"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
Obama’s DHS Secretary, Jeh Johnson, explained the decision this way: “Frankly, we want to send a message that our border is not open to illegal migration, and if you come here, you should not expect to simply be released.”
Opponents of Obama’s family detention policy claimed that it violated the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement, which established a nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of unaccompanied alien minors.
In 1962, a U.S. Court of Appeals acknowledged that the Flores litigation focused initially on the problems facing unaccompanied minors, but it heldthat the underlying policies applied equally to alien minors who are with a parent.
Alien families that are apprehended at or near the border after making an illegal entry are placed in expedited removal proceedings. If they want asylum, they are given an opportunity to establish that they have a credible fear of persecution. If they succeed, they are placed in regular removal proceedings for an asylum hearing before an immigration judge. Otherwise, they are deported without further proceedings.
Detention is mandatory in expedited removal proceedings, “Any alien subject to the procedures under this clause shall be detained pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution and, if found not to have such a fear, until removed.”
The Board of Immigration Appealsheld that the mandatory detention period ends when a credible fear has been established, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently directed that decision to himself for a determination of whether it should be overruled.
A Senate Committee recently held a hearing on the implications of extending the Settlement Agreement to children who are with a parent. According to Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, (R-WI), “it is well past time for Congress to act.”
The most promising solution may be to amend the mandatory detention provision and provide funding for the development of effective alternatives to detention.
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.
****************************************
Go on over to ILW.Com at the above link to read Nolan’s full article.
Nolan reminds us that this, and a number of other policies that Dems now harshly criticize, actually originated during the Obama Administration. I find it interesting to hear Jeh Johnson and others now “back pedal” from the full implications of their questionable policy decisions.
I also agree with Nolan that it would be better if Congress would solve this problem in a bipartisan manner rather than leaving it to the Federal Courts.
The main benefit would be the creation of a federal licensing scheme for additional Family Residential Centers that would provide care for alien minors and their parents.
Maybe, but if a challenge to the regulation goes to court, the main issue is likely to be whether administration officials can bypass an explicit statutory provision requiring mandatory detention in expedited removal proceedings with a settlement agreement.
******************************************
Go on over to The Hill at the link to read the rest of Nolan’s article which contains summaries of the Flores settlement and the expedited removal process.
Sessions is trying to eliminate the need for asylum hearings on applications that are based on improper persecution claims. These meritless cases are contributing to an immigration court backlog crisis. If he is prevented from doing this by issuing precedent decisions to provide guidance on how asylum cases are supposed to be handled, the administration will resort to more extreme measures.
The United States does not have to grant any asylum applications. Asylum is discretionary, and the Supreme Court has held that the president can suspend the entry of aliens into the United States when he finds that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
The court declined to decide whether “some form of inquiry into the persuasiveness of a president’s finding is appropriate.” It seems unlikely, however, that the court would reject a president’s finding that discretionary asylum grants should be suspended until the immigration court backlog crisis is brought under control because allowing the backlog to continue is detrimental to the interests of the United States.
This would not leave asylum seekers without a way to avoid persecution. Withholding of removal is available too and it is mandatory when eligibility has been established. The main difference in eligibility requirements is that asylum just requires a well-founded fear of persecution, and withholding requires the applicant to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted.
But withholding does not entitle aliens to remain in the United States. It just prevents them from being deported to a country where they will be persecuted
. . . .
**********************************************
Read Nolan’s complete article at the link.
Unlike Nolan, I believe that the ACLU has properly stated a case for jurisdiction under INA 242(e)(3)(A)(ii). Sessions’s decision in Matter of A-B- has the force and effect of a regulation. Moreover, the DHS implementing instructions give it the status of a “written policy” concerning credible fear and expedited removal. Here’s the complaint in Grace v. Sessions: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/grace-v-sessions-complaint
Contrary to what Nolan suggests in his article, a petition for review of A-B- is not an adequate remedy for these plaintiffs. First, Matter of A-B-, to my knowledge, is still on remand to the Immigration Judge. Therefore, there is no “final order” for judicial review purposes.
Second, Matter of A-B- has never been subject to judicial review in any court. Yet, the plaintiffs in Grace face a likelihood of return to persecution without ever having a chance to challenge A-B- through a petition for review. That’s the result of Sessions’s improperly cutting off access to the Due Process hearing system before an Immigration Judge. If Matter of A-B- is eventually overruled by one or more Courts of Appeals, the respondents will have already been improperly deported to persecution or death.
Nolan also uses some of the questionable EOIR statistics that I commented on separately in my preceding post: https://wp.me/p8eeJm-2W2
The idea that Trump could essentially repeal the US asylum system on the basis of bogus national security concerns seems preposterous on its face. Yet, in the perverted “Age of Trump,” and given the Supremes’ majority’s spineless performance in Trump v. Hawaii, I suppose anything is posssible.
In the first two quarters of fiscal 2018, the immigration court only completed 92,009 cases. At this rate, the immigration court will have completed only 184,000 cases when fiscal 2018 ends on Sept. 30.
Even if DHS stopped arresting deportable aliens, it would take the immigration court four years to eliminate its backlog.
To reduce the backlog, Trump will have to pull aliens from the immigration court’s backlog and put them in expedited removal proceedings, and presumably this is why he is planning to expand the use of expedited removal proceedings.
In January, Trump instructed the DHS to apply expedited removal proceedings to the fullest extent of the law. This would extend it to include undocumented aliens who were not admitted or paroled into the United States and cannot prove that they have been here for two years.
It will be extremely difficult to help aliens who are caught up in this expansion. Congress has severely limited federal court jurisdiction over expedited removal proceedings.
The courts cannot consider expedited removal orders on a petition for review.
Review is available in habeas corpus proceedings, but it is limited to determinations of whether the petitioner is an alien; whether his removal has been ordered in expedited removal proceedings; and whether he has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or has been granted refugee or asylum status.
Other provisions permit challenges to the constitutionality of the system and its implementing regulations, and claims that the written policies and procedures issued under it are in violation of law. These challenges must be brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia within 60 days of when the challenged policy or procedure is implemented.
The expansion should greatly reduce the backlog, but it will not eliminate it. Too many of the aliens in removal proceedings have been physically present for two years.
Go on over to The Hill at the link to read the rest of Nolan’s article.
Even assuming that the vastly expanded use of expedited removal were upheld by the Article III Courts (I think it’s unconstitutional), cases couldn’t be “pulled from the backlog.” The Immigration Court backlog is made up almost entirely of cases where the individuals have already been here more than two years. Thus, expedited removal wouldn’t apply.
Interesting that notwithstanding the attention given to immigration, the DHS hasn’t gotten around to publishing the necessary regulatory change to expand expedited removal. That might suggest that “cooler, smarter heads” within DHS might actually be pointing out why that would be stupid.
The real “take away” here is that under Sessions’s gross mismanagement of the Immigration Courts more Immigration Judges produce fewer completed cases and more backlog. Basically, what I had predicted. And that’s with all sorts of pressure to churn out orders, cutting Due Process, unnecessary wasteful coercive detention, “aimless docket reshuffling,” some politicized personnel actions, and other “pedal faster gimmicks” by Sessions.
What that really shows is that Immigration Court cases are difficult cases and that even with Sessions’s shameless gaming of the system against migrants, Due Process has a certain largely irreducible minimum time for hearings.
Given that, increasing so-called “expedited removal” to reduce the existing backlog clearly would be irrational and present severe Constitutional difficulties under the Due Process clause.
Like it or not, a substantial legalization program combined with an independent Article I Immigration Court, more rational DHS enforcement priorities, and a healthy dose of prosecutorial discretion is the only way of getting the Immigration Courts back on track.
And, while I’ve said before that Democrats bear a fair share of the blame for the current Immigration Court dysfunction, Sessions has certainly made it immeasurably worse; the current barrier to reasonable immigration reform is clearly Trump and the GOP restrictionists, not the Democrats.
Indeed, the Trump-led GOP’s inability to accomplish the “no brainer” of DACA relief shows that it’s going to take “regime change” to solve this problem.
That means that things are likely to continue to get worse before they improve — that is, unless the Article IIIs step in and take control of the Immigration Courts away from Sessions as an act of Constitutional self-preservation.
Drastic action? Sure. Likely? Maybe not. But, the Article IIIs might eventually have to do it, since Sessions’s scofflaw actions on immigration are starting to run the entire Article III system into the ground, just like he is destroying the Immigration Courts.
The last legalization program was established by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, more than 30 years ago. The Democrats claim that this is because the Republicans won’t cooperate, but that isn’t true.
The Democrats could have established a legalization program without Republican cooperation during the first two years of Barack Obama’s administration. From January 2009 to January 2011, they had a majority in the House, and until Scott Brown’s special election in 2010, there were enough Democratic senators to overcome a filibuster.
And they could establish one now if they really wanted to.
Trump is willing to support legalization for 1.8 million aliens in the DACAprogram if the Democrats accept the three conditions in his framework on immigration reform and border security.
Trump wants to end chain migration. This should not be a deal-breaker if the legalization program were to be established by expanding the availability of Special Immigrant Juveniles (SIJ) status to include DACA participants, which could restrict the end of chain migration to them as opposed to ending it for everyone.
SIJ provisions state, “no natural parent or prior adoptive parent of any alien provided special immigrant status under this subparagraph shall thereafter, by virtue of such parentage, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under this Act.”
Trump also wants a wall along the border with Mexico, which would make it more difficult for parents to make illegal crossings with their young children in the future. Adults may be able to climb over a wall 20 or 30 feet high, but young children can’t.
The Democrats have been willing to end the DVP in the past. Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) Gang of Eight bill would have repealed it in 2013 if it had been enacted.
The problem seems to be that legalization isn’t very important to the Democrats.
*****************************************
Go on over to The Hill at the above link for Nolan’s complete article!
I agree with Nolan that legalization should be the focus.
I have also made a similar observation that during the first two years of the Obama Administration, Democrats could have solved what have become the three most pressing problems on the domestic front:
Legalization;
Dreamer relief; and
An independent U.S. Immigration Court.
Our country and the good folks caught up the in current system are paying the price every day for these failures. But, past is past. The important thing is not to make the same mistakes again if and when the Democrats and whatever “moderate” Republicans still remain get a chance to act.
The U.S. is the only member of the United Nations (UN) that did not participate in the entire 18-month process for the development of a , which is supposed to be formally adopted in December.
The process began when the UN hosted a summit in New York on September 19, 2016, to discuss a more humane way to handle large movements of migrants. Barack Obama was the president then. At the end of the summit, all 193 member states signed the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, a 24-page document that provided a blueprint for the establishment of the compact for migrants (and a separate compact for refugees).
The declaration included numerous provisions that were inconsistent with U.S. immigration policy and the Trump administration’s immigration principles. Consequently, the Trump administration ended U.S. participation.
Ambassador Nikki Haley, the U.S. representative to the UN, explained in a press release that, “The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.” America decides how best to control its borders and who will be allowed to enter.
The Trump administration was right. The compact is a collective commitment to achieve 23 objectives for safe, orderly, and regular migration. Although it addresses problems that need to be resolved, some its proposed solutions would weaken U.S. border security and others would usurp congressional control over the nation’s immigration laws.
Meanwhile, Alina Inayeh, Director of the Bucharest Office, German Marshall Fund of the United States. writes in a Facebook post:
. . . .
This ideology of authoritarian patriarchy rejects any constraint on the ruler at home or the state abroad. Mr Trump and Mr Putin support a return to an era of unfettered state sovereignty. They would dismantle international and supranational organisations of all kinds and return to multipolar “Great Power” politics, in which alliances shift and are transactional. As Mr Trump has said, America’s allies can be “foes” on some issues and “friends” on others, without any overarching loyalties based on niceties like a shared commitment to liberal democracy.
Above all, nations would not be subject to globalist dictates about how they should treat the people within their borders. They would control and protect their definition of national purity.
From this vantage point, Nato and the EU are intolerable exemplars of the “liberal international order” — an order built in support of a set of anti-nationalist values that were encapsulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The preamble to the North Atlantic Treaty reaffirms the parties’ “faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,” including the universal principles of “democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law”.
Similarly, the EU proclaims as “fundamental values”, and indeed requirements for membership in the union, “respect for human dignity and human rights, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law”. Not national dignity and rights, but human.
The Russian president may indeed have some kind of hold over Mr Trump, as former CIA director John Brennan has suggested. But opposition to the current international order does not require a scene out of a spy novel. The extreme right of the Republican party has been exaggerating the danger of the UN for decades. Mr Trump is only taking their views mainstream.
A 2017 poll shows more than half of Republicans say the US and Russia should work more closely together. That is still less than 20 per cent of the population, but they are “America first-ers”, the would-be architects of a new world. And they are reaching out to Britain-firsters, Hungary-firsters, France-firsters, Israel-firsters — wherever nationalists are to be found. They seek a return to the rules of the 19th century.
And why not? The post-second-world-war order is just 70 years old — a blip in the history of multi-polar diplomacy. The Soviet Union lasted 70 years. It collapsed but Russia endures. The EU could collapse and European countries would endure. Nato could collapse and transatlantic relations would endure, on a bilateral and plurilateral basis.
It is incumbent upon those of us who see an arc of progress bending towards peace and universal human rights to appreciate the full scope of the threat posed to our 20th-century global architecture. Our response has to be more than defending the status quo. We must begin sketching an affirmative counter-vision of state and non-state institutions that empower their members more than they constrain them and solve problems effectively together.
************************************************
Read the complete articles at the respective links above.
According to UNHCR, the U.S. cannot return or expel “a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”
The United States is meeting this condition with the withholding of deportation provision in the INA. It provides that, “the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
The burden of proof is higher for withholding than it is for asylum. Asylum just requires the applicant to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Withholding requires the applicant to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted.
And withholding grants fewer benefits.
A grant of withholding does not convey legal immigration status to the alien. It just prohibits sending him to a country where he would face persecution. He can be removed to another country where he will not be persecuted.
Moreover, it is not derivative. A grant of withholding does not apply to the members of the alien’s family.
The United States also is a signatory to the UN’s Convention against Torture (CAT), which prohibits the U.S. from expelling, returning or extraditing “a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”
Relief under CAT does not confer lawful immigration status on the alien. It just prohibits his deportation to the country where he would be tortured. He can be deported to a country where he will not be tortured.
. . . .
************************************
To fully understand the differences between asylum and withholding under the Refugee Convention and the CAT, read Nolan’s complete article over on The Hill!
Nolan makes a good point that although asylum is by statute discretionary, these other forms of relief are mandatory. Moreover, the current Federal case law limits discretionary denials of asylum to “egregious” adverse factors.
The privatization of ICE detention centers has exacerbated the problems the bureau faces and has given considerable fodder to media exposes of abuses. The DHS Office of Inspector General recently released a scathing report on failures of the private contractors to comply with detention standards. It’s time to restructure the responsibilities to administer detention and removal policies more humanely.
To its credit, ICE also performs critical assignments that include investigating foreign nationals who violate the laws. The main categories of crimes its agents investigate are suspected terrorism, criminal acts, suspected fraudulent activities (i.e., possessing or manufacturing fraudulent immigration documents) and suspected smuggling and trafficking of foreign nationals. ICE investigators are housed in the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) component and are among those who would dismantle ICE.
If ICE is not at the border performing critical background checks and national security screenings, who does? First, the State Department consular officers screen all foreign nationals requesting a visa, employing biometric technologies along with biographic background checks. In some high-risk consulates abroad, ICE assists in national security screenings. Then, DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspectors examine all foreign nationals who seek admission to the United States at ports of entry. CBP inspectors and consular officials partner with the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) to utilize the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment on known and suspected terrorists and terrorist groups.
They also check the background of all foreign nationals in biometric and biographic databases such the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System. Improvements in intelligence-gathering, along with advances in technologies and inter-agency sharing, have greatly enhanced the rigor of our national security screenings.
The most effective policy for interior immigration enforcement would be one prioritizing “quality of life” enforcement. As I have written elsewhere, it would be aimed at protecting U.S. residents from the deleterious and criminal aspects of immigration. Foremost, it would involve the investigation and removal of foreign nationals who have been convicted of crimes and who are deportable, thus maintaining the important activities of the current ICE investigators.
“Quality of life” enforcement, furthermore, would prioritize investigations of specific work sites for wage, hour and safety violations, sweatshop conditions and trafficking in persons — all illegal activities to which unauthorized workers are vulnerable. “Quality of life” enforcement also would encompass stringent labor market tests (e.g., labor certifications and attestations) to ensure that U.S. workers are not adversely affected by the recruitment of foreign workers, as well as reliable employment verification systems. Many of these functions once were performed by the Department of Labor (DOL), before funding cuts gutted its enforcement duties.
Prioritizing these functions likely would go a long way toward curbing unauthorized migration. Whether DOL or a revamped immigration enforcement be the lead on “quality of life” measures remains a key management question. There is a strong case for re-establishing DOL’s traditional role in protecting U.S. workers and certifying the hiring of foreign workers. Given the critical role that ICE investigators play, it is imperative that they be housed in an agency that provides them with adequate support. These are finer points that can be resolved as the functions are reorganized.
Including a multi-pronged agency or agencies charged with ensuring “quality of life” immigration enforcement measures as part of a package of immigration reforms would only increase the strong public support (roughly two-thirds favor) for comprehensive immigration reform. Good policy. Good politics.
Ruth Ellen Wasem is a clinical professor of policy at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, the University of Texas in Austin. For more than 25 years, she was a domestic policy specialist at the U.S. Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Service. She has testified before Congress about asylum policy, legal immigration trends, human rights and the push-pull forces on unauthorized migration. She is writing a book about the legislative drive to end race- and nationality-based immigration.
*******************************************
Hit the above link to read Ruth’s entire article over at The Hill.
I believe that both Nolan Rappaport and I have previously noted the importance of better wage and hour enforcement in preventing employer abuse of both the legal and extra-legal immigration systems. Sure make lots more sense than “busting” hard-working, productive members of our community who have the bad fortune to be here without documents in an era of irrational enforcement!
There are lots of “smart immigration enforcement” options out there. Although the Obama Administration for the most part screwed up immigration policy, toward the end they actually were coming around to some of the “smart enforcement” initiatives, particularly with DACA at USCIS and more consistent and widespread use of prosecutorial discretion (“PD”) at ICE.
Naturally, the Trump Administration abandoned all of the “smart” initiatives started by the Obama Administration and instead doubled down on every cruel, ineffective, and just plain stupid policy from the past. But, that’s because it’s never been about law enforcement or developing a rational immigration policy. It’s really all about racism and White Nationalism. This Administration, representing a minority of Americans, has absolutely no interest in democracy or governing for the common good.
That’s why it’s critical for the rest of us, who want no part of White Nationalist Nation, to begin the process for “regime change” at the ballot box this Fall! And, in the meantime, join the New Due Process Army and fight the horrible excesses and intentionally ugly policies of the Trumpsters!
ERO shouldn’t terrorize anyone, but it has to be able to arrest deportable aliens where they can be found.
The main reason for wanting to abolish ICE is likely to prevent undocumented aliens who are here for a better life from being deported.
But if ICE were to be abolished, its responsibilities would be assigned to another agency and Trump would require the new agency to implement the same policies.
Trump’s enforcement policies
President Barack Obama focused his immigration enforcement programprimarily on aliens who had been convicted of crimes in the United States, had been caught near the border after an illegal entry, or had returned unlawfully after being deported.
Once an undocumented alien had succeeded in crossing the border without being apprehended, he did not have to worry about being deported unless he was convicted of a serious crime. He was home free.
This created a “home free magnet” which encouraged more undocumented aliens to come and do whatever they had to do to cross the border.
“We cannot faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States if we exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement.”
He directed DHS “to employ all lawful means to ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States against all removable aliens.”
Nevertheless, he prioritized removing aliens who are inadmissibleon criminal and related grounds, on security and related grounds, and for misrepresentations, or who are deportable for criminal offenses or on security and related grounds, and removable aliens who:
Have been convicted of any criminal offense;
Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;
Have committed acts that constitute a criminal offense;
Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or government application;
Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;
Are subject to a final order of removal but have not left the United States; or
In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.
Sanctuary policies prevent local police departments from turning inmates over to ERO when they are released from custody, so ERO is spending more of its time looking for deportable aliens in communities. This resulted in arresting 40,000 noncriminal aliens in FY 2017.
But ERO should not be engaging in improper behavior to make these or any other arrests.
If you see an ICE officer doing something improper, report him. This is far more likely to improve the situation than calling for the abolishment of ICE.
*****************************************
Go on over to The Hill at the link for Nolan’s complete article.
I agree with Nolan that ICE isn’t going anywhere under Trump.
I also agree that the essential functions of ICE will still need to be performed, regardless of the ultimate fate of the organization.
I think it’s great that the “Abolish ICE Movement” has focused more attention on the cruel, unnecessary, and highly counterproductive enforcement and prosecutorial policies of ICE under Trump.
Indeed, the counterproductive nature of the Trump/Sessions immigration enforcement is a major reason why a group of Senior ICE Agents who actually perform real law enforcement functions — anti-smuggling, anti-human trafficking, immigration fraud, anti-terrorism — want to ditch the ICE label, because they know it’s inhibiting cooperation with other agencies and communities and thereby diminishing real law enforcement.
Most true law enforcement professionals that I have known don’t want to be associated with a group that glorifies cruelty and de-humanizes ordinary people. Having ICE on your resume today wouldn’t be a plus for most folks interested in a legitimate law enforcement career.
While the “essential functions” of ICE will continue, lots of today’s ICE enforcement has little to do with “essential enforcement.” The latter would be targeted at criminals, fraudsters, spouse abusers, traffickers, and recent arrivals who don’t have applications pending.
The lack of any semblance of common sense and responsibility in ICE’s abusive refusal to exercise prosecutorial discretion and actually putting properly closed cases back on the docket is a major contributor to the absolute mess in today’s Immigration Courts.
It’s also a reason why the Immigration Court mess is unlikely to be solved until Congress, the courts, and/or some future Executive force some fundamental changes in ICE enforcement and prosecutorial policies to reflect the same type of prudent, respectful, and realistic use of judicial time and prosecutorial discretion that is employed, to some extent, by every other major law enforcement agency in the U.S.
It never hurts to complain. I’m a big fan of making a “running record” of misconduct.
But, in the Trump Administration a record is about all you’ll get. Nothing is going to be done to correct misconduct because misconduct comes from the top.
My experience with ICE Chief Counsel’s Office in Arlington was highly positive. The attorneys were overwhelmingly fair, smart, responsive, respectful, and part of the “team” with the private, bar, the courts, and the interpreters that made the justice system work in Arlington in the past.
Indeed, working with the Arlington Chief Counsel’s Office made me proud to have led the major reorganization that established the forerunner to the “Modern Chief Counsel System” at the “Legacy INS” during the Carter and Reagan Administrations. The Arlington Chief Counsel’s Office was exactly what former General Counsels Dave Crosland, Mike Inman, Regional Counsel Bill Odencrantz, and I had envisioned when we planned and carried out the reorganization (over considerable internal opposition, I might add).
My overall experiences with the officers of ICE and it’s forerunner INS Investigations were positive. I found and worked with plenty of capable, dedicated, professional, and humane officers during my decades of dealing with immigration enforcement in some form or another.
All of that suggests that the major problems in ICE have arisen almost entirely under the Trump Administration. That’s because of truly horrible leadership from the top down.
ICE won’t improve until we get “regime change.” When that happens, ICE will have to be reorganized, reinvented, and “rebranded.” Professional management — one that pays particular attention to its relationship to local communities — must be reestablished. Sane enforcement and prosecutorial discretion policies will have to be reinstated.
My experiences with ICE suggest that the right people to lead an “ICE-type” agency in the future are likely already somewhere in ICE. They just aren’t in the right leadership and management positions. Maybe they will all quit before the end of the Trump Administration If not, they could serve as a “professional core” for rebuilding and reforming ICE.
I’m skeptical that so-called “Catch and Release” has a significant effect on what’s happening on the Southern Border.
In the first place, the current situation is “a self-created crisis” initiated by Trump & Sessions. Otherwise it’s pretty much normal migration.
Seeking asylum at the border isn’t “illegal migration” at all. It’s asserting an internationally recognized right. Detention and family separation are not appropriate responses to individuals seeking in good faith to exercise their rights.
In any event, the primary drivers of migration outside the visa system are: 1) unmet needs of the U.S. labor market, and 2) political, social, and economic conditions in foreign countries. So-called “Catch and Release” has no established effect on either of these “drivers.” See, e.g.,https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/crisis-border-not-numbers.
Perhaps Trump’s “no due process” approach is the best solution if persecution claims can be considered outside of the United States.
Letting them apply here isn’t working well.
As of April 2017, the average wait for a hearing was 670 days, and the immigration court backlog has increased since then. It was 714,067 cases in May 2018.
It isn’t possible to enforce the immigration laws if deportable aliens can’t be put in removal proceedings, and the judges are being pressed to spend less time on cases, which puts due process in jeopardy.
We need a politically acceptable way to reduce the number of asylum applicants to a manageable level.
******************************************
Go on over to The Hill at the link to read Nolan’s complete article!
I agree with Nolan’s observation that pushing Immigration Judges to schedule more cases and spend less time on them puts due process in jeopardy. I also can see that Sessions intends to reduce asylum grant rates to about 0% by totally distorting the system until it is impossible for virtually anyone actually needing protection to get it.
As I have stated before, the problem isn’t the asylum law. The problem is the way Trump and Sessions have distorted and perverted asylum law and the Constitutional right to Due Process.
Asylum law is designed to protect individuals fleeing from persecution. We haven’t even begun to test the limits of our ability to give refuge. Indeed, at the time of the world’s greatest need, and our own prosperity, we have disgracefully turned our backs on accepting anything approaching a fair share of the world’s desperate refugees. We should be ashamed of ourselves as a nation! Refugees of all types bring great things to our nation and help us prosper. But, even if they didn’t, that wouldn’t lessen our moral and humanitarian obligations to accept our fair and more generous share of the world’s refugees.
And never forget that the backlog and the waiting times have little or nothing to do with fault on the part of asylum applicants.Many of them have also been unfairly screwed by the mess that Congress, the DOJ, DHS, and politicos have made of the Immigration Court system.
The backlog is almost entirely the result of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” which has been kicked into high gear under Sessions, exceptionally poor choices in docket management and bad prosecutorial decisions by DHS, and years of neglect and understaffing by Congress, as well as stunningly incompetent management of the Immigration Courts by the DOJ under the last three Administrations.
Here’s the truth that Trump and the restrictionists don’t want to deal with:
SOLVING THE SOUTHERN BORDER: It’s Not Our Asylum Laws That Need Changing — It’s The Actions Of Our Leaders Who Administer Them That Must Change!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.)
Contrary to what White Nationalist liars like Trump & Sessions say, our U.S. asylum laws are not the problem. The politicos who misinterpret and misapply the law and then mal-administer the asylum adjudication system are the problem.
The current asylum laws are more than flexible enough to deal efficiently, effectively, and humanely with today’s bogus, self-created “Southern Border Crisis.” It’s actually nothing more than the normal ebb and flow, largely of refugees, from the Northern Triangle.
That has more do with conditions in those countries and seasonal factors than it does with U.S. asylum law. Forced migration is an unfortunate fact of life. Always has been, and probably always will be. That is, unless and until leaders of developed nations devote more time and resources to addressing the causation factors, not just flailing ineffectively and too often inhumanely with the inevitable results.
And the reasonable solutions are readily available under today’s U.S. legal system:
Instead of sending more law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges to the Southern Border, send more CBP Inspectors and USCIS Asylum Officers to insure that those seeking asylum are processed promptly, courteously, respectfully, and fairly.
Take those who turn themselves in to the Border Patrol to the nearest port of entry instead of sending them to criminal court (unless, of course, they are repeat offenders or real criminals).
Release those asylum seekers who pass “credible fear” on low bonds or “alternatives to detention” (primarily ankle bracelet monitoring) which have been phenomenally successful in achieving high rates of appearance at Immigration Court hearings. They are also much more humane and cheaper than long-term immigration detention.
Work with the pro bono legal community and NGOs to insure that each asylum applicant gets a competent lawyer. Legal representation also has a demonstrated correlation to near-universal rates of appearance at Immigration Court hearings. Lawyers also insure that cases will be well-presented and fairly heard, indispensable ingredients to the efficient delivery of Due Process.
Insure that address information is complete and accurate at the time of release from custody. Also, insure that asylum applicants fully understand how the process works and their reporting obligations to the Immigration Courts and to DHS, as well as their obligation to stay in touch with their attorneys.
Allow U.S. Immigration Judges in each Immigration Court to work with ICE Counsel, NGOs, and the local legal community to develop scheduling patterns that insure applications for asylum can be filed at the “First Master” and that cases are completed on the first scheduled “Individual Merits Hearing” date.
If there is a consensus that these cases merit “priority treatment,” then the ICE prosecutor should agree to remove a “lower priority case” from the current 720,000 case backlog by exercising “prosecutorial discretion.” This will end “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and insure that the prioritization of new cases does not add to the already insurmountable backlog.
Establish a robust “in-country refugee processing program” in the Northern Triangle; fund international efforts to improve conditions in the Northern Triangle; and work cooperatively with the UNHCR and other countries in the Americas to establish and fund protection programs that distribute refugees fleeing the Northern Triangle among a number of countries. That will help reduce the flow of refugees at the source, rather than at our Southern Border. And, more important, it will do so through legal humanitarian actions, not by encouraging law enforcement officials in other countries (like Mexico) to abuse refugees and deny them humane treatment (so that we don’t have to).
My proposed system would require no legislative fixes; comply with the U.S Constitution, our statutory laws, and international laws; be consistent with existing court orders and resolve some pending legal challenges; and could be carried out with less additional personnel and expenditure of taxpayer funds than the Administration’s current “cruel, inhuman, and guaranteed to fail” “deterrence only” policy.
ADDITIONAL BENEFIT: We could also all sleep better at night, while reducing the “National Stress Level.” (And, for those interested in such things, it also would be more consistent with Matthew 25:44, the rest of Christ’s teachings, and Christian social justice theology).
As Eric Levitz says in New York Magazine, the folks arriving at our border are the ones in crisis, not us! “And those families aren’t bringing crime and lawlessness to our country — if anything, we brought such conditions to theirs.”
That warrants a much more measured, empathetic, humane, respectful, and both legally and morally justifiable approach than we have seen from our Government to date.The mechanisms for achieving that are already in our law. We just need leaders with the wisdom and moral courage to use them.
PWS
06-23-18
I also take note of how EOIR under Sessions has disingenuously manipulated the asylum adjudication numbers to support a false narrative that most asylum claims are meritless.
The only “real ” number is a comparison of asylum grants to denials, not grants to the total number of cases involving asylum applications including the substantial number that were never decided on the merits. The fact that a case is disposed of in some other manner does not mean that the asylum application was meritless; it just means that the case was disposed of in another way.
Here are the “real” numbers from EOIR’s own Statistics Yearbook, before they were dishonestly manipulated under Sessions’s instructions to support his false claims about asylum seekers:
Asylum Grant Rate
Grants
Denials
Grant Rate
FY 12
10,575
8,444
56%
FY 13
9,767
8,777
53%
FY 14
8,672
9,191
49%
FY 15
8,184
8,816
48%
FY 16
8,726
11,643
43%
In 2016, the “real” grant rate was 38%. Even under Sessions in the partial FY 2018, the merits grant rate is 35%. That’s by no means negligible — one in three! And, remember folks, this is with asylum law that was already badly skewed against applicants, particularly those from the Northern Triangle with potentially bona fide claims. (But, admittedly, before Sessions recent rewriting of asylum law to improperly deny asylum and essentially impose death sentences or torture on vulnerable women fleeing from the Northern Triangle.)
And, in my experience, the vast majority of denied asylum seekers had legitimate fears of harm upon return that should have entitled them to some protection; they just didn’t fit our unrealistically and intentionally restrictive interpretations. By no means does denial of an asylum claim mean that the claim was frivolous!
The real question we should be asking is that with the refugee situation in the world getting worse and with continually deteriorating conditions in the Northern Triangle, how do asylum merits grant rates drop from 56% and 53% as recently as FY 2011 & 2012 to 35% in 2018? What those numbers really suggests is large-scale problematic behavior and improper influence within the DOJ and the Immigration Judges who are denying far, far too many of these claims. Some of that includes use of coercive detention in out-of-the-way locations and depriving individuals of a fair opportunity to be represented by counsel, as well as a number of BIA decisions (even before Sessions’s Matter of A-B- atrocity) specifically designed to promote unfairness and more asylum denials.
There is no “southern border crisis,” other than the unnecessary humanitarian crisis that Trump and Sessions created by abusing children. Nor is there a problem with our asylum laws except for the intentional failure of our Government to apply them in a legal, fair, and Constitutional manner. But, there is a White Nationalist, racism problem clearly manifesting itself in our immoral and scofflaw national leadership.
Everyone committed to fairness, Due Process, and maintaining America as a country of humane values should fiercely resist, in every way possible, suggestions by Trump, Sessions, and some in the GOP to further abuse Due Process and eliminate the already limited rights of the most vulnerable among us!
We need to say focused on the real threats to our national security and continued existence as a democratic republic: Trump, Sessions, and their cohorts and enablers!
I wrote an article in July 2014 suggesting a way to deter unaccompanied alien children
from making the perilous journey from Central America to seek asylum in the United States. More than 50,000 of them had made that perilous journey and the number was growing.
Then-DHS Secretary Jeh C. Johnson posted an open letter to Central American parents on June 23, 2014, in which he advised them that:
“The criminal smuggling networks that you pay to deliver your child to the United States have no regard for his or her safety and well-being. …. In the hands of smugglers, many children are traumatized and psychologically abused by their journey, or worse, beaten, starved, sexually assaulted or sold into the sex trade; they are exposed to psychological abuse at the hands of criminals.”
I observed that the United States did not have to assume sole responsibility for helping the unaccompanied alien children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Their plight was an international problem. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) should be involved in finding a way to help them. UNHCR was established to safeguard the rights and well-being of refugees.
I proposed working with UNHCR to set up refugee centers in Central America for these children to make it unnecessary for them to travel to the United States.
A few months later, President Barack Obamaannounced the establishment of a Central American Minors (CAM) refugee program that would provide in-country refugee processing for qualified children in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
Ordinarily, the term “refugee” refers to aliens who are outside of their country of nationality and can’t return because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
But section 101(a)(42)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes the president to include aliens who are still in their own countries when he thinks circumstances warrant it.
The CAM program was phased out in FY 2008 because very few of the children were establishing eligibility for refugee resettlement. See page 43 of the Proposed Refugee Admissions Report for FY 2018. But that does not mean that it was a bad idea.
Trump could establish an expanded version of Obama’s CAM program now that would make it possible for adults as well as children in Central America to apply for refugee status without having to travel to the United States.
This should significantly reduce the number of asylum-seeking aliens who come here from Central America and make illegal entries that result in the separation of children from their parents.
***********************************
Go over to The Hill for Nolan’s complete article at the above link.
As someone who was extensively involved in the drafting and enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980 (during my time as INS Deputy General Counsel) I think that Nolan’s ideas are the type of creative, humane, international solution that we were hoping to achieve by enacting international refugee standards and definitions into U.S. law and by providing flexibility for “in-country” programs (with which the U.S. has some historical record of success). Also, solving problems in an orderly manner as close as possible to the area of conflict causing the flow is an important consideration in international protection. The Convention itself also encourages countries to think beyond its terms to create expanded forms of protection, some temporary, some durable. And, of course, giving some international thought, resources, and attention to what is causing the refugee flow in the first place is very important. I see all of these things in Nolan’s ideas.
Here’s what I said in a recent on alternatives to the present policies:
The real choices are 1) a dangerous 4,000 mile journey to a place where you might be able to save your life and that of your loved ones; or 2) the much more dangerous option of remaining in a place where you will likely be beaten, raped, extorted, tortured, impressed against your will, or killed by gangs, who are not just “street criminals” (as falsely portrayed by Sessions and other restrictionists) but who exercise quasi-governmental authority with the knowing acquiescence of the recognized governments.
Realistically, folks are going to opt for #1. We could recognize them as refugees; screen them abroad to weed out gang members and criminals and to take the danger out of the 4,000 mile journey; work with the UNHCR and other countries to distribute the flow; open more paths to legal immigration for those who want to leave but might not fit easily within the refugee definition; and encourage those who still arrive at our borders without documents seeking protection to go to a port of entry where they will be treated respectfully, humanely, and be given a prompt but full opportunity to present their cases for protection with access to counsel in a system that satisfies all the requirements of Constitutional Due Process, with the additional understanding that if they lose they will have to return to their home country.
While, not surprisingly, our ideas are not identical, there are some common themes that we could build upon in the future and perhaps achieve some bipartisan support. International solutions to refugee problems are preferable to each country trying to act on its own. And, by setting a good and responsible example, we could hopefully motivate other countries to follow suit. That once was a key principle of U.S. refugee policies. Sure makes lots more sense to me than sinking ungodly sums of money money into expensive (and not very effective) walls, detention centers, militarization of the border, and the inevitable barrage of lawsuits that “enforcement only” approaches generate.
This isn’t the first time The Board of Immigration Appeals has considered domestic violence and rejected victims of domestic violence as a particular social group. The Board did it in “Matter of R-A-” in 1999.
The Board held that R-A- was not eligible for asylum for two reasons. First, her claimed social group — “Guatemalan women who have been involved intimately with Guatemalan male companions, who believe that women are to live under male domination” — did not qualify as a “particular social group” for asylum purposes.
And second, that she has not established that her husband abused her because he perceived her to be a member of this group.
Attorney General Janet Reno intervened and vacated that decision — rendered it void — so it could be reconsidered in light of a proposed regulation that would clarify some of these concepts, but no final rule was ever promulgated.
The case was resolved without further consideration by the Board when R-A- and DHS jointly stipulated that she was eligible for asylum. Nevertheless, the Board and the federal courts continued to treat the R-A- analysis as persuasive.
In a later case, “Matter of A-R-C-G-”, the Board abandoned the reasoning from the R-A- analysis and held that depending on the facts and evidence in an individual case, “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” can constitute a particular social group for asylum purposes. But the finding was based primarily on government concessions, as opposed to basing it on an application of Board precedent.
Sessions found that the Board decided A-R-C-G-’s case without performing the rigorous analysis required by Board precedents by basing its decision on concessions from the DHS attorney that the respondent had suffered past persecution, that she was a member of a qualifying particular social group, and that her membership in that group was a central reason for her persecution instead of adjudicating these issues.
Sessions concluded therefore that A-R-C-G-’s case was wrongly decided and should not have been issued as a precedential decision. Accordingly, he overruled it.
Having overruled A-R-C-G-’s case, he had to vacate the Board’s decision in the A-B- case too. The Board’s cursory analysis of the respondent’s “particular social group” in that case consisted mainly of a general citation to A-R-C-G-’s case and country condition reports.
He remanded the case to the immigration judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, reiterating that an applicant for asylum on account of membership in a particular social group must demonstrate:
Membership in a particular social group that is composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, is defined with particularity, and is socially distinct;
That membership in that group is a central reason for the alleged persecution; and
That the alleged harm is inflicted by the government of her home country or by persons that the government is unwilling or unable to control.
The Board decisions applying asylum to domestic abuse victims may be morally correct, but they are legally indefensible.
************************
Read Nolan’s complete article over at The Hill at the above link.
I respectfully dissent. See Matter of R-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 906, 922 (BIA 1999) (Judge Guendelsberger, dissenting, joined by Schmidt, Chairman, and Judges Rosenberg, Villageliu, Moscato). The “Gang of Five” had it right then and continue to be right today.
I’ve been one of those fighting the battle for a correct interpretation of asylum law, particularly as it applies to abused women and other vulnerable groups, for two decades. It’s discouraging to have to re-fight a war we already won once. But, we’re all going to hang in there until justice and the humane, protective values behind the 1952 Convention and the Refugee Act of 1980 prevail. And, after we’re gone, members of the New Due Process Army will continue the fight until justice for the most vulnerable among us prevails.
“All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected, but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.”
“We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.”
Clinton is not the only Democrat who has spoken out against illegal immigration. The Republicans provide a number of examples in a blog they posted recently: “The Democrat Hard Left Turn on Illegal Immigration.”
In 1993, then-Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said, “When it comes to enforcing laws against illegal immigration, we have a system that will make you recoil in disbelief. … Yet we are doing almost nothing to encourage these people to go home or even to deter them from coming here in the first place.”
In 1994, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) ran a political ad showing illegal immigrants crossing the border and promised to get tough on illegal immigration with more “agents, fencing, lighting, and other equipment.”
In 2006, then-Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said “Better fences and better security along our borders” would “help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country.”
In 2009, during a speech at Georgetown Law, Senator Chuck Schumer(D-N.Y.) said, “When we use phrases like ‘undocumented workers,’ we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration, which the American people overwhelmingly oppose.”
The blog also provides video clip links, including one that shows Clinton receiving a standing ovation for his remarks about Americans being disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering the country.
. . . .
A recent report from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) on the labor laws California has enacted to protect unauthorized immigrant workers indicates that many of the immigrants who have been attracted to California by its sanctuary policies are being exploited by unscrupulous employers.
In fact, the main beneficiaries of California’s sanctuary policies are the employers who exploit undocumented immigrant workers and deportable immigrants in police custody who otherwise would be turned over to ICE when they are released.
California has had to enact seven laws to protect undocumented workers from being exploited by their employers.
EPI found that the ability of U.S. employers to exploit unauthorized workers undercuts the bargaining power of U.S. workers who work side by side with them. When the wages and labor standards of unauthorized immigrants are degraded, it has a negative impact on the wages and labor standards of U.S. workers in similar jobs.
In reality, we could meet all of our immigration needs with legal immigration. We do not need nor ultimately benefit from uncontrolled illegal immigration.
***************************************
Go on over to The Hill to read Nolan’s complete article.
I’m all for replacing the uncontrolled flow of undocumented migrants with legal migrants. That’s why I favor a “smart” immigration policy that would:
Legalize the vast majority of those currently here without documentation who are working in needed jobs, law-abiding, and contributing to our society. Legalization would allow them to be screened, brought into the tax system (if they aren’t already), and protected by U.S. labor laws.
Expand legal immigration opportunities, particularly for so-called “non-professional,” manual labor skills and jobs that are badly needed in the U.S. and which now often are filled by undocumented labor. That would allow screening of visa applicants abroad, a controlled entry process, and protections under the labor laws. To the extent that undocumented migration is being driven by unfilled market forces, it would decrease the flow of undocumented individuals, thus saving us from expensive, unneeded, inhumane, and ineffective “enforcement overkill.” Immigration enforcement would be freed to concentrate on those who might actually be a threat to the U.S.
Create more robust, realistic refugee laws that would bring many more refugees through the legal system, particularly from the Northern Triangle. This, along with cooperation with the UNHCR and other nations would reduce the need for individuals to make they way to our borders to apply for asylum. Asylum processing could be improved by allowing the Asylum Office to review and grant “defensive” as well as affirmative applications, thus lessening the burden on the Immigration Courts.
More investment in Wage and Hour, NLRB, and OSHA enforcement to prevent unscrupulous employers from taking advantage of workers of all types.
We have full employment, surplus jobs, a declining birth rate, and we’re losing the “STEM edge” to the PRC, Canada, Mexico, the EU and other nations that are becoming more welcoming and attractive to “high skill” immigrants. We’re going to need all of the legal immigration we can get across the board to remain viable and dynamic in a changing world.
But are California’s sanctuary laws really protecting them from being deported?
According to a report from the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts have been hurt by pushback from California and cities such as Chicago, New York, and Boston that have sanctuary policies.
Sanctuary policies prevent local police departments from turning inmates over to ICE when they are released from custody, which has resulted in returning some dangerous criminal aliens to the community.
ICE had to change its enforcement operations from taking custody of aliens at police stations to looking for undocumented aliens in the community, which resulted in arresting approximately 40,000 noncriminal aliens in FY 2017.
The main obstacle to deporting removeable aliens is the immigration court backlog crisis.
“I cannot give you a merits hearing on my docket unless I take another case off. My docket is full through 2020, and I was instructed by my assistant chief immigration judge not to set any cases past 2020.”
From April 2017 to April 2018, the backlog for the immigration courts in California increased by almost 20 percent to 692,298 cases.
These lengthy wait times make it necessary to release newly arrested aliens until hearings can be scheduled for them, which gives them time to disappear into the shadows.
Conclusion.
Apparently, the main beneficiaries of California’s sanctuary policies are deportable aliens in police custody who otherwise would be turned over to ICE when they are released and unscrupulous employers who exploit undocumented immigrant workers.
********************************************
Go on over to The Hill to read Nolan’s complete article! this article also was featured on ImmigrationProf Blog.
Here’s a “reprise” of a previous March 2018 post from Nolan in The Hill explaining how the Special Immigrant Juvenile (“SIJ”) provisions of the I&N Act could be used to facilitate a compromise solution for “Dreamers.” It certainly would be “worth a look” by both sides!
