Professor of Public Policy
UT-Austin
https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/514842-trumps-policies-on-refugees-are-as-simple-as-abcs
Ruth writes in The Hill:
Since taking office, President Trump’s administration has rained a hailstorm of policy actions on refugees and asylees. A newly published analysis identifies three types of policies: those that abandon longstanding U.S. legal principles and policies, most notably non-refoulement and due process; those that block the entry of refugees and asylees; and those that criminalize foreign nationals who attempt to seek asylum in the United States. Simply put, these are the As (abandoning), Bs (blocking) and Cs (criminalizing) of the Trump administration policies on refugees and asylees.
Historical antecedents of Trump’s policies may be found in the refusal to accept Jews fleeing Nazi Germany during World War II (abandoning) and the interdiction of Haitians trying to escape the violent regime of then-dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier that began in 1981 (blocking). The Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy of prosecuting even minor immigration offenses (criminalizing) harkens back to the early 20th century when the eugenicists warned of “inferior aliens” who were likely to be insane or criminal; however, now the federal government keeps asylum seekers locked in detention centers, often under contracts with the private prison industry. The criminalization of refugees and asylees in conjunction with the comprehensive sweep of his initiatives abandoning and blocking refugees and asylum seekers has sent U.S. humanitarian protection policy to an unprecedented nadir.
There is little evidence of a policy evolution or maturation over time. The Trump administration opened in 2017 with policies exhibiting all three ABCs: abandoning refugee admissions; blocking Syrian nationals from refugee resettlement; and expanding expedited removal and detention. The administration’s efforts to criminalize asylum seekers reached a crescendo in 2018 with “zero tolerance.” Policy initiatives in 2019 again drew on all three ABCs: A) setting refugee admissions for fiscal year 2020 at the lowest level since the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980; B) allowing state and local officials to refuse placement of refugees; and C) detaining migrant children and families indefinitely, including those arriving to seek asylum.
. . . .
Generous humanitarian policies require energetic civic engagement and steadfast legislative efforts. Restoring the policies of the past will not be sufficient in the years ahead, because past policies were prone to inequities and bottlenecks that arguably had a magnet effect for migrants with less compelling cases, and most certainly delayed relief for those who qualified. Policymakers would be wise to weigh the advice of researchers, experienced advocates and legal experts who call for the repeal of three particularly harmful provisions: the one-year deadline for filing asylum applications, expedited removal, and “safe third country” agreements.
A sound course of action is for Congress to establish, and the administration to execute, robust and fully funded refugee and asylum policies that are generous in their priorities, thorough in their review, and expeditious in their processing.
Ruth Ellen Wasem is a professor of policy practice at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, the University of Texas in Austin, and a fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center. She has testified before Congress about asylum policy, legal immigration trends, human rights and the push-pull forces on unauthorized migration. Follow her on Twitter @rewasem.
***************
Read Ruth’s complete article at the link.
We need a progressive, realistic, humane refugee and asylum policy.
A prerequisite to these efforts is an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court comprised of judges with real life experience, demonstrated expertise in refugee and human rights laws, an unswerving commitment to guaranteeing due process and fundamental fairness for all, and the courage to stand up for the Constitutional and human rights of the most vulnerable among us, even in the face of abuses and bias from the other branches of Government.
The current legal framework for protection, although in need of forward looking reforms, is nowhere near as unfair, inhumane, dysfunctional, deadly, and counterproductive as the Trump regime has made it. Why? Because, for the most part, the Federal Courts have “gone along to get along” with the regime’s lawless nativist, restrictionist schemes and gimmicks, rather than standing up for due process, equal protection, fundamental fairness, human rights, and human decency.
That’s a serious problem for democracy. One that demands a critical re-examination of whom we are selecting for our Federal Judiciary and why, as a group, they have performed so poorly in thwarting racist and hate-driven tyranny by an out of control and fundamentally dishonest, bigoted, and biased regime!
Due Process Forever!
PWS
09-06-20