"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.
This paper examines the staffing needs of the US Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), as it seeks to eliminate an immigration court backlog, which approached 2.5 million pending cases at the end of fiscal year (FY) 2023. A previous study by the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) attributed the backlog to systemic, long-neglected problems in the broader US immigration system. This paper provides updated estimates of the number of immigration judges (IJs) and “judge teams” (IJ teams) needed to eliminate the backlog over ten and five years based on different case receipt and completion scenarios. It also introduces a data tool that will permit policymakers, administrators and researchers to make their own estimates of IJ team hiring needs based on changing case receipt and completion data. Finally, the paper outlines the pressing need for reform of the US immigration system, including a well-resourced, robust, and independent court system, particularly in light of record “encounters” of migrants at US borders in FY 2022 and 2023.
********************
Wow! This is beyond amazing! Kudos and thanks to Don and Brendan for this incredibly helpful and informative analytical tool. Get the full report and access to all the charts and interactive features at the above link!
Just yesterday, my friend, Arizona “practical humanitarian” Robb Victor, was asking about how legislators and policy makers could do better planning for hiring Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers to reduce the backlog and address processing problems at the border. This is for you, Robb!
As Don and Brendan cogently point out, hiring alone can’t solve the problem! America needs positive, due-process-oriented, reforms to our legal immigration system embracing the reality and the economic power of robust orderly refugee and asylum acceptance and increases in legal immigration of all types.
The longer we ignore the need for these positive changes, and embrace the dangerous and defective myth that we can or should continue the failed program of attempting to enforce our way out of the migration realities and opportunities of the 21st century, the longer the disorder and grotesque waste of human lives and fiscal resources by our nation will continue.
Juan P. Osuna (1963-2017) Judge, Executive, Scholar, Teacher, Defender of Due Process
Special Collection on Access to Justice, Due Process and the Rule of Law in Tribute to Juan Osuna
On November 15, 2018, CMS hosted an event on access to justice, due process and the rule of law to honor the legacy of Juan Osuna, a close colleague and friend who held high-level immigration positions in four administrations over a 17-year period. Prior to his government service, Mr. Osuna served as a respected editor and publisher and a close collaborator with many civil society organizations. As a follow-up to its gathering, CMS is publishing a series of blogs, essays, talks, and papers on the values and issues to which Mr. Osuna devoted his professional life. It will ultimately compile these papers into a CMS special collection in Mr. Osuna’s memory. CMS hopes that this special collection will contribute to the development of a removal adjudication system that operates in a fair, equitable, effective, and rights-respecting way.
Juan was my friend, colleague, fellow Adjunct Professor at Georgetown Law, and one of my successors as BIA Chair.My tribute to Juan at the time of his untimely death in 2017 was, I believe, the “most viewed item ever” on “Courtside.” For those who missed it, here it is. https://wp.me/p8eeJm-1gd.
I am honored to have one of my articles included with those of amazing immigration “practical scholars” in this connection!
Experts on the immigration court system will highlight the systemic problems in the US immigration system that have caused and sustained the backlog, and offer recommendations for reversing the backlog.
Speakers include:
Donald Kerwin, former executive director of CMS and Editor of the Journal of Migration and Human Security
Mimi Tsankov, President, National Association of Immigration Judges and member, Expert Advisory Group
Richard A. Boswell, Professor of Law, UC College of Law, San Francisco, and member, Expert Advisory Group
As well as additional members of the Expert Advisory Group:
Gregory Chen, Senior Director of Government Relations, American Immigration Lawyers Association
Anna Gallagher, Executive Director, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.
Karen T. Grisez, Pro Bono Counsel, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver, and Jacobsen, LLP
Hon. Dana Leigh Marks (retired), President Emerita, National Association of Immigration Judges (in her personal capacity)
Michele Pistone, Professor of Law, Villanova University
Andrew Schoenholtz, Professor from Practice, Georgetown University Law Center
Denise Noonan Slavin, retired judge, Adjunct Professor, St. Thomas University School of Law
Charles Wheeler, Senior Attorney/Director Emeritus, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.
The Center for Migration Studies (CMS) is a New York-based educational institute devoted to the study of international migration, to the promotion of understanding between immigrants and receiving communities, and to public policies that safeguard the dignity and rights of migrants, refugees, and newcomers. For more information, please visit www.cmsny.org.
To be bluntly honest, this panel of experts appears to be the group that an Administration seriously committed to restoring due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices to the “retail level” of U.S. justice would have hired in January 2021, to clean house 🧹 and institute lasting institutional reforms at America’s worst courts!
They have been “hiding in plain sight” for the past 2.5 years while Garland has been flailing and failing to bring order and long-overdue reforms to his tragically broken system!
Isn’t it time to finally get the “EOIR Clown Show” off the road before it causes more fatalities? Many experts think so! PHOTO CREDIT: Ellin Beltz, 07-04-16, Creative Commons License, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. Creator not responsible for above caption.
Donald M. Kerwin, Senior Research Associate, University of Notre Dame
In forwarding this article, Don says: “The report makes the case that the backlog has nothing to do with the immigration courts and everything to do with systemic, unresolved problems in the broader US immigration system.”
The US immigration court system seeks to “fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly administer and interpret US immigration laws” (DOJ 2022a). It represents the first exposure of many immigrants to due process and the rule of law in the United States, and occupies an integral role in the larger US immigration system. Yet it labors under a massive backlog of pending cases that undermines its core goals and objectives. The backlog reached 1.87 million cases in the first quarter of FY 2023 (Straut-Eppsteiner 2023, 6). This paper attributes the backlog to systemic failures in the broader immigration system that negatively affect the immigration courts, such as:
•
Visa backlogs, United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) application processing delays, and other bottlenecks in legal immigration processes.
•
The immense disparity in funding between the court system and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies that feed cases into the courts.
•
The failure of Congress to pass broad immigration reform legislation that could ease pressure on the enforcement and court systems.
•
The lack of standard judicial authorities vested in Immigration Judges (IJs), limiting their ability to close cases; pressure parties to “settle” cases; and manage their dockets.
•
The absence of a statute of limitations for civil immigration offenses.
•
Past DHS failures to establish and adhere to enforcement priorities and to exercise prosecutorial discretion (PD) throughout the removal adjudication process, including in initial decisions to prosecute.
•
The location of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees US immigration courts, within the nation’s preeminent law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice (DOJ).
•
The misconception of many policymakers that the court system should primarily serve as an adjunct to DHS.
•
A past record of temporary judge reassignments and government shutdowns.
The paper supports a well-resourced and independent immigration court system devoted to producing the right decisions under the law. Following a short introduction, a long section on “Causes and Solutions to the Backlog” examines the multi-faceted causes of the backlog, and offers an integrated, wide-ranging set of recommendations to reverse and ultimately eliminate the backlog. The “Conclusion” summarizes the paper’s topline findings and policy proposals.
*********************************
This is a “treasure trove” of information about systemic failure of our Immigration Courts, for which I am deeply grateful to Don & Evin.
So, is EOIR a symptom or a cause of immigration dysfunction, or a mixture of both?
I’m inclined to believe that notwithstanding the evidence described in the article that EOIR is largely a “victim” of deeper problems in our immigration system, there is a strong case to be made that more principled Attorneys General, more courageous and talented EOIR personnel, and a Democratic Party with democratic values and a spine could have thrust EOIR into a due process and legal expertise leadership role, thereby making the current immigration system operate more fairly, efficiently, and in the public interest.
It’s a shame that we’ll never know the truth. That just leaves commentators and scholars to analyze the carnage and to speculate on “what might have been” or “what could be” in a different political atmosphere.
This is perhaps interesting, even significant, from an historical standpoint. But, the practical effect remains to be seen.
If I could have just one immigration “reform, it would be an Article I EOIR! Without due process, all other reforms and improvements are doomed to failure!
Efiling is not permitted for cases with a preexisting paper file, but all new cases moving forward require efiling with ECAS.
Once a case is fully ECAS, you do not need to serve ICE separately. However, you still need to submit a certificate of service that lists ECAS as the means of service. eService/mail can still be used on paper files. eService is the only method of filing for PD requests.
Also, EOIR apparently has not come up with a system for filing motions to substitute counsel in ECAS. The system physically will not let you file a new primary E-28 if there already is an attorney, and you cannot file a motion without an E-28. The workaround so far has been to file a non-primary E-28 and then to ask the court to change it to primary. Hopefully, EOIR will fix this soon.
Updated Legal Assistant Directories for NYC (attached)
Reuters: The Biden administration will place hundreds of migrants caught at the U.S.-Mexico border on house arrest in the coming weeks as it seeks cheaper alternatives to immigration detention, according to a notice to lawmakers and a U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official. A 120-day pilot program will be launched in Houston and Baltimore, with 100-200 single adults enrolled in each location, according to the notice, which was sent by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and reviewed by Reuters. See also Immigrant Rights Organizations Call on Biden to Stop Expansion of Surveillance and End the Immigration Detention System as a Whole.
TRAC: As of the end of January 2022, the pace of Immigration Court work continues to lag as a result of the pandemic. There have been not only fewer case completions, but the average time required to dispose of each case has doubled since before the pandemic began.
LAA Weekly: Valentine’s Day has been strategically selected for the “Day Without Immigrants” protest, as it is a day where an abundance of consumer spending occurs, through labor that is often carried out by immigrants.
NYT: These migrants were instructed to register with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement within 60 days to complete the process the border officials started. But in some parts of the country, local ICE offices were overwhelmed and unable to give them appointments. So the Haitian family and other new arrivals have spent months trying in vain to check in with ICE and initiate their court cases.
AP: The new statement unveiled Wednesday by Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Ur Jaddou is symbolic but somewhat restores previous language after the agency removed a reference in 2018 to the U.S. being a “nation of immigrants.”
Law360: A Washington federal judge has ruled that a Salvadoran citizen’s U.S. naturalization application was properly denied because of her admission that she distributes marijuana as co-owner of a state-licensed dispensary.
Law360: The U.S. Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review apologized on Tuesday to an attorney after asking her to delete tweets about immigration court hearings for people enrolled in the controversial “Remain in Mexico” program.
WaPo: A patchwork of federal aid kept many families afloat during the pandemic, but families with undocumented parents did not qualify for most of it, including unemployment insurance, the stimulus payments, Medicaid and food stamps.
LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS
AO issues NOID for Afghan Who Worked for U.S.
Boston AO: A NOID from the asylum office stated that an individual who worked for the U.S. government as a mechanic had not demonstrated a fear of future persecution based on his imputed political opinion. The AO held there was insufficient evidence the Taliban was or would become aware of his imputed political option. The AO also stated the Taliban does not have the capability to persecute all former employees of the U.S. and the applicant had not demonstrated similarly situated people were being targeted. Counsel has submitted a detailed rebuttal with testimony from a US military official, and the applicant’s mother was granted asylum by a different officer.
AILA: A federal district court vacated the final rules “Removal of 30-day Processing Provision for Asylum Applicant-Related Form I-765 Employment Authorization Applications” and “Asylum Application, Interview, and Employment Authorization for Applicants.” (AsylumWorks v. Mayorkas, 2/7/22)
NYLAG: Under the settlement, the Board will be required to place nearly all its opinions into an online reading room, accessible to all in perpetuity, ensuring that immigration advocates will have access to these opinions within six months of when they are issued. The Board also must post its decisions dating back to 2017 as well as some from 2016. Posting will begin in October 2022 and will be phased in over several years.
Law360: The Second Circuit on Wednesday granted a Nigerian man’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order that denied him asylum, finding that the agency made several legal and procedural errors and did not adequately explain its reasons.
Law360: The federal government properly charged a Nigerian man as inadmissible to the U.S. rather than removable, because his entry to the country on parole constituted an arrival despite his previous admission, the Third Circuit ruled Friday.
Lexis: We hold that § 706(1) allows the federal courts to command USCIS to hasten an unduly delayed “bona fide” determination, which is a mandatory decision under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(6) and the BFD process. We hold, however, that the federal courts cannot invoke 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) to force USCIS to speed up an unduly delayed pre-waitlist work-authorization adjudication, which is a nonmandatory agency action under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(6) and the BFD process. We hold that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded that USCIS has unreasonably delayed the principal petitioners’ placement on the U-visa waitlist.
Law360: The Ninth Circuit invalidated the subsection of a law that makes it a crime to encourage unlawful immigration, ruling Thursday it is overbroad and covers speech that is protected by the First Amendment.
Law360: The Board of Immigration Appeals need only to consider the possibility — not the reasonableness — of an immigrant’s safe relocation back to their home region when weighing protections under the Convention Against Torture, the Ninth Circuit ruled Wednesday.
Law360: A New Jersey federal judge signed off Wednesday on a class action settlement that would prevent the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services from refusing to place young immigrants on the path to a green card based on Garden State family court findings.
Law360: U.S. Customs and Border Protection is marking the entry records of certain foreign executives’ spouses to show that they are immediately eligible to work in the U.S. without going through the monthslong process of obtaining a work permit.
AILA: EOIR will close the Fishkill Immigration Court due to the closure of the Downstate Correctional Facility in which the court is located. Holding hearings at the location will cease at close of business on February 17, 2022. Pending cases at time of closure will transfer to Ulster Immigration Court.
AILA: EOIR updated its Operation Status website with information clarifying that alternate filing locations are designated for the purpose of filing emergency motions and explaining how it will treat other filings if a court is closed.
AILA: USCIS updated policy guidance addressing VAWA petitions, specifically changing the interpretation of the requirement for shared residence. The guidance also affects use of INA 204(a)(2), implements the decisions in Da Silva v. Attorney General and Arguijo v. United States, and more.
AILA: DHS, in partnership with the Department of Veterans Affairs and Defense, launched an online center to consolidate resources for noncitizen service members, veterans, and their families, including a request form for current or former service members seeking return to the U.S. after deportation.
USCIS: We are updating our interpretation of the requirement for shared residence to occur during the qualifying spousal or parent-child relationship. Instead, the self-petitioner must demonstrate that they are residing or have resided with the abuser at any time in the past.
We are also implementing nationwide the decisions in Da Silva v. Attorney General, 948 F.3d 629 (3rd Cir. 2020), and Arguijo v. United States, 991 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2021). Da Silva v. Attorney General held that when evaluating the good moral character requirement, an act or conviction is “connected to” the battery or extreme cruelty when it has “a causal or logical relationship.” Arguijo v. USCIS allows stepchildren and stepparents to continue to be eligible for VAWA self-petitions even if the parent and stepparent divorced.
After two plus decades of largely wasted time, effort, and resources, EOIR finally moves into the era of E-Filing!
Elizabeth notes one of the “initial workarounds” for motions to substitute counsel. While early glitches are to be expected in any system, this one seems odd because: 1) the system has supposedly been extensively “beta tested;” and 2) motions to substitute counsel have to be one of the most common motions filed at EOIR (particularly with cases often taking many years to complete with the ever-growing 1.6 million case backlog.)
I’d be interested in getting any “practitioner feedback” on how this system (applicable only to newly filed NTAs) is working out for them. You can just put in the “comments box” for this post.
Speaking of backlog, this excellent recent study and analysis from CMS (under “Friday Feb. 11” above) certainly suggests that the majority of the “aged cases” being “warehoused” by Garland’s EOIR relate to law-abiding long-term residents who are already firmly grounded in our society and should be prime candidates for “non-priority” status and removal from the dockets.
Undocumented immigrants contribute to every aspect of the nation’s life.16 During the COVID-19 pandemic, the case for legalization has become increasingly evident to the public and policymakers due, in part, to the fact that a remarkable 74 percent of the nation’s 7.3 million undocumented workers meet DHS’s definition of essential workers (Kerwin and Warren 2020). As the nation ages and its population over age 65 exceeds that under age 15 (Chamie 2021), the need for immigrant workers will only increase. US fertility rates fell for five consecutive years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the US birth rate decreased by four percent in 2020 (Barroso 2021).17
Legalization programs benefit the larger society: they “raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue” (Hinojosa-Ojeda 2012, 191).18 One study has estimated that broad immigration reform legislation, including a legalization program and a flexible, rights-respecting, legal immigration system, would add $1.5 trillion to the US gross domestic product over 10 years (ibid., 176). Another study found that a legalization program would increase the productivity, earnings, and taxes paid by the legalized, resulting in increased contributions to the Social Security (SS) program, which would more than offset the SS benefits that they would receive (Kugler, Lynch and Oakford 2013).
Indeed, the data in the CMS study confirms what many of us have suspected for a long time: That deportation of many of the individuals now occupying the Immigration Court’s mind-boggling docket backlog actually would be a counterproductive “net loss” for the U.S.!
So, why are Garland and Mayorkas letting the backlog fester and ooze disorder and injustice? ☠️ Rather than using largely self-created backlogs to support more “enforcement gimmicks” purporting to lead to theforced removal of many productive members of our society, EOIR is long overdue for some form of the “Chen Markowitz Plan” in anticipation of the types of ameliorative legislation outlined in the CMS study.
Donald M. Kerwin Executive Director Center for Migration Studies — He and his friends at CMS have some great ideas on immigration and human rights backed by some of the best scholarship around! Why are Garland, Mayorkas, and others “tuning them out” while they continue to bungle immigration policy, degrade human rights, and undermine our legal system?
Garland’s disgraceful failure to put a “Progressive A-Team” in charge at EOIR continues to drag down our entire justice system.
Note that Sessions and Barr had no trouble and no hesitation installing their “Miller Time” restrictionist team at DOJ and EOIR despite almost universal outrage and protests from human rights advocates, immigration experts, and some legislators!
Why do Dems keep appointing AG’s who are too “tone deaf,” clueless, and timid to fully “leverage” the almost unlimited potential of reforming EOIR to be a font of due process, best practices, and scholarly, efficient judging?
Why do Dems prefer the equal and racial justice “disaster zone” that they have helped to create, aided, and abetted over the past two decades of abject failure and disorder at EOIR?
There is a reason why Chair Lofgren and others on the Hill are pushing for Article I! But, that in no way diminishes or excuses the failure of Garland to make available due process and best practices reforms at EOIR, including a major shakeup of “Trump holdover” judges and managers who aren’t up to the job of running a system “laser-focused” on due process and fundamental fairness!
Trumpy nativists, posing as fiscal conservatives, want you to question whether the United States can afford to take in Afghan allies and refugees.
The better question is whether we can afford not to.
The Republican Party has cleaved in recent weeks over the issue of Afghan refugees, specifically those who served as military interpreters or otherwise aided U.S. efforts. On the one hand, Republican governors and lawmakers around the country have volunteered to resettle Afghan evacuees in their states. Likewise, a recent CBS News/YouGov poll found that bringing these allies to the United States is phenomenally popular, garnering support from 76 percent of Republican respondents. Influential conservative constituencies are invested in this issue, too, including veterans’ groups and faith leaders.
On the other hand, the Trump strain within the GOP has been fighting such magnanimous impulses with misinformation.
Xenophobic politicians and media personalities have been conspiracy-theorizing about the dangers of resettling Afghan allies here — even though we had previously entrusted these same Afghans with the lives of U.S. troops and granted them security clearances. And even though they go through additional extensive screening before being brought to our shores.
No matter; if you listen to Tucker Carlson and his ilk, you’ll hear that these Afghans are apparently part of a secret plot to replace White Americans, and that untamed Afghan hordes are going to rape your wife and daughter.
Often these demagogues try to disguise their racist objections to refugee resettlement (and immigration more broadly) as economic concerns. Their claim: that however heartbreaking the footage from the Kabul airport, compassion for Afghan refugees is a luxury Americans simply cannot afford.
Refugees are somehow responsible for existing housing shortages, proclaims Carlson. (This is demonstrably false; the reason we have too little affordable housing is primarily because people like Carlson oppose building more and denser housing.) More refugees would sponge up precious taxpayer dollars, according to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). And in general, refugees — like all immigrants — are a massive drain on the U.S. economy, alleges Stephen Miller.
This is nonsense.
. . . .
***********************
Read Catherine’s complete op-ed at the link!
Thanks, Catherine, for once again standing up to and speaking truth against disgraceful, neo-Nazi, nativist racists like Stephen Miller, Tucker Carlson, and Marjorie Taylor Greene!
By contrast, one might well ask what “value added” folks like Stephen Miller and his buddies, (Miller has largely sponged off of taxpayer funds while looking for ways to inflict misery on others and destroy America) bring to the table. None, that I can see!
Moreover, even beyond the undoubted value of robust refugee admissions, there is good reason to believe that large-scale migration presents our best opportunity for salvation and prosperity, rather than the “bogus threat” posited by Miller & Co.
As Deepak Bhargava and Ruth Milkman recently, and quite cogently, wrote in American Prospect:
. . . .
A “Statue of Liberty Plan” for the 21st century could make the United States the world’s most welcoming country for immigrants. Right now, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population lags behind that of Canada, Australia, and Switzerland. In order to surpass them, the United States would have to admit millions more people each year for a decade or longer. We currently admit immigrants to promote family integration, meet economic needs, respond to humanitarian crises, and increase the diversity of our population from historically underrepresented countries. Under this plan, we could dramatically expand admissions in all four categories and add a fifth category to recognize the claims of climate migrants. As a civic project of national renewal, with millions of people playing a role in welcoming new immigrants, such a policy could reweave frayed social bonds and create a healthier, outward-looking, multiracial national identity.
The politics of immigration, however, lag far behind the moral and economic logic of the case for a pro-immigration policy. The immigrant threat narrative has become so pervasive that many liberals have embraced it, if only because they hope to fend off threats from right-wing nationalists. President Obama not only deprioritized immigration reform in his first term but deported record numbers of immigrants, hoping that such a display of “toughness” might win support for legalization of the undocumented immigrants already here. Hillary Clinton advocated liberal immigration policies in her 2016 presidential campaign but later tacked toward restrictionism. Liberals and leftists across the global North, from Austria to France to the U.K., have offered similar concessions to nativism. But mimicking right-wing appeals is a losing gamble that only serves to legitimize the anti-immigrant agenda and its standard-bearers.
There are promising signs of potential for shifting the debate, however, if progressives lean in. Polling shows that Americans increasingly reject the immigrant threat narrative, largely due to Trump’s shameless cruelty. Last year, for the first time since Gallup began asking the question in 1965, more Americans supported increased levels of immigration than supported reduced levels. A telling barometer of how the sands are shifting is that President Biden’s proposed immigration bill is far to the left of what Obama proposed.
The work of shifting gears toward a more welcoming policy can begin right now by fully welcoming immigrants who already reside in our country. A crucial starting point would be to include a path to citizenship for essential workers, Dreamers, farmworkers, and Temporary Protected Status holders in the American Jobs Plan Congress is considering. This is not only a humane approach, but it also will stimulate economic growth and thus help finance other parts of the plan. A separate campaign by the Biden administration (not requiring congressional action) to simplify the naturalization process for nine million eligible green-card holders would help make the nation’s electorate more reflective of its population.
Getting the politics of immigration right isn’t just important for immigrants. Nativism, built upon the sturdy foundation of racism, remains among the most potent tools in the arsenal of right-wing authoritarians. Any program for economic equity or democracy will be fragile in the absence of a coherent immigration agenda. The antidote to authoritarianism is not to duck, cower, or imitate the nativists, but rather to make the case for opening the door to millions more immigrants.
If slavery and genocide were the country’s original sins, its occasional and often accidental genius has been to renew itself through periodic waves of immigration. Once we expose the immigration threat narrative as the Big Lie that it is, it becomes plain that immigration is not a problem to be solved but an opportunity and necessity to be embraced.
This, of course, also casts doubt on the wisdom of our current, wasteful and ultimately ineffective, policy of illegally rejecting legal asylum applicants at our Southern Border, rather than attempting in good faith to fit as many as qualify under our current system, as properly and honestly administered (something that hasn’t happened in the past). Additionally wise leaders would be looking for ways to expand our legal immigration system to admit, temporarily or permanently, those whose presence would be mutually beneficial, even if they aren’t “refugees” within existing legal definitions. In this respect, the proposal to modernize our laws to admit climate migrants is compelling.
Remember, as stated above:
Getting the politics of immigration right isn’t just important for immigrants. Nativism, built upon the sturdy foundation of racism, remains among the most potent tools in the arsenal of right-wing authoritarians. Any program for economic equity or democracy will be fragile in the absence of a coherent immigration agenda. The antidote to authoritarianism is not to duck, cower, or imitate the nativists, but rather to make the case for opening the door to millions more immigrants.
NDPA members, keep listening to Catherine and the other voices of progressive wisdom, humanity, practicality, and tolerance. The key to the future is insuring that the “Stephen Millers of the world” never again get a chance to implement their vile, racist propaganda in the guise of “government policy.”
Happily, many Northern Virginians have listened to our “better angels.” Humanitarian aid and resettlement opportunities for Afghan refugees are pouring in, as shown by this report from our good friend Julie Carey @ NBC 4 news:
Julie Carey NOVA Bureau Chief, NBC4 Washington PHOTO: Twitter
The local couple interviewed by Julie emphasized the impressive “human dignity” of the Afghan refugees! (I also observed this during many years of hearing asylum cases in person at the Arlington Immigration Court.) Compare that with the lack thereof (not to mention absence of empathy and kindness) shown by the nativist naysayers!
The White House denies that political cowardice caused its foot-dragging. But if true, this wouldn’t be the first time fear of right-wing blowhards distorted Biden’s immigration policies.
In February, Biden announced he was lifting Donald Trump’s draconian restrictions on worldwide refugee admissions. Then, inexplicably, Biden didn’t sign the paperwork to put his change into effect. Refugees who’d already been fully vetted, approved and booked onto flights by the State Department were left stranded.
For months, the White House refused to explain the delay; spokespeople repeated the same content-free bromides about how Biden believes refugees are “the heart and soul of this country.”
Eventually it came out that Biden was dragging his feet because of worries about political optics.
Then as now, his attempt to duck GOP attacks backfired. His delays inspired several negative news cycles about his broken promises.By the time he finally signed the paperwork, the refugee system had been effectively shut down for months, leaving Biden on track to close out the fiscal year with the lowest refugee admissions on record.
You might wonder how the nativists have responded to Biden’s attempts to cave to their preferences. Unsurprisingly: They’re still not happy!
Amid Biden’s delays over the refugee ceiling, and his decisions to maintain other (possibly unlawful) Trump-era immigration policies, Trumpers continued to attack him. Fast-forward to today, as former Trump officials ludicrously fearmonger that Afghans who assisted U.S. troops are dangerous and claim that efforts to rescue them are an extension of Biden’s “self-destructive open border policies.” Tucker Carlson and fellow Fox News colleagues accuse Biden of encouraging Afghan refugees to “change” or even “invade” America, offering rhetoric reminiscent of the white-supremacist “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory.
Here’s the thing Biden never learned: No matter what he does, these bad-faith demagogues will accuse him of “open borders.” So he might as well pursue the policies he thinks are right and not let decisions be dictated by fear of how Fox News might frame them.
This is especially true of today’s Afghan refugee crisis, since there are many conservatives who do support efforts to keep our promises to wartime allies and welcome them here for resettlement. They include veterans who fought alongside these allies, as well as Republicangovernors, senators and congressmen.Republican lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to fund more visas for Afghan allies, as Rep. Peter Meijer (R-Mich.) pointed out in an interview.
“If there is one immigration issue that could have rallied conservatives, it is the protection of Afghans who have helped our military,” said Ali Noorani, president and chief executive of the National Immigration Forum, an advocacy organization working with faith, law enforcement and business leaders. “This was a profound misreading of the politics by the [administration]. And, even worse, believing Tucker Carlson represents America.”
Biden calls himself pro-immigrant. His appointees to senior immigration posts have generally been excellent. And unlike his openly xenophobic predecessor, Biden speaks warmly of newcomers and their contributions to this country. But such words are meaningless if he still caves to the bigots when it matters.
******************
I urge everyone to read Catherine’s complete op-ed at the above link.
As I always say, actions speak louder than words! The essence of Catherine’s article is so true, and bears repeating and remembering by all members of the NDPA:
Here’s the thing Biden never learned: No matter what he does, these bad-faith demagogues will accuse him of “open borders.” So he might as well pursue the policies he thinks are right and not let decisions be dictated by fear of how Fox News might frame them.
None have said it better and more clearly! And, it’s true not just of Biden, but of Dems almost across the spectrum. When “push comes to shove” they are too often unwilling to stand up for their own values and implement them in the face of well-orchestrated right wing lies and myths.
Having a competent implementation plan, staffed and led by progressive experts, is another frequent Dem failure. The GOP has no problem bringing in unqualified ideologues and hacks to carry out their toxic agendas at the “retail level” of Government.
But, the Dems leave the “progressive all-star team” in the dugout! I’ve pointed out many times that no matter how noble your rhetoric, or meritorious your ideas, you’re doomed to failure if you don’t have the courage, expertise, and determination at the “retail levels” of Government (including the legal system, particularly EOIR) to put better Government into effect.
Catherine is right that many of Biden’s upper level immigration appointees are promising. But, the critical levels below them are still infested with Trump holdovers and folks who simply lack the progressive knowledge, courage, and skill set to constructively solve problems and implement long overdue reforms.
I’ve actually lived through it in a number of Administrations where once in office, the Dems basically carried out the GOP immigration agenda, pissed off some of their most loyal supporters, but were still characterized as “open borders” and “weak” by the GOP while actually killing, maiming, and destroying the lives of those they once had pledged to protect! Could there be a worse result?
As usual, Catherine’s analysis is much clearer, more succinct, and more articulate than the gibberish and double-talk that often comes out of politicians on both sides, but particularly the White Nationalist nativist crowd. I’ve suggested before that the Biden Administration or Dems in Congress would do well to hire Catherine as their spokesperson and “press flackie” on immigration. They also would do well to pay attention to her substantive analysis on issues including immigration and the economy.
But, even if they weren’t, we would have a moral obligation to help Afghan refugees after 20 years in their nation, during which many have been placed in life-threatening situations because of their assistance to us or their adherence to our stated ideals and promises.
Many of us have been warning for some time about the catastrophic human and moral consequences of the Biden Administration’s “slow walk” to repair the intentional, legally questionable, and unconscionable dismantling of the once-proud U.S. Refugee Program done by the Trump White Nationalist kakistocracy and its cowardly cronies, enablers, and bureaucratic toadies. (The same is true of our legal asylum system, which deals with refugees in a different context.)Now, our worst fears are playing out with the world watching and lives in the balance.
Check out this week’s digest of news, resources, faith reflections, and analysis of international migration and refugee protection, brought to you by the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS).
Haga clic aquí para la versión en español de la Actualización de Política.
Last month, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported more than 41,000 encounters with Hondurans along the US-Mexico border, an increase of 12,000 over the same period in 2019. Eugenio Sosa, a sociologist at the National Autonomous University in Honduras, said that pervasive violence, deep-seated corruption, lack of jobs, and the devastation of two hurricanes in November 2020 have contributed to hopelessness among Hondurans. “The people don’t go just because it’s really bad,” Sosa said. “The people go because it’s bad and because they are certain that it is going to continue to be bad and that the country has rotted forever.” The Biden administration continues to expel adults arriving at the border under Title 42, which permits immigration authorities to bar foreign nationals for public health reasons and to prevent them from seeking asylum. The policy has not stopped Hondurans from arriving at the US-Mexico border. According to Sosa, small, positive changes in Honduras would encourage some to stay in their home country.
On April 16, 2021, the White House released a memorandum reallocating the 15,000 refugee admission spots for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021.The historically low admissions ceiling was set by the Trump administration. In the early days of his presidency, Biden promised to raise the cap via a presidential determination (PD) to 125,000 for FY 2022 and a February Department of State report recommended an increase in FY 2021 to 62,500 admissions. Friday’s memo reallocated admissions but did not increase the admissions cap. After backlash from Democratic lawmakers, refugee advocates, and human rights groups, the Biden administration issued a statement saying that its memorandum opened up refugee resettlement to regions that had previously been blocked under the Trump administration. The administration said it will raise refugee admissions for the current fiscal year on May 15th. The fiscal year ends on September 30, 2021. It is uncertain what the new cap will be for FY 2021.
Scalabrini International Migration Institute (April 19, 2021)
In an interview sponsored by the Scalabrini International Migration Institute (SIMI), Fr. Marvin Ajic, c.s., reflects on the situation on the US-Mexico Border, differences between Trump- and Biden-era policies, and the important work of Casa del Migrante Nazareth in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, which he directs. The interview is in Spanish.
The United States government continues to deport from 200 to 500 migrants daily across its southern border under Title 42. Title 42 of the US Code gives US immigration authorities broad power to expel migrants it deems a danger of spreading COVID-19. It has severely curtailed access to asylum. Meanwhile, migrants continue to arrive at the US-Mexico border with the mistaken belief that they will be able to cross the border and receive asylum. The result is a “grim situation,” according to some immigrant advocates. Fr. Pat Murphy, Director of the Casa del Migrante Tijuana, says that US immigration authorities “keep sending more and more people under Title 42, and that means the pressure is on here in Mexico. We’re completely overwhelmed.” Tijuana’s 30 migrant shelters are all full, and approximately 2,000 migrants are camping outside a Mexican immigration facility waiting for the asylum process to resume. Fr. Murphy said that ending Title 42 and a resumption of the asylum process in Mexico would improve the situation. “All people are looking for is a chance,” he said.
The Biden administration is continuing efforts started by the Trump administration to deport about two dozen Indonesian Christians who have been living in Central New Jersey for decades. The Obama administration protected them from deportation and gave them work authorization, but the Trump administration sought to deport them. In February 2018, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order, which is still in effect but the order could be lifted any day. Advocates are surprised that the Biden administration is trying to deport the Indonesian asylum seekers because they do not fit the administration’s revised enforcement priorities. Senators Cory Booker and Robert Menendez of New Jersey along with members of the New Jersey congressional delegation submitted a letter to the Secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Alejandro Mayorkas asking that the group not be detained or deported. The letter states, “For nearly 30 years, these Christian refugees have raised families, bought homes, attended church services, and volunteered countless hours to aid neighbors. . . . These New Jerseyans exemplify the best qualities of our state. Their ability to continue living and working safely in New Jersey is critical to the well-being of their U.S. citizen children and to the benefit of their church communities and neighbors they serve.”
New policy will allow up to 90,000 workers and international graduates to obtain permanent residency.
CBC News (April 14, 2021)
Canadian Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino announced the creation of a new pathway to permanent residence for up to 90,000 foreign nationals. The program is geared toward workers and international graduates with temporary visas and in designated “essential jobs.” Minister Mendicino said, “Since COVID-19 first arrived on our shores, we have charted a course guided by one north star — that immigration is key to Canada’s short term economic recovery and long term prosperity. . . . Fundamentally, we know that by attracting and retaining the best and the brightest … we will add more jobs, growth and diversity to our economy.” To qualify as an essential worker, a foreign national must have at least one year of work experience in one of 40 health-care jobs or 95 other “essential jobs.” Some listed essential occupations include electricians, metal workers, farmworkers, cashiers, home childcare providers, and French immersion teachers. For international graduates to qualify, they must have completed an eligible Canadian post-secondary program within the last four years. Minister Mendicino hopes that the program will encourage immigrants to put down roots in the country. The application period will be from May 6, 2021 through November 5, 2021. The Canadian government will accept up to 20,000 applications from temporary workers in healthcare, 30,000 from temporary workers in essential jobs, and 40,000 from international students.
In mid-March, the Venezuelan military launched a campaign against Colombian guerrillas operating in the jungle of the western Venezuelan state of Apure. The guerrilla group, the 10th Front, became a target for interfering in the Venezuelan government’s profitable narco-trafficking business. The Venezuelan government reports that nine camps have been destroyed, 32 people arrested, and nine people killed during the offensive. Thousands of Venezuelans have fled the offensive, crossed into Colombia, and are in makeshift shelters in the border town of Arauquita. As of the beginning of April, nearly 5,000 refugees, 40 percent of them children, arrived in Arauquita. UNHCR employees are providing the refugees with tents, mattresses, hygiene kits, and face masks. Jose Miguel Vivanco, Director for Human Rights Watch’s Americas division, claims that there is “credible evidence” that the Venezuelan military carried out extrajudicial killings of three men and a woman during the offensive. The Venezuelan government, however, claims that every person killed during the offensive is a terrorist.
On March 18, 2021, the US House of Representatives passed HR 6, the American Dream and Promise Act by 228 to 197 votes. The bill proposes a pathway to citizenship for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients as well as for certain immigrant youth. In the Senate, there are two separate bills that would open a pathway to citizenship for TPS holders, DACA recipients, and certain immigrant youth. The DREAM Act would legalize DACA recipients and immigrant youth. The SECURE Act would legalize TPS beneficiaries. Each bill needs 60 votes in the Senate to pass, and thus will require bipartisan support. For 20 years, the Dream Act has been introduced in Congress, but has never become law. Although many people were excited by HR 6’s passage, many DACA recipients were not. Instead, their past experience has given them a sense of déjà vu. They are tired of the same story of a bill that progresses and does not become law. DACA recipients have been in limbo with no path to legalize. They continue to fight for a pathway to citizenship for all undocumented immigrants.
On Friday, April 16, President Biden issued a long-awaited “Memorandum for the Secretary of State on the Emergency Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2021.” The presidential determination opened up refugee admissions to regions blocked by the Trump administration but did not raise the historically low cap of 15,000 for the current fiscal year. The White House later stated it would decide on a new admissions ceiling by May 15. In this CMS essay, Susan Martin — Donald G. Herzberg Professor of International Migration Emerita for Georgetown University — outlines how the Biden administration can prepare to admit more refugees and how the United States will benefit from welcoming them.
As the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the Trump administration’s efforts to terminate the DACA program, CMS released a paper offering detailed estimates of DACA recipients, their economic contributions, and their deep ties to US communities. The paper, which also features testimonies of several DACA recipients, was published in CMS’s Journal on Migration and Human Security (JMHS). In this episode, Daniela Alulema — who is author of the JMHS paper, CMS’s Director of Programs, and herself a DACA recipient — describes the paper’s findings, shares the stories of the DACA recipients, and outlines potential policy directions for the DACA program.
On April 16, 2021, President Biden signed an emergency presidential determination that keeps in place the Trump administration’s historically low refugee admissions cap of 15,000 for FY 2021 but returns to allocating refugee admissions based on region. The next day the Biden administration released a statement saying it expects to increase the 2021 refugee ceiling next month but did not specify the number. In February 2021, President Biden proposed welcoming 62,500 refugees to the United States in 2021. Under former President Trump’s directive, stringent restrictions were placed on accepting refugees from certain African and majority-Muslim countries and priority was given to Christians who faced religious persecution and Iraqis who worked for the US military. The new allocations include 7,000 slots for Africa, 1,000 for East Asia, 1,500 for Europe and Central Asia, 3,000 for Latin America/Caribbean, 1,500 for Near East/South Asia, and 1,000 slots that are unallocated.
On April 14, 2021, Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed a bill that will ban for-profit detention centers in the state. Under the bill, one of the largest for-profit immigrant detention centers, the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, will be shut down by 2025 when its contract with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) expires. Washington is one of the first states to pass legislation that bans private prison companies, including immigration facilities, from operating.
On April 13, 2021, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that Texas and Missouri filed a lawsuit demanding that the Biden administration reinstate the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program to reduce the influx of migrants at the southwest border. MPP was established by the Trump administration in January 2019. It allowed border officers to send non-Mexicans who sought asylum at the US southern border to Mexico to await their immigration hearings. In January 2021, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) suspended the MPP program and the Biden administration began admitting program enrollees into the United States in February. The lawsuit alleges that the Biden administration’s decision to suspend the program led to a surge of Central American migrants coming to the southwest border to make asylum claims.
On April 12, 2021, President Biden nominated Chris Magnus to lead Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Ur Jaddou to head United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Magnus is currently the police chief in Tuscon, Arizona, and Jaddou was head counsel of USCIS under the Obama administration. Biden also nominated John Tien, the former senior director for Afghanistan and Pakistan of the National Security Council, as deputy director of DHS.
On April 12, 2021, the Biden administration secured agreements with Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala to tighten their borders and stem the flow of migration to the United States. Under the agreements, the countries will put more troops at their own borders to monitor migration and prevent traffickers and cartels from taking advantage of migrants and unaccompanied minors. CBP apprehended a record number of 18,890 unaccompanied minors last month and more than 172,000 people attempting to cross the US-Mexico border. In March 2021 President Biden tasked Vice President Kamala Harris with coordinating efforts with Central American countries to address the root causes of migration.
ACTUALIZACIÓN DE POLÍTICA
El 16 de abril de 2021, el presidente Biden firmó una determinación presidencial de emergencia que mantiene el límite de admisiones de refugiados históricamente bajo de la administración Trump de 15.000 para el año fiscal 2021, pero vuelve a asignar las admisiones de refugiados según la región. Al día siguiente, la administración de Biden emitió un comunicado diciendo que espera aumentar el límite de refugiados de 2021 el próximo mes, pero no especificó el número. En febrero de 2021, el presidente Biden propuso dar la bienvenida a 62.500 refugiados a los Estados Unidos en 2021. Según la directiva del ex presidente Trump, se impusieron estrictas restricciones a la aceptación de refugiados de ciertos países africanos y de mayoría musulmana y se dio prioridad a los cristianos que enfrentaban persecución religiosa e iraquíes. que trabajaba para el ejército de los EE. UU. Las nuevas asignaciones incluyen 7.000 espacios para África, 1.000 para Asia Oriental, 1.500 para Europa y Asia Central, 3.000 para América Latina / el Caribe, 1.500 para Cercano Oriente / Asia Meridional y 1.000 espacios sin asignar.
El 14 de abril de 2021, el gobernador de Washington, Jay Inslee, firmó un proyecto de ley que prohibirá los centros de detención con fines de lucro en el estado. Según el proyecto de ley, uno de los centros de detención de inmigrantes con fines de lucro más grandes, el Centro de Detención del Noroeste en Tacoma, se cerrará para el 2025 cuando expire su contrato con el Servicio de Control de Inmigración y Aduanas (ICE). Washington es uno de los primeros estados en aprobar una legislación que prohíbe el funcionamiento de las empresas penitenciarias privadas, incluidas las instalaciones de inmigración.
El 13 de abril de 2021, el fiscal general de Texas, Ken Paxton, anunció que Texas y Missouri presentaron una demanda exigiendo que la administración Biden restableciera el programa de Protocolos de Protección a Migrantes (MPP) para reducir la afluencia de migrantes en la frontera suroeste. El MPP fue establecido por la administración Trump en enero de 2019. Permitió a los oficiales fronterizos enviar a personas no mexicanas que buscaban asilo en la frontera sur de Estados Unidos a México para esperar sus audiencias de inmigración. En enero de 2021, el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) suspendió el programa MPP y la administración Biden comenzó a admitir inscritos en el programa en los Estados Unidos en febrero. La demanda alega que la decisión de la administración Biden de suspender el programa provocó un aumento de migrantes centroamericanos que llegaron a la frontera suroeste para presentar solicitudes de asilo.
El 12 de abril de 2021, el presidente Biden nominó a Chris Magnus para dirigir la Oficina de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza (CBP) y a Ur Jaddou para dirigir el Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los Estados Unidos (USCIS). Magnus es actualmente el jefe de policía en Tuscon, Arizona, y Jaddou fue el abogado principal de USCIS bajo la administración de Obama. Biden también nominó a John Tien, ex director senior para Afganistán y Pakistán del Consejo de Seguridad Nacional, como subdirector del DHS.
El 12 de abril de 2021, la administración Biden aseguró acuerdos con México, Honduras y Guatemala para reforzar sus fronteras y detener el flujo migratorio hacia Estados Unidos. Según los acuerdos, los países pondrán más tropas en sus propias fronteras para monitorear la migración y evitar que los traficantes y los carteles se aprovechen de los migrantes y los menores no acompañados. CBP detuvo a un número récord de 18,890 menores no acompañados el mes pasado y más de 172,000 personas que intentaban cruzar la frontera entre Estados Unidos y México. En marzo de 2021, el presidente Biden encargó a la vicepresidenta Kamala Harris que coordinara los esfuerzos con los países centroamericanos para abordar las causas fundamentales de la migración.
The CMS Migration Update is a weekly digest produced by the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS), an educational institute/think-tank devoted to the study of international migration, to the promotion of understanding between immigrants and receiving communities, and to public policies that safeguard the dignity and rights of migrants, refugees, and newcomers. CMS is a member of the Scalabrini International Migration Network – an international network of shelters, welcoming centers, and other ministries for migrants – and of the Scalabrini Migration Study Centers, a global network of think tanks on international migration and refugee protection, guided by the values of the Missionaries of St. Charles Borromeo. If you wish to submit an article, blog, faith reflection, or announcement for the CMS Migration Update, please email cms@cmsny.org.
Biden and Harris campaigned, quite logically and convincingly, on a pledge to do away with the illegality, cruelty and stupidity of the Trump/Miller White Nationalist, racist immigration program.
But, following the inauguration, Biden supporters working at the “retail level” of our failed immigration system have seen few meaningful changes, little if any honest dialogue, and most disturbingly, far, far too few progressive experts who can solve problems in key positions!
Encouraging Northern Triangle countries notorious for corruption and human rights abuses to stop their nationals from fleeing to safety is NOT a solution. It’s the moral equivalent of having encouraged the Soviet Union and East Germany to machine gun those attempting to flee to the West during the (not so) Cold War!
Basically, the Biden Administration is encouraging and funding some of the most corrupt and repressive nations in the Hemisphere to violate human rights, just as the Trump Administration did. See, “Policy Update,” above. That’s NOT the way to establish positive international leadership on human rights and migration issues!
Two other nuggets particularly worthy of note:
“According to [Eigenio] Sosa, small, positive changes in Honduras would encourage some to stay in their home country.” This contradicts the “conventional wisdom” that addressing the roots of the problem in sending countries is either futile or such a long-term project that it can’t be part of addressing today’s flow of forced migrants.
“In this CMS essay, Susan Martin — Donald G. Herzberg Professor of International Migration Emerita for Georgetown University — outlines how the Biden administration can prepare to admit more refugees and how the United States will benefit from welcoming them.” Professor Susan Forbes Martin is a long-time friend and a brilliant “practical scholar.” Her point that we should welcome refugees, rather than fearing them, is well taken and the key to better, far more robust, legal immigration laws and policies.
Asked repeatedly (by me and others) what accounts for Biden’s delay, White House officials have struggled to answer. Sometimes they try to blame Trump, complaining that his administration left a system in “disrepair” that requires “rebuilding.” No doubt, Trump wrought a lot of damage upon the immigration system, and more resources would be necessary to reach the much higher refugee admissions that Biden claims he wants for the next fiscal year (125,000); currently, there aren’t enough people sufficiently far along in the refugee-screening pipeline to meet that goal.
But none of this explains why the few thousand already fully vetted and deemed “travel-ready” by the State Department as of early March have not been allowed in. The only thing preventing their entry is Biden — who refuses to do the right thing and sign a simple document.
The only explanation I can fathom for what’s going on is that the White House fears ordinary Americans will confuse the refugee resettlement system with the surge of migrants at the southern border. “Refugees” and “asylum seekers” might sound synonymous, but the groups are subject to different sets of laws, screening procedures and executive authorities. One key difference is that refugees apply from abroad and are screened for eligibility before they arrive; asylum seekers apply from within our borders or at a port of entry.
In other words, refugees are doing precisely what both Biden and Republicans urge those fleeing persecution and violence to do: staying abroad, and not crossing into the United States unlawfully; proving to U.S. and international officials that their lives are indeed in danger, and that they meet the legal requirements for resettlement; enduring extensive screening to prove they don’t threaten national security or public health; and then patiently waiting their turn for admission, a process that usually takes years.
And how is Biden rewarding them? The same way Trump did: by slamming the door.
*********************
Read Catherine’s complete article at the link.
[The Biden Administration] fears ordinary Americans will confuse the refugee resettlement system with the surge of migrants at the southern border.
Wow. In 50 years of “hanging around” the migration/human rights/political scene in D.C., I’ve heard plenty of insanely lame, cowardly excuses for not doing the right thing. But, this is “Top Five” material!
I have ideas on how to solve this problem, quickly:
Invest the “big bucks” to hire Catherine as the Biden Administration’s “Head Immigration Flackie.” She can explain the situation in terms that the American people will understand. That’s what Catherine does! Brings clarity, humanity, and common sense to complicated situations that flummox politicos and press offices.
Alternatively, get a “Loaner Law Student” from the Georgetown Law CALS Asylum Clinic. In two decades of working with CALS students in court, the classroom, and elsewhere, I’ve never run into one who doesn’t have a deeper understanding of, and better ability to explain, refugee and asylum policy than any of the “inept talking heads” the Biden Administration has thrown into the fray so far.
Georgetown Law
Another alternative: Hire Don Kerwin, currently the Executive Director of the Center for Migration Studies (“CMS”) to fix and explain the Administration’s (so far) mind-boggling failure to re-establish our refugee and asylum programs — actually both legal and moral obligations (although you wouldn’t know that by listening to the mindless negative natter from politicos of both parties). Don probably knows more than any living person about the amazing, quantifiable, benefits that refugees and asylees bring to our nation and is an expert at puncturing all of the White Nationalist myths and fear-mongering that have driven these essential programs into complete failure over the past few years.
Donald M. Kerwin Executive Director Center for Migration Studies
It’s also worthy of note that because of the Trump Administration’s “malicious incompetence” combined with the Biden Administration’s “willful incompetence,” against the background of an Attorney General unwilling to speak out and stand up for the legal rights of refugees, asylum seekers, and people of color in general, (just what is the purpose of an Attorney General who won’t stand up for the people — some of us thought, erroneously I guess, that we had voted that “model” out of office last November) we have no refugee program in Latin America and we have illegally closed ports of entry to legal asylum seekers.
So there is no regular system for asylum seekers to apply in an orderly fashion in accordance with our international, statutory, and Constitutional (not to mention moral) obligations. In violation of the mandatory provisions of Article 33 of the U.N. Convention, incorporated by the Refugee Act of 1980, every day we return legitimate refugees to danger, torture, or death without any inquiry at all. The “law violators” here aren’t the desperate folks vainly, yet gamely, trying to apply for asylum under our lawless system. It’s us!
Maybe, that’s why the Biden Administration doesn’t want anyone to understand what they really are doing and how wrong-headed it is!🤮👎🏴☠️
President Biden’s top advisers promise “long-needed systemic reforms” to address a backlog of more than 1 million asylum cases in the immigration court system, which often keeps people applying for asylum waiting years to resolve their cases. That could mean some big changes to how asylum cases are processed at the southern border.
The plan the Biden administration is considering to speed up the process would take some asylum cases from the southern border out of the hands of the overloaded immigration courts under the Department of Justice and instead handle them under the purview of the Department of Homeland Security, where asylum officers already process tens of thousands of cases a year, two people familiar with the discussions who were not authorized to speak about administration plans told NPR exclusively.
Those familiar with the discussions say one outcome could be discouraging unauthorized migration. That’s because those who can argue for a certain fear of persecution are able to gain temporary residence and often a work permit as they wait out their cases.
. . . .
Advocates say they welcome a more efficient system, provided changes are not used as a way to expedite removals as the Trump administration did.
Eleanor Acer of Human Rights First says there are a host of reasons to allow asylum officers to conduct the first set of interviews and reduce the numbers, but she says it’s important that applicants have a chance to appeal to the court before being removed.
“The massive backlog must be dealt with,” she said. “But the answer to that problem is not to deprive asylum seekers of due process and a fair hearing, or to weaponize the asylum process to try to deter other people from seeking U.S. protection.”
The Biden administration has already ended two of the Trump administration’s programs, the Prompt Asylum Case Review and the Humanitarian Asylum Review Program, that were designed to quickly return Mexican and Central American asylum seekers suspected of having invalid claims.
Department of Homeland Security officials declined to discuss plans to shift border cases to the asylum division.
But an administration official said last week they are now working on a number of policies and regulations to create “a better functioning asylum system.”
That includes establishing refugee processing in the region and strengthening other countries’ asylum systems.
Biden also resurrected the Central American Minors program that reunited children with parents who are in the United States legally.
The Biden administration is now seeking to “pick up the pieces” after the Trump administration, with a different set of policies that abide by U.S. law but also international obligations, Meissner said.
“We need to have access to asylum,” Meissner said, “but it needs to be done in a way that can be prompt and fair, not in a way that leads to waits of years and years and court backlogs.
*****************
Read the complete article at the link.
Why it could work:
Granting relief at the lowest level of the system is cost effective;
It’s easier to hire, train, and assign Asylum Officers than Immigration Judges;
Immigration Court time should be reserved for those cases where there is a real issue as to whether relief can be granted.
Why it probably won’t work:
Leadership is critical. Right now, there are only a few experts in government with the knowledge, proven leadership ability, organizational skills, and courage to lead this program.
Two obvious names that come to mind are Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, currently USCIS Chief Counsel, and Judge Dana Leigh Marks, one of the “founding mothers” of U.S. asylum law and pioneer of the well-founded fear standard. Both are past Presidents of the NAIJ. Neither has yet been tapped for this assignment.
By contrast, there are a number of experts in the private/NGO sector who could lead this effort. Obvious choices would be Judge Paul Grussendorf, former Immigration Judge, Asylum Officer, UN Representative, and professor; Professor Karen Musalo, Director, Center for Refugee & Gender Studies, UC Hastings Law; Eleanor Acer, Senior Director, Refugee Protection, Human Rights First (quoted in this article); Professor Michele Pistone, Creator and Founder of the VIISTA asylum training program at Villanova Law; Professor Phil Schrag, Co-Director of the CALS Asylum Clinic at Georgetown Law and author of Baby Jails and the upcoming release The End of Asylum; Michelle Mendez, Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations at CLINIC; or Judge Ilyce Shugall of our Round Table. But, nobody of that caliber has been tapped either.
Without creative, dynamic, expert leadership, and a different approach to personnel, the program will be yet another bureaucratic failure. In case nobody has noticed, after four years of never ending abuse, gross mismanagement, and intentional misdirection by the Trump kakistocracy, the USCIS Asylum & Refugee program is also in shambles — demoralized, disorganized, leaderless, incredibly backlogged. An obvious untapped source is retired Asylum Officers and Adjudicators who could be brought back on a limited-term basis, intensively trained by experts from a “Better EOIR,” and who often are in a position to travel frequently and on short notice.
It’s not about deterrence. Already, this article speaks of “possible deterrent effect.” WRONG!The purpose of an asylum adjudication system is to provide fair, timely, generous adjudications of asylum eligibility in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.N. Convention and Protocol on which it is based, and the due process clause of our Constitution. We have never had such a system, which inevitably would be more orderly and efficient, but also result in many more grants.
The main reason why we don’t currently have a functioning asylum system, and never have had the system that asylum seekers need and deserve, is that the system is at the mercy of a bogus Executive-controlled “court” system that time and time again has been compromised by politicos seeking who use it as an enforcement tool rather than an independent court of justice.
In 2014, the last year that I taught Refugee Law & Policy at Georgetown Law I “graded” the U.S. Asylum system at “B-.” Not as good as it should be, but not as bad as it could be.
Now I’d give it an “F.” Completely dysfunctional, highly arbitrary, and a tool of institutionalized racism and White Nationalism.
The system is ineffective as a deterrent. There is no known basis to believe that quick and often arbitrary and wrongful “rejections” are an effective deterrent. That’s particularly true because rejections are seldom explained in a reasonable, understandable manner. So, to the extent that there is a “message” it’s that you got the wrong officer or the wrong judge on the wrong day or that the U.S. legal system is inherently unfair and should be avoided by hiring a smuggler to get you to the interior of the U.S. where, as a practical matter, you have a better chance of obtaining “de facto refuge.”
The only “efficiency and leverage” that comes from the Asylum Officer system is in quickly identifying and consistently granting a substantial number of applications. That, and only that, does actually relieve the Immigration Court system of unnecessary cases. Otherwise, “non-grants” still have to go to the Immigration Courts for de novo review. I probably granted the majority of asylum cases “referred” from the Asylum Office. That leaves plenty of room to believe that a better trained and operated system with some positive guidance and effective supervision by better Immigration Judges and a truly expert BIA would achieve substantially higher grant rates and higher efficiency at the Asylum Office, thereby keeping many cases out of court and speeding the process for asylees to obtain permanent residence and eventually U.S. citizenship!
Some assumptions appear invalid. This article also repeats the unproven assumption that a fair, just, and efficient asylum system would result in rejection of the majority of cases. I doubt that.
Prior to the Trump disaster, approximately 75-80% of asylum applicants at the Southern Border passed “credible fear.” That the majority of them never achieved asylum was due less to the lack of merit in their claims than to factors such as: 1) lack of a system to match asylum seekers with qualified counsel; 2) wrong-headed anti-asylum precedents from the BIA that were specifically directed against asylum seekers from Latin America — basically institutionalized racism in the guise of “enforcement;” 3) poor selection, training, and motivation of Immigration Judges some of whom simply did not treat asylum seekers fairly, nor were they given any incentive to do so.
I granted asylum or other protection to many refugees from the Northern Triangle. I probably could have granted twice that number had the BIA precedents actually fairly and reasonably interpreted asylum law to specifically cover gender-based claims and claims arising from persecution by gangs basically operating “in lieu of government authorities” in most of the Northern Triangle.
Additionally, an honest interpretation of the CAT by the BIA would have allowed life-saving protection to be extended to many others who lacked nexus but had a high probability of torture with Government acquiescence upon return. I believe that a return to the original Acosta-Kasinga line of asylum analysis and adoption of proper CAT interpretationsalong the lines set forth by the (exiled) dissenting judges in Matter of J-E- would result in grants of some type of protection (asylum, withholding, or CAT) in the majority of Southern Border cases coming from the Northern Triangle that passed credible fear or reasonable fear.
Asylum, along with refugee status, is a key form of legal immigration to the U.S. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It’s NOT a “loophole.” It’s the law! Studies by groups of experts such as CMS have shown the huge benefits that refugees confer on the U.S. I have no reason to believe that asylum seekers as a group are any different.
As long as we keep treating the reality of human migration and the strengths and humanity of asylum seekers as a negative rather than a positive, we will continue to fail, as we have for decades, to fully comply with either our own laws or international conventions.
A broken, dysfunctional, unfair EOIR will continue to drag American justice down. There must be de novo review of denials by EOIR and far, far more competent review and direction in the review of credible fear denials by EOIR. A better BIA could actually set binding precedents on “credible fear” and “reasonable fear.”
Currently, EOIR is incapable of producing either consistently fair results (particularly for asylum seekers) or the inspired legal scholarship and leadership for the asylum system to be functional and held accountable. It’s going to require all new leadership, an all new BIA, elimination of all of the Trump-eraprecedents that impede fairness for asylum seekers, new merit-based selection criteria for Immigration Judges, professional administration from judicial experts, and an immediate slashing of the largely self-created “backlog” of 1.3 million cases by closing and removing from the docket every case more than a year old that doesn’t relate to a priority (most are folks who would be covered by Biden’s legalization program anyway; many are eligible for relief that USCIS could grant) to get EOIR in a position to provide the necessary legal guidance and system accountability for the Asylum Office. The absurdist notion that we could or would want to remove every one of the 10-11 million undocumented residents (many performing essential services that propped us up through the pandemic) is one of the “big lies” that has prevented rational reforms of our immigration system.
In plain terms, EOIR needs an immediate “rebuild” with a new progressive, humanitarian judiciary of experts. There is no early indication that Judge Garland either understands that “mission-critical” need or has a plan for achieving it.
As we say in the business the “devil is in the details.” Right now, I can see neither the details nor theleadership in place or “in the pipeline” to solve the debilitating problems in our asylum system that actually are undermining the entire U.S. justice system.
Biden could fix it. But, I wouldn’t count on it. That means that the only real fix in the offing will be for the NDPA to force the Administration to “get it right” through aggressive, never-ending litigation as well as continuing to seek better legislators. Highly inefficient. Yet, sometimes it’s the only way to get the attention of those in power.
If nothing else, we’ll continue to make an important historic record of the cruelty and stupidity with which the current asylum system is being administered. It doesn’t have to be this way. We can always choose to follow our “better angels.” It just takes the courage and the good judgement to get the right folks in the right jobs to make it happen.
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)Gabe Gutierrez NBC News Correspondent Atlanta, GA
Reminds me of the essay I recently posted from my friend, Don Kerwin at CMS:
The number of unaccompanied children and asylum-seekers crossing the US-Mexico border in search of protection has increased in recent weeks. The former president, his acolytes, and both extremist and mainstream media have characterized this situation as a “border crisis,” a self-inflicted wound by the Biden administration, and even a failure of US asylum policy. It is none of these things. Rather, it is a response to compounding pressures, most prominently the previous administration’s evisceration of US asylum and anti-trafficking policies and procedures, and the failure to address the conditions that are displacing residents of the Northern Triangle states of Central America (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras), as well as Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and other countries…
The real immigration crisis is not at the border, but in the failure to respond effectively to the conditions driving forced migration, to establish orderly and viable legal immigration policies, to legalize the increasingly long-tenured undocumented population, and to reform and invest sufficiently in the US asylum and immigration court systems.
Donald M. Kerwin Executive Director Center for Migration Studies
It also echoes the words of veteran journalist Marc Cooper, posted by my friend Dan Kowalski over on LexisNexis Immigration Community:
When I was in Mexico reporting on the exodus, I would talk with dozens of migrants who were just a an hour or two away from starting their trek and, to a person, not one of them said they paid any attention to new US laws and regs as they were determined to cross no matter what. And no matter the sacrifices.
Dan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)
Even the WashPost editorial page writers “get” the reality of human migration in a way the nativist fear-mongers never will:
Yet despite fearmongering by Republicans, the current influx is neither a public health emergency nor a national security threat. The vast majority of those allowed to enter the country will join relatives here while their asylum claims plod along. That wait is too long — it can stretch to three years or more — and the administration insists it will shrink the backlog. It has also earmarked $4 billion in aid from the pandemic relief bill for Central America — with strings attached to prevent its misuse — to attack the conditions that make life miserable there and drive migrants to seek refuge in this country.
Dumping Asylum Seekers in Honduras Artist: Monte Wolverton Reproduced under license
Still, sadly, facts and reality seem largely irrelevant here.
Despite denials from Secretary Mayorkas, the Biden Administration appears to be believing Kevin McCarthy’s BS on some level.
Thursday, the Administration basically negotiated a “lite version” of Trump’s “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico” — essentially trading AstroZenica vaccine (which wasn’t approved for use in the U.S. anyway) for Mexico’s agreement to step up harsh enforcement measures against migrants crossing their Southern Border and to warehouse families arbitrarily rejected without due process by the U.S. under our bogus CDC directive. We already have seen how well that works out!
A 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. / Photo by David Maung
Any way you cut it, the realities of human migration, the lives of the desperate individuals involved, the views of human rights experts and advocates, and our supposed commitment to international conventions, the rule of law, and Constitutional Due Process take a back seat when the “bogus border debate” shifts into high gear.
There is actually a very simple truth here: “Forced migration” is not “optional!” In fact, a number of forced migrants prefer “death in the attempt” to “death in place.”
Therefore, all the “deterrents,” “border militarization,” “Baby Jails,” and “stay home statements” won’t ultimately stop the inexorable flow (although they might temporarily divert, modulate, or vary it— usually just enough for the “powers that be” to declare “victory at sea” as a result of their failed policies while ignoring the human carnage and lost opportunities they leave behind).
Professor Philip G. Schrag Georgetown Law Co-Director, CALS Asylum Clinic, Author of “Baby Jails”
Sure, there is a timing factor. Weather, the “business plans” and propaganda of smugglers (Trump’s “enforcement only” policies have been a boon for them in more ways than one, not only boosting their fees, but diverting enforcement resources away from the “real” law enforcement problems at the border involving drugs and human exploitation), and Biden’s pledge to restore humanity and the rule of law to America all factor into the equation in some way.
But, they are not the the primary causes of forced migration, except to the extent that climatechange (ignored and worsened by Trump and the GOP) has aggravated the poverty and economic disorder in the Northern Triangle by destroying the livelihoods of many farmers and making their land essentially worthless.
Tone-deaf GOP politicos like McCarthy and Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) apparently think the solution is to continue to mock the rule of law, violate the Constitution, and simply declare the Southern Border closed forever, al a Stephen Miller. Let families and children “die in place” in their home countries, die on the journey at the hands of other governments, or rot forever in Mexico — “Out of sight, out of mind.” As long as it isn’t happening in our country and being covered by our news outlets, who cares about human lives? That was certainly the Trump approach!
That’s hardly a “solution,” except in neo-Nazi or Soviet-era terms. The harshest and most inhuman approaches will, as they have in the past and continue to do, fail to stop desperate humans who want to survive from doing what’s necessary to save their lives and preserve their families’ futures, even when that interferes with the GOP’s “whitewashed” version of “American greatness.”
The solution involves following Constitutional due process, re-establishing the rule of law (including a radical “reform and replace” of our dysfunctional Immigration Courts), and adhering to our international obligations, both in letter and spirit. It also requires an expanded, much more robust, legal immigration system that reflects the demands of our economy, the needs of migrants, and the realities of human migration, particularly from Latin America. Like it or not, there will be more immigration.
As I have said before: “There are many ways in which we can diminish our own humanity, but none of them will stop human migration.”
Will G. Reaper Become The Lasting Image of America’s 21st Century Human Rights & Racial Justice Failures In The Eyes Of The Rest Of Humanity & Future Generations? Image: Hernan Fednan, Creative Commons License
Contrary to the GOP blather, immigration, voluntary, forced, coerced, legal, extra-legal, white, non-white, Christian, non-Christian, is what the real America is all about, for better or worse. Overall, immigration is a positive force for America.
Here’s a great essay on the positive nature of immigration by Pedro Gerson on Slate. Pedro isthe director of the Immigration Law Clinic at the Louisiana State University Law Center, and a former immigration staff attorney at the Bronx Defenders. The latter organization has been home to a number of notable members of the NDPA.
Pedro Gerson Director, Immigration Law Clinic LSU Law Center SOURCE: Twitter
As Pedro says, human migration to America will continue notwithstanding GOP xenophobes. The only question is whether we will have the wisdom and courage to work with and take advantage of its power in constructive, creative, forward looking ways, rather than trying to “recreate Jim Crow!”
Or, will we continue, as GOP restrictionists urge, to squander resources, goodwill, and human potential on futile efforts to eradicate what is perhaps the oldest and most fundamental phenomenon of human existence?
🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever! Restore the rule of law! Fix The Disgraceful, Dysfunctional Immigration Courts, Judge Garland! End White Nationalist racism!
Donald M. Kerwin Executive Director Center for Migration Studies
In a new essay for the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS), CMS’s Executive Director Donald Kerwin writes:
The number of unaccompanied children and asylum-seekers crossing the US-Mexico border in search of protection has increased in recent weeks. The former president, his acolytes, and both extremist and mainstream media have characterized this situation as a “border crisis,” a self-inflicted wound by the Biden administration, and even a failure of US asylum policy. It is none of these things. Rather, it is a response to compounding pressures, most prominently the previous administration’s evisceration of US asylum and anti-trafficking policies and procedures, and the failure to address the conditions that are displacing residents of the Northern Triangle states of Central America (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras), as well as Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and other countries…
The real immigration crisis is not at the border, but in the failure to respond effectively to the conditions driving forced migration, to establish orderly and viable legal immigration policies, to legalize the increasingly long-tenured undocumented population, and to reform and invest sufficiently in the US asylum and immigration court systems.
Thanks Don for speaking out against the scandalous GOP complete “border BS,” all too often parroted by the so-called “mainstream press.” Read the rest of Don’s essay at the link.
Don has spent his entire career solving migration and human rights problems. The Biden Administration and everyone who believes in American democracy should listen to “practical experts” like Don, rather than ignorant, racially-motivated GOP politicos and White Nationalist nativists spouting the “same old, same old” myths, fear-mongering, and unhelpful “non-solutions.”
If xenophobic rhetoric, cruelty, officially-sanctioned child abuse, evading our own legal and humanitarian responsibilities, and “enforcement only” were the “solutions,” the “problem at the Southern Border” — which has existed in one form or another for over a half century, would long ago have been solved. We can’t solve humanitarian situations that create forced migration with unilateral law enforcement gimmicks and cruelty toward the humans fighting for their lives. Human migration long pre-existed the formation of nation states and establishment of national boundaries.
Administration after administration, of both parties, have squandered time and taxpayer money on unsuccessful efforts to “enforce their way” out of forced migration situations. Contrary to GOP blather, Democratic Administrations have been almost as fixated as the GOP with unsuccessfully “detaining, deterring, and enforcing” their way out of human problems that demand more thoughtful human solutions.
All Administrations at some point prematurely claim that their efforts have “succeeded.” None actually have succeeded in addressing the causes of the migration. Therefore, none of these “false solutions” proves “durable.”
Significantly, Don is one of the few commentators to fully grasp the integral connection between the Trump regime’s complete destruction of the integrity of the Immigration Courts and its lawless, yet highly ineffective, border policies.
Real solutions don’t kill, harm, and maim refugees and forced migrants, encourage criminal cartels and corrupt foreign officials to prey on them, and stack up desperate humans in dangerous conditions just across the border because US Government officials were too biased and incompetent to operate under any semblance of the rule of law.
We can abide by our own laws, international norms, our Constitution, human decency, and common sense. It isn’t rocket science.
But, it does require a combination of expertise, courage, humanity, and practical problem solving that has been conspicuously absent from our governing structure since 2017, and severely undervalued before that.
Also, it’s certainly not that the Biden Administration has suddenly re-established due process and the rule of law at the border. Far from it!
The vast majority of those arriving at the border, even those who are applying at legal ports of entry, are unceremoniously and summarily removed without any process at all, let alone due process of law. This is all based on a largely bogus Trump-initiated exercise of authority by the CDC to use COVID-19 as a pretext to suspend the rule of law and constitutional due process at the border.
Moreover, we shouldn’t forget that even with the Biden Administration’s gradual efforts to re-establish a legal process for asylum seekers, unaccompanied children are still being held in Government detention for far longer than the 72-hours permitted under law. This problem won’t be solved, as some GOP nativists incredibly suggest, by dumping kids back across the Mexican Border, returning them to danger in their home countries without regard to their individual situations, or forcing them to turn to smugglers to make their way to relative safety in the interior of the U.S.
Nor will it be solved by long-term detention in disgraceful and inhumane “Baby Jails!” Ask my Georgetown Law colleague and author Professor Phil Schrag of the CALS Asylum Clinic about that!
Interestingly, some of the biggest complainers spreading the “open borders myth” are Greg Abbott and other Texas GOP politicos who have prematurely “reopened their state” in the middle of a pandemic in blatant contravention of best medical and public health advice. So, you can summarily dismiss their “crocodile tears” and bogus “hand wringing” about public health and safety.
That’s particularly true since the GOP is just coming off a massive example of how their incompetent mis-governance of Texascaused unnecessary misery and loss of life among Texas residents as a result of a highly predictable and long-foreseen “weather emergency.” Why does the mainstream media often continue to treat these “political hacks,” who couldn’t “govern” their way out of a paper bag, as credible spokespersons on anything, let alone human rights situations of which they have no expertise whatsoever?
🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever! Re-Establish The Rule Of Law, Including Full, Robust Humanitarian Protections At The Border& In Our Disgracefully Dysfunctional Immigration “Courts.”
President Biden’s Executive Actions on Immigration
A new webpage from the Center for Migration Studies summarizes and analyzes recent executive orders, proclamations, and directives from the Biden administration.
On his first day in office, President Biden issued a number of orders, proclamations, and directives that reversed policies enacted by the Trump administration and sought to put the US immigration system on a far different course. These executive actions:
Ended the discriminatory travel bans;
Revised US immigration enforcement priorities
Protected Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients;
Temporarily halted construction of the US-Mexico Border Wall;
Ensured that all US-residents, including undocumented immigrants, are counted in the 2020 Census; and
Reinstated Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) for Liberians.
President Biden also sent the US Citizenship Act of 2021 to Congress. If passed by the Senate and House, this bill would represent the most sweeping immigration reform legislation in decades and lead to the largest legalization program in US history.
President Biden has since issued several additional Executive Orders (EOs), which:
Created a task force to reunify separated migrant families;
Require federal agencies to review the Trump administration’s actions related to immigration;
Provide for safe and orderly processing of asylum applications at the border;
Call for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of State (DOS) to rebuild and strengthen the US Refugee Admissions Program.
The Center for Migration Studies (CMS) is a New York-based educational institute devoted to the study of international migration, to the promotion of understanding between immigrants and receiving communities, and to public policies that safeguard the dignity and rights of migrants, refugees, and newcomers. For more information, please visit www.cmsny.org.
The following three papers have been prepared as part of a process, organized jointly by the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) and the Zolberg Institute on Migration and Mobility at the New School, to identify ways to strengthen the US immigration and refugee protection systems through administrative action. Additional papers in this collection will be forthcoming, as well as a distinct set of policy recommendations from the directors of CMS and the Zolberg Institute.
This paper offers an historic review of the US refugee resettlement program. It spans the colonial era, to the establishment of the first distinct US admissions policies for persons fleeing persecution in 1917, to the creation of the formal US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) in 1980, and to the Trump administrations’ denigration of and attempts to eviscerate the program. It proposes ways that a new administration can rebuild this crucially important program and put it on more secure footing. In particular, it recommends that a new administration:
Reframe the discourse on refugee resettlement to emphasize its central importance to the nation’s identity and the way it serves the national interest.
Rebuild the capacity of the federal government to administer the program and the badly depleted community-based resettlement infrastructure that is central to the program’s success.
Hold emergency consultations with Congress to increase refugee admissions in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021, and consult soon after the inauguration with international, state and local, and non-governmental partners to plan FY 2022 resettlement goals, including a robust admissions ceiling and budget.
Reform and reinvigorate federal consultations with states and localities to ensure their receptivity, capacity and support for refugees, and eliminate the current veto power of states and municipalities over resettlement in their jurisdictions.
Explore legislative fixes to the refugee admissions process and attempt to depoliticize the process by setting a “normal flow level” that does not require an annual Presidential determination.
Join the Global Compact on Refugees, which seeks to expand the availability of durable solutions for refugees, and encourage other nations to follow the US example of resettling larger numbers of refugees.
By Daniel E. Martínez (The University of Arizona), Josiah Heyman (The University of Texas at El Paso), and Jeremy Slack (The University of Texas at El Paso)
Enforcement along the US-Mexico border has intensified significantly since the early 1990s. Social scientists have documented several consequences of border militarization, including increased border-crosser deaths, the killing of more than 110 people by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents over the past decade, and expanded ethno-racial profiling in southwestern communities by immigration authorities. Less attention has been paid to the pervasive and routine mistreatment migrants experience on a daily basis in CBP custody.
This paper traces major developments in border enforcement to three notable initiatives: the “prevention-through-deterrence” strategy, the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Consequence Delivery System, initiated in 2011. Despite the massive buildup in enforcement, CBP has operated with little transparency and accountability to the detriment of migrants. The paper provides an overview of the findings of nongovernmental organizations and social scientists regarding migrant mistreatment while in CBP custody. It then highlights important shifts in migration patterns over the past decade, as well as changes in border enforcement efforts during the Trump administration. It discusses how these transformations affect migrants’ everyday encounters with CBP officials.
The paper concludes by providing specific recommendations for improving CBP conduct. Its core theme is the need to emphasize and inculcate lessons of appropriate police behavior, civil rights, and civil liberties in training and recruiting agents and in setting responsibilities of supervisors and administrators. It offers recommendations regarding important but underrecognized issues, including ending the use of CBP agents/officers as Asylum Officers, as well as better-known issues such as militarization and the border wall.
This paper highlights the importance of legal orientation, screening, and representation to the US immigration system. It proposes that a new administration facilitate legal representation in order to establish a fairer and more efficient removal adjudication system and to place more immigrants on a path to permanent residence and citizenship. As is well-documented, legal assistance can:
Improve the ability of immigrants to identify and articulate their claims in removal proceedings and produce better-informed case outcomes.
Increase the efficiency and contribute to the integrity of the removal adjudication system.
Lead to better-prepared applications for immigration benefits, and thus a more just and efficient legal immigration system.
Place more non-citizens on a path to permanent residence and naturalization by identifying their potential eligibility for immigration benefits or relief, and, in some cases, their existing US citizenship.
Legal representation and expertise can also contribute to resolving some of the substantial problems that afflict the US immigration system, such as lengthy court and asylum backlogs. In addition, it can identify and help to correct legal and factual errors by immigration adjudicators, and abuses by enforcement officers and private contractors.
The paper’s first section describes federal legal orientation and assistance programs for non-citizens in removal proceedings. The second section discusses the need for large-scale legal screening and representation of US undocumented residents, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries. Its third section examines the proliferation of universal representation programs—supported by states, localities, and private funders—for non-citizens in removal proceedings before an immigration judge, and in summary removal processes administered by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The paper concludes with a series of administrative measures that a new administration could take in its first year to strengthen and expand legal representation. It also outlines longer-term policy recommendations that would require legislation.
The Center for Migration Studies (CMS) is a New York-based educational institute devoted to the study of international migration, to the promotion of understanding between immigrants and receiving communities, and to public policies that safeguard the dignity and rights of migrants, refugees, and newcomers. For more information, please visit www.cmsny.org.
It’s possible that Biden could win and still end up hamstrung by a Senate controlled by “Moscow Mitch” and his “American Nihilist Party.” That’s why all elections are critically important this November!
Gotta work with what you‘ve got. So, in a “second worst case scenario” Biden might have to go the Administrative route. Three major problems:
He’ll have to do much better on the administrative agenda than Obama – that means jettisoning some of his past and getting and empowering more progressive advisors, folks like Kerwin, Susan Martin, Martinez, Hyman, Slack, Michelle Mendez, Karen Musalo, Marielena Hincapie, Heidi Altman, Debbie Anker, Hon. Ilyce Shugall, Michele Pistone, Denise Gilman, Kristina Campbell, Lindsay Harris, David Baluarte, Phil Schrag, Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andy Schoenholtz, Eleanor Acer, Alice Farmer, Hon. Bob Weisel, Hon. Lory Rosenberg, Hon. Carol King, Lenni Benson, Michelle Brane, Hon. Amiena Khan, Cori Alonso-Yoder, Dree Collopy, Blaine Bookey, Tess Hellgren, Hon. Paul Gussendorf, Simon Sandoval Moshenberg, Tanishka Cruz, Lauren Wyatt, Laura Lynch, Claudia Valenzuela, Aaron Richlin-Melnick, Katie Tobin, Lindsay Jenkins, Hon. Ashley Tabaddor, Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow, Kevin Johnson, Kit Johnson, Dan Kowalski, Margaret Stock, Ben Winograd, Hon. Rebecca Jamil, Claudia Cubas, Wendy Young, Laura Tuell, Jayesh Rathod, Shoba Wadhia, Hon. Jeffrey Chase, Elizabeth “The Report” Gibson, and a host of others too numerous to list. No shortage of real talent out there to replace the regime’s “maliciously incompetent kakistocracy.”
Without an independent Article I Immigration Court and a drastic “upgrade” in the human rights, immigration, and equal justice credentials of newly appointed Article III Judges, administrative reforms are likely to be less than optimally effective.
“The Lesson of Trump” – Anything the “good guys” can do administratively can be undone by the “bad guys” overnight. And, building can be long and difficult; demolition quick and easy.
This November, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does!
Donald M. Kerwin Executive Director Center for Migration Studies
Dear Colleagues,
Over the last few months, the Center for Migration Studies (CMS) has been trying to err on the side of pushing out work in progress, rather than waiting to publish polished and complete work. Some of our work in progress can be found on our web-page devoted to migration-related,
COVID-19 issues.https://cmsny.org/cms-initiatives/migration-covid/. We have also been regularly updating a “compendium” of US detention developments. The latest and final version of that working “report” can be found here:
https://cmsny.org/publications/immigrant-detention-covid/ . The short report is about how the well-documented problems in the US immigrant detention system, combined with the callous, politically-driven policies of the Trump administration, have predictably facilitated the spread of COVID-19 inside and beyond the US immigrant detention system. Since we finished this version of the report on August 3, at least two more detainees have died from COVID-19-related “complications” and, no doubt, more will follow and ICE will continue to promise full, agency-wide investigation of these deaths:
https://www.aila.org/infonet/deaths-at-adult-detention-centers. We will be broadly disseminating this report and an upcoming exhaustive report on immigrant essential workers. However, please help us to distribute this detention report to others. We hope it will be a useful resource.
Best wishes and thanks,
Don Kerwin
********************
Thanks, Don!
Get the CMS reports at the above links!
They should be helpful evidence in litigating to put an end to this disgracefully unconstitutional and inhuman system. To paraphrase my friend and colleague Professor Phil Schrag of Georgetown Law, author of Baby Jails, in America we treat refugee children worse than convicted felons!
To once again state the obvious, the outrageous amount of money we waste on unnecessary and illegal DHS “civil” detention in the Gulag could be “repurposed” to more constructive uses like funding legal representation, resettling asylees, and transitioning to an independent Article I Immigration Court. America’s health and welfare, as well as our national moral standing, would be vastly improved.
