Category: Supreme Court

MATTHEW AT THE BORDER: ACTING ON THE MESSAGE OF CHAPTER 25

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired)

 Westminster Presbyterian Men’s Breakfast

April 14, 2023

I. INTRODUCTION: THE MESSAGE OF MATTHEW 25

Welcome. Thank you for inviting me and for coming out this morning. 

Of course, I want to hold my friend and fellow “Badger” Dudley, the Men’s Group, honored guests, and anybody else of any importance whatsoever harmless for my remarks this morning. While I have borrowed liberally from the ideas and inspirations of others, I take sole responsibility for the views expressed in my presentation.

I don’t usually start my talks with a Biblical quote. But, since this is a church men’s breakfast, we are in the holy season, and my topic is integrally tied to Judeo-Christian values, I want to read from Matthew 25, verses 34-46:

34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;

35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,

36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’

37 Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink?

38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing?

39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’

40 And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’

41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;

42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,

43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’

44 Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’

45 Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’

46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

II. OVERVIEW

The last time I was with you, five years ago, I described the mess and rampant unfairness in our immigration system. I’d like to say that those times are behind us: That we have restored the rule of law, enhanced due process, and acted, as a nation, in a manner that showed adherence to those passages from Matthew.

But, unfortunately, I can’t do that. Not yet! Despite many promises to fix the mistakes of the past and to do better in the future, and a few successes, the current Administration has, in my view, disturbingly failed to deliver on our obligation to treat “the stranger” and “the other” — in other words, some of “the least of these” — fairly and with human dignity. Nowhere is this more harmful, discouraging, and threatening to both human life and our democracy than at our borders. 

The most vulnerable among us, asylum seekers, who ask for little other than to be treated fairly and humanely under our laws, are still being victimized by dysfunctional bureaucracies more intent on deterring and rejecting than on protecting!

I’m going to tell you truths that some find uncomfortable; briefly summarize our current and proposed “built to fail system” at the borders; and tell your why it doesn’t have to be this way! 

I’m going to share with you some ideas from legal and humanitarian experts on how our nation could do a far better job for ourselves and for refugees just by more creatively, boldly, and courageously exercising authorities under existing law. In other words how we as a nation could reflect on Jesus’s parable in Matthew and make it a reality.

III. UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS

Let me tell you a few truths that the “false prophets” find uncomfortable.

First, there is an internationally recognized right to seek asylum. Our law states that any person “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including [someone] who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such [person’s] status, may apply for asylum.” [INA, 208(a)].

Second, according to the 5th Amendment to our Constitution, “no person . . . shall be . . .  deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Note that it says “person,” not citizen or “lawfully present non-citizen.”

Third, according to our Supreme Court, asylum laws are to be applied generously, so that even those with just a 10% chance of suffering persecution could qualify. [INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca]. In other words, according to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the highest administrative tribunal in immigration where I once served as an appellate judge and Chair, asylum can be granted “even where [the likelihood of persecution] is significantly less than clearly probable.”  [Matter of Mogharrabi].

Additionally, the Handbook of the United Nations, whose Refugee Convention we adopted and which forms the basis for our refugee and asylum laws, says that because of the traumatic situation of refugees and the understandable difficulty they have in gathering and presenting “evidence,” refugees and asylum seekers should be given “the benefit of the doubt” in adjudications.

Fourth, by definition, refugee situations are driven by a variety of life-threatening forces occurring in sending countries, most of them outside our immediate control. Therefore, attempts to use harsh applications of our laws, intentionally “user-unfriendly” procedures, and punishment such as prosecution, imprisonment in life-threatening conditions, and even family separation as “deterrents” are ultimately doomed to failure. I’ve personally watched this “play out” during my five decade career in immigration.

Friends, human migration is a reality as old as humanity itself. It existed long before the evolution of the “nation state” and will continue as long as there is human life on this earth. 

Consequently, the idea of some that we can unilaterally cut off or end human migration solely by our own cruel, repressive, and unfair actions is absurd. As I always say, “We can diminish ourselves as a nation, but that won’t stop human migration.” 

Fifth, America needs immigrants. Refugees and asylees are part of our legal immigration system. They should be treated as such and welcomed, rather than being dehumanized and viewed as a “loophole,” a “threat,” or  “invaders.”

Unhappily, in my view, most of our past and current policies toward refugees and asylum seekers run afoul of these fundamental truths. Worse still, legislators, policy makers from both parties, and even Federal Judges have been willing to run roughshod over these fundamental principles when they believe it is personally, politically, financially, or even professionally expedient.

IV.  CURRENT BORDER POLICIES 

Currently, our border asylum policies, largely “holdovers” from the Trump Administration, are overwhelmingly weighted toward improper, and ultimately futile, “deterrence.” This reflects deeply imbedded nativist, often racist, views by those holding power.

Our Government currently claims that our border is “closed” to legal asylum seekers, as it has been since March 2020. Under a vestige of Trump-era policy, known as Title 42, the legal processing of asylum applicants and their admission has been suspended based on a transparently pretextual, manufactured claim of necessity to protect America from COVID.

This allows many individuals to be excluded from the U.S. without any legal process and without having a chance to make a claim for asylum or other legal protection. Others are allowed to come into the U.S. under highly discretionary — most would say arbitrary — opaque “exceptions” to Title 42 that are within the sole discretion or DHS officials without any meaningful review. 

The result is a mess. Some refugees are returned to Mexico or their home countries where they are subject to abuse, extortion,  exploitation, crime, torture, and sometimes death. 

Others, who might or might not be refugees, are allowed into the U.S., often with inadequate screening and without clear instructions as to what they are to do next. Because the Biden Administration didn’t establish any uniform nationwide resettlement system for those allowed in, they have been subject to cruel political stunts. 

One of the most well-publicized of these has been the so-called “voluntary relocation” of individuals from the border by the governors of Texas, Florida, and, until the recent election, Arizona. They are sent by these governors, without coordination or notice, to supposedly “liberal” cities such as New York, Chicago, Denver, and Washington, D.C., in the calculated hopes of overwhelming community nonprofit organizations, creating chaos, and thereby causing a “backlash” against asylum seekers and the Administration.

V. BIDEN’S LARGELY MISGUIDED PROPOSALS

The Biden Administration has made some rather halfhearted efforts to end Title 42. To date, these have been blocked by right-wing Federal Judges, mostly Trump appointees. 

But, it now appears that with the overall “COVID emergency” ended by President Biden, Title 42 will also end on May 11, barring further obstructionist litigation. 

Many of us had hoped that after more than two-years to work on regularizing and normalizing asylum processing, the Biden Administration would have a “ready to implement” plan for restoring order, fundamental fairness, and due process to asylum adjudication. 

But, sadly, this is not the case. The Biden Administration has actually proposed what many of us consider to be “gimmick regulations” to take effect upon the expiration of Title 42. These proposals actually build upon, and in some cases expand, unfair, restrictive, ineffective policies used by the Trump Administration to “deter” asylum seekers.  

Obviously, many experts have opposed these measures. A group of which I am a member, the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, filed an official comment in opposition to these proposals. 

In it, we stated: 

[T]he proposed rule exceeds the agencies’ authority by seeking to create a ban on asylum that contradicts Congressional intent and international law. As former Immigration Judges, we can confidently predict that the rule would result in individuals being erroneously deported even where they face a genuine threat of persecution or torture. We urge that the rule be withdrawn in its entirety. 

Notably, approximately 33,000 individuals and organizations joined us in submitting comments in opposition to these regulations. Among these is the union representing the DHS Asylum Officers who claim, with justification, that applying these proposed provisions would require them to violate their oath to uphold the law.

At the heart of the Administration’s proposed changes is a new bar for those who apply for asylum other than at a port of entry and who can’t show that they have applied and been denied asylum in a country they “transited” on the way to the U.S.

Absurdly, this includes some of the most dangerous countries in the world, without well-functioning, fair asylum systems: Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia, being among those often transited. 

This is also a rather obvious contradiction of the statutory command I read earlier that individuals can apply for asylum regardless of whether they arrive at a port of entry.

While there are some “emergency exceptions” to these new bars, they are narrow and will be almost impossible for individuals who have made the long, difficult, and dangerous journey to establish. 

The proposal also improperly raises the statutory standards for preliminary screening of these individuals by Asylum Officers from “credible fear” to “reasonable fear.” This improperly weaponizes “gatekeepers” to block access to the asylum adjudication system. 

Another “centerpiece” of the proposal is to require all asylum applicants arriving at ports of entry to schedule in advance an appointment for asylum screening using a new app called “CBP One.” Unfortunately, according to those actually at the border with asylum seekers, CBP One is “not quite ready for prime time.” It’s plagued by technical glitches, including disconnection, inability to schedule appointments for all family members, failure of the “facial recognition” software with some ethnic groups, and issues of usable wi-fi in Mexico and cell phone access among some applicants. 

As Senator Cory Booker (D) of New Jersey stated following a recent trip to the border:  

“Even if the CBP One app [were] as efficient, user friendly, fair, and inclusive as possible – which I hope one day it will be – it would still be inherently discriminatory.” 

Additionally, the “appointments” currently available for asylum seekers are woefully inadequate and often are exhausted shortly after being posted, leaving legal asylum seekers frustrated and stranded in deplorable conditions near the Mexican border. 

The Administration has recognized the need to encourage applications for refugee status in or near the countries from which refugees flee. But, instead of providing for more robust refugee admissions, the Administration has circumvented existing refugee laws by creating “special programs” for nationals of five countries to apply for temporary “parole into the U.S.”

This process is restricted to only five countries: Venezuela, Nicaragua, Haiti, Cuba, and Ukraine. The numbers of paroles are limited, and the criteria do not necessarily relate to refugee qualifications, relying heavily on the ability to obtain a U.S. sponsor in advance.

While this undoubtedly benefits some nationals of these countries, it does not prioritize refugees and it contains numerical limitations that do not apply to those seeking asylum. The arbitrary, highly discretionary nature of the parole determinations is combined with the lack of any statutory mechanism for conferring green cards upon the expiration of parole. This “limbo” situation recreates many of the ad hoc factors of parole programs prior to the Refugee Act of 1980 that Congress specifically intended to eliminate. 

Another so-called “feature” of the proposed system being touted by the Administration is the negotiated ability to remove up to 30,000 non-Mexicans per month to Mexico. This is despite the well-publicized dangers awaiting them there, including the recent murders of American tourists and the “slow roasting” of 39 detained asylum seekers in a Mexican detention center fire.

The Biden Administration is also considering re-instituting so-called “family detention” and increased criminal prosecutions of those who cross the border illegally. These policies, also employed by the Trump Administration, have proved highly problematic in the past.

Then there is the mess in the individual asylum adjudication system that was weaponized and largely destroyed by the Trump Administration. Unqualified personnel, perceived to be committed to denying asylum above all else, were selected both at DHS and for Immigration Judge positions at the Immigration Courts, known as EOIR in the Department of Justice. Both the Asylum Office and EOIR are now incredibly backlogged.

As currently operated, the Immigration Courts feature a number of so-called “asylum free zones” where asylum is almost never granted by judges who are renowned for denying 90-100% of the asylum claims, far above the already grossly inflated “national average.” 

Even when asylum is granted, it too often depends more upon the attitude and background of the individual Immigration Judge assigned than on the merits of the case. The U.S. Courts of Appeals regularly return cases to EOIR after pointing out very basic legal and factual errors committed by the latter in their undue haste to deny protection!

The current dysfunction at EOIR violates the commands of the law, that I read to your earlier, for due process, fairness, generosity, and applying the benefit of the doubt to asylum adjudications.

Indeed, attempting to avoid the Immigration Courts, now with an astounding 2 million backlog of pending cases, at least 800,000 of them involving asylum, appears to be one of the “drivers” of Biden Administration asylum policies. Unfortunately, in their two years in office, this Administration has done little to reform the Immigration Courts to improve expertise, efficiency, and due process and to repair the systemic damage done during the Trump Administration.

To add insult to injury, incredibly, the Biden Administration just “put on hold” one of the few potential improvements they had made to the asylum process: Allowing Asylum Officers to grant asylum to border applicants who pass credible fear. This would actually bypass the EOIR backlog without diminishing anyone’s due process rights. After pushing this change as potentially “transformational,” the Administration totally blew the implementation in a stunning show of ineptness and lack of basic preparation.

V. BETTER SOLUTIONS THROUGH EXISTING LAW

In my view, and that of other experts, we are once again heading for a systemic failure to do right by refugees and asylum seekers. The primary reason is that, in contravention of the law, the lessons of the Holocaust, which gave birth to the Refugee Convention, and the scriptures, we view refugees — “the stranger in need” — as “problems” or “statistics” to be “deterred,” “punished,” “discouraged,” and “denied.” 

This is a wrong-headed — and fundamentally un-Christian — view. Refugees are fellow humans — like us — in need. They are legally entitled and deserving of our protection. 

But, beyond that, they are an important source of legal immigration that our country was built upon and continues to need. Indeed most of the ancestors of those of us in this room probably came to this country fleeing or escaping something, regardless of whether or not it would have met today’s refugee definitions.

The border doesn’t have to be a source of disorder and embarrassment to our nation. There are better alternatives, even under existing law. 

My experience tells me that if, instead of straining to improperly deter refugees, we use available tools to construct a fair, timely, generous, practical, expert, user-friendly legal system for refugees and asylees, the vast majority of them will use it. That will necessarily take pressure off the task of apprehending those seeking to evade the system. 

What I’m going to share with you are ideas for progressive, humane, constructive improvements developed and advocated by many experts and NGOs. Certainly, these are not just my ideas.

First, we must maximize use of the existing provisions for legal screening and admission of refugees processed outside the United States. Currently, those programs are overly cumbersome and far too anemic with respect to the Western Hemisphere, particularly for countries in the Northern Triangle of Central America that are traditional “sending countries.”

Refugees screened and approved abroad arrive at our borders with documents and immediate work authorization. They are also able to bring family members and have a clear statutory path to obtaining green cards and eventually citizenship. These are important factors missing from the ad hoc parole programs instituted by this Administration. 

Second, we need radical reforms of our Asylum Offices at USCIS and the Immigration Courts at EOIR. The “deadwood and nay sayers” who overpopulated these agencies during the Trump Administration must be weeded out and replaced with true subject matter experts in asylum, preferably with actual experience representing asylum seekers. 

There are many asylum cases, both among arriving applicants, and languishing in the largely self-created backlogs, that could and should be prioritized and rapidly granted. Better trained and qualified Asylum Officers should be encouraged to grant asylum at or near the border whenever possible. That avoids the need to “refer” cases to the backlogged Immigration Courts.   

Within EOIR, a great place to “leverage” reform would be at the BIA. That body was intentionally “packed” with some of the highest asylum-denying judges during the Trump Administration. Bringing in well-respected subject matter experts to set positive asylum precedents, establish and enforce best practices, and “ride herd” on the toxic “asylum free zones” and “deniers’ clubs” allowed to flourish among Immigration Courts would be a huge step forward.  

And, for those who are found not to have a credible fear of persecution, after a fair screening system and fair rules administered by Asylum Officers who are experts, the law already provides for “summary expedited removal” without resort to full Immigration Court hearings, thus avoiding that backlogged system. 

There is not, and has never been, a legitimate need to resort to Title 42 and other improper gimmicks, to deal with large migration situations. To the extent that one believes in the effectiveness of “deterrence” for those who do not have credible asylum claims, it’s built right into our existing law.   

Third, the Administration should be working with the private bar, NGOs, states, and local governments to maximize access to pro bono or low bono asylum representation. Currently, far too many adjudications take place either in detention centers in intentionally obscure locations or at out of the way ports along the border. 

Achieving representation needs to be a driving factor in establishing asylum processing. Indeed, studies have shown that representation not only dramatically improves results for asylum seekers but also virtually guarantees their appearance at all immigration hearings, without detention. It’s probably the biggest “bang for the buck” in asylum adjudication strategies. 

The Government should also be working to encourage and, where possible, fund innovative programs like VIISTA Villanova that train non-attorneys to be “accredited representatives” for recognized non-profit organizations representing asylum seekers.

Fourth, rather than expensive and inhumane detention prisons, the Government should establish a network of “reception centers” near the border and throughout the country. These could provide safe, sanitary, residential housing, education, and even work opportunities while individuals are being timely and professionally processed for asylum. They also could be matched with legal staff. 

These centers should be run by NGOs and other social service organizations with government funding. They would be a humane replacement for the privately run “detention centers” that have been the center of controversy and human rights abuses. 

Fifth, the government should work with NGOs, charitable organizations, and regional economic consortiums to establish orderly, effective resettlement programs in the U.S. that would match those granted refugee or asylum status with housing and employment opportunities in areas of America where there skills can be best utilized. 

Sixth, our government should continue to engage with the UN, other democratic nations, and economic development agencies to address the root causes of migration. 

There are many other great ideas out here in the private sector that are being largely ignored by our Government. While nobody disputes the desirability of structural changes in our immigration laws, we could drastically improve and humanize our response to refugee situations just by more creative and robust application of already existing authorities and the expertise available in the U.S. humanitarian and NGO sectors.  Approaching asylum as a humanitarian responsibility, rather than a law enforcement conundrum, is the key to escaping from the wilderness of failed “deterrence schemes” and creating  a better future for humanity. 

VI. CONCLUSION

I can sum up by quoting one of the members of what I call the “New Due Process Army,” Amy R. Grenier. She said, very perceptively, that stripped of all of its legalistic complexities,  “the concept of asylum is fairly simple. It’s the ability to ask for help and have someone listen to your story. And I think that that’s very easy to lose sight of.” I think that is also the message of the quote from Matthew 25 that I began with. 

When we ignore these pleas for help from the most vulnerable and instead dehumanize, or as I sometimes say “Dred Scottify” them, we not only endanger their lives, but we also diminish our own humanity. I’ve never found anyone who wanted to be a refugee. And, but for the grace of God, any of us could be a refugee, at any time, often when you are least expecting it.

The problem with asylum at the border is not the law. It’s the lack of will, moral courage, vision, creativity, competence, and basic skills from those charged with implementing the law. In reality, there is plenty of flexibility in the existing law to encourage refugees to apply outside the U.S., to fairly, timely, and generously process those arriving at the border who invoke our laws, and to expeditiously remove those who don’t belong in the asylum system. 

There is also plenty of legal authority to change inhumane and expensive “border jails” into “reception centers,” to increase the availability of pro bono representation, to resettle refugees and asylees in an orderly fashion, and to match the needs and skills of refugees and asylees with the needs of communities throughout the U.S.  

The real issue is why is our Government wasting time and resources on cruel, legally questionable, ultimately ineffective “deterrence gimmicks” rather than solving problems, protecting the lives, and recognizing the humanity of those in need? Matthew knew what’s the right thing to do! Why don’t our elected leaders and the bureaucrats working for them? 

I’ve shared with you some ideas for getting closer to “the vision of Matthew 25” in dealing with refugees and asylees. Of course, I haven’t solved the hard part — how to get the attention of politicians, legislators, bureaucrats, and judges who have largely “tuned out” the legal rights of refugees and other migrants and are all too prone to run from creative solutions, rather than embrace them. 

But, hopefully, I have helped to install the first step: For all of us to recognize that contrary to what many say, we can do better for refugees and we should make doing so one of our highest national priorities. How we treat “the most vulnerable — the “least of those among us” — does affect everything else in our lives and our nation’s well-being!

We need to improve the informed dialogue, stand behind our values, and insist that those who govern us do likewise. Thank you and, as we say in the New Due Process Army, due process forever!

(04-13-23.2)