"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
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.
“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!
On April 18 the Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on strengthening the Immigration Court system. Several organizations, including the American Bar Association and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, recommended that Congress make the immigration courts independent courts under Article I of the Constitution. Congress should do so without delay, especially in light of the attorney general’s May 17 decision in Matter of Castro-Tum eliminating administrative closure.
Because the immigration courts, along with the Board of Immigration Appeals, are currently part of the Department of Justice, the attorney general, and others in the executive, not least of all the president, are in charge of agency regulations, case procedures, the hiring and firing of judges, and decision-making.
In recent months the administration has made unprecedented attacks on the judicial independence of immigration judges, including policy changes that are in direct contradiction to the recommendations of an April 2017 Booz Allen Hamilton report commissioned by the Department of Justice.
On March 30 the administration instituted a case completion quota of 700 a year for a “satisfactory” performance rating. This amounts to each Immigration Judge needing to complete on average three cases every working day. For judges who have dockets with a high number of asylum cases, for example, this arbitrary requirement will push them to expedite cases in ways that are extremely dangerous to due process.
As the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, Judge Tabaddor, testified at the congressional hearing, there has been ‘‘no quota ever, in any court; somehow implicit in [designating a quota] is that judges are not doing enough… [However, w]e should focus on [is] how we can support our judges.’’
Over the last six years I have directly or indirectly litigated over a hundred asylum cases, and in 95 percent of the cases the hearing takes about 3.5 hours, or the equivalent of one working morning or afternoon. This does not include the time a judge needs in camera to review the hundreds of pages of evidence in the record. In reality, a judge who completes one asylum case a day, and not three, is already extremely efficient.
The real problem is not with how hard-working the immigration judges are. As I explained in a 2016 article, part of the problem lies with understaffing. Instead of hiring a reasonable number of judges and law clerks, and otherwise investing in supporting the work of our Immigration Judges, the Administration is eliminating administrative closure and calling for administratively closed cases to be put back on the docket, actions that only serve to raise the number of pending cases.
If, for example, the Department of Justice puts all the administratively closed cases back on the docket, it would increase the court backlog to over 1,000,000. These are cases of crime victims and DACA recipients and others where an immigration judge has already determined that it would not be a good use of judicial resources, or in the public interest, to litigate, usually because the person is eligible for some non-judicial form of immigration relief and has a case pending with USCIS. Re-calendaring these cases would not only unnecessarily increase the work of taxpayer-funded DHS Trial Attorneys but it would add more pressure to the already overworked immigration judges.
The attorney general has also stepped into managing the immigration courts by restricting the use of continuances, which in the fast-paced detention context where my organization works are often necessary in order to have time to obtain crucial pieces of evidence and otherwise prepare for trial.
While the attorney general is the boss and is responsible for the judges’ performance, he should have a little more faith in the good judgement of his immigration judges, who, unlike the attorney general, are looking at the situation-specific issues in the individual case before them.
While the helpfulness of the attorney general’s methods for carrying out his job are questionable at best, the underlying problem remains that, regardless of our political opinion on the administration’s policies, those policies are affecting the judicial independence of our immigration courts and putting due process in jeopardy.
What the attorney general says matters to the immigration judges working under him. In one recent case, the immigration judge cited him as saying there is a lot of fraud in the asylum process as evidence that the asylum seeker was lying. Not only was the attorney general’s statement not based on facts — at least not on facts made publicly available, or that anyone even claimed exist, and which statement runs in stark contrast to my six years of on-the-ground experience — but that statement had nothing to do with the truthfulness of the individual asylum seeker present before the court.
Additionally, as stated by the former president of the National Association of Immigration Judges Dana Marks, there is a ‘‘conflict of interest between the judicial and prosecutorial functions [of the Department of Justice that] creates a significant (and perhaps even fatal) flaw to the immigration court structure.’’
It appears that the administration is looking for specific outcomes in cases with little regard to the merits of the claim. The attorney general has certified an unprecedented number cases to himself for review with the idea that he might change the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals. This extraordinary power of one political-appointee to overturn the decision of trained immigration judges is fundamentally at odds with judicial independence.
Unfortunately, it appears that not only the review and firing of judges has become political, but their hiring too. Information has surfaced that the Department of Justice is asking candidates questions about their political party affiliation, their position on same-sex relationships, and their opinion on abortion; preparing internal memos on those whose immigration views that do not align with the administration’s policies; slowing down review of applications where there are ideological differences; and withdrawing employment offers or delaying start dates by up to a one and a half years.
Making judicial decisions subject to the political whims of the times, and not dependent on the accurate execution of the law, is a serious risk to the checks-and-balances system underlying our democracy. The need for independent immigration courts has never been clearer.
Sara Ramey is an immigration attorney and the executive director at the Migrant Center for Human Rights in San Antonio, Texas. The views in this article are not intended to reflect the official position of the organization.
****************************
As this article shows, inappropriate anti-asylum statements and knowingly false narratives from Jeff Sessions do affect the fairness of results. Yes, there are many courageous judges in the system who continue to treat respondents fairly and grant relief in appropriate cases.
But, numerous reports have established that there are Immigration Judges with anti-asylum and anti-migrant biases similar to Sessions’s. They now feel “empowered” to ignore the law, fairness, and Due Process to deny most applications and remove more migrants.
Moreover, some of the more experienced judges are retirement eligible and therefore largely immune from Sessions’s power because they are immediately eligible to retire. But, as they grow frustrated with the Aimless Docket Reshuffling and growing backlogs created by this Administration’s irresponsible actions and retire, they will be replaced by inexperienced judges. These new judges, in addition to being hand-picked by Sessions, without public input, are subject to removal at will during a two-year “probationary period.” Therefore, new judges are more likely to be influenced by Sessions’s xenophobic, anti-Due-Process views.
Additionally, Sessions is hard at work misusing his “certification” authority to overturn or limit established interpretations and procedures that implement protection and further Due Process and fairness for migrants.
Another important part of Sara’s article — giving lie to the concept that Immigration Judges can complete more than tow “full merits” asylum hearings per day consistent with Due Process.
Over the last six years I have directly or indirectly litigated over a hundred asylum cases, and in 95 percent of the cases the hearing takes about 3.5 hours, or the equivalent of one working morning or afternoon. This does not include the time a judge needs in camera to review the hundreds of pages of evidence in the record. In reality, a judge who completes one asylum case a day, and not three, is already extremely efficient.
Given the tendency of the current Administration not to settle or otherwise reasonably negotiate Immigration Court cases, the number of “full merits” hearings and appeals is likely to increase dramatically, thus adding to the already overwhelming backlog!
Trump inherited a number of immigration enforcement problems from the Obama administration, the most serious of which was an immigration court backlog that has prevented him from using removal proceedings to reduce the size of the undocumented alien population.
His solution seems to be to heed the advice of Mitt Romney, who said, when asked about reducing the population of undocumented aliens during a debate in 2012:
“The answer is self-deportation, which is people decide they can do better by going home because they can’t find work here because they don’t have legal documentation to allow them to work here.”
But Trump is using harboring prosecutions to discourage people from helping undocumented aliens to remain here illegally in addition to enforcing employer sanctions to discourage employers from giving them jobs.
Neither is likely to be successful.
. . . .
If Trump doesn’t find more promising enforcement measures, historians familiar with Macbeth may say that his “hour upon the stage” just amounted to “sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
***********************************
Go on over to The Hill at the link to read Nolan’s complete article with much more analysis!
I agree with Nolan that in practical terms of reducing the overall undocumented population, Trump’s strategies are not likely to succeed to a numerically significant extent. But, maybe that’s not the objective.
If the real objective to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering, keep stirring the pot of xenophobia, and rev up a restrictionist base, the policies might make more sense. And, certainly guys like Trump, Sessions, & Neilsen never take any responsibility for their own failures — they just shift the blame to others and use that as a bogus justification for seeking (or demanding) unneeded, draconian changes in the law.
I raised the possibility a year ago that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel will face criminal charges for harboring undocumented aliens if he goes much further with his sanctuary policies.
Punishment for harboring ranges from a fine and/or up to a year in prison to life in prison or a death sentence.
It hasn’t happened…yet. But Attorney General Jeff Sessions has called for more harboring prosecutions and is not limiting the reach of the harboring provisions.
The Border Patrol arrested a member of the No More Deaths humanitarian group in the Arizona desert a few months ago and charged him with harboring for giving aliens who had made an illegal crossing food, water, and a place to sleep for three days.
Harboring prosecutions are still uncommon, but I expect this to change when Sessions realizes that the immigration court backlog crisis is making it impossible for him to enforce the immigration laws effectively.
He will have to find ways to make America a less desirable place for undocumented aliens to live. In other words, he will have to encourage “self-deportation.”
Harboring prosecutions can serve this purpose by making individuals, landlords, employers, humanitarian organizations, etc., afraid to become involved with undocumented aliens. Even church congregations would be vulnerable.
. . . .
Will harboring prosecutions be more successful than employer sanctions were?
Maybe not, but Sessions has to try something and harboring prosecutions might help.
To convict someone of harboring, the government must establish that the defendant concealed, harbored, or shielded an undocumented alien from detection. A conviction can result from committing any one of the three acts.
The harboring provisions provide the following penalties for each alien in respect to whom a violation occurs:
If the offense did not involve commercial advantage or financial gain, a fine or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both;
If it was done for commercial advantage or financial gain, a fine or imprisonment for up to 10 years, or both;
In the case of a violation during and in relation to which the offender causes serious bodily injury, or places in jeopardy the life of any person, a fine or imprisonment for up to 20 years, or both; and
In the case of a violation resulting in the death of any person, a death sentence or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, a fine, or both.
The statute does not define “conceal,” “harbor,” or “shield from detection.” The federal courts have had to define these terms.
“Conceal” generally has been taken to mean hiding or otherwise preventing the discovery of an undocumented alien.
Courts have interpreted “shielding” more expansively. Even the making of false statements or falsifying documents may constitute “shielding.”
According to the ACLU, “harboring” is defined differently in the various federal jurisdictions across the country.
The most frequent characteristic the courts have used to describe “harboring” is that it facilitates an immigrant’s remaining in the United States illegally, which encompasses an extremely wide range of activities.
This is certain to result in inconsistent verdicts. People are going to be incarcerated for conduct that wouldn’t have been considered a crime if it had been committed in a different judicial district.
While a large-scale, nationwide campaign of harboring prosecutions might make it harder for undocumented aliens to live in the United States, the cost will be too high if it fills our prisons with American citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents who were just trying to be good Samaritans.
********************************************
Get Nolan’s complete article over at The Hill at the link!
Yeah, I could see Sessions pursuing this. But, believe it or not, it’s been tried before and failed as a deterrent.
During the Reagan Administration, when I was the INS Deputy General Counsel, the Administration brought criminal cases against some of the leaders of the so-called “Sanctuary Movement” in Texas and Arizona.
Unlike undocumented migrants held in immigration detention, those charged with harboring are always vigorously represented by good defense lawyers. The trials are very time-consuming and labor intensive.
I remember once spending the better part of a week in South Texas waiting to be called as a Government witness in a sanctuary prosecution. Upon finally being reached on the witness list, all I got to state was my name and position before the U.S. District Judge sustained the defendants’ objection to my testimony and disqualified me as a witness.
Also, unlike prosecuting undocumented migrants in Immigration Court, 100% of the convictions are appealed, a process that also stretches out for many years. Even when the Government “wins” the case and a conviction is sustained, the sentence is almost always probation or something quite nominal.
In other words, this is a “strategy’ that will tie up lots of U.S. Attorney and Federal Judicial resources, create lots of ill feeling in the community, but provide no real deterrence. Indeed, my recollection is that rather than deterring the “Sanctuary Movement,” these prosecutions actually inspired and motivated groups opposed to the Government’s policies on Central American migrants!
In fact, eventually there were enough demonstrated problems with the Regan/Bush I Administrations’ approach to Central American asylum seekers that the plaintiffs succeeded in a class action in getting a “redo” of all the cases. This was known as ABC v. Thornburgh. This case, for all practical purposes, ended the U.S. Government’s efforts to expel the Central American asylum seekers who arrived during the 1980s.
Eventually, class members were allowed to obtain green cards under the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (“NACRA”). I was pleased to have approved numerous NACARA cases during my tenure as an Immigration Judge in Arlington. (Yes, they were still around decades later.)
I was continuously inspired by what these hard-working families had achieved in their lives, notwithstanding our efforts to expel them. No, they weren’t all “rocket scientists.” But, nearly without exception, they were contributing members of our community, providing important services or creating necessary goods.
One of the many things that “gives lie” to the restrictionist claim that the current wave of asylum seekers and migrants from the Northern Triangle won’t “fit in” and be able to assimilate. About the only thing inhibiting “assimilation” is our Government’s unwillingness to allow it to take place, and actually acting to discourage it in many, many ways.
I found NACARA applicants to be remarkably “the same as the rest of us, perhaps better” in terms dedication to the “American Dream,” work ethic, respect for education, and willingness to sacrifice so that future generations could have better lives. The only real difference was the “pure luck” of those of us who had the good fortune to be born here.
A “smart” approach to immigration would be to “can” the waste of resources on border prosecutions and detention and put together another legislative effort like NACARA, only this time for all long-time undocumented residents of the US. But, of course, that wouldn’t serve to “fire up” the White Nationalist electoral base that Trump relies upon.
Common sense, learning from history, responsible use of Government resources, and basic human decency are qualities conspicuously absent from Sessions. But, I think that the “NACRA story” shows a very plausible “ultimate long-term outcome” for the latest, ultimately doomed, efforts to deal with immigration issues exclusively with restrictionist policies.
Finally, Nolan has kindly supplied us with an updated link to a list of all seventy (70) of his past articles in The Hill on immigration policy. Congratulations, Nolan, for your prodigious contributions!
As a young Justice Department lawyer, I was present at the creation of the Refugee Act of 1980, which together with its amendments and implementing regulations constitute the regime of asylum and refugee protection in the United States. During the Carter administration, I had a hand in the final drafting of the 1980 asylum law. As a U.S. immigration judge in Los Angeles from 1990 through 2007, I heard and decided thousands of cases in which citizens and stateless persons from foreign countries sought asylum in our nation. As a law professor both in California and in England, I have lectured on asylum and refugee law.
The asylum law was intended as a humanitarian measure to defend the defenseless by offering them the possibility of a new and secure life in the United States. But that will no longer be the case if Attorney General Jeff Sessions has his way. The Refugee Act of 1980 grants asylum status in the United States for any foreign-born individual who demonstrates past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution for reasons of “race, religion, nationality” as well as “membership in a particular social group” and “political opinion.”
Additionally, under precedent set over the course of decades by federal courts across the country, the persecution that triggers asylum protection must be committed or attempted by a foreign government, or by forces that the government is unable or unwilling to control. That the persecution may be official or private recognizes the fact that in many countries, civil society and the rule of law are nowhere to be found. In their place, governments often unofficially depend on ad hoc private parties and organizations to aid in the torture, persecution and murder of those deemed “enemies of the state.” The use of nongovernmental persecutors provides plausible deniability to regimes that deny complicity in the mistreatment of those they seek to eliminate.
Now the attorney general is attempting to undermine if not eliminate the “unable or unwilling” standard applied in asylum cases for decades. In 2016, in a case entitled “Matter of A-B-,” the Board of Immigration Appeals, the administrative court that reviews decisions of immigration judges, ruled that based on prevailing precedent, an asylum applicant seeking refugee status based on her membership in a particular social group” that led to her gross domestic abuse, had demonstrated that the government of her native El Salvador was unwilling or unable to protect her from her abusive ex-husband. The board remanded the case to the trial judge so that he might apply the correct “unwilling or unable” standard.
*******************************************
Go on over to The Hill to read Judge Einhorn’s complete article!
Judge Bruce J. Einhorn has spent his career advancing the true rule of law and seeking to rectify the wrongs of the past: first as a prosecutor in the Office of Special Investigations at the U.S. DOJ bringing Nazi war criminals to justice (where I first came in contact with him); then as a U.S. Immigration Judge; and finally as a law professor. (Yes, folks, there was a time long ago when the USDOJ actually was on the side of seeking and guaranteeing justice for the persecuted, rather than engaging in child abuse, spreading false scenarios about immigrants and crime, promoting xenophobic myths about refugees, building the “New American Gulag,” and mis-using the US Immigration Court system as a tool of DHS enforcement to discourage refugees from seeking protection under our laws and international treaties to which we are party.)
By contrast, Jeff Sessions has spent his entire legal & “public service” career on the wrong side of history: trying to “turn back the clock” to the era of Jim Crow; promoting intolerance, unequal treatment, and hate directed at African-Americans, Hispanics, immigrants, and the LGBTQ community; perverting the rule of law and the Constitutional guarantee of individual rights and fairness for everyone in America; and denying the massive contributions to the success of the United States made by non-White, non-Christian, and non-U.S. citizen individuals.
Jeff Sessions is a much bigger threat to the security, welfare, and future of the United States than are desperate women and children from the Northern Triangle seeking to save their lives by exercising their lawful rights under U.S. and international law to apply for asylum.
A TRAC Immigration study concluded that the outcome at asylum hearings over a recent six-year period depended largely on where the hearing was held and which immigration judge was assigned to the case.
. . . .
Examples of improper hiring practices.
Political considerations. A July 28, 2018 report from the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Justice reveals that the office of former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales let political considerations guide the selection of immigration judges.
His chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, claimed that he thought immigration judge positions were “political” and therefore that it was appropriate to consider political factors in assessing candidates.
He solicited candidates for immigration judge positions from the White House’s Office of Political Affairs, its Office of Presidential Personnel, and its Office of the Counsel to the President.
Potential immigration judge candidates were screened at these offices to establish their “political qualifications.” This included searching databases to determine whether the candidates had made monetary political contributions.
Sampson also accepted recommendations from Republican Members of Congress and from colleagues within the Justice Department who were political appointees.
Affirmative action. On October 5, 2004, the Department of Justice, without admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay $11.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging discrimination against white male applicants for immigration judge positions.
I was a decision-writer at the Board when the discrimination allegedly was occurring.
A close friend who had received EOIR’s Director’s Award twice for being the most outstanding attorney of the year couldn’t even get an interview for a position as an immigration judge, but women and minority applicants with much less impressive credentials were being hired, some of whom had no immigration experience at all.
Acknowledging the problem. In response to rising criticism of the disparities in the decisions in asylum cases, EOIR has begun to track decisions to identify immigration judges who have unusually high or low rates of granting asylum, but that just highlights the problem, it doesn’t solve it.
**************************************
I encourage everyone to go on over to The Hill at the above link for Nolan’s complete article.
Nolan is right: the EOIR hiring system is broken and has been for many years.
The problem of “Refugee Roulette” was first documented by a group of three scholar-practitioners at Georgetown Law in 2007.
Although the situation abated somewhat for a few years after that study’s publication, large disparities seem to have persisted.
Perhaps because of space limitations (I believe Nolan told me he had an “800 word limit” — something that doesn’t happen at “Courtside”) Nolan wasn’t able to cover two of the most egregious examples of a broken system:
The “Ashcroft Purge” of 2001-2003 that reduced the BIA from approximately 20 Members to 12 by expelling those of us on the BIA duly appointed by prior AG Janet Reno whose views were considered “too liberal” for Ashcroft;
The BIA is now seeking to “reconstitute itself” as a 20 judge body, confirming the “political motivations” behind the original purge;
The 2017 GAO Study that documented the incredible two-year average hiring cycle for filling Immigration Judge vacancies that evolved under the Obama Administration;
That process produced highly skewed results favoring candidates from DHS, DOJ, and other governmental backgrounds by an astoundingly inexplicable ratio of nearly 9 to 1 over qualified attorneys from private practice, academia, and NGOs.
At present, judges who have actual experience representing asylum applicants in Immigration Court are grotesquely “underrepresented” in relation to those from prosecutorial or other governmental backgrounds.
Jeff Sessions will likely make things even worse.
Not surprisingly, Sessions has already drawn credible allegations from Democratic Representatives of political and ideological interference in judicial hiring. See, e.g., https://wp.me/p8eeJm-2rz
As Nolan demonstrates, the Immigration Courts need a true merit based hiring system.
Systems such as that used for selecting U.S. Bankruptcy Judges and U.S. Magistrate Judges are useful models that have earned praise for being efficient, inclusive, involving the practicing bar, and producing unbiased, merit-based judiciaries.
A merit-based system is impossible while the Immigration Courts and the BIA are in the Executive Branch at the DOJ.
The only solution is an Article I U.S. Immigration Court or some other type of structure independent of the Executive.
Despite political spin to the contrary, the border is not secure, and the hearing highlighted problems which are preventing DHS from securing it.
The National Immigration Forum submitted a statement claiming that U.S. border policies have been effective, but that claim was contradicted by testimony from the director of the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), Colonel Steven McCraw.
According to McCraw, the federal government did not respond to numerous requests from Texas Governor Greg Abbott to provide the Border Patrol with the resources it needs to secure the border, so Texas has had to provide the necessary assistance at its own expense.
Texas deployed State Troopers, Special Agents, and Texas Rangers to the border to conduct around-the-clock ground, marine, and air operations. Then, three years later, it deployed 500 State Troopers, tactical marine boats, aircraft and detection technology assets, and the Texas National Guard to the border.
But illegal crossings and smuggling continued and crime in the border region continued to rise.
. . . . .
Credible fear determinations have increased from 5,000 in 2009 to 94,000 in 2016, and due apparently to misapplication of asylum law, a credible fear was found in 88 percent of the cases.
Also, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Reauthorization Protection Act (TVPRA) has been used to require placement with the Office of Refugee Resettlement instead of removal proceedings for the 200,000 unaccompanied alien children (UACs) who have come to America from Central America since 2013. But most of them are not trafficking victims.
According to the White House, most UACs fail to appear at their hearings and many who do and are found deportable do not comply with their deportation orders. Only 3.5 percent of them are removed from the U.S.
It is apparent from this testimony that the border is not secure and that the measures being taken to secure it are not likely to be effective.
******************************************
Go on over to The Hill at the link to read Nolan’s complete article.
Nolan an I agree on one important point: Jeff Session’s announcement of “Immigration Judge quotas” will not help solve the Immigration Court backlog phenomenon.
However, I wouldn’t assume as Nolan apparently does, that the Texas DPS is a better source of information than the National immigration Forum. Nor, would I make the assumption that an 88% approval rate for credible fear screening represents a “misapplication of the law.” Based on my experience with credible fear reviews in Immigration Court, that number of positive determinations seems perfectly reasonable. Moreover, on the life or death question of asylum, the system should always error on the side of giving the individual a full hearing on a protection claim rather than denying the claim with no day in court.
Now, it’s my turn.
According to a 2016 study by the American Immigration Council (“AIC”) using EOIR’s own data, represented children appear for their hearings about 95% of the time. https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/852516/download
As this AIC report points out, most of the reasons for non-appearance relate to defects in the DHS/EOIR notice system. Moreover, even when children understand the system, they are usually dependent on the actions of others like guardians to actually appear in Immigration Court. It’s highly unlikely that many children make an intentional decision not to appear.
I was not assigned to the so-called “Priority Juvenile Docket.” But, I did plenty of juvenile cases during my 13-year tenure at the Arlington Immigration Court. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of juveniles appeared as scheduled. When represented, the appearance rate was close to 100% as suggested by the AIC report.
Of the minority who didn’t appear, most eventually had their cases reopened based on defective notice or extraordinary circumstances beyond their control.
Many of those denied asylum actually had legitimate fears of harm upon return, but did not fit the overly restrictive “refugee” definition developed by the BIA with the apparent purpose of limiting Northern Triangle protection.
Juveniles often were able to obtain relief through means other than asylum such as Special Immigrant Juvenile (“SIJ”) status, “U” nonimmigrant status for victims of crime, “T” nonimmigrant status for trafficking victims, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) withholding.
As these reports suggest, a better approach to Southern Border arrivals would involve:
Insuring that counsel represents all asylum applicants.
Improving the quality and accuracy of hearing notices served by DHS & EOIR.
Expanding the asylum definition to be more generous and to conform to UNHCR interpretations.
Allowing all asylum applicants to have an initial non-adversarial application before the Asylum Office to take pressure off of the Immigration Courts.
Initiating a realistic legalization program for long-term undocumented residents of the US that would take the majority of the “non-criminal” cases off the Immigration Court docket, thus allowing the Courts to re-establish a reasonable 12-18 month completion cycle for non-detained cases.
Re-establishing “in country” refugee processing programs in the Northern Triangle and making them more timely and expansive so as to reduce the pressure to apply for asylum at our Southern Border.
Creating other forms of temporary protection for those with legitimate fears of return who fall outside the legal definitions for protection.
Working closely with the UNHCR, Mexico, and other Western Hemisphere countries to 1) address the conditions in the Northern Triangle driving the refugee flow, and 2) sharing the distribution of Western Hemisphere refugees equitably.
We know for sure from over four decades of consistent failure what DOESN’T WORK:
“Militarization” of the border;
Increased detention, criminal prosecution, and other ineffective “deterrents;”
Reducing or truncating rights of asylum seekers;
Endless “reprioritization” of Immigration Court dockets.
Yet, these are the very types of failed programs that the Trump Administration is mindlessly pushing.
Why not try something smart and humane, rather than repeating past expensive, ineffective, and inhumane mistakes over and over?
