Migration – Page 288 – immigrationcourtside.com

Mexico Searches For Equilibrium With New Administration!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/top-mexican-official-warns-of-a-new-era-in-relations-with-the-us-under-trump/2017/01/09/71658602-8bed-47c4-9ebe-7bd04d5dd631_story.html

“In his speech Monday, Videgaray asserted Mexico’s importance to the United States and vowed to defend his country’s sovereignty. As examples of the benefits of trade and immigration, he cited the close relationship between auto plants in Mexico and Michigan, Mexican companies that have invested in Dallas, and the key role played by Mexican workers in the milk industry in Wisconsin.

Trump has criticized American companies for moving factory jobs to Mexico, and threatened to impose a “border tax” on firms that make products there bound for U.S. markets. Ford recently announced that it had canceled plans for a $1.6 billion plant in Hermosillo, Mexico, after Trump’s repeated criticism of Ford and other companies. The Mexican government is concerned that it will lose manufacturing jobs due to measures proposed by Trump.

“We are going to negotiate with great self-confidence; without fear, knowing the economic, social and political importance that Mexico has for the United States, and we are going to negotiate with intelligence and common sense,” Videgaray added.

He said he wanted to make it clear that “these millions of Mexicans who have emigrated to look for work are not as they have been described — criminals — but they are productive people who represent in the majority of cases the best of Mexico.”

PWS

01/09/17

David Leopold Warns About Possible Five-Point Attack On Immigrants By Attorney General Sessions

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/five-chilling-ways-senator-jeff-sessions-could-attack-immigrants-as-attorney-general_us_5870022ce4b099cdb0fd2ef7

“As the nation’s top lawyer, head of the immigration court, and civil rights officer, Jeff Sessions would have access to multiple tools to harm immigrants and undermine due process. Given his rhetoric and record as a United States Senator, as well as his association with anti-immigrant extremists, there is every reason to believe he would use all of them.

Here are five ways Sessions could attempt to undermine immigrants and immigration policy if confirmed as Attorney General:

Impose his radical, anti-immigrant ideology on decisions by the federal immigration courts;

Expand the number of immigrants who are deported even though they qualify for a green card or asylum;

Reduce access to legal counsel and information about immigrants’ legal rights;

Criminalize immigrants by bringing trumped up charges against ordinary workers; and

Strong arm state and local police to become Trump deportation agents

Of course, any attempt Sessions would make to undermine civil and due process rights will be met by strong litigation from the outside. But the U.S. Senate should block his confirmation from the start, as Senator Sessions is highly unqualified for this position and has showed a profound disregard for civil and human rights.”

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

Sorry, David, but Jeff Sessions has the votes to be confirmed as the next Attorney General. Those who don’t like that can rant, but that’s not going to change the reality that Donald Trump won the Presidential election and the Republicans firmly control both Houses of Congress.

When you lose elections at the national and state levels, like the Democrats did, you end up with next to no leverage on appointments or policies unless you can reach across the aisle and strike a chord with at least some Republicans. Right now, it appears that all Republican Senators, and probably a few Democrats, ewill vote for Senator Sessions’s confirmation. Whatever his pros and cons, Senator Sessions appears to have had the wisdom to be polite and cordial to his colleagues and to occasionally reach across the aisle on issues of common interest. Rightly or wrongly, that seems to count for a lot when current or former Senators come up for confirmation to Executive Branch positions.

So barring a “bombshell” next week, and I must say his record has been “flyspecked” — regardless of what he put in the Judiciary Committee questionnaire — that’s unlikely. For better or worse, Senator Session’s views on a wide variety of subjects and his conduct as a public servant over many decades are a matter of public record. Nothing in that record seems to have given pause to any of his Republican Senate colleagues.

That being said, it woulds be nice to think that upon hearing some of the criticisms, Jeff Sessions will reflect on the huge differences between being a Senator from Alabama, the Attorney General of Alabama, and a U.S. Attorney for Alabama, and the wider responsibilities of being the chief law enforcement official, legal adviser, and litigator representing all of the People of the United States, not just the Trump Administration.

David is, of course, correct to focus on Attorney General Session’s vast authority over immigration. He will control a huge and critically important U.S. Immigration Court System currently sporting a backlog of more than one-half million cases and suffering from chronically inadequate judicial administration and lack of basic technology like e-filing. While there certainly is an interrelationship among civil rights, human rights, and due process in the Immigration Courts, there is every reason to believe that Attorney General Session’s biggest impact will be in the field of immigration.

If things go as David predicts, then the battle over fundamental fairness and due process in immigration policy and the Immigration Courts is likely to be fought out in the Article III Federal Courts, which, unlike the Immigration Courts, aren’t under Executive control. That will have some drawbacks for everyone, but particularly for the Trump Administration.

And, if Sessions is wise, he’ll look back at what happened when the Bush Administration tried to promote a “rubber stamp” approach to justice and due process in the Immigration Courts. The U.S. Courts of Appeals were outraged at the patent lack of due process and fundamental fairness as “not quite ready for prime time” cases were “streamlined” and thrown into the Courts of Appeals for review with glaring factual errors and remarkable legal defects. Not totally incidentally, this also dramatically increased their workload, with judicial review of immigration matters occupying a majority of the docket in several prominent circuits.

As a result, cases were returned to the Board of Immigration Appeals, who then returned them to the Immigration Courts for “re-dos,” in droves. The Courts of Appeals lost faith in the Executive’s ability to run a fundamentally fair, high quality Immigration Court System, and basically placed the Immigration Courts into “judicial receivership” until things stabilized at least somewhat. The waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars caused by this “haste makes waste” approach was beyond contemplation and, for a time, threatened to paralyze the entire American justice system.

Additionally, it would be a huge mistake for the Trump Administration to view the Bush Administration’s Immigration Court debacle as the product of “bleeding heart liberal appellate judges” appointed by President Bill Clinton. The criticism from Article III Judges cut across political lines. Two of the most outspoken judicial critics of the Bush Administration’s handling of the U.S. Immigration Courts were Republican appointees: then Chief Judge John M. Walker, Jr. of the Second Circuit and Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit. Indeed, Judge Walker is a cousin of former President George H.W. Bush.

Obviously, those who favor greater immigration enforcement won the election and are going to have a chance to try out their policies. But, “enhanced enforcement” is likely to be effective only if we have a fair, impartial, and totally due process oriented Immigration Court System.

In other words, the Immigration Courts must be a “level playing field” with judges who, in the words of Chief Justice Roberts, play the role of “impartial umpires” between those seeking to stay in our country and those seeking to remove them. Results from such a due-process oriented system would be more likely to inspire confidence from the U.S. Courts of Appeals, thereby increasing the stature of the Immigration Courts and their ability to achieve final resolutions at the initial, and most cost-efficient, level of our justice system. Due process and fairness in the Immigration Court System should be a nonpartisan common interest no matter where one stands on other aspects of the “immigration debate.”

We are about to find out what Attorney General Jeff Sessions has in mind for the U.S. Immigration Courts and the rest of the U.S. justice system. I’m hoping for the best, but preparing to assert the essential constitutional requirement for due process in the Immigration Courts if, as David predicts, it comes under attack.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

01/07/16

Can “Globalists” and “Nationalists” Bridge Their Gap And Find Some Middle Ground For The Common Good?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/we-arent-the-world-1483728161

“Above all, globalists should not equate concern for cultural norms and national borders with xenophobia. Large majorities of Americans, for example, welcome immigrants so long as they adopt American values, learn English, bring useful skills and wait their turn. Australia’s low tolerance for illegal immigration helps to maintain public support for high levels of legal entrants.

“We’ve created this false dichotomy that if you’re not for open borders, you’re racist,” says Avik Roy, president of the conservative Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity and a former adviser to Republican presidential candidates. “There is some sort of middle ground between a nationalist and globalist approach,” Mr. Roy argues.

Even as committed a globalist as Mr. Obama has come to acknowledge this. Democrats, he told Rolling Stone the day after the election, must recognize that “for the majority of the American people, borders mean something.”

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

This very interesting and thought provoking article by Greg Ip from the Wall Street Journal points out that the old “left – right” political struggles have been replaced by a contest between “globalism” and “nationalism” that often crosses some of the traditional political boundaries between left and right.

It also echoes some of the themes about the need to “understand where the other guys are coming from” rather than just “demonizing the opposition” that have been raised in previous blogs and comments by Thomas “Mink” Felhofer and Nolan Rappaport.

The world is definitely changing, and many of the “old norms” are breaking down. The challenge is how to find some stability in the middle that doesn’t sacrifice or run across strongly held views or principles.

When I was the Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals, I found one of the difficulties in reaching “consensus positions” is that, unlike a “compromise,” a “consensus” requires both ends of the spectrum to nominally support, or at least refrain from public disagreement with, the result. That’s a challenge when judges, or anyone else, have worked in the area for many years and have strong views tied to their underlying principles. For better or worse, on many occasions, the best we could do was “agree to disagree” and move on to the next case. That’s at best a “compromise” — “you win” this time but we’ll preserve our objections for the future — rather than a “consensus.” But, at least the results were very transparent and arguments for and against carefully developed for future debate.

PWS

01/07/17

Guess Who’s Going To Pay For That “Great Wall?” — Surprise: We Are, As Reported By CNN! — President Elect Trump blames “Dishonest Media!”

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/border-wall-house-republicans-donald-trump-taxpayers/index.html

“Washington (CNN)President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team has signaled to congressional Republican leaders that his preference is to fund the border wall through the appropriations process as soon as April, according to House Republican officials.

The move would break a key campaign promise when Trump repeatedly said he would force Mexico to pay for the construction of the wall along the border, though in October, Trump suggested for the first time that Mexico would reimburse the US for the cost of the wall.
Trump defended that proposal Friday morning in a tweet, saying the move to use congressional appropriations was because of speed.

“The dishonest media does not report that any money spent on building the Great Wall (for sake of speed), will be paid back by Mexico later!” Trump tweeted Friday.”

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

President Elect Trump promises that he will negotiate “full reimbursement” from Mexico at a later date. Don’t hold your breath. Yeah, as the President Elect notes, we’re Mexico’s biggest trading partner; but, Mexico is also one of our biggest. As a fast developing economy, I’m guessing that lots of other countries would be willing to do business with Mexico on favorable terms if the climate in the U.S. gets too stormy.

PWS

01/06/16

Experts Doubt Trump’s Ability To Make Good On Campaign Promises Of Mass Deportations, But Do Expect Him To Have Major Impact On Immigration Enforcement

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/politics/donald-trump-immigration/index.html

A group of immigration experts on both sides of the issue interviewed by CNN all doubted that the Trump Administration would be able to carry out mass removals on the scale Trump alluded to on the campaign trail. Among the problems: Congressional funding for more enforcement and detention, severely backlogged U.S. Immigration Courts, practical problems of locating and processing undocumented individuals within the United States, and potential large scale resistance by states, cities, counties, and universities to overly aggressive enforcement efforts.

Here’s an excerpt (full article posted above):

“Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center For Immigration Studies, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, said Trump’s campaign pledges to deport millions amounted to an “Archie Bunker moment” that should not have been taken seriously.
“He’s not going to be snapping his fingers and deporting millions of people over night,” said Krikorain, whose group’s motto is “Low-Immigration, pro-immigrant.”

“That’s not realistic,” Krikorian said. “No one thinks that’s going to happen.”

But Krikorian said “it’s very plausible” that Trump could ramp up deportations by 25% or more in 2017 and return to levels seen under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, which he said reached about 400,000 a year when Bush left office.

That, he said, could be done without significant budgetary increases and despite resistance from sanctuary cities.

“I think the other side is making it seem more complicated than it needs to be,” he said.

Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell Law School, agreed that Trump would be able to have meaningful impact during the first year of his presidency, but not to the extent suggested during the campaign.

“On the campaign trail things are not nuanced. They’re black and white,” Yale-Loehr said. “It takes a while to turn the battleship of bureaucracy around.”

PWS

01/04/17

Will Workplace Immigration Raids Return Under Trump Administration?

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/illegal-immigrants-raids-deportation.html?mabReward=A4&recp=0&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0

“But as President-elect Donald J. Trump prepares to take office and promises to swiftly deport two million to three million undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, bipartisan experts say they expect a return of the raids that rounded up thousands of workers at carwashes, meatpacking plants, fruit suppliers and their homes during the Bush years.

“If Trump seriously wants to step up dramatically the number of arrests, detentions and removals, I think he has to do workplace raids,” said Michael J. Wishnie, a professor at Yale Law School who represents detainees in civil rights cases.

Since the election, Mr. Trump has suggested that he plans to focus on deporting criminals. “What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers,” he told CBS News in November. “We’re getting them out of our country.”

But Mr. Trump’s advisers have said that to promptly reach his target number of deportations, the definition of who is a criminal would need to be broadened. In July 2015, the Migration Policy Institute, a bipartisan think tank, estimated that of the roughly 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally, 820,000 had criminal records — a definition Mr. Obama mostly adhered to during his second term, evicting some 530,000 immigrants convicted of crimes since 2013.

Mr. Trump would need to expand the basket to include immigrants living in the United States illegally who have been charged but not convicted of crimes, those who have overstayed visas, those who have committed minor misdemeanors like traffic infractions, and those suspected of being gang members or drug dealers.

Targeting workers for immigration-related offenses, such as using a forged or stolen Social Security number or driver’s license, produced a significant uptick in deportations under Mr. Bush. But the practice was widely criticized for splitting up families, gutting businesses that relied on immigrant labor and taking aim at people who went to work every day, rather than dangerous criminals.”

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

There is no statutory or other widely accepted definition of a “criminal alien.” As shown by this article in the NY Times, it could be narrow — covering only those who are actually removable from the United States by virtue of their crimes — or broad — covering anyone who has ever had contact with the criminal justice system and is potentially removable, regardless of whether there was a conviction or whether the crime itself is the ground for removal. For example, “driving with an expired license” is not a ground for removal. But, an undocumented individual arrested for “driving without a license” could be referred by the state or local authorities to the DHS to be placed in removal proceedings before a U.S. Immigration Judge. If the Immigration Judge finds that such an individual has no legal status in the United States, and that individual cannot establish that she or he is entitled to some type of relief from removal, the Immigration Judge must enter an order of removal, regardless of the circumstances of the arrest or the overall equities of the case.

PWS

01/04/17

The Numbers Are In — DHS FY 2016 Enforcement Stats Confirm that Obama Administration is #1 In Removals!

http://immigrationimpact.com/2017/01/04/deportation-numbers-2016/

Joshua Breisblatt writes on Immigration Impact:

“Last week, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued its Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 immigration enforcement data which, coupled with the previous years’ totals under the Obama Administration, show that the total number of removals from FY 2009 to FY 2016 totaled more than 2.7 million. Simply stated, President Obama has deported more people than any other president in U.S. history.

However, underneath those numbers belie some important lessons about the changing dynamics of who is showing up at the U.S. border and how a November 2014 enforcement priorities memo shaped the number of people deported from the interior of the nation.

. . . .

This means, more would-be-asylees are arriving at the U.S. border, rather than economic migrants as in years’ past. Yet, many are being denied asylum or put through expedited deportation processes, both unworthy of the nation’s commitment to protect those in need.

Also of note, the number of individuals picked up and deported from the interior of the country is on the decline, likely due to the 2014 enforcement priorities memo that sought to avoid deporting individuals who posed no threat and have strong economic and community ties in the U.S.”

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

How much enforcement is enough? Never enough, according to some. Others disagree and think we’re going way overboard. As the Trump Administration is probably going to find out, “immigration enforcement” is more often than not a “can’t win” political proposition.

PWS

01/04/17

Is Trump’s Plan To Remove 3 Million “Criminal Aliens” Achievable?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-trumps-plan-to-deport-criminal-noncitizens-wont-work/2017/01/03/b68a3018-c627-11e6-85b5-76616a33048d_story.html?utm_term=.4810f9c58fbd

“No,” says Professor and Immigration Practitioner Kari Hong of Boston College Law School in this op-ed in the Washington Post:

“If Trump truly wants to focus on drug dealers, terrorists, murderers and rapists, he should call on Congress to restore immigration law’s focus on those whom prosecutors and criminal judges determined were dangerous in the first place — people who were sentenced to five years or more in prison. That’s what the law used to be, before it was changed in 1996 to cover many more crimes.

Instead of penalizing immigrants for minor crimes, immigration law needs to separate contributing immigrants from their non-contributing peers. Those who pay taxes, have children born in the United States, serve in the military, work in jobs American citizens will not take or help those around them need a path to legalization. Those who cause more harm than good should be deported. Restoring proportionality and common sense to immigration law would certainly help make America great again.”

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

Go over to ImmigrationProf Blog and the Washington Post at the above link and get the whole story.

PWS

01/04/17

From Haven to Hell: Venezuela On The Verge Of Collapse After Years Of Bad Government — Neighbors Brace For Humanitarian/Refugee Crisis!

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2017/01/hungry-venezuelans-flood-brazilian-towns-as-threat-of-mass-migration-looms.html

“Oil-rich Venezuela has been an immigrant destination for much of its history. Now it is a place to flee. Chronic food shortages, rampant violence and the erratic and often paranoid behavior of President Nicolás Maduro have turned the country’s border crossings and beaches into escape valves.”

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

I’ve blogged about this unfolding humanitarian disaster before. Go over to ImmigrationProf Blog and the Washington Post at the link to read more.

PWS

01/04/17

Family Detention, Raids, Expediting Cases Fail To Deter Scared Central Americans!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/central-americans-continue-to-surge-across-us-border-new-dhs-figures-show/2016/12/30/ed28c0aa-cec7-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.077ef694fd73

“Immigration advocates have repeatedly criticized the Obama administration for its increased reliance on detention facilities, particularly for Central American families, who they argue should be treated as refugees fleeing violent home countries rather than as priorities for deportation.

They also say that the growing number of apprehended migrants on the border, as reflected in the new Homeland Security figures, indicate that home raids and detentions of families from Central America isn’t working as a deterrent.”

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

The “enforcement only” approach to forced migration from Central America has been an extraordinarily expensive total failure. But, the misguided attempt to “prioritize” cases of families seeking refuge from violence has been a major contributing factor in creating docket disfunction (“Aimless Docket Reshuffling”) in the United States Immigration Courts. And, as a result, cases ready for trial that should have been heard as scheduled in Immigration Court have been “orbited” to the end of the docket where it is doubtful they ever will be reached. When political officials, who don’t understand the Immigration Court and are not committed to its due process mission, order the rearrangement of existing dockets without input from the trial judges, lawyers, court administrators, and members of the public who are most affected, only bad things can happen. And, they have!

PWS

12/31/16

Deportations Down in 2016 — Focus on Criminals in the Interior is Key — But, Some Question Gov’s Broad Concept of “Criminal”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barack-obama-deportations-2016_us_58668157e4b0eb5864890a03?section=us_politics

“DHS officials themselves say the falling interior deportation numbers reflect the Obama administration’s policy of focusing their efforts on removing people with criminal histories.

Virtually all of the people deported from within the interior of the United States ― 92 percent ― had been convicted of a crime that put them within one of ICE’s top three priorities for removal.

But ICE’s top priority removal category includes people convicted of the offenses of illegal entry and reentry ― non-violent crimes that don’t distinguish them much from other undocumented immigrants. DHS officials did not immediately provide a breakdown of the criminal offenses deportees had been convicted of.

The number of deportations has also dropped in recent years partly because the number of people trying to enter the country has plummeted. Border Patrol apprehended about 408,900 people in the 2016 fiscal year, which is generally considered an indicator of how many people attempted to enter without authorization. In 2000, agents picked up nearly 1.7 million people trying to cross the border illegally.

A growing share of those who do cross illegally into the United States are Central Americans, who often seek asylum or other humanitarian relief. Their cases can take years to wind their way through backlogged immigration courts and do not result in swift deportations. In 2016, border agents apprehended more Central Americans than they did Mexicans, a switch that happened for the first time in 2014.”

PWS

12/30/16

Wow! Senator Tom Cotton (R-ARK) Wants to Jack Up Wages And Benefits For Lower Level US Workers And Make the “Fat Cats” Pay Their Share — How? — By Cutting Immigration, Naturally

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2016/12/seantor-tom-cotton-r-arkansas-fix-immigration-its-what-voters-want.html

Over on ImmigrationProf Blog and the NYT, Sen. Cotton says that cutting immigration, both legal and illegal, will solve all the problems of working class Americans. Yet, I’m skeptical that the Senator’s Republican businessmen buddies will be paying $25+/hr. plus full bennies for folks to pick veggies, clean buildings, be nannies for their kids, mow lawns, pour concrete, wash dishes, wait tables, clean tables, empty bedpans, make beds, work grocery checkout lines, pick up garbage, cook short orders, cut brush, dig trenches, trim trees, prune shrubs, provide daycare for their elderly parents, etc. But, I’m even more skeptical that out of work coal miners, factory workers, administrative assistants, air conditioning fabricators, secretaries, etc. will be lining up to to relocate at their own expense to take these jobs, even at higher wages. And, even if they did, things like harvesting, pruning, caring for others, and cooking actually take skills that many out of work Americans don’t possess or don’t care to learn, no matter how dire their personal circumstances. If Sen. Cotton thinks that’s what Americans really voted for, perhaps he’s spent too much time inside the Beltway.

PWS

12/26/16

More From Nolan Rappaport in “The Hill” on How the Trump Administration and Congress Could Agree on Immigration Reform

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/310078-to-control-immigration-trump-needs-to-think-outside-the-wall

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/311243-gop-immigration-bill-gives-dreamers-a-break-hardliners-a-bone

I found some common themes:

The Trump Administration needs to “Think Outside the Wall.” Without some fundamental changes from Obama Administration policies and Trump rhetoric, nothing is going to change.
There must be some type of legalization for “Dreamers” and others to get Immigration Court dockets back under control.
Interior enforcement must be reinstated and employer sanctions enforced to cut off the “magnet” for undocumented immigration.
Everyone involved must work together and compromise for our immigration system to be credible.

PWS

12/29/16

No Happy New Year For 65 Million Refugees — Here Are Three Horrible Situations Not Named Syria or Iraq!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/humanitarian-crises-2017_us_58641081e4b0de3a08f6ed8f

Michael Bowers Vice President of Humanitarian Leadership and Response, Mercy Corps, writes in WorldPost:

“The crises in Yemen, South Sudan and the Lake Chad Basin are just three of many that flew under the radar this year, and they are very likely to deteriorate in the year ahead. Despite chronically underfunded responses, Mercy Corps is tackling all three humanitarian crises, helping more than 1 million people with food, water and sanitation, hygiene and other types of support.

We hope that in 2017, in an increasingly interconnected world, closer attention is paid to the stories of the many millions of people struggling every day just to survive and find solutions to build a brighter future for themselves and their children.”

As I have said many times before, including on this Blog: Every morning when I wake up, I am thankful for two things. First, that I woke up, never a given at my age. Second, I’m thankful that, through pure good fortune and no personal merit on my part, I am not a refugee.

PWS

12/29/16

Writing In “The Hill,” BIA and Congressional Staff Vet Nolan Rappaport Says Trump Must Combine Legalization With Interior Enforcement to Succeed

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/311994-thanks-to-obamas-immigration-legacy-trump-inherits-our-home

“As of the end of Nov. 2016, the average wait time for a hearing was 678 days. President-elect Trump will have to reduce the population of undocumented immigrants to a manageable level with a very large legalization program before he will be able to address the home free magnet.

Also, so long as immigrants who want to come here illegally think that they will be safe from deportation once they have reached the interior, they will find a way to get past any wall that he builds to protect our border.”

Nolan’s thoughtful article gives a great summary of the prosecutorial discretion (“PD”) programs put into effect by the Obama Administration. Although Nolan is is OK with the concept of PD, he believes that by formalizing and publicizing the PD program, the Obama Administration has given a “home free” signal to undocumented migrants who reach the interior of our country. Nolan believes that this acts as both a magnet for undocumented immigration and a barrier to effective immigration reform legislation.

I agree with Nolan that removal of most of those with cases backlogged on the Immigration Court dockets will prove impractical. I also agree with him that the huge backlogs and lengthy waiting times for hearings have robbed the Immigration Court system of credibilty. But, with due respect, I tend to doubt that addressing “the home free magnet” is the primary answer to a workable system.

First, I think that human migration is an historic phenomenon driven primarily by forces in sending countries which we do not control. Addressing the “root causes” of these problems has proved elusive. Efforts to provide assistance through foreign governments have been largely unsuccessful because of endemic corruption and lack of the necessary infrastructure. Efforts administered by the State Department and USAID within foreign countries have shown some promise, as described in one of my earlier blogs (12/26/16). Yet, to date, they appear to be too labor intensive and too limited in the number of individuals who can be reached to have a major effect on migration patterns.

Additionally, I doubt that migration will be controlled without legislative changes and expansion of our legal immigration system to better match supply with demand. Currently, the demand for immigration by U.S. citizen and lawfully resident families, U.S. employers, and displaced or threatened individuals in foreign countries far exceeds the supply of available visas. Continued immigration is a reality and, in fact, a necessity for our nation’s prosperity. Until there is a better balance between supply and demand, individuals will, as Nolan suggests, continue to breach any walls or interdiction systems that we can construct. And, differing from Nolan, history shows that they also will evade interior enforcement efforts which, in any event, will prove to be costly, ineffective, disruptive, and unacceptable from a civil liberties standpoint.

Yes, I know this isn’t what folks, particularly those “outside the Beltway,” want to hear. But, the fact that my message might be unpopular in today’s climate doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m wrong.

Immigration is a complicated issue that will require thoughtful, creative, cooperative, and human-oriented solutions. Merely doubling down on enforcement, whether popular or not, will not give us control over human migration.

On an historical note, I greatly appreciate Nolan’s citation and link to the July 15, 1976 memorandum on prosecutorial discretion from INS General Counsel Sam Bernsen to Commissioner Chapman, which I wrote. Go to the link and check out the initials at the end. Oh, for the “good old days” of “real” carbon copies!

PWS 12/28/16

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: