnold & Porter 2010). Non-detained immigrants in removal proceedings often wait two to three years to have their cases adjudicated. Cases on the detained docket move much faster. Despite the considerable time it takes to access counsel, determine eligibility for defenses to deportation, and gather evidence, the average life of a pro se detained immigrant’s case totals a mere 23 days (Eagly and Shafer 2015, 63).

In addition to facing institutional pressure to quickly move cases while immigrants are detained at government expense, judges are overburdened with the number of detained cases that must be efficiently adjudicated (Lustig et al. 2008). In 2015, immigration judges adjudicated and completed 51,005 detained cases, constituting 28 percent of all immigration cases completed that year (EOIR 2016, gure 11). Judges have very little face time with immigrants in their courtroom, and about half the time spent with pro se detainees involves requests for continuances to seek counsel (Eagly and Shafer 2015, 61). Furthermore, as administrative law judges, immigration judges have obligations to the respondents who appear pro se and are often required to step into the role of counsel in order to fully develop the record through interrogating, examining, and cross-examining an immigrant and any witnesses.”14

Below, a former immigration judge provides a snapshot of a few minutes on the detained docket.

*****

Prelude15

Wednesday afternoon, detained master calendar. Feeling love and dread. Love: Fast-paced, meaningful, live audience, prepared attorneys, challenging legal questions, teamwork, mediation, problem solving, saving lives, teaching, performing, drama, positive messages, mentoring, full range of life and legal skills in use and on display. Dread: Hopeless cases, sobbing families, watching goodbyes, “not-quite-ready-for-primetime” (“NQRFPT”) attorneys, bad law, missing files, missing detainees, lousy televideo picture of respondent, equipment failures, claustrophobic courtroom, clogged dockets, imprisoned by the system, due process on the run, stress.

Pregame Warm-up

“How many today, Madam Clerk?”

“Fourteen, five bonded, two continued.”

“Thanks, Madam Clerk. Let’s make it happen!”

Showtime.

Politeness, patience, kindness. Listen.

“Please rise, the United States Immigration Court at Arlington Virginia, is now in session, Honorable Paul Wickham Schmidt, presiding.”

Jam-packed with humanity. Live. Uncomfortably hot. Bandbox courtroom. Ratcheting tensions. America’s most important, most forgotten courts. Lots of moving pieces. Put folks at ease. Performance begins.

The Damned

“We’re on the record. This is Judge Paul Wickham Schmidt at the United States Immigration Court in Arlington, Virginia; we’re on a televideo hookup with the DHS Farmville Detention Center, the date is . . . , and this is a master calendar removal hearing in the case of Ricardo Caceres, File number A123 456 789. Counsel, please identify yourselves for the record.”

“Bonnie Baker for the respondent, Mr. Caceres.”

“April Able for the DHS.”
“What are we here for Ms. Baker?”

“Your Honor, we’re seeking a reasonable bond for my client, who has been in the United States for more than two decades. He’s a family man, the sole support of his wife and four US citizen children, who are sitting right behind me. He’s a skilled carpenter with a secure job. He pays his taxes. He’s a deacon at his church. His employer is here this afternoon and is willing to post bond for him. The respondent’s wife is out of work, and the family is on the verge of being evicted from their apartment. The oldest son and daughter are having trouble in school ever since their father was detained. The baby has developed asthma and cries all night.”

“I assume he’s in detention for a reason, Ms. Baker. What is it?”

“Well, Your Honor, he had a very unfortunate incident with one of his co-workers that resulted in his one and only brush with the law. I think he probably got some questionable legal advice, too.”

“What’s the conviction?”
“Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.”
“Sentence?”
“18 months, with all but three months suspended, Your Honor.”

“Hmmm. Doesn’t sound very promising. What’s your take, Ms. Able?”

“He’s an aggravated felon, Your Honor, under the BIA and Fourth Circuit case law. Therefore, he’s a mandatory detainee. May I serve the records of conviction?”

“Yes, thank you Ms. Able. Isn’t Ms. Able right, Ms. Baker? He’s mandatory detained under the applicable law, isn’t he?”

“Well, Your Honor, technically that might be right. But we’re asking you to exercise your humanitarian discretion in this extraordinary situation.”

“As you know, Ms. Baker, I’m not a court of equity. The law gives me no discretion here. So, based on what you’ve presented, no bond. What’s next? Are you admitting and conceding removability and filing for relief?”

“The family wanted me to ask for bond, Your Honor.”

“You did, Ms. Baker. What’s the next step?”

“Well, the respondent has instructed me that if you didn’t grant a bond, he just wants a final order to go back to Mexico. He’s been in detention for some time now, and he just can’t wait any longer.”

“You’re sure that’s what Mr. Caceres wants to do?”

“Yes, Your Honor.”
“Mr. Caceres, this is Judge Schmidt, can you hear me?”

“Yes.”

“Because of the crime you committed, the law doesn’t permit me to set a bond for you. Your lawyer, Ms. Baker, tells me that you have decided to give up your rights to a full hearing and be removed to Mexico. Is that correct?”

“Yes, Your Honor. I can’t stand any more detention.”

“You understand that this is a final decision, and that once I enter the order you will be removed as soon as DHS can make arrangements.”

“Yes, judge, I understand.”

“And, you’ve discussed this with your family, sir?”

“I just want to go — no more detention. Can I go tomorrow?”

“Probably not. But the assistant chief counsel and DHS officer in court are noting that you want to go as soon as can be arranged.”

“Your Honor, may his wife and children come up and see him for a moment?”

“Yes, of course, Ms. Baker. Please come on up folks.”

“Your Honor, the respondent’s wife would like to make a statement to the court.”

“I don’t think that’s prudent, Ms. Baker. She’s already hysterical, and there is nothing I can do about the situation, as I’m sure you’ll explain to her. We have lots of other people waiting to see me this afternoon.”

“Understood. Thanks, Your Honor.’

“You’re welcome, Ms. Baker. You did the best you could. Take care folks. I’m sorry you’re in this situation. Mr. Caceres, good luck to you in Mexico. Please stay out of trouble. The clerk will issue the final order. Who’s next, Madam Clerk?”

The “Not-Quite-Ready-For-Prime-Time” (“NQRPT”) Lawyer

“Mr. Queless, we’re here for your filing of the respondent’s asylum application.”
“Um, Your Honor, I’m sorry I don’t have it with me. I didn’t have a chance to get to it.”

“Why’s that, Mr. Queless? Your client has been in detention for some time now, and I gave you a generous continuance to get this done.”

“That’s very true, Your Honor, but the power was out at our office for a day, and my son crashed his car and I had to take care of the insurance and the repairs.”

“All right, come back in three weeks with your filing, without fail.”

“Can I come back next week, Your Honor? My client has been in detention a long time.”

“I know that, counsel. That’s why I wanted you to file today, so we could set an individual date. I’m already overbooked for next week, and I can’t justify putting you in front of others who are prepared.”

“Ah, could we just set an individual date now, Your Honor, and I’ll promise to file within a week?”

“That sounds like a really bad idea, Mr. Queless, in light of actual performance to date. I want to see the completed filing before I assign the individual date. That’s how we do things around here. You’ve been around long enough to know that.”

“Excuse me, Your Honor, but may I be heard?”

“Yes, you may, Ms. Able.”

“With due respect, Your Honor, at the last master calendar you said this would be the final continuance. This detained case has been pending for months, and you have given counsel a more than reasonable opportunity to file for relief. At this point, the DHS must request that you deny any further continuance and move that you enter an order of removal.”

“Well, I sympathize with your position, Ms. Able. I did say this would be the last continuance, and I’m as frustrated as you are. But I note that the respondent is from a country where we routinely grant asylum, often by agreement or with no objection from your office. Therefore, I feel that we must get to the merits of his claim. Let’s do this. Mr. Queless, I’m going to give you an ‘incentive’ to get this filed. If the I-589 is not complete and ready to file at the next hearing — no more excuses, no more ‘dog ate my homework’ — I’m going to agree with Ms. Able, grant her motion, and enter an order of removal against your client. Do you understand?”

“Yes, Your Honor. I’ll have it here at the master in three weeks.”

“Anything further from either counsel?”

“Nothing from the DHS, Your Honor.”

“Nothing from the respondent, Your Honor.”

“Hearing is continued.”

The Skeptic

“How are you this afternoon, Mr. Garcia?”

“Okay.”

“Spanish your best language?”

“Yes.”

“Is this your first appearance before me?”

“Yes.”

“You’re going to look for a lawyer before we proceed with your case?”

“Do I need a lawyer, judge?”

“Depends on what you want, Mr. Garcia. I can send you back to Guatemala at government expense or give you voluntary departure if you wish to pay your own way and avoid having a formal removal order on your record. Is that what you want?”

“Oh, no, judge. I don’t want to go back.”

“Then, you need a lawyer, sir. Officer, please give Mr. Garcia the legal services list. Mr. Garcia, this is a list of organizations in Virginia that might be willing to represent you at little or no charge if you can’t afford a lawyer. You should also check with family and friends to see if they can help you nd a free or low-cost lawyer to take your immigration case. I’ll set your case over for three weeks to give you a chance to look.”

“Can I come back next week?”

“You won’t be able to find a lawyer by then, sir. Take the three weeks. If you don’t have a lawyer by then, we’ll go forward without one.”

“Okay, Your Honor.”

“Good luck in finding a lawyer, Mr. Garcia. The clerk will issue the notices. Who’s next, Madam Clerk?”

Postlude

Out of court. Satisfied. Tired. Drained — like a Steph Curry three-pointer. Find my colleagues. Fresh air. Walk in the park. Talk sports, politics, weather. Visit Starbucks. Final refill. Recharge batteries. Master tomorrow morning. Fifty non-detained. Too many. The beat goes on. Walking free. Not an “alien.” Glad. Lucky. Thankful.

14 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 240(b)(1).
15 This account is written by Hon. Paul Wickham Schmidt, who served as the chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals before being appointed to the Arlington Immigration Court in May 2003, where he served as an immigration judge for 13 years before recently retiring from that position. While the names he has provided in this account are entirely fictional, the situations he describes are based on his own wealth of experience adjudicating cases in immigration court.

*****************************************

The full citation is:

Ahmed, Saba; Jordan, Rachel; Appelbaum, Adina, The Human Cost of IIRIRA — Stories From Individuals Impacted by the Immigration Detention System, 5 JMHS 194, 206-11 (2017). Co-author Adina Appelbaum is a former Arlington Immigration Court legal intern and one of my “all-star” students from “Refugee Law & Policy” at Georgetown Law. Read the entire collection of interesting and moving human stories here:

80-263-2-PB

PWS

03/22/17

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

“Lawsuit Challenges Immigration Judges Who Refuse to Hold Bond Hearings: Palacios v. Sessions

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: