"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.
HERNANDEZ ET AL. v. MESA
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 17–1678. Argued November 12, 2019—Decided February 25, 2020
Respondent, United States Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa, Jr., shot and killed Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, a 15-year-old Mexican national, in a tragic and disputed cross-border incident. Mesa was standing on U. S. soil when he fired the bullets that struck and killed Hernández, who was on Mexican soil, after having just run back across the border following entry onto U. S. territory. Agent Mesa contends that Hernández was part of an illegal border crossing attempt, while petitioners, Hernández’s parents, claim he was playing a game with his friends that involved running back and forth across the culvert sep- arating El Paso, Texas, from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. The shooting drew international attention, and the Department of Justice investi- gated, concluded that Agent Mesa had not violated Customs and Bor- der Patrol policy or training, and declined to bring charges against him. The United States also denied Mexico’s request for Agent Mesa to be extradited to face criminal charges in Mexico.
Petitioners sued for damages in U. S. District Court under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, alleging that Mesa violated Hernández’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The Dis- trict Court dismissed their claims, and the United States Court of Ap- peals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. After this Court vacated that de- cision and remanded for further consideration in light of Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. ___, the Fifth Circuit again affirmed, refusing to rec- ognize a Bivens claim for a cross-border shooting.
Held: Bivens’ holding does not extend to claims based on a cross-border shooting. Pp. 4–20.
(a) In Bivens, the Court implied a Fourth Amendment claim for damages even though no federal statute authorized such a claim. The Court later extended Bivens’ reach to cover claims under the Fifth and
2
HERNANDEZ v. MESA Syllabus
Eighth Amendments. See Davis v. Passman, 442 U. S. 228; Carlson v. Green, 446 U. S. 14. But Bivens’ expansion has since become “a ‘disfa- vored’ judicial activity,” Abbasi, supra, at ___, and the Court has gen- erally expressed doubt about its authority to recognize causes of action not expressly created by Congress, see, e.g., Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 584 U. S. ___, ___. When considering whether to extend Bivens, the Court uses a two-step inquiry that first asks whether the request in- volves a claim that arises in a “new context” or involves a “new cate- gory of defendants.” Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U. S. 61, 68. If so, the Court then asks whether there are any “special factors [that] counse[l] hesitation” about granting the extension. Abbasi, supra, at ___. Pp. 4–8.
(b) Petitioners’ Bivens claims arise in a new context. Their claims are based on the same constitutional provisions as claims in cases in which damages remedies were previously recognized, but the con- text—a cross-border shooting—is significantly “different . . . from pre- vious Bivens cases.” Abbasi, supra, ___. It involves a “risk of disrup- tive intrusion by the Judiciary into the functioning of other branches.” Abbasi, supra, ___. Pp. 8–9.
(c) Multiple, related factors counsel hesitation before extending Bivens remedies into this new context. Pp. 9–19.
(1) The expansion of a Bivens remedy that impinges on foreign re- lations—an arena “so exclusively entrusted to the political branches . . . as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry,” Haig v. Agee, 453 U. S. 280, 292—risks interfering with the Executive Branch’s “lead role in foreign policy,” Medellín v. Texas, 552 U. S. 491, 524. A cross- border shooting affects the interests of two countries and, as happened here, may lead to disagreement. It is not for this Court to arbitrate between the United States and Mexico, which both have legitimate and important interests at stake and have sought to reconcile those inter- ests through diplomacy. Pp. 9–12.
(2) Another factor is the risk of undermining border security. The U. S. Customs and Border Protection Agency is responsible for pre- venting the illegal entry of dangerous persons and goods into the United States, and the conduct of their agents positioned at the border has a clear and strong connection to national security. This Court has not extended Bivens where doing so would interfere with the system of military discipline created by statute and regulation, see, e.g., Chap- pell v. Wallace, 462 U. S. 296, and a similar consideration is applicable to the framework established by the political branches for addressing cases in which it is alleged that lethal force at the border was unlaw- fully employed by a border agent. Pp. 12–14.
(3) Moreover, Congress has repeatedly declined to authorize the award of damages against federal officials for injury inflicted outside
Cite as: 589 U. S. ____ (2020) 3 Syllabus
S. borders. For example, recovery under 42 U. S. C. §1983 is avail- able only to “citizen[s] of the United States or other person[s] within the jurisdiction thereof.” The Federal Tort Claims Act bars “[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country.” 28 U. S. C. §2680(k). And the Tor- ture Victim Protection Act of 1991, note following 28 U. S. C. §1350, cannot be used by an alien to sue a United States officer. When Con- gress has provided compensation for injuries suffered by aliens outside the United States, it has done so by empowering Executive Branch of- ficials to make payments under circumstances found to be appropriate. See, e.g., Foreign Claims Act, 10 U. S. C. §2734. Congress’s decision not to allow suit in these contexts further indicates that the Judiciary should not create a cause of action that extends across U. S. borders either. Pp. 14–18.
(4) These factors can all be condensed to the concern for respecting the separation of powers. The most important question is whether Congress or the courts should create a damages remedy. Here the an- swer is Congress. Congress’s failure to act does not compel the Court to step into its shoes. Pp. 19–20.
885 F. 3d 811, affirmed.
ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., andTHOMAS,GORSUCH,andKAVANAUGH,JJ.,joined. THOMAS,J.,fileda concurring opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
Key Quote From Justice Ginsburg’s dissent:
In Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), this Court held that injured plaintiffs could pursue claims for damages against U. S. officers for conduct disregarding constitutional constraints. The in- stant suit, invoking Bivens, arose in tragic circumstances. In 2010, the complaint alleges, a Mexican teenager was playing with friends in a culvert along the United States- Mexico border. A U. S. Border Patrol agent, in violation of instructions controlling his office and situated on the U. S. side of the border, shot and killed the youth on the Mexican side. The boy’s parents sued the officer for damages in fed- eral court, alleging that a rogue federal law enforcement of- ficer’s unreasonable use of excessive force violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. At the time of the incident, it is uncontested, the officer did not know whether the boy he shot was a U. S. national or a citizen of another land. See Hernández v. Mesa, 582 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2017) (per curiam) (slip op., at 5–6).
When the case first reached this Court, the Court re- manded it, instructing the Court of Appeals to resolve a threshold question: Is a Bivens remedy available to noncit- izens (here, the victim’s parents) when the U. S. officer acted stateside, but the impact of his alleged wrongdoing
2 HERNANDEZ v. MESA GINSBURG, J., dissenting
was suffered abroad? To that question, the sole issue now before this Court, I would answer “yes.” Rogue U. S. officer conduct falls within a familiar, not a “new,” Bivens setting. Even if the setting could be characterized as “new,” plain- tiffs lack recourse to alternative remedies, and no “special factors” counsel against a Bivens remedy. Neither U. S. for- eign policy nor national security is in fact endangered by the litigation. Moreover, concerns attending the applica- tion of our law to conduct occurring abroad are not involved, for plaintiffs seek the application of U. S. law to conduct occurring inside our borders. I would therefore hold that the plaintiffs’ complaint crosses the Bivens threshold.
* * **
Regrettably, the death of Hernández is not an isolated in- cident. Cf. Rodriguez, 899 F. 3d, at 727 (complaint alleged that border agent fired 14 to 30 bullets across the border, killing a 16-year-old boy); Brief for Immigrant and Civil Rights Organizations as Amici Curiae 26–28 (describing various incidents of allegedly unconstitutional conduct by border and immigration officers); Brief for Border Network for Human Rights et al. as Amici Curiae 8–15 (listing indi- viduals killed by border agents). One report reviewed over 800 complaints of alleged physical, verbal, or sexual abuse lodged against Border Patrol agents between 2009 and 2012; in 97% of the complaints resulting in formal deci- sions, no action was taken. D. Martínez, G. Cantor, & W. Ewing, No Action Taken: Lack of CBP Accountability in Re- sponding to Complaints of Abuse, American Immigration Council 1–8 (2014), americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/
14 HERNANDEZ v. MESA GINSBURG, J., dissenting
default/files/research/No%20Action%20Taken_Final.pdf. Ac- cording to amici former Customs and Border Protection of- ficials, “the United States has not extradited a Border Pa- trol agent to stand trial in Mexico, and to [amici’s] knowledge has itself prosecuted only one agent in a cross- border shooting.” Brief for Former Officials of U. S. Cus- toms and Border Protection Agency as Amici Curiae 4. These amici warn that, “[w]ithout the possibility of civil li- ability, the unlikely prospect of discipline or criminal pros- ecution will not provide a meaningful deterrent to abuse at the border.” Ibid. In short, it is all too apparent that to redress injuries like the one suffered here, it is Bivens or nothing.
***
I resist the conclusion that “nothing” is the answer re- quired in this case. I would reverse the Fifth Circuit’s judg- ment and hold that plaintiffs can sue Mesa in federal court for violating their son’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
******************************************
This case is straightforward. Mesa a CBP Agent standing in the United States shot Hernandez, an unarmed 15-year-old Mexican standing in Mexico without justification. This violated Hernandez’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Had the lower Federal Courts and the Supremes applied the law on “Constitutional torts” correctly, Mesa would have been found liable. The Government probably would have settled with the Hernandez family.
Instead, nearly of decade of unnecessary litigation ensued during which all three levels of the U.S. Court System failed the Hernandez family and distorted our system of justice. Dissenting Fifth Circuit Judge (now Ambassador) Ed Prado summed up this legal farce in a single powerful phrase: “[the majority has been] led astray from the familiar circumstances of this case by empty labels of national security, foreign affairs, and extra- territoriality.” For the record, Ambassador Prado is a lifelong Republican. I worked with him on immigration litigation during the Reagan Administration.
Hey, just “business as usual” for a GOP Supremes’ majority that has checked the Constitution and their humanity at the door in their haste to “deconstruct America” and reconstitute it as the White Nationalist authoritarian state that the Trump regime embodies. Heck, corporations and guns have more rights that dead Mexican kids and their families under the majority‘s view. “Not their kids” as I’ve noted before. I do suspect that if members of their own families were being shot and killed by CBP, we would have a different result in cases like this. But, out of sight, out of mind. Wow, think of the potential foreign relations nightmare of CBP Agents stopped killing unarmed Mexican kids from our side of the border!
Not to be outdone by the majority’s legal gibberish cloaking moral abdication, Justices Gorsuch and Thomas wrote separately to signal Trump that they would like to do away with Bivens entirely while in the process of rewriting the laws in Trump’s image. Apparently recognizing that the GOP has effectively stymied Congress and that Trump intends to inflict many more legal and Constitutional abuses on the unfortunate non-white population, they would like to eliminate all restraints on the regime’s constant violations of law and abuses of individual rights. Obviously, from their exalted and privileged positions above the Constitutional, legal, and societal chaos affecting less fortunate individuals under the Trump regime, they haven‘t fully thought through want happens when Trump or the next White Nationalist demagogue comes for them and there is neither a rule or law nor anyone left to enforce it in a fair an impartial manner.
I’m not the only one who understands the ugly truth about the future of all of our individual rights and the lives of nonwhite individuals (citizens or not) that the Trump majority on the Supremes are attempting to hide with their opaque, yet lethal, legal gobbledygook. Ian Millhiser over at Vox News also sees though the smokescreen at what’s really happening here: “The Supreme Court just held that a border guard who shot a child will face no consequences” https://apple.news/AWWSBpk_aR6uAlmxmQIvZkw
As we’re finding out anew every day, the law and fair, impartial, and courageous judging is for suckers!
Carmen del Thalia Mallol holds her daughter Lia, 4, after becoming a new US citizen during a naturalization ceremony inside the National September 11 Memorial Museum on July 2, 2019, in New York City. Drew Angerer/Getty Images
The adult children of immigrants, almost universally, show more upward economic mobility than their peers whose parents were born in the United States. Indeed, a new working paper by Stanford University’s Ran Abramitzky; Princeton University’s Leah Platt Boustan and Elisa Jácome; and the University of California Davis’ Santiago Pérez finds that this is especially true for the lowest-income immigrants and remains true for the most recent cohorts for which data is available.
Drawing from census data, publicly available administrative data, and federal income tax data, they traced the income levels of millions of fathers and sons over time dating back to 1880. The children of immigrants climbed higher in the income rankings than those born to US natives across history and in 44 of the 47 sending countries they studied.
The paper contradicts President Donald Trump’s rhetoric suggesting that immigrants drain the social safety net rather than pulling themselves up and that immigrants from a select few countries are more desirable than others. On that basis, the president has pursued numerous policies aimed at preventing low-income immigrants, particularly those from what he has referred to as “shithole countries,” from entering and settling in the US.
Even poor immigrants’ kids achieve success
Prior research has shown that immigrants who start out earning less than their US-born peers are unlikely to catch up in their lifetimes. And among more recent immigrants, that initial income gap is growing bigger and harder to close.
But the new study shows that, even if immigrants start out with low income levels, most are not only catching up eventually but surpassing their US-born peers — even if it takes a generation.
The typical explanation offered for this kind of immigrant achievement is some inherent quality resulting from cultural differences, such as a strong work ethic or placing a value on education. But the working paper offers a more tangible explanation for the mobility gap: Immigrants tend to settle where there is more economic opportunity and take jobs that are below their true skill level.
“We don’t even have to reach for these cultural explanations,” Boustan said in an interview. “A lot of it has to do with immigrants being willing to move anywhere and choosing locations where there are growing industries and a good set of job opportunities for their kids. Those are choices that immigrants are making that are different from the US-born and that could be a feature of immigrant success.”
It makes sense why immigrants choose to move to areas of higher economic opportunity as compared to the US-born. Without social and professional networks anchoring them to one place, they are more “footloose” and flexible in where they ultimately settle, Abramitzky said. Historically, that has meant that foreign-born populations tend to cluster in urban areas.
The first generation arriving in the US, however, might also have difficulty finding work at income levels that reflect their true talents and abilities due to a variety of factors: limited English skills, lack of an established professional network in the US, and discrimination, Boustan said.
A classic scenario might be a Russian scientist who comes to the US and works as a cab driver. In that case, the second generation might be able to move up more quickly than their father’s income ranking would suggest.
“What might matter for the kids is what their father’s true talents and abilities were, rather than where he gets placed in the labor market,” Boustan said.
The economic mobility gap, the paper finds, is particularly stark when examining the children of those on the lowest rungs of the income ladder, ranked below the 25th percentile. In that category, the children of immigrants climb three to six percentile rank points higher than the children of natives.
The gap narrows, however, when examining families from the top income levels. And it even reverses slightly when comparing children growing up in the same geographic area.
The paper, while expansive, has some limitations: It relies on federal income tax records that likely do not capture unauthorized immigrants, the primary target of the president’s ire as he attempts to make the southern border all but impenetrable to migrants from Central America attempting to cross illegally.
But it’s reasonable to speculate that unauthorized immigrants would also settle in areas of economic opportunity and take jobs below their skill level, potentially resulting in similar rates of economic mobility as compared to other immigrants, the researchers said. The only caveat could be that unauthorized immigrants and their children experience more discrimination in the US, limiting their access to higher-paying jobs.
All kinds of immigrants move up the ladder
Boustan said the paper pushes back on the idea of “model minorities”: that minorities from certain ethnic or racial backgrounds tend to find more socioeconomic success than others. It’s typically been used to describe Asians in contrast to Hispanics and African Americans. But regardless of race or ethnicity, children of immigrants from the overwhelming majority of the countries they studied performed better than the US-born.
The paper’s findings also challenge Trump’s ideas about who should be allowed to immigrate to the US.
In January 2018, he reportedly derided immigrants from what he considers “shithole countries,” including El Salvador and African nations, while simultaneously calling for “more people from Norway.” And he infamously maligned Mexican immigrants when launching his campaign for president in 2015.
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” he said. “They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us.”
In fact, immigrants from Mexico, El Salvador, and African nations such as Nigeria are all performing better than the US-born. And in past waves of immigration, immigrants from Norway actually performed worse than the US-born.
“We take it as a warning against taking a nostalgic view of immigration,” Abramitzky said.
****************************
Trump’s (and his fellow White Nationalists’) racist-inspired false narratives are harming America and preventing us from becoming even greater. Obviously, a smarter, more decent Administration would cut the xenophobic nonsense, legalize the law-abiding migrants already here, and propose ways to expand legal immigration across the board.
Those actions, not expensive, mean-spirited, and ultimately futile “enforcement only” gimmicks, would address the “immigration issue” in a fair, humane, and mutually beneficial manner. Also, by reducing the “unnecessarily undocumented population” and providing more realistic opportunities for future legal immigration and integration into our society, immigration enforcement would become far more focused, efficient, and effective.
Instead of treating needed workers and legitimate refugees like “bank robbers” (often actually ignoring the real criminals), the DHS could concentrate on a smaller number of individuals attempting to evade a more reasonable and realistic system. Additionally, with real lines for legal immigration, rather than imaginary ones the Trump crowd often disingenuously references, being sent “to the back of the line” would be more of a deterrent than it is now.
Although, as Nicole points out, the study didn’t specifically cover undocumented individuals, the findings of this study certainly match my “real life” experiences in Immigration Court. The overwhelming majority of those coming before me on the non-detained docket were basically decent, law abiding folks performing productive functions in our communities. For a short time at the end of the Obama Administration, ICE actually recognized the futility of removing such individuals and exercised “prosecutorial discretion” (“PD”) through “administrative closing” in many cases where removal would actually diminish our nation while wasting limited court time.
Those very few individuals who ”flunked out” of the “PD program by getting in trouble were returned to court, usually on the detained docket, and in most cases removed. The others formed a “natural core” for a future legislative legalization program that a smarter, kinder, braver Administration would have proposed.
Naturally, one of the first things the Trump White Nationalists tried to do was end two of the most successful programs ever instituted within DHS: DACA and PD. The results of these mean-spirited and short sighted actions have been highly problematic for the individuals involved as well as our country.
House Democrats are calling for investigations into two temporary immigration courts that opened along the southern border last month where migrants who have been waiting in Mexico are fighting to obtain asylum in the US, according to a letter sent Thursday.
The courts — located in tent complexes near US Customs and Border Protection ports in Laredo and Brownsville, Texas — were built to hear cases from migrants who have been sent back to Mexico under President Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols.
Unveiled in January, the policy has affected over 50,000 migrants found to have credible asylum claims, including those who present themselves at ports of entry on the southern border and those who are apprehended while trying to cross the border without authorization.
The tent courts, which opened in early September with no advance notice to the public, have the capacity to hold as many as 420 hearings per day in Laredo and 720 in Brownsville conducted exclusively by video. Immigrants and their attorneys video conference with judges and DHS attorneys appearing virtually, streamed from brick-and-mortar immigration courts hundreds of miles away.
Democratic leaders, led by Congressional Hispanic Caucus chair Joaquin Castro, raised concerns Thursday that the tent facilities have led to violations of migrants’ due process rights by restricting their access to attorneys and relying on teleconferencing. They also expressed alarm that asylum seekers processed in the facilities are being returned to Mexico even though they are in danger there and that the public has largely been barred from entering the tent facilities, shrouding their operations in secrecy.
“Given the lack of access to counsel and the limitations of
, we are concerned these tent courts do not provide full and fair consideration of their asylum claims, as required by law,” the lawmakers wrote, urging the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice’s inspectors general to investigate. “The opening and operations of these secretive tent courts are extremely problematic.”
Few have been allowed to enter the courts
Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan had assured that members of the public and the press would be permitted to access to the facilities so long as they do not “disrupt proceedings or individuals’ privacy.”
In practice, however, that’s not how they have operated, and as House Democrats pointed out Thursday, preventing the public from viewing immigration court proceedings violates federal regulations.
“We are concerned that the administration has intentionally built these tent court at Customs and Border Protection ports of entry to justify limited public access to these facilities, and that this lack of transparency may allow DHS to hid abuse and due process violations that may occur in the tents,” their letter said.
Laura Lynch and Leidy Perez-Davis, attorneys with the American Immigration Lawyers Association who visited the port courts shortly after they opened in September, said they and other lawyers from the National Immigrant Justice Center, Amnesty International, and the Women’s Refugee Commission were barred from observing proceedings in the courts absent a document showing that they were representing one of the migrants on site.
The few attorneys that had such agreements were allowed to enter the facility a little more than an hour before their clients’ hearings to help them prepare — insufficient time given that, for many, it is their first opportunity to meet in person, Perez-Davis said.
In the first few days that the courts were open, the only people allowed in the hearing rooms were immigrants and their attorneys — but critically, not their translators, Lynch said. There were few attorneys representing asylum seekers in proceedings at the port courts, and even fewer spoke fluent Spanish and could have conversations with their clients.
Officials have since allowed translators into the hearing rooms, Lynch said, but neither DHS nor the DOJ have issued any formal clarification of their policy.
Attorneys are also not allowed to attend “non-refoulement interviews” at the tent facilities, in which an asylum officer determines, usually over the phone, whether a migrant should be sent back to Mexico or qualifies for an exemption allowing them to go to a detention facility in the US.
Limiting access to the port courts also inhibitslegal aid groups’ ability to conduct presentations for migrants informing them of their rights in immigration proceedings, as they typically do in immigration courts.
Perez-Davis said that she observed one hearing from San Antonio — where some of the remote immigration judges handling cases in the ports courts are based — in which a young migrant woman was confused about what “asylum” means. That kind of knowledge would have previously been provided in presentations by legal aid groups.
Videoconferencing doesn’t facilitate a fair proceeding
The use of video conferencing in immigration court proceedings has long been a subject of controversy. In theory, teleconferencing would seem to make proceedings more efficient and increase access to justice, allowing attorneys and judges to partake even though they may be hundreds of miles away.
But in practice, advocates argue that teleconferencing has inhibited full and fair proceedings, with some even filing a lawsuit in New York federal court in January claiming that it violates immigrants’ constitutional rights.
Immigrants who appear in court via teleconference are more likely to be unrepresented and be deported, a 2015 Northwestern Law Review study found. Reports by the Government Accountability Office and the Executive Office of Immigration Review have also raised concerns about how technical difficulties, remote translation services, and the inability to read nonverbal communication over teleconference may adversely affect outcomes for immigrants.
Yet despite such research, the immigration courts have increasingly used video as a stand-in for in-person interaction.
In the port courts in Laredo and Brownsville, video substitutes for that kind of interaction entirely — but it has not been without hiccups so far.
Lynch, Perez-Davis, and Yael Schacher, a senior US advocate at Refugees International, said they all observed connectivity issues. For migrants who must recount some of the most traumatic experiences of their lives to support their asylum claims, video conferencing makes their task harder, Perez-Davis said.
“I have been asking myself what happens if you’re in the middle of the worst story you’ve ever had to tell, and the video cuts out?” she said.
These courts are sending immigrants back to danger in Mexico
Migrants are required to travel in the dark and show up for processing before their hearings at the port courts early as 4:30 in the morning.
That puts them at increased risk, with recent reports of violence and kidnappings in Nuevo Laredo, which is directly across the border from Laredo, and Matamoros, which is adjacent to Brownsville. The State Department has consequently issued a level four “Do Not Travel”warning in both Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros.
Lynch and Perez-Davis said that attorneys are also increasingly afraid of crossing the border into Mexico in light of those safety concerns. Where they used to cross over the border to deliver presentations informing migrants of their rights and the US legal process in Mexican shelters, that is no longer happening to the same degree.
“It has chilled any sort of ability to provide legal representation,” Perez-Davis said.
DHS purports to exempt “vulnerable populations” from the Remain in Mexico policy and allow them to remain in the US, but in practice, few migrants have been able to obtain such exemptions in non-refoulement interviews.
The advocacy group Human Rights First issued a report earlier this month documenting dozens of cases in which inherently vulnerable immigrants — including those with serious health issues and pregnant women — and immigrants who were already victims of kidnapping, rape and assault in Mexico were sent back under MPP after their interviews.
With attorneys barred from advocating for migrants in these interviews, migrants will likely continue to be sent back to Mexico even if they should qualify for an exemption under DHS’s own guidelines.
“These interviews are a basic human rights protection to ensure that no one is returned to a country where they would face inhumane treatment, persecution or other harm,” Democrats wrote Thursday. “We are concerned that DHS is returning asylum seekers to harm in Mexico.”
This situation persists as a direct and predictable consequence of the Ninth Circuit’s atrocious decision staying the District Court’s properly issued injunction in Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan!
As I told the US District Court, District of Rhode Island, 2019 District Conference on “Independence & the Courts” today:
Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change.Make the guys in the ivory tower “own” the deaths, human rights abuses, unrelenting human misery, and mockeries of justice that their intransigence and failure to carry out their oaths to faithfully support and defend the Constitution of the U.S. is causing to the most needy and vulnerable among us — that is, to those who have the audacity to assert their legal rights under our laws.
What good are “independent” courts who won’t stand up for our individual rights under the Constitution? “Independence” does not entitle judges to use their privileged positions to be complicit or complacent in the face of great tyranny and the human misery and irreparable harm it causes!
And, thanks to Nicole for “keeping on” this horrifying chronicle of calculated and premeditated human rights abuses by an Executive Branch “gone rogue,” and the disastrous real life human consequences of ivory tower appellate judges failing to perform their Constitutional duties. They will not escape the judgment of history for their unwillingness to stand up to the abuses of a White Nationalist regime carrying out a predetermined agenda totally unrelated to governing in the public interest or complying with the rule of law.
Also, many thanks too Laura and Leidy for having the courage and dedication to put themselves “on the line” to let us know exactly what’s happening as a result of the massive failure of all three branches of our Government.
Join the New Due Process Army and take the fight to preserve our American values and our Constitution to all three branches of Government until they do their duties and stop the illegal and unconstitutional abuses of asylum seekers!
The United States’ refugee program once served as a global model of how a powerful country should support the world’s most vulnerable people. But under President Donald Trump, America is now accepting fewer refugees than ever, signaling that not even they are immune to the president’s restrictionist immigration policies.
On Thursday, the administration announced that the US will accept 18,000 refugees at most over the next year, the fewest in history and down from a cap of 110,000 just two years ago. A new executive order from Trump will allow state and local authorities to block refugees from settling in their areas.
The Trump administration claims that lowering refugee admissions would allow the US to take in more asylum seekers: people fleeing violence and persecution who apply for protection when they are already in the US, unlike refugees, who are processed by international organizations.
But the administration is also doing everything it can to keep asylum seekers out of the US. Migrants can be returned to Mexico to await decisions on their asylum applications, barred from obtaining asylum if they passed through another country before arriving in the US, or sent back to the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras to seek protections there.
During his campaign, Trump painted refugees fleeing the Syrian civil war as national security threats. In office, his administration hasn’t distinguished among asylum-seekers, refugees, and other migrants. It’s painted them all as a threat to or drain on American society and has crafted policies that try to keep as many people out of the US as possible.
The Trump administration is setting up the admission of refugees and asylum seekers as a “zero-sum game.” But in reality, it’s just trying to block immigration across the board, said Elizabeth Foydel, deputy police director at the International Refugee Assistance Project.
The US has the capacity to take in both more refugees and more asylum seekers. But the Trump administration is sending a message: The US is no longer the same safe haven it once was. The policies are in line with acting US Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Ken Cuccinelli’s amendment to Emma Lazarus’s famous poem on the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired and your poor who can stand on their own two feet.”
During the campaign, Trump helped stoke anti-refugee sentiment
The refugee program has historically flourished under Republican presidents. Even in previous Republican administrations seeking to curtail immigration, no one has ever set the cap on refugee admissions as low as Trump has. Former President George W. Bush briefly cut the number of refugees admitted after the 9/11 attacks, but even then the limit was set at 70,000.
But the bipartisan consensus on maintaining a robust refugee resettlement program began to unravel after the Paris terror attacks in late 2015, said Yael Schacher, senior US advocate for Refugees International, when suicide bombers — reportedly sanctioned by the Islamic State — killed 130 civilians in explosions and mass shootings throughout the city.
There was speculation that one of the attackers was a refugee, one of 5.6 million Syrians who have been displaced since 2011 by the still-ongoing civil war. It was later confirmed that all of the perpetrators were citizens of the European Union. But the rumors were enough to spark a panic about Syrian refugees and start a movement among governors, mostly Republicans, to cut back US admissions of Syrian refugees and resettlement efforts more broadly.
Governors from 31 states, all Republican but for New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan, said they no longer wanted their state to take in Syrian refugees. In 2016, Mike Pence, then governor of Indiana, also tried to prevent refugee resettlement agencies in his state from getting reimbursed for the cost of providing social services to Syrian refugees.
But states didn’t have the legal authority to simply refuse refugees; that’s the prerogative of the federal government. Pence ultimately had to back down after a federal court ruled against his decision to withhold the reimbursements.
Trump, then campaigning for president, stirred up more fear, suggesting that Syrian refugees were raising an army to launch an attack on the US and promising that all of them would be “going back” if he won the election. He said that he would tell Syrian children to their faces that they could not come to the US, speculating that they could be a “Trojan horse.”
“Military tactics are very interesting,” Trump said. “This could be one of the great tactical ploys of all time. A 200,000-man army, maybe. Or if they sent 50,000 or 80,000 or 100,000 … That could be possible. I don’t know that it is, but it could be possible.”
When Trump eventually took office, he delivered on his promise to slash refugee admissions from Syria, suspending refugee admissions altogether from January to October 2017. From October 2017 to October 2018, the US admitted only 62.
State leaders lined up behind him: The Tennessee legislature, for instance, filed a lawsuit in March 2017 claiming that the federal government was infringing on states’ rights by forcing them to take in refugees (a court challenge that also failed).
Trump’s executive order Thursday may vindicate the states that wanted to turn refugees away. (The International Refugee Assistance Project said it is contemplating challenging the order in court.) Under the executive order, local governments that do not have the resources to support refugees in becoming “self-sufficient and free from long-term dependence on public assistance” will be able to turn them away.
It’s not clear how it will play out in practice. States won’t just be able to refuse refugees from certain nations, such as Syria, Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor at Cornell Law, said. Immigration law provides that state and local governments must provide aid “without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex or political opinion.”
But it could prove complicated when states and municipalities disagree over whether to accept refugees. It’s possible that states will be able to override local governments. Take, for example, cities like Dallas, which has historically taken in many refugees but is located in Texas, which has previously sought to prohibit them.
The executive order would also create inconsistent refugee policies across the country, making it next to impossible for the federal government to properly plan for refugee settlement, Schacher said.
“We are one nation,” she said. “The idea that governors can direct where refugees can first resettle not only undermines federalism but divides us on a policy which is fundamentally a national one.”
Trump’s refugee policy reflects his broader attitude toward immigrants
The Center of Immigration Studies (CIS), which advocates for lowering immigration levels overall, has influenced many of the Trump administration’s restrictive immigration policies. The refugee cap is no exception.
The organization has gained influence in the Trump era, with some of its former researchers assuming senior positions in the administration. CIS threw support behind the movement to block Syrian refugees in 2016, casting doubt on whether the United Nations’ refugee office could actually vet them for security threats before they arrive in the US.
The organization has also claimed that the current system allows the federal government to impose too much financial burden on states to carry out refugee resettlement. And it has called into question why the US should dedicate resources to resettling refugees rather than focusing on the southern border.
Trump’s most recent refugee policy moves are “long overdue,” in particular his executive order allowing states the opportunity to refuse refugees, CIS senior researcher Nayla Rush writes.
“Refugees are not just parachuted into a void,” she said. “Positive reception and orientation are, therefore, necessary for a successful integration.”
It all fits in with one of the broader ideas guiding Trump’s immigration policy: that immigrants “exploit public assistance” without offering the US anything in return, Foydel said.
In the same vein, the Trump administration has published a rule, set to go into effect October 15, that would allow the Department of Homeland Security to weigh certain immigrants’ use of Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Section 8 housing assistance, and federally subsidized housing against them in their applications for green cards or visas. The rule will primarily affect a small proportion of family-based green card applicants, but immigrants are already disenrolling from public benefits out of fear that they will be penalized.
Trump has justified it as a means of ensuring that immigrants are “financially self-sufficient” and to “protect benefits for American citizens.”
“I am tired of seeing our taxpayer paying for people to come into the country and immediately go onto welfare and various other things,” Trump said when announcing the rule. “So I think we’re doing it right.”
Foydel said that Trump is trying to abdicate federal responsibility for the most vulnerable immigrants, forcing states that already serve as immigrant “sanctuaries” to step up. He threatened to release detained immigrants into sanctuary cities in April, and Thursday’s executive order also requires states that agree to receive refugees to publish their “consent letters” publicly, which some have questioned as a means of politically targeting immigrant-friendly areas.
“The positions of different states might be politicized and used to foment anti-refugee sentiment,” Schacher said.
It’s a mischaracterization to say that immigrants take advantage of welfare programs, Foydel said.
In her experience, refugees have no desire to be on public assistance for any longer than necessary and start working as soon as they can. She also pointed to research that refugees end up contributing more in taxes than what it costs to resettle them: on average, $21,000 among refugees who entered the US as adults between 2010 and 2014, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.
“I think that there are a number of policies we’ve seen that have this language of economic self-sufficiency,” Foydel said. “It’s part of a false narrative about refugees and also immigrants more broadly exploiting public assistance when the data says it’s not true.”
Trump‘s cowardly attacks upon the world’s most vulnerable, aided and abetted by morally corrupt GOP policitos, and “masterminded” by neo-Nazi advisor Stephen Miller (taxpayers are actually supporting this evil clown — talk about abuse of public assistance!), ends what had been one of our most important and long-lasting bipartisan policy successes.
And, since much of the expertise and hard work that made the program so successful were contributed by NGOs and (real, not Trumpian) religious organizations, those programs are now being dismantled and the expertise and resources directed elsewhere. Literally decades of irreplaceable knowledge, expertise, and organizational talent has been lost almost overnight.
Even when a wiser, more humane, decent Administration finally wants to “restart” these critically important programs, it will be no easy task. It basically took nearly half a century to build up the current expertise. Once dissipated, it won’t be easily re-created – certainly not overnight. Obviously, there are serious, long-term consequences to allowing a kakistocracy to take over the government of our nation.
Democratic presidential candidates have mostly been able to avoid a substantive discussion of what immigration policy should look like. Expressing outrage over President Donald Trump’s policies has sufficed for debate soundbites.
That might be politically expedient; immigration is one of the top issues on voters’ minds, but also one of the most divisive. Being vague is a way to put off alienating various wings of the party until the primaries are over.
The candidates have tended to speak in platitudes, like when Amy Klobuchar said in the first debate, “Immigrants do not diminish America. They are America.” Beto O’Rourke and Cory Booker got mixed reviews for answering questions about immigration in Spanish in an attempt to show solidarity with Latino voters.
There was one moment that spurred numerous immigration think pieces. During the first debate in June, Julián Castro asked fellow candidates onstage to commit to repealing Section 1325 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a provision in federal law that makes crossing the border without authorization a crime. But that moment stood out because it was unusually specific.
If a Democratic president makes “comprehensive immigration reform” a priority, as virtually all of the candidates have vowed, voters do not have much information about what that means. With a (mercifully) smaller pool of 10 candidates taking the stage for Thursday night’s upcoming debate, there might finally be more room to elaborate.
Here are five questions that moderators should ask to get a more expansive view of the candidates’ positions:
1. What immigration-related executive actions could we expect from your administration in your first 100 days?
The US Supreme Court has historically recognized the president’s broad powers over immigration, but Democrats have accused Trump of overstepping his executive authority with his unilateral, sweeping changes to immigration policy.
In the wake of Trump’s travel ban, when the president issued an executive order banning individuals from seven countries, Democrats in the House and Senate proposed a bill that would rein in the executive authority of all future presidents such that they could not issue any similar ban. House Democrats also filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on the southern border, claiming that he could not invoke his emergency powers simply to circumvent Congress’ refusal to fully fund his border wall in its 2019 budget deal.
But limiting executive authority over immigration is a double-edged sword for Democrats. If Republicans retain control of the Senate as expected in 2020 and gridlock in Congress continues, a Democratic president’s only means of reversing the Trump administration’s immigration policies would be by executive fiat.
For that reason, candidates including Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker rely heavily on executive actions in their immigration plans. For example, Booker would order the Department of Homeland Security on day one in office to bring detention centers into compliance with federal detention standards, and Sanders has said that his first executive action would be closing privately operated immigration detention centers.
Others have suggested executive actions they will pursue, but haven’t nailed down a timeline: Elizabeth Warren says she will first “work with Congress to pass broad-reaching reform” but is “prepared to move forward with executive action if Congress refuses to act.”
Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg, meanwhile, have not made formal commitments to use executive authority to reverse Trump’s immigration policies.
While all of the candidates have promised wide-reaching, progressive change in immigration and across other issues, presidents only have so much time and political capital. After pushing through sweeping health care reforms with the Affordable Care Act, former President Barack Obama failed to pass a comprehensive immigration reform package in 2013.
So, asking the Democratic candidates to elaborate on their immigration priorities for their first 100 days will help determine whether the issue is actually a top priority for them.
2. What would your overall approach be to immigration enforcement on the US-Mexico border?
Republicans have accused Democrats of pushing for open borders. In reality, few go that far; some just think that crossing the border without authorization should not be a crime, as it is currently under Section 1325 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Historically, most immigrants who cross the border illegally have never been prosecuted, but the Trump administration has begun doing so under its “zero tolerance” policy and cited those prosecutions as the basis of family separations.
Polls show that a majority of Americans oppose Trump’s border wall, but not all forms of border security: About three-quarters of the public support hiring “significantly more” border patrol agents and a third say that immigration levels should be decreased overall.
If voters’ attitudes toward border security are nuanced, Democrats’ border security plans should reflect that. To start, they will have to answer questions about how they will detain immigrants (if at all), what kinds of unauthorized immigrants might be targeted with limited enforcement resources, how much funding immigration enforcement agencies will get, and how they will reduce the backlog of cases in immigration court.
Democrats can agree that Trump’s method, which includes separating families in immigration detention and sending Central American migrants back to Mexico, is abhorrent. But how they would go about securing the border is a tricky question, and previous Democratic administrations have not exactly provided a good model.
Obama struggled to balance humanitarian concerns with border enforcement. As Trump has repeatedly noted, it is true that Obama did separate families in immigration detention, albeit on a much smaller scale than the current administration. Immigrant rights groups labeled him as the “deporter in chief” because he deported more immigrants than any other president — over 385,000 in fiscal years 2009 to 2011 and peaking at 409,849 in fiscal 2012 (though former Obama officials have defended that the administration only targeted recent arrivals and violent criminals).
Five years later, Democrats are still wrestling with how they will approach immigration enforcement, tackling it piecemeal for now.
The idea of abolishing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has gained the most attention in advocacy circles. Elizabeth Warren has endorsed the “Abolish ICE” movement, and Kamala Harris has also pushed for major changes to the agency, suggesting that the federal government should “probably think about starting from scratch.” Castro has backed the decriminalization of unauthorized border crossings, challenging his opponents to do the same during a Democratic debate in June.
3. How many refugees should the US aim to resettle?
This is a simple, numerically based question that can help voters gauge the candidates’ commitment to reestablishing the US’s reputation as a world leader in protecting the most vulnerable immigrant populations. So much of the conversation around refugees and asylees in the debates so far has been dominated by denouncing Trump’s policies, so it would be useful to force the candidates to commit to hard numbers of how many they would admit.
Historically, the US has taken in more refugees, about 3 million since 1980, than any other nation. But the US has scaled back its refugee program under Trump, lowering the cap on refugees admitted to the US from 110,000 in fiscal year 2017 to 30,000 in fiscal year 2019 — the lowest number since the Refugee Act was signed into law in 1980. And the Trump administration is expected to cut refugee admissions even further.
Some Democratic presidential candidates have proposed elevating the refugee cap as part of their immigration plans. Booker and Castro have proposed reverting to the pre-Trump refugee cap of 110,000, but Elizabeth Warren would go even further, setting the cap at 125,000 initially and increasing it to 175,000 by the end of her first term.
4. How would you work with governments in Central America to reduce factors driving migrants away from their home countries?
In light of declining migrant arrests, Trump may claim that he is delivering on his promise to secure the southern border, but it’s not so clear that his policies have done anything to address the underlying problem: unprecedented numbers of migrants fleeing Central America. This question would illuminate how Democrats would reduce push factors and think not just about a border crisis but a regional crisis.
Previously, migrants arrested at the southern border were primarily single adult males from Mexico. But since the summer of 2018, there has been a fundamental change in migration patterns: Now, it is primarily Central American children and families.
Castro and Booker have proposed significant aid packages, but Democrats would also likely need to smooth over political tensions with Mexico and the “Northern Triangle” countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador in Trump’s wake.
In June, Trump had threatened to impose tariffs on all Mexican goods if it did not step up its immigration enforcement efforts.
And acting US Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Mark Morgan told reporters Monday that Trump is pressuring Northern Triangle countries to adopt agreements that would effectively cut off migrants before they reach the US. The so-called Safe Third Country agreements would make any migrant who passes through those countries ineligible to apply for asylum in the US.
***************************************
Nice, very timely, analysis, Nicole!
Also, many, many congrats on your new home over at the vox.com Immigration Desk!
The Mexican government is finally pushing back against the controversial Trump policy of forcing some asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico while their immigration cases play out in court, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security Briefing obtained by BuzzFeed News.
More than 35,000 migrants have been returned to Mexico under the Migrant Protection Protocols, colloquially referred to as the Remain in Mexico policy, since its start in January, according to the DHS document. That’s put migrants in danger and strained resources in Mexican Border Communities. Now, Mexican officials have reportedly begun limiting the days and times U.S. immigration agencies can send asylum-seekers back to Mexico and have cracked down on which migrants can be returned.
Mexican officials in El Paso, for example, have stopped accepting migrants after 1 p.m., even though some migrants have to return to Mexico after crossing into the U.S. for court hearings, according to the memo. As a result, Customs and Border Protection has had to detain more than half of the migrants who came to the city for hearings in August. The Mexican government has also occasionally refused to accept migrants who have been issued deportation orders but are fighting their cases, the memo says..
The Mexican government has attempted to alleviate the strain by busing migrants to cities further from the border, like Monterrey and Tapachula, the later of which is close to the country’s border with Guatemala. That has only complicated things further, since migrants have to return to the U.S. for their court hearings.
Being forced to wait in Mexico has also had legal consequences for migrants, many of whom struggle to find lawyers. A recent report by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University found that less than 1% of migrants who have been forced to wait in Mexico as part of the MPP have lawyers.
Cover image: A security guard accompanies a group of U.S. asylum-seekers out of Mexican immigration offices after they were returned by U.S. authorities to wait in Mexico under the so-called Remain in Mexico program, in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, Wednesday, July 17, 2019. (AP Photo/Christian Chavez
***************************************
As I’ve been saying all along, the bogus “Migrant Protection Protocols” (a/k/a “Return to Mexico,” a/k/a “Let “em Die In Mexico”) are nothing more than a very transparent scheme to deprive asylum applicants who have passed “credible fear” of their statutory, regulatory, and Due Process Constitutional right to be represented by counsel of their choice.
DHS has intentionally made it functionally impossible for U.S. pro bono groups to effectively represent those asylum seekers returned to Mexico. As we all know, without counsel, applicants have little, if any, realistic chance of succeeding on asylum claims, particularly under Trump’s restrictionist, openly anti-asylum regime.
For some reason, a complicit 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is allowing this legal travesty to proceed. Vulnerable asylum applicants are being abused by Trump on the 9th Circuit’s watch with impunity.
Democrats don’t need to tack right on immigration to win
Pundits like David Frum and Andrew Sullivan want Democrats to move right on immigration. They’re wrong.
In the years since Donald Trump’s victory, a cottage intellectual industry has sprung up arguing that Democrats and European center-left parties need to move right on immigration if they want to win.
Its proponents include anti-Trump conservative writers like David Frum and Andrew Sullivan (themselves both immigrants to the United States), center-right academics like Oxford’s Paul Collier and University of London’s Eric Kaufmann, and even a few leftists like essayist Angela Nagle. The basic argument is pretty consistent: There’s a rising populist revolt against mass immigration in the West, and liberals need to adjust to this reality rather than try to fight it.
This industry has gone into overdrive in recent weeks, driven largely by the results of Denmark’s early June election. Denmark’s center-left Social Democratic Party (SDP), which had tacked hard right on immigration in recent years, defeated the conservative incumbent and won the most seats in parliament, while the far-right populist Danish People’s Party (DPP) lost more than half of its support. This, the immigration skeptics argue, is proof that they are right: Democrats and other center-left parties can co-opt Trump and the European far right simply by leaning into their anti-migrant bona fides.
“Imagine if [Elizabeth] Warren were to model her campaign on the newly elected social democrats in Denmark,” Sullivan writes. “A Democratic adoption of tighter immigration policies and less stridently leftist cultural stances could dominate” among many voters.
The reality of Denmark’s election is much more complicated than Sullivan’s morality play. The Danish campaign debate focused heavily on climate change and welfare state issues, with immigration playing less of a role than some external observers believe. Only a small percentage of DPP voters seemed to switch to the SDP. Perhaps most importantly, the SDP won only one more seat than it had in the 2015 election — an election it lost. Instead, the SDP benefited from a surge in support for smaller, relatively pro-immigration left-wing parties that could support it in a coalition.
The problems with the anti-immigration analysts’ view of Denmark mirror problems with their broader thesis. Political scientists have studied whether center-left parties benefit from tacking right on immigration, and the best evidence strongly suggests that they don’t.
What’s happening is an example of what my colleague Matt Yglesias calls “the pundit’s fallacy”: a writer’s conviction that their preferred policy ideas must be popular, and that a party who adopts their views will win because of it. But there’s substantial reason to think moving further right on immigration would hurt the center left, and no strong argument for Democrats to abandon their moral principles and practical stances to try to win more votes.
What do we know about the center left and immigration?
After the Danish election, Harvard PhD student Sophie Hill put together a Twitter thread summarizing the leading research on European social democratic parties and immigration. Her read of the literature is clear: “Should centre left parties ‘get tough’ on immigration? No!”
Hill, following an influential 2010 paper, argues that there’s a trade-off inherent to center-left parties’ positioning on the issue. If they maintain their traditional liberal positions, they lose ground with culturally conservative and less educated voters in the working class. If they move right, they risk alienating their cosmopolitan base on the left. (A third option is ignoring and downplaying immigration, but that can be tricky given how important the issue is in public debate.)
Two major questions follow: Does moving to the right on immigration win over a significant number of working-class voters? And, if so, is it enough to offset the losses among the left-wing base?
Research by German scholar Kai Arzheimer, whose work I’ve looked at before, suggests the answer to the first question is no. Arzheimer studied 16 European center-left parties with varying approaches to immigration, developing a model that attempts to estimates the effect of immigration positions on working-class vote share. He found that parties that tacked to the right on immigration did no better with the working class than those that maintained their traditional pro-migrant stances.
When it comes to the working class, he concludes, “it does not make a difference whether the Social Democrats stick to their traditional positions on immigration or whether they try to toughen up their policies.”
This makes intuitive sense. If you’re someone who really cares about immigration restrictionism, and you have a choice of a far-right party that’s long been obsessed with that issue or a liberal Johnny-come-lately, why would you vote for the latter?
Center-left parties “shouldn’t be purely focused on winning back the voters who went to the radical right, because when push comes to shove, a significant part of that electorate is deeply nativist,” Cas Mudde, a scholar of the European far right at the University of Georgia, told me in a 2017 interview. “They want a party that is nativist; the only way to win them back is pretty much by becoming radical right or radical right-light.”
If that’s true, then it should follow that tacking right hurts these parties overall: With no gains in the working class, it’s likely that the losses in support from culturally liberal voters wouldn’t be offset. That’s exactly what research by Tarik Abou-Chadi, a political scientist at the University of Zurich, suggests.
The following chart from Abou-Chadi’s work maps European social democratic parties’ immigration positions on a scale of 3 to 7; the higher the number, the more anti-immigrant they are. The trend lines at the top clearly suggest that the more anti-immigrant a party is, the less likely people in their country are to vote for them.
Another study from two scholars at Sweden’s University of Gothenburg took a look at how this played out on a granular level.
Using data from a survey sent out to roughly 13,000 local Swedish politicians, they tried to identify what happened when social democratic parties moved to the right on immigration. It turns out that in regions where that happened, support for far-right parties actually went up. Rather than stealing votes from the far right, they argue, the center left was legitimizing their positions, making it morally acceptable for voters to act on their anti-immigrant sentiments.
All this data points to a clear conclusion: Even if the 2019 Danish elections do turn out to be a story of the left winning based on a rightward shift on immigration, which doesn’t seem likely, there’s little reason to believe that this strategy would work elsewhere — and good reason to think it might backfire.
Europe’s lessons for the Democrats
Obviously, you can’t draw one-to-one lessons from European social democratic parties to the American Democratic Party. But much of the same logic applies: Democrats depend on high turnout from their educated, culturally liberal white voters, and likely won’t benefit by being seen as “Republican-lite” on a key cultural issue.
What’s more, Democrats get backing from several voting constituencies composed of both naturalized and native-born citizens who have a real stake in the issue. Latinx people are the obvious example, but so are Asian Americans and Jewish voters: people who identify with immigrants due to their own family stories of coming to the United States, and would see a move toward restrictionism as a threat and a betrayal.
And, once again, there’s statistical support for this line of thinking.
One paper compared data on Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008, which had a comparatively generic outreach program to Latinos, to its 2012 campaign, which focused heavily on turning out Latino voters by emphasizing pro-immigration positions like the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The data concluded that “Obama’s Latino targeted outreach was (1) remarkably effective at winning over Latino voters; and (2) it had coattail effects for Democratic Senate candidates.”
There’s reason to believe this could be even more true in the Trump era. While Trump has mobilized a vocal minority of anti-immigrant voters in the Republican Party, survey after survey has shown that this has led to a backlash among the rest of the population, with numbers of Americans expressing support for immigration reaching historichighs in tracking polls.
There’s another reason to believe moving toward immigration restrictionism would be counterproductive for Democrats: New citizens themselves are an important Democratic constituency.
A study by three economists tried to study how the changes in America’s population wrought by mass immigration — more Latino voters, for example — were changing American politics. They found that “immigration to the U.S. has a significant and negative impact on the Republican vote share,” largely because “naturalized migrants [are] less likely to vote for the Republican party than native voters.” Why spit in this group’s face by adopting restrictionist positions, which seem to be unpopular with the majority of Americans, on the off chance that they might win over some Trump voters?
Look, it’s possible that all of this data is incorrect. Social science is tricky, and it’s possible the experts are measuring things wrong (or measuring the wrong things). Maybe the US is nothing like Europe, and Latinos will turn out for Democrats regardless of what they say about immigration. Maybe being Trump-lite on immigration really would help Democrats.
But there’s no reason to take that gamble given that the best evidence goes the other way — unless you already believe that mass immigration is bad for the United States.
If you’re a Democratic politician who believes believe that immigrants depress native-born wages, or undermine the social cohesion necessary to maintain liberal democracy, then you’re probably willing to gamble that all the research is wrong. But that’s not what most Democrats believe, for very good substantive reasons. There’s no real political case for them go back on those convictions now.
*********************************
Due process, a functional independent U.S. Immigration Court, expanded legal immigration and refugee programs that putmany more would-be migrants through pre-screening and into legal channels while addressing American’s need for economic growth, international cooperation, smart development, and reprogramming money misallocated to ultimately futile and inhumane “civil enforcement” to real law enforcement activities is a winning program.
By contrast, Trump’s program of hate, fear, and oppression divides America, wastes money right and left, and is ineffective.Dems should not be afraid to take onTrump’s irrational xenophobia to appeal to the “better angels” of American voters with smarter, better, practical, and humane ideas.
In February 2019, 66,450 migrants crossed the US/Mexico border between official border crossings and were apprehended by US Border Patrol agents, committing the misdemeanor of illegal entry.
It’s a sharp increase from January and marks an 11-year high. But the number reflects an ongoing trend: record numbers of families coming to the US without papers.
The Trump administration reported that 76,103 people tried to enter the US without valid papers in February. That number combines people who came to official border crossings and migrants who were caught by Border Patrol after crossing illegally.
The total has alarmed conservatives; President Donald Trump has taken it as validation of his decision to declare a national emergency and appropriate more funding to build “a wall” along the border. (Construction of the wall would take months or years.)
But while current apprehension levels are higher than they’ve been in the last decade, they’re still way below pre-recession levels.
What is truly unprecedented is who the migrants are.
Almost two-thirds of Border Patrol apprehensions are of parents and their children. While we don’t have complete historical data, it seems likely that more families are coming to the US without papers than ever before. Additionally, a large share of migrants (both families and single adults) are expressing a desire to seek asylum.
Both groups are overwhelmingly coming from the Central American countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.
The US immigration enforcement system was designed to swiftly detain and deport migrants who attempted to sneak into the US illegally. Asylum-seekers and families don’t fit that mold.
Border Patrol agents aren’t equipped to deal with large groups of families who travel through Mexico by bus and then turn themselves in at the border. This has arguably contributed to the deaths of multiple children in Border Patrol custody in recent months, and spurred Customs and Border Protection to expand medical care.
Some of those migrants, either intentionally or accidentally, do not complete the asylum process or lose their cases, and live in the US as unauthorized immigrants. For many Trump officials, this is the heart of the crisis. Officials have spent the last year working on regulations and pushing Congress to expand family detention and reduce asylum protections.
Trump critics continue to insist that migration isn’t at crisis levels. To them, the more urgent issue is the administration’s treatment of families, children, and asylum seekers. They are urging the administration to allow more asylum seekers to present themselves at ports of entry legally. They are calling attention to the conditions in which migrants are being held in custody.
Asylum seekers cannot be barred from entry. The question is whether they should be treated as vulnerable migrants who the US is obligated to treat with kindness, or as deportable migrants until (if at all) they win legal status.
********************************************
It’s really a question of whether we honor our legal and international obligations by fairly processing refugees, or choose to dehumanize and further victimize them. The totally disingenuous performance by Administration officials testifying before Congress on Tuesday tells you all you really need to know. This Administration has shown a slavish devotion to failed policies, dumb gimmicks, and just downright cruelty in a vain attempt to stop people from fleeing danger zones. Not surprisingly, their “built to fail” policies, scofflaw behavior, and malicious incompetence has made things worse rather than better.
What if we had an honest Administration that admitted that this is a refugee flow that we had a significant role in creating? What if we used the existing law and legal mechanisms to take as many refugees as we could and worked with the UNHCR and the international community to help the others find viable resettlement alternatives? Wow, that would be making government work for the common good. something that’s just not in the “White Nationalist playbook.”
THE GIBSON REPORT – 12-03-18 – Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group – Learn About Trump’s Self-Created “Bogus Border Crisis!”
Vox: Before 2016, and in some cases as recently as six months ago, they would have had no problem and no delay. But for the last several months, the Trump administration has made a practice of limiting the number of asylum seekers allowed to enter the US each day — a policy it calls “metering.”
Politico: The new Mexican government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador will press the United States to invest least $20 billion in Central America and, reportedly, faster asylum processing in exchange for allowing migrants to remain in Mexico while they seek refugee status in the U.S.
Politico: A group of migrant women in the caravan announced Thursday that it would begin a hunger strike to protest the slow pace at which the women are being allowed to apply for asylum, as officials from the United States and Mexico are set to meet this weekend to negotiate a plan to process their claims.
Pew: The number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. fell to its lowest level in more than a decade, according to new Pew Research Center estimates based on 2016 government data. The decline is due almost entirely to a sharp decrease in the number of Mexicans entering the country without authorization.
Quartz: Mexican immigration authorities are even less prepared than the US to process them. The Mexican agency charged with helping refugees, COMAR by its Spanish acronym, only has four offices, and none near the border. Earlier this year, Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission warned of the “possible collapse” of the country’s refugee protection system as COMAR’s backlog grew to 60% of applications. It also identified “situations of risk of torture and abuse” in immigrant detention centers, which it found had no adequate living conditions or access to medical attention.
NBC: The federal agency’s threat came a day after the New Jersey attorney general announced new restrictions on local law enforcement cooperation with ICE.
Vera: The Vera Institute of Justice is excited to announce that we are expanding our Safety and Fairness for Everyone (SAFE) Network – currently a diverse group of a dozen cities and counties across America dedicated to providing publicly funded universal representation for people facing deportation.
WaPo: A key Senate committee postponed a vote Wednesday on President Trump’s pick to lead the main agency handling immigration enforcement as a coalition of unions raised “serious concern” about Ronald D. Vitiello’s ability to effectively oversee the agency.
CBS: The American Civil Liberties Union, which has filed more than 50 immigrants’ rights lawsuits against the Trump administration, recorded its most successful #GivingTuesday in years. That wasn’t just the case just for the ACLU. This year’s day for charitable giving was the biggest ever, raking in nearly $400 million in donations online in the U.S. alone, according to the 92nd Street Y.
Guardian: Housed in the Gadsden county jail since the late 1990s, the gray slab of concrete that is the Etowah Detention Center, is routinely identified by lawyers, advocates and detainees as one of the worst Ice facilities in the United States. It has one of the longest detention times of all Ice facilities.
In what appears to be a new development, Page 71 of the USCIS FY 2019 budget indicates that USCIS wants to transfer “$207.6 million in Immigration Examinations Fee Account (IEFA) fees to ICE to support immigration investigation and enforcement.”
WaPo: New York’s highest court boldly ruled Tuesday that deportation may be a more severe consequence than even a few months behind bars. The divided decision created a situation in which two individuals charged with the same low-level offense have vastly different trial rights — a noncitizen is entitled to a jury trial, while a U.S. citizen is not. [Note: This is obviously being appealed.]
WaPo: The lawsuit alleges that the Trump administration’s expanded definition of “public charges” has had a chilling effect on the city’s immigrant community, which Baltimore officials see as key to its revival. Legal immigrants have stopped using school programs, food subsidies, housing vouchers and health clinics for which they are eligible, the lawsuit says, hurting the city’s mission to welcome immigrants and creating long-term expenses as Baltimore deals with a sicker and less-educated community.
AP: Juarez’s lawyers said Mariee developed a respiratory illness while she and her mother were detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas. They accused U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of releasing the pair while Mariee was still sick.
Approved National Vetting Center Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Working Group Charter, established pursuant to National Security Presidential Memorandum-9, “Optimizing the Use of Federal Government Information in Support of the National Vetting Enterprise,” dated February 6, 2018. AILA Doc. No. 18112870
CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan conducted a call with media and released his opening remarks, “We will continue to monitor the situation closely. And while we seek to maintain lawful trade and travel to the maximum extent, we will be prepared to close San Ysidro again if….”AILA Doc. No. 18112762
DHS Secretary Nielsen issued a statement after CBP closed the San Ysidro port of entry on 11/25/18, stating “As I have continually stated, DHS will not tolerate this type of lawlessness and will not hesitate to shut down ports of entry for security and public safety reasons.” AILA Doc. No. 18112734
USCIS provided Q&As from a 11/15/18 teleconference on the continued expansion of the implementation process of the 6/28/18 NTA memorandum. AILA Doc. No. 18110836
I draw your attention to Elizabeth’s “Item 2” which is a lengthy, outstanding article by Dara Lind of Vox News on the fake, self-created “Trump Border Crisis.”
The only quibble I have with Dara’s article is the suggestion that there might be a need for more detention space. I say BS! Unquestionably, by working together with the UNHCR, the Mexican Government, and NGOs such as the ACLU, KIND, and the ABA, the DHS could find suitable placements for individuals waiting for credible fear interviews once they had passed a basic screening and background check.
Indeed, one of the key findings of a recent TRAC Report on Immigration Court Asylum Decisions is that 98.6% of asylum seekers appear in court for their decisions, win or lose! http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/539/This stands in sharp contrast to the false claims by the Administration and its “bureaucratic mouthpieces” that asylum seekers “bolt” once they get into the country.
When given access to competent legal assistance and a chance to understand both the system and their obligations, almost all appear. Clearly, the Administration should be working with the private sector to get asylum seekers represented rather than undertaking cruel and overall futile and wasteful efforts to detain, deter, and punish them.
And how about some truthful narratives, rather than the bogus ones taken right out of the right-wing restrictionist playbook? Again, it’s past time for some Congressional oversight and accountability for the many falsehoods about immigration purveyed not only by the Trump politicos (like Sessions, Nielsen, Miller, et al.) but also by career officials who should know better. Indeed, in many cases, such as TPS and the Travel Ban, the Administration’s bogus narratives directly and demonstrably contradict the Government’s own information and recommendations by career officials with expertise in the areas. This shameful abuse of our civil service system and its expertise by biased, prejudiced, and unqualified politicos must stop.
And, as always, thanks Elizabeth for all you do for the New Due Process Army!
Surprised by vehement public reaction, President Donald Trump has decreed an end to the policy of separating arriving asylum seekers from their children. But what now? Not what will Trump do — his latest pronouncements simply up the ante on mean-spiritedness, with little clarity on a specific policy direction. But what asylum reforms should progressives push for to build a humane, workable, and sustainable program?
The policy problem is real. The flow of asylum seekers from Central America has not noticeably abated even during the administration’s imposition of cruelties. The current adjudication system has been overwhelmed — both the asylum officers in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the immigration judges in the Department of Justice (DOJ). Claims in both venues, from all nationalities, have seen sharp rises over the past five years, and backlogs have mushroomed.
DHS, which was keeping up with asylum claims as recently as 2011, now has more than 300,000 pending cases. Immigration judges, whose ranks number roughly 350 at present, have an astounding backlog of 700,000 cases. The resulting picture of dysfunction provides continual fodder for anti-immigration demagogues.
Progressives need to pay close attention to that last observation, because we are in danger of overplaying the righteous reaction to the horrors of child separation. Our nation needs to remain firmly committed to the institution of political asylum. But opportunistic or abusive claims are unfortunately numerous in the current caseload, particularly among people who seek asylum after having been in the United States for a while.
And any realistic migration management regime will have to keep in its toolbox the selective detention of asylum seekers, especially in times of high influx. We need to figure out what form our detention and release system will take.
So, yes, we need to call attention to the cruelty of the Trump administration’s policies. But we also need to bring the system back under control. Control is a precondition for regaining durable public support for the institution of political asylum in a world characterized by unprecedented migration pressures. Extreme-right politicians are exaggerating the scale of illegal immigration and unwarranted asylum seeking, and not just in the US. Getting this right will help take away from the authoritarians one of their most potent rhetorical weapons: immigration alarmism.
A precedent for a solution
Fortunately, we do have a solid model for how to repair our system: Today’s overload is surprisingly similar to an administrative meltdown faced in the early 1990s. Regulatory and operational reforms in 1995 brought that asylum situation under control, while preserving due process and avoiding widespread detention. The result was 15 years of reasonably efficient operation and blessedly few hot political controversies over asylum. We can rebuild that system; doing so won’t resolve all the problems we face, but it is an indispensable ingredient.
We still face some tough questions — notably about how far our asylum system can go in protecting against private violence in Central America, including from gangs and abusive family members. As a polity with a proud history of providing refuge, we face some hard choices. But however those choices are resolved, we can and should immediately expand aid designed to reduce violence in the source countries. That would go some way toward reducing refugee flows.
How our two-track asylum system works
To understand the history of reform successes and failures, we need first a map of the rather complex structure of agencies involved in asylum processing, and of the two primary pipelines by which applications are received. Bear with me, because the differences, though technical, are important as we think about reforms.
A person already in the United States, legally or illegally, who fears persecution back in the home country, can file for asylum directly with the Department of Homeland Security. These “affirmative claims,” so-called because the person takes the initiative to file without any enforcement action pending, are initially heard in an office interview conducted by expert asylum officers, housed in eight regional offices.
Based on the completed application and a nonadversarial office interview, asylum officers can grant or deny asylum, but when asylum is denied, they have no authority to issue a removal order.
That step requires an immigration judge — a specially selected DOJ attorney, appointed by the attorney general, who conducts removal proceedings. Until 1995, there was no routine for putting unsuccessful affirmative applicants into immigration court. It was up to the district field office of the immigration agency to file charges; many offices didn’t see these cases as a priority, at a time when the enforcement system had far lower funding than today. If the district office did serve a charging document, the person could renew the asylum claim in immigration court, and the judge would decide it afresh.
Now for the second main pipeline. People who are already in removal proceedings when they first seek asylum — people apprehended after crossing the border, for instance, or picked up by DHS after a local arrest for disorderly conduct — cannot file with the asylum office. Instead, they present their applications directly to the immigration court. A successful claim there constitutes a defense to removal; hence these applications are known as “defensive claims.”
For both defensive claimants and those affirmative claimants who have renewed their claims in court, the immigration judge considers the case through a formal courtroom procedure. He or she can grant asylum, but if asylum is denied, the judge normally issues a removal order — the kind of document needed for DHS to put the applicant on a bus or plane home (though appeal opportunities exist).
Border cases, as mentioned, are almost all heard as defensive claims, assuming applicants pass an initial, speedy “credible fear” screening done by an asylum officer, which is meant to weed out clearly meritless cases. (Over the past eight years, between 15 and 30 percent have been screened out this way.)
In the 1990s the system was also overwhelmed. We brought it back under control.
Back to the dysfunction I mentioned in the early 1990s. The expert corps of asylum officers, which had been created only in 1990, was overwhelmed by an accelerating volume of asylum claims, many of them containing near-identical boilerplate stories about threats, mostly crafted by high-volume “immigration consultants.” At the time, the regulations provided that nearly all asylum applicants received authorization to work in the US shortly after filing.
That created an incentive to file a false asylum claim — as did the slim chance, during that period, that an applicant would end up in immigration court. The system’s obvious disorder and vulnerability to escalating fraud worried refugee assistance organizations, who rightly feared that Congress, then beginning to consider tough immigration enforcement bills (ultimately enacted in 1996), would impose draconian limitations on asylum unless the administration brought the situation under control.
Government agencies worked closely with NGOs to analyze the situation and draw up a balanced solution. (I worked on the design and implementation of the reforms as a consultant to the Justice Department and later as general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, a.k.a. INS.) Two key changes in asylum regulations were the result. The first made it virtually automatic that affirmative asylum claimants whose claims were rejected by the asylum officer would be placed into removal proceedings.
Under the 1995 regs, when applicants return to the asylum office a few weeks after their interview to get the result, nearly all receive either an asylum grant or a fully effective charging document placing them in removal proceedings, normally with a specific date to appear in immigration court.
Second, the reform decoupled the act of filing for asylum from work authorization. The applicant would get that benefit from the asylum officer only if granted asylum. Those applicants who failed and were referred on to immigration court would similarly have to prove their asylum claim on the merits to gain permission to work.
But as a mechanism to minimize hardship and induce timely decisions, applicants would also receive work authorization if the immigration judge did not resolve the case within six months of the initial filing. (Applicants could also request delays, for example to gather more evidence, but such a request would suspend the running of the “asylum clock” and thus extend the six-month deadline for the issuance of work authorization).
To meet that processing deadline, the Clinton administration secured funding to double the number of immigration judges, from roughly 100 to 200, and also built up the asylum officer corps. New target timetables were established, and the new system met them with few exceptions: An asylum officer decision within 60 days, and an immigration judge decision within six months from initial filing (the latter also applies to purely defensive claims).
Finally, to maximize the immediate impact, the asylum offices and immigration courts adopted a last-in, first-out scheduling policy for judging claims. That sent the signal that new bogus claims would not slip through and get work authorization under the six-month rule, simply because of case backlogs. The older filers, already carrying a work authorization card, would take lower priority.
These reforms dramatically changed the calculus of potential affirmative applicants. Weak or opportunistic filings would no longer lead to work authorization; additionally, they would mean a quick trip to immigration court and a likely removal order. People responded to the new incentives. Asylum filings with the immigration authorities declined from more than 140,000 in 1993 to a level between 27,000 and 50,000 for virtually every year from 1998 through 2013. That annual filing rate was a manageable level, logistically and politically.
Congress had been poised to crack down on asylum in 1996 as part of a general tightening of immigration laws but, impressed by the already visible reductions, rejected most of the restrictive asylum proposals and instead made the administrative changes permanent by enacting them into law.
The seeds of the current crisis were planted around 2012, in a period of budgetary contraction. Neither Congress nor the executive branch appreciated how crucial it was to reach decisions in immigration court within six months and thereby prevent work authorization to unqualified asylum applicants. That had been the system’s main (and highly effective) deterrent to opportunistic, weak, or bogus claims. Hiring slowed even as caseloads and duties expanded, including the beginnings of the Central American surge. As more and more applicants began to receive work authorization without an asylum grant on the merits, affirmative applications poured in.
With the added filings, immigration court docketing fell further behind, reaching four-year delays in some locations. Much as in 1993, it was a vicious circle. Unscrupulous “consultants” could once again guarantee work authorization to their clients based just on filing, albeit after six months, with no immigration judge hearing expected for years. In 2017, affirmative filings with the asylum office climbed back above 140,000.
A 1995-style fix today would help us mainly to deter weak affirmative asylum claims. But it would still be quite relevant to the Central American applicants reaching our borders, even though they will normally file defensively. This is because so much of the paralyzing immigration court backlog stems from the massive increase in affirmative applicant numbers over the past five years. Reducing overall intake is central to getting both tracks of the asylum process under control.
Concrete steps to fix the problems
Undocumented immigrants released in El Paso, Texas pending an asylum hearing, June 24. All had been separated from their children.Joe Raedle/Getty Images
There are four primary components in a realistic strategy to restore our asylum machinery to health. We should:
1) Rebuild the capacity for prompt asylum decisions by strategically deploying existing staff and urgently adding more. It is obvious that the system needs a major influx of new asylum officers and immigration judges. Hiring is underway and budgets are growing significantly, though not fast enough. The administration still feels a need for more dramatic immediate deterrents, apparently believing that a full catch-up to the existing caseload will take years.
But a here-and-now impact can be had by following the last-in, first-out rule that served the US so well in 1995. Rejection of new filers is more important as a deterrent than processing old cases. In fact, DHS’s asylum office returned to last-in, first-outscheduling five months ago, and affirmative claims have already dropped by 30 percent.
This excellent change will not have the needed impact until the immigration courts complete comparable revisions to their scheduling system and thus assure the six-month decision timetable. We also need to be systematic about removing unsuccessful asylum seekers with a final order.
This would return us to a system where prompt denial on the merits after a fair hearing, not cruelty to applicants, serves as the main deterrent to weak or abusive claims.
2) Make smart use of detention, including family detention as needed, plus alternative measures to avoid flight. Some critics hope that the public revulsion against child separation will lead to ending virtually all detention of asylum seekers. Others theorize that Trump’s planners adopted the separation strategy just to get courts to end constraints they now impose on family detention — because family detention would look so much kinder than separation.
Detention, however, is an inescapable part of the immigration enforcement process, at least when people first arrive at the border and claim asylum. (It’s also essential later, to facilitate or carry out removals of those with a final order.) The judicious use of detention can help reassure skittish publics in times of truly high flow of asylum seekers.
In such times, centralized facilities housing asylum seekers also hold other potential benefits, as was recognized in a 1981 report by a blue-ribbon commission on immigration reform, chaired by Father Theodore Hesburgh from the University of Notre Dame. (The Hesburgh commission issued its report a year after the Mariel boatlift from Cuba brought 125,000 asylum seekers to US shores within a few months.)
Such facilities provide a centralized location for prompt asylum interviews and court hearings. Run properly, which requires constant and committed monitoring, they also can facilitate regular and efficient ongoing access to counsel — particularly when, as is typical in a high-influx situation, most representation comes from organized pro-bono efforts.
The Trump administration has sent unclear and confusing signals about its overall plans while now trying to persuade courts to allow more room for family detention. As a matter of policy, we need to keep family detention available in the toolbox but we should not see it as an early or primary option — especially since the administration has not exhausted other methods, and the Central American flow is not as massive as officials paint it.
Critics today often argue that detention is unnecessary, pointing to high attendance rates by asylum seekers at court hearings. That observation is true, but incomplete. A well-functioning system needs released respondents to show up not just for hearings where a good thing might happen, but also for removal if they lose their asylum cases.
Good data are not available, but intermittent government snapshot reports tend to find that fewer than a sixth of the nondetained are actually removed after the issuance of a final removal order. Policymakers and advocates who want to reduce the use of detention need to attend to that latter statistic, and improve it.
To be sure, detention should not be used routinely. Alternatives to detention — such as intensive release supervision or ankle-bracelet monitoring — are generally more cost-effective. When actual detention is employed, conditions of confinement must be humane and must fully accommodate access to counsel. The Obama administration made headway toward those ends, including creating better family facilities.
3) Think hard about the realistic range of refugee protection, and be more rigorous about “internal protection alternatives.” Advocates for asylum claimants from Central America today have been working to expand the conceptual boundaries of protected refugee classes. Few of those applicants are claiming classic forms of persecution — by an oppressive government, based on the target’s race or religion or political opinion.
A great many claims today are based on domestic violence or risks from murderous criminal gangs, in the context of ineffectual government. Our whole system faces a challenge to determine whether and how such claims fit within the refugee laws and treaties.
The asylum seekers’ cases are highly sympathetic, but they also prompt concerns about figuring out workable boundary lines on any such protection commitment. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a highly restrictive ruling in June. It held that private crimes, including gang retribution and domestic violence, can rarely serve as the basis for a valid asylum claim. Expect a wide variety of reactions from reviewing courts over coming months and years.
But while that interpretive struggle proceeds, an immediate practical step can be taken to alleviate the dilemma. Adjudicators need to pay more systematic attention to the availability of what are known as “internal protection alternatives.” Asylum applicants who can find reasonable safety within the home country, even at the cost of moving to a new city or region — for example, because that region has a good network of domestic violence shelters — should be required to return to those regions, rather than relocate to the US.
Though this “internal protection alternatives” concept is already part of US and international law, it is understandable why many people balk at taking a firm line on it. The applicant would almost surely face lower risks in the United States than back in the home country, and real hardships can be incurred by moving to a new city where the person may not know anyone.
But that objection has to be kept in perspective. We are talking about protection in another part of one’s homeland, for someone who has already shown the resourcefulness to venture thousands of miles to a distant country, with an unfamiliar culture and language. Asylum should not be thought of as a prize for a person who has endured harm or threats, no matter how much sympathy or admiration he or she may deserve for weathering that past. Asylum is a forward-looking last-resort type of measure to shelter those who cannot find adequate protection other ways.
US Vice-President Mike Pence (L) and Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales at a joint press conference in Guatemala City on June 28 — a stop on the vice president’s recent Central American trip. The asylum crisis was high on the agenda.Orlando Estrada/AFP/Getty Images
4) Work with other countries to address root causes and expand potential refuge elsewhere. This brings us directly to the fourth primary measure, of particular relevance to the Central American crisis. The United States should greatly expand assistance, through bilateral aid, multilateral efforts, or the funding of NGO initiatives, toward reducing the violence that sends people in search of protection.
It’s easier in theory to address root causes when the threat is private violence, since the US can expect support rather than resistance from the government. But real effectiveness on the ground demands ongoing diplomacy, implementation skill, vigilance against corruption, and, above all, consistent funding year to year.
In Central America, past US assistance has had some visible impact in helping to reduce gang violence and murder rates. The Central American Regional Security Initiative has provided more than $1.4 billion to this effort since its start in 2008. The Trump administration, with typical short-sightedness, is moving to cut this funding. And Vice President Mike Pence’s meeting with heads of state in Guatemala City last week was a giant missed opportunity. According to press accounts, he basically just badgered those governments to stop sending people.
That message would have been so much more effective toward changing conditions on the ground if it had been joined with significantly increased aid for the security initiative. We should also expand funding to enhance police responsiveness to domestic violence in Central America and to support shelter networks.
These steps are obviously worthy in their own right, helping potential victims of all sorts, not just potential migrants. But they also can reduce the felt need to migrate and generate a more extensive menu of “internal protection alternatives” to be considered by adjudicators ruling on asylum claims.
The Obama administration also had some success in working with Mexico to discourage dangerous unauthorized travel, through information campaigns and interdiction — and to open up a modest possibility that Central Americans could find refuge in Mexico itself. President Trump’s unending insults directed at our southern neighbor have torpedoed such cooperation, but a future administration should revive it.
Revulsion at the current administration’s border practices is fully deserved. And the current administration exaggerates the crisis. But in an era where tolerance for asylum protection has become a politically scarce resource, we still need realistic and determined asylum reform measures in order to restore public confidence that migration is subject to control.
Our country’s 1995 experience shows such a change is possible, while retaining a firm commitment to refugee protection. Repeating that success will require well-targeted funding and tough-minded administrative resourcefulness to succeed.
David A. Martin is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia School of Law. He served as general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1995 through 1997, and as principal deputy general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security, 2009 through 2010.
MY RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR DAVID A. MARTIN’S MOST RECENT ASYLUM PROPOSAL
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
As I tell my law students, my good friend Professor David A. Martin is undoubtedly one of the most brilliant legal minds of our era. I first met David in the Carter Administration when I was the Deputy General Counsel of the “Legacy INS,” and he was the Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State for Humanitarian Affairs, Patt Derian. David, Alex Aleinikoff, who then was in the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, the late Jack Perkins, who was then Legislative Counsel at the DOJ, the late Jerry Tinker, Legislative Assistant to Sen. Ted Kennedy, and I, along with many others, worked closely together on the development and passage of the Refugee Act of 1980.
David and I have remained friends and kept in close touch ever since. Later, during the Clinton Administration, David appeared before me in the famous Kasinga case when I was Chair of the BIA. He invited me to be a guest lecturer at his class at UVA Law on a number of occasions, and I used the textbook that he, Alex, and others authored for my Refugee Law and Policy Class at Georgetown Law.
David has been a “life saver,” particularly for refugee women. The position that he took for the INS in Kasinga helped me bring a near unanimous Board to protect women who faced the horror of female genital mutilation (“FGM”).
Later, the famous “Martin brief,” written while David was serving as the Deputy General Counsel of DHS in the Obama Administration, urged the recognition of domestic abuse as a form of gender-based persecution. It saved numerous lives of some of the most deserving asylum applicants ever. It also supported those of us in the Immigration Judiciary who had been granting such cases ever since the BIA’s atrociously wrong majority decision in Matter of R-A-was vacated by Attorney General Reno.
The “Martin brief,” of course was the forerunner of Matter of A-R-C-G-, recognizing domestic violence as a form of gender based- persecution. Sadly, as noted by many commentators, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recently attacked refugee women by overruling Matter of A-R-C-G-and reinstating the long-discredited bogus reasoning of the R-A-majority!
With that bit of history in mind, Here are my reactions to David’s proposal for another “bureaucratic rescue” of the asylum system.
Don’t Blame The Victims.
With acknowledgement and credit to my good friend retired Judge Carol King, we need to stop blaming the refugees who are fleeing the human rights disaster in the Northern Triangle (that we helped cause). They are actually the victims. There is no “crisis” except the one caused by the cruel and incompetent policies of the Trump Administration directed at refugees compounded by the gross mismanagement of the U.S. Immigration Court system over the last three Administrations including, of course, this Administration.
Let Judges Run The Courts.
The idea that bureaucrats sitting in Washington and Falls Church, no matter how well-intentioned (and I’m not accusing anyone in the Trump Administration of being “well-intentioned”) can keep redesigning the Immigration Court System and manipulating dockets without any meaningful input from the judges actually hearing the cases is absurd. It’s a big part of the reason that the Immigration Court system is basically in free fall today. The key to running any good court system is to have judges in charge of the system and their own dockets. Judges should hire bureaucrats, when necessary, to work for the judges and help them, not the other way around. A court system run as a government agency, such as EOIR, is “designed to fail.” And, not surprisingly, it is failing.
Protection Not Rejection.
Refugee and asylum laws are there to protect individuals in harm’s way. But, you wouldn’t know it from most recent BIA asylum precedents and the disingenuously xenophobic and racist statements of this Administration. No, from the BIA and the bureaucrats one would think that the purpose of asylum law was to develop ever more creatively inane and nonsensical ways NOT to protect those in need – hyper-technical, often incomprehensible requirements for “particular social groups;” bogus “nexus” tests that ignore or pervert normal rules of causation; “adverse credibility” findings that are more like a game of “gotcha” than a legitimate evaluation of an applicant’s testimony in context; denial of representation; coercive use of detention; politicized “country reports” often designed to obscure the real problems; misuse of the in absentia process; hiring judges who have little or no understanding of asylum law from an applicant’s standpoint; intentionally unrealistic and overwhelming evidentiary standards; misapplications of the one-year deadline; cultural insensitivity, etc. That’s not the direction the Supreme Court was pointing us to when they set forth a generous interpretation of the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca back in 1987.
Gender-Based Claims Fit Squarely Within “Classic” Refugee Law.
No, claims based on domestic violence and/or resistance to gangs aren’t “non-traditional.” What might be “non-traditional” is for largely male-dominated bureaucracies, legislatures, courts, and law enforcement authorities to recognize the true situation of women. In fact, gender is clearly immutable/fundamental to identity, particularized, and socially distinct. Moreover, there is a clear political element to gender-based violence in patriarchal societies. And in countries like those of the Northern Triangle where gangs have infiltrated and intimidated the governments and in many areas are the “de facto” government, of course resistance to gangs is going to be viewed as a political statement with harsh consequences. As Sessions recently proved in Matter of A-B-and the Third Circuit confirmed in S.E.R.L. v. Att’y Gen., it takes pages and pages of legal gobbledygook and linguistic nonsense to avoid the obvious truths about gender-based violence and how it is, in fact, a “classic” form of persecution well within international protections.
Detention Isn’t The Answer.
Civil immigration detention is the problem, not the answer. How perverse is this: Under Sessions’s “zero tolerance” policy, hapless asylum applicants are “prosecuted” for “misdemeanor illegal entry.” The “criminal penalty?” One or two days in jail.
Then, they can apply for asylum as they are legally entitled to do under our laws. The civil penalty for exercising their legal rights? Potentially indefinite detention in substandard conditions that in many cases would be illegal if they were applied to convicted criminals.
I’ve been involved with immigration detention for most of my professional career, primarily from the Government side. I’ve witnessed first-hand its coercive, de-humanizing effect on those detained, mostly non-criminals.
But, that’s not all. Immigration detention also corrodes, corrupts, and diminishes the humanity of those officials who participate in and enable the process. It also is wasteful, expensive, and ineffective as deterrent (which it’s not supposed to be used for anyway). It diminishes us as a nation. It’s time to put an end to “civil” immigration detention in all but the most unusual cases.
No, I Don’t Have All the Answers.
But, I do know that it’s time for us as a country to begin living up to our national, international, and moral obligations to refugees and asylum seekers. We owe these fellow human beings a humane reception, a fair processing and adjudication system that complies completely with Due Process, a fair and generous application of our protection laws, and thoughtful and respectful treatment regardless of outcome. We haven’t even begun to exhaust our capacity for accepting refugees and asylees. Studies show that refugees are good for the United States and vice versa.
But, if we really don’t want many more here, then we had better get busy working with UNHCR and other countries that are signatories to the 1952 Refugee Convention to solve the problems driving refugee flows and to provide durable refuge in various safe locations. And, a great start would be to reprogram the huge amounts of money we now waste on purposeless, ineffective, and inhumane immigration enforcement, needless immigration detention, inappropriate prosecutions, scores of government lawyers defending these counterproductive policies, and more bureaucratic “silver bullet” schemes that won’t solve the problem. We could put that money to far better use assisting and resettling more refugees and developing constructive solutions to the problems that cause refugees in the first place.
It’s high time to put an end to “same old, same old,” repeating and doubling down on the proven failures of the past, and “go along to get along” bureaucracy and judging. We need a “brave new regime” (obviously the polar opposite of the present one) focused on the overall good and improvement of humanity, not promoting the biased and selfish interests of the few! And, who knows? We might find out that by working collectively and cooperatively and looking out for the common interests, we’ll also be improving our own prospects.
Last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a sweeping ruling that threatened to radically narrow the standards by which people fleeing domestic or gang violence could claim asylum in the US — or even be allowed to stay in the country to plead their case.
But an internal memo sent to the people actually responsible for implementing Sessions’s ruling at the border, and obtained exclusively by Vox, indicates that Sessions’s revolution isn’t as radical as it seemed — at least not yet.
That could be very good news for parents separated from their children, who will have to face an asylum screening to be allowed to stay in the US in immigration detention after they are criminally charged and convicted under the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy.
The memo obtained by Vox was written by John L. Lafferty, the head of the Asylum Division for US Citizenship and Immigration Services, on Wednesday, June 13, two days after Sessions’s ruling in Matter of A- B- was released. It’s labeled “Interim Guidance” for asylum officers — the people in charge of conducting interviews for asylum and “credible fear” screening interviews for migrants at the border that determine whether they’ll be allowed to stay in the US and pursue an asylum claim.
As the “Interim” label suggests, Lafferty’s memo makes it clear that USCIS will be issuing more directives to asylum officers as it continues to analyze Sessions’s ruling. But in the meantime, it doesn’t dictate sweeping changes to asylum standards.
Michael Bars, a spokesperson for USCIS, told Vox, “Asylum and credible fear claims have skyrocketed across the board in recent years largely because individuals know they can exploit a broken system to enter the U.S., avoid removal, and remain in the country. This exacerbates delays and undermines those with legitimate claims. USCIS is carefully reviewing proposed changes to asylum and credible fear processing whereby every legal means is being considered to protect the integrity of our immigration system from fraudulent claims — the Attorney General’s decision will be implemented as soon as possible.”
But the initial implementation doesn’t appear to be quite as aggressive as that rhetoric implies.
“While the Attorney General made some very sweeping assertions in Matter of A-B-, including as to what he thinks would happen to the claims of different kinds of asylum seekers under this ruling, the legal holding of this case is considerably narrower,” said Anwen Hughes, a lawyer for the advocacy group Human Rights First, when sent the text of the memo. “This guidance focuses on what the AG’s decision actually held.”
Sessions’s ruling declared, “Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum.” That language isn’t replicated in the memo — which urges officers to deal with claims on a case-by-case basis.
The only specific change the memo mandates to asylum policy is for officers to stop citing a past Board of Immigration Appeals precedent, Matter of A-R-C-G-, which found that “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” constituted a particular social group — allowing some domestic violence victims to claim asylum based on their persecution as members of that group.
But while A-R-C-G- was the only precedent Sessions explicitly overturned, his ruling also said that “any other” precedent from the Board of Immigration Appeals was also moot if it had defined “particular social group” more broadly than Sessions did last week.
The initial implementation memo from USCIS doesn’t mention any such rulings. It emphasizes that officers should make decisions based on two precedents Sessions held up as gooddecisions — both of which denied asylum claims based on gang violence — but doesn’t identify any decisions that are too broad under Sessions’s standards.
That means that for the moment, at least, asylum officers would be able to determine that a victim of domestic or gang violence still deserves asylum — or deserves to plead her asylum case — if there’s another precedent decision that they think fits the case.
The USCIS memo does emphasize that people seeking asylum based on gang violence or any other “private crime” need to demonstrate that the government in their home country “condoned the behavior or demonstrated a complete helplessness to protect the victim.”
Before Sessions’s ruling, immigrants could claim asylum if they were persecuted by a nonstate group and the government was “unable or unwilling” to prevent it. Technically, that’s still the standard. But Sessions’s formulation about condoning or “complete helplessness” could set the bar higher for what counts as unable or unwilling — especially because his ruling emphasized (in a passage quoted by the implementation memo) that police ignoring crime reports doesn’t mean they’re unable or unwilling to help the victim.
This guidance could be very good news for parents separated from children
The implementation of Sessions’s asylum ruling has real and immediate impacts for asylum seekers — including the thousands of parents who have been separated from their children at the border and prosecuted in recent weeks.
After being prosecuted and sentenced (usually to “time served”), asylum seekers are returned to the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for deportation. They face “expedited” deportation, without a full immigration court hearing, unless they can demonstrate that they have a “credible fear” of persecution and should stay in the US to pursue an asylum claim.
At the moment, the overwhelming majority of people are passing their “credible fear” screenings. Sessions sees this as a sign of widespread fraud and lax standards, and his ruling last week was explicitly written to raise the bar not only for eventual approvals or denials of asylum, but for the initial screenings as well.
If Sessions’s ruling were being interpreted as broadly as possible by USCIS, many parents would likely find it impossible to pass their screening interviews, and would find themselves deported without their children and with little time to locate or contact them. But because USCIS appears to be relatively cautious in its implementation, parents in custody — at least for the moment — appear to have a better shot of staying in the US to pursue their asylum case and reunite with their children.
Of course, asylum claims and initial screenings are both partly up to the discretion of individual asylum officers. It’s totally possible that some asylum offices will interpret this memo as an instruction to get much harsher. But the memo doesn’t force them to do that, at least in its interim form.
The text of the memo obtained by Vox is below.
From: Lafferty, John L
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:20 PM
To: [redacted by Vox]
Subject: Asylum Division Interim Guidance – Matter of A- B-, 27I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018)
Asylum Division colleagues:
I’m sure that most of you have heard and/or read about the decision issued by Attorney General Sessions on Monday in Matter of A- B-, 27I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018).
Below is our Office of Chief Counsel’s summary of the AG’s decision, which is followed by Asylum’s summaries of two 2014 decisions – Matter of M-E-V-G and Matter of W-G-R- – that were cited by the AG in support of his decision. While we continue to work with our OCC colleagues on final guidance for the field, we are issuing the following interim guidance on how to proceed with decision-making on asylum cases and CF/RF [credible fear/reasonable fear] screening determinations:
Matter of A-R-C-G- has been overruled and can no longer be cited to or relied upon as supporting your decision-making on an asylum case or in a CF/RF determination.
Effective upon issuance of this guidance, no affirmative grant of asylum or positive CF/RF screening determination should be signed off on by a supervisor as legally sufficient, or issued as a final decision/determination, that specifically cites to or relies upon Matter of A-R-C-G- as justification for the result. Instead, it should be returned to the author for reconsideration consistent with the next bullet.
All pending and future asylum decisions and CF/RF screening determinations finding that the individual has shown persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of membership in a particular social group must require that the applicant meet the relevant standard by producing evidence that establishes ALL of the following:
A cognizable particular social group that is 1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic; 2) defined with particularity, and 3) socially distinct within the society in question;
Membership in that PSG;
That membership in the PSG was or is a central reason for the past and/or future persecution; and
The harm was and/or will be inflicted by the government or by non-governmental actors that the government is unable or unwilling to control.
When the harm is at the hands of a non-governmental actor, the applicant must show that the government condoned the behavior or demonstrated a complete helplessness to protect the victim. This new decision stresses that, in applying this standard, “[t]he fact that the local police have not acted on a particular report of an individual crime does not necessarily mean that the government is unwilling or unable to control crime, any more than it would in the United States. There may be many reasons why a particular crime is not successfully investigated and prosecuted. Applicants must show not just that the crime has gone unpunished, but that the government is unwilling or unable to prevent it.” A-B- at 337-338. (See RAIO Lesson Plan – Definition of Persecution and Eligibility Based on Past Persecution, Section 4.2 “Entity the Government Is Unable or Unwilling to Control”, for further guidance).
The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim.
Every asylum decision and CF/RF screening determination must consider and analyze whether internal relocation would be reasonable, as provided for at 8 CFR 208.
If you have questions on this interim guidance, please raise them up your local chain of command so that they can be brought to the attention of HQ Asylum QA Branch.
Sure, the BIA has worked hard to reject almost every gang-related formulation in the past. But, that’s often 1) without effective representation; 2) without the respondent presenting the necessary specific and voluminous evidence; and 3) by intentionally misconstruing facts — more or less along the lines of Sessions in A-B-.
Keep it simple:
“Women in El Salvador” actually fits well within the BIA’s three PSG criteria and is “at least one central for persecution” in many cases.
“Public opponents of gangs in X Country” also should be a pretty straightforward fit with a proper factual record and specific legal arguments. It also fits the “political” ground if the accurate factual basis is presented and documented effectively.
The reality is that gender is a major reason for persecution all over the world — one of the largest, in fact — and is well within the 1952 Convention’s ambit!Likewise, in countries where all real experts say gangs have infiltrated or in many cases are actually acting in concert with the Government, public opposition represents fundamental values that are limited to a readily identifiable segment of the population for which the punishment is immediate and severe. Likewise, it’s a rather clear case of political persecution, just like “whistleblowers” and “union activists.”
For years, the advocacy community has been willing to cooperate with the Government’s highly restrictive “incremental approach” to protection, because it was showing signs of real, if slow, progress and other viable alternatives such as “prosecutorial discretion” and “Special Immigrant Juvenile Status” were often available. Now, Sessions has intentionally reversed almost all of that progress and “returned us to the Dark Ages” as one expert put it.
So, no more “Mr. Nice Guy!” If it’s war that Sessions & Co. want, why not give it to them? Now is the time to simply “blow the roof off” of the Executive’s overly restrictive, unjustifiable, often disingenuous, confusing, contradictory, and clearly biased misinterpretation of what’s really happening in the Northern Triangle and elsewhere and how international protection laws must and should be applied if they are to have any meaning in the 21st century.
And, forget the bogus “floodgates” arguments. “Christians,” Jews,” “Muslims,” “Blacks,” “Pentecostals” are all potentially huge groups that have been recognized for asylum purposes.
Sure, maybe if forced to interpret the asylum and CAT laws properly Congress with withdraw from all of our international obligations so that nobody gets in. I doubt it. But if it happens, it happens.
At least it will then be out in the open that we are a “bogus” democracy that spreads false myths about our values, but won’t actually live up to them when the going gets tough (which, incidentally and not surprisingly, is also a symptom of “False Christianity”).
Then, maybe when folks figure out that “we aren’t who we say we are,” they will stop coming! Or, we could simply set up machine gun nests along the border and gun down all the unwanted women and children before they can become a burden on our “justice” system. In the end, the results of that might not be lots different from using our asylum and “court” systems as a “deterrent” to those fleeing for their lives. Just more honest about who we really are deep down, when it counts.
The fate of tens of thousands of immigrants’ court cases could rest in the hands of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
That’s not a metaphor. Sessions has stepped into the immigration system in an unprecedented manner: giving himself and his office the ability to review, and rewrite, cases that could set precedents for a large share of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants with pending immigration court cases, not to mention all those who are arrested and put into the deportation process in future.
He’s doing this by taking cases from the Board of Immigration Appeals — the Justice Department agency that serves as a quasi-appellate body for immigration court cases — and referring them to himself to issue a decision instead.
Sessions isn’t giving lawyers much information about what he’s planning. But he’s set himself up, if he wants, to make it radically harder for immigration judges to push cases off their docket to be resolved elsewhere or paused indefinitely — and to close the best opportunity that tens of thousands of asylum seekers, including most Central Americans, have to stay in the United States. And he might be gearing up to extend his involvement even further, by giving himself the authority to review a much bigger swath of rulings issued in the immigration court system.
The attorney general has the power to set immigration precedents. But attorneys general rarely used that power — until now.
Most immigrants who are apprehended in the US without papers have a right to a hearing in immigration court to determine whether they can be deported and whether they qualify for some form of legal status or other relief from deportation. The same process exists for people who are caught crossing into the US but who claim to be eligible for some sort of relief, like asylum, and pass an initial screening. In both cases, only after the judge issues a final order of removal can the immigrant be deported.
Immigration courts aren’t part of the judicial branch; they’re under the authority of the Department of Justice. Their judges are supposed to have some degree of independence, and some judges are certainly harsher on immigrants and asylum seekers than others. But their decisions are guided by precedent from the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is basically the appellate court of the immigration system and which also answers to the DOJ and the attorney general.
If the attorney general doesn’t like that precedent, he has the power to change it — by referring a case to himself after the Board of Immigration Appeals has reviewed it, issuing a new ruling, and telling the immigration courts to abide by the precedent that ruling sets in future.
Attorneys general rarely ever use that power. Sessions has used it three times since the beginning of 2018; all three cases are still under review. “I can’t remember this many decisions being certified in the past five to 10 years,” says Kate Voigt of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
In theory, Sessions’s office is supposed to make its decision based on amicus briefs from outside parties, as well as the immigrant’s lawyer and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) prosecutor. But advocates and lawyers’ groups say they can’t file a good brief if they don’t know what, exactly, the cases Sessions is getting involved in actually are — and Sessions is withholding that information.
In one of the cases Sessions has referred to himself, the DOJ refused to provide a copy of the decision that Sessions is reviewing or any information about where the case came from and who the immigrant’s lawyer was. In another case, congressional staff happened to find the decision under review on a DOJ website days before the deadline for amicus briefs.
That opacity makes it basically impossible to know whether Sessions is planning to issue relatively narrow rulings or very broad ones. In the case in which the decision under review was discovered by congressional staffers, both the immigrant’s lawyer and the Department of Homeland Security (serving as the prosecution) asked Sessions’s office to clarify the specific legal question at hand in the review — in other words, to give them a hint of the scope of the potential precedent being set. They were denied.
“We have no idea how broad he’s going,” said Eleanor Acer of the advocacy group Human Rights First. “The way it was framed was totally inscrutable.”
Sessions’s self-referrals could affect a large portion of immigration court cases
To Acer and other lawyers and advocates, that uncertainty is worrisome. All three of the cases Sessions has referred to himself center on questions that, depending on how they’re answered, could result in rulings that tip the balance of tens of thousands of immigration court cases.
Can judges remove cases from the docket? In the case Sessions referred to himself in January, Matter of Castro-Tum, he asked the question of whether judges are allowed to use something called “administrative closure” — to remove a case from the docket, essentially hitting the pause button on it indefinitely.
Administrative closures were common under the Obama administration, as ICE prosecutors used it to stop the deportation process for “low-priority” unauthorized immigrants. They’re already much less common under Trump — a Reuters analysis found that closures dropped from 56,000 in Obama’s last year in office to 20,000 in Trump’s first year — but that’s still 20,000 immigrants whose deportation cases were halted, and 20,000 cases cleared out of an ever-growing immigration court backlog.
If it’s written broadly enough, the forthcoming Sessions decision could prevent administrative closure from being even a possibility.
Are victims of “private violence” eligible for asylum? In a March self-referral, Sessions asked whether a judge should be allowed to grant asylum to a domestic violence survivor because she was a victim of “private violence” — violence that wasn’t state-based. Theoretically, asylum is supposed to be available only for victims of certain types of persecution, but some judges have found that women in some countries who experience domestic violence are being persecuted for membership in the “social group” of being women.
The self-referral has raised red flags for a lot of domestic violence groups, which are worried that Sessions is about to cut off an important path to relief for some immigrant survivors. But it could be even broader — gang violence is also “private” violence, and the “social group” clause has also been used to give asylum to people fleeing gang violence in Honduras and El Salvador.
“There is no dispute under US law that asylum claims may be based on persecution conducted by nongovernmental actors,” Human Rights First’s Acer told Vox, as long as the asylum seeker shows her government was unwilling or unable to protect her. But Sessions appears to be “directly attacking, essentially, whether a nonstate actor” can ever qualify as a persecutor.
For many of the thousands of Central Americans who’ve entered the US in recent years, that provision has been their best chance to stay here rather than being sent home. And it could be taken away with a stroke of Sessions’s pen.
Can an immigration judge wait for an application to be approved? In his other March self-referral, Sessions appears to be taking aim at “continuances” — a practice of judges kicking the can down the road in a case by scheduling it for the next available court date sometime in the future (often several months) in order for something else to be prepared or resolved.
Sometimes, continuances are requested because the immigrant in question is also involved in another legal proceeding that’s relevant to the case. One example: An immigrant put into deportation proceedings by ICE, in an immigration court run by the DOJ, may still be eligible to apply for legal status from US Citizenship and Immigration Services while waiting for their application to be processed. Sessions is now asking himself whether it’s legally valid to grant a continuance so the parallel legal proceeding can get resolved.
This could affect tens of thousands of cases. A 2012 DOJ Office of the Inspector General report found that more than half of cases examined involved continuances — and one-quarter of all continuances involved requests from the immigrant to delay a case while an application was filed or processed (or a background check was completed).
At the end of April, lawyers’ concern that Sessions is gearing up to issue a broad ruling in this case was amplified when a DOJ notification in the case mentioned two other immigrants whose cases were being combined with this one — indicating to some lawyers that the facts in the original case didn’t lend themselves to the ruling Sessions had already decided to give.
Furthermore, lawyers and advocates worry that Sessions is gearing up to restrict continuances in other circumstances — like allowing immigrants time to find a lawyer or prepare a case.
Sessions’s meddling might not make courts more efficient, but it will make them more brutal
Sessions and the Trump administration claim they’re trying to restore efficiency to a backlogged court system that poses the biggest obstacle to the large-scale swift deportation of border-crossing families and to unauthorized immigrants living in the US. But lawyers are convinced that Sessions’s diktats, if they’re as broad as feared, would just gum up the works further.
“If the attorney general were seriously concerned about the backlog, as opposed to a desire for quick deportations, he would be focused on transferring as many cases away from” immigration judges as possible, attorney Jeremy McKinney told Vox — not forcing them to keep cases on their docket that they would rather close, or that could be rendered moot by other decisions. It’s “not smart docket control.”
And Sessions isn’t simply planning to issue these rulings and walk away. His office is planning to give itself even wider power over the immigration court system. A notice published as part of the department’s spring 2018 regulatory agenda says, “The Department of Justice (DOJ) proposes to change the circumstances in which the Attorney General may refer cases to himself for review. Such case types will include those pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) but not yet decided and certain immigration judge decisions regardless of whether those decisions have been appealed to the BIA.”
In other words, even when a DOJ judge makes a ruling in an immigrant’s favor and ICE prosecutors don’t try to appeal the ruling, the attorney general’s office could sweep in and overrule the judge.
Sessions’s decrees would probably result in more immigration judge decisions getting appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (further gumming up the works) as judges try to interpret precedents Sessions has set, and from there to federal courts of appeals. Many federal judges aren’t keen on the immigration court system, especially when its appeals gum up their own dockets, and they might step in to push back against Sessions’s changes.
In the meantime, though, immigration judges will have fewer ways to move cases off their docket and fewer avenues for asylum seekers to qualify for relief, as they’re simultaneously facing serious pressure to make quick decisions in as many cases as possible. The more pressure is put on immigration judges from above, and the more Sessions moves to block their safety valves, the less likely they are to give immigrants a chance to fully make their cases before they bang the gavel on their deportations.
*******************************************
All too true. The real question: Will he be able to get away with this farce of “judicial justice” by probably the most clearly and strongly biased public official short of Trump himself.
An unbiased, impartial decision-maker is a key requirement for Due Process under the Constitution. Having Sessions sit as a the “ultimate judge” in Immigration Court clearly violates that cardinal principle.
For many years, the inherent conflict of interest in having supposedly “fair hearings” run by an enforcement agency in the Executive Branch has basically been swept under the table by Congress and the Article IIIs. As with many things, Sessions’s dogged determination to do away with even the pretense of fairness and Due Process in immigration hearings might eventually force the Article IIIs to confront an issue they have been avoiding since the beginning of immigration laws.
Whether and how they face up to it might well determine the future of our republic and our current Constitutional form of government!
In September, when the Trump administration announced that it was winding down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that protected young unauthorized immigrants who came to the US as children from deportation, tens of thousands of immigrants were waiting to hear back about DACA applications they’d already submitted.
Many of them are still waiting.
According to new statistics from US Citizenship and Immigration Services, at least 20,000 immigrants who applied for the program before the September announcement are still awaiting approval for their applications.
That means that 20,000 or so immigrants have had to live in fear of deportation, and haven’t been able to get a job in the US legally, since September 5, 2017 — when the administration announced no new DACA applications would be accepted — even though they applied for DACA before the cutoff.
The precise number isn’t entirely clear. One USCIS report says there were “approximately” 21,950 initial DACA requests pending as of the end of January; another says there were 25,513. (USCIS was asked for comment Wednesday but was unable to provide it before publication.)
But what’s clear is that the overwhelming majority of those immigrants submitted their applications back when DACA was still in full effect — and have been waiting anxiously to hear back from the government as the program’s future has been called into doubt.
**************************************
Read Dara’s complete article at the link. USCIS has plenty of time to send out mindless requests for additional information on what used to be routine business visa petitions, but not enough time and resources to adjudicate these requests? Gimme a break! The “Administration of Scofflaws” does virtually nothing without a court order.
Thanks to Roxanne Lea Fantl of Richmond, VA for alerting me to this item!
“US Citizenship and Immigration Services isn’t for immigrants anymore.
That’s not an exaggeration. USCIS, the federal agency responsible for issuing visas and green cards and for naturalizing immigrants as US citizens, has unveiled a new mission statement that strips out all references to immigrants themselves — including taking out a line that called the US a “nation of immigrants.” And in an email to agency staff Thursday, as first reported by the Intercept’s Ryan Devereaux, director L. Francis Cissna bragged about the change — saying that USCIS wasn’t supposed to help immigrants and the US citizens seeking to sponsor them, but rather “the American people.”
The new mission statement, and Cissna’s justification, downplays the agency’s commitment to helping immigrants become American citizens and plays up the idea that US citizens attempting to bring their family members to the US don’t count as real Americans whose interests deserve to be protected.
USCIS’s new mission statement doesn’t just reflect the Trump administration’s hawkishness toward legal as well as unauthorized immigration. It encourages the notion that Americanness is a matter of blood and soil, of birth and descent, rather than an idea that anyone can be proud of regardless of where they were born.
Taking “citizenship” out of the mission of Citizenship and Immigration Services
The changes to the USCIS mission statement don’t change the work the agency actually does. But they make a symbolic statement that the Trump administration sees that work differently not just from how the Obama administration did, but from our traditional understanding of what Americanness means.
It’s not just the removal of the “nation of immigrants” line. The new mission statement removes all references to citizenship — instead of “immigration and citizenship benefits,” USCIS now just provides “immigration benefits,” and “promoting an awareness and understanding of citizenship” is kicked out of the mission entirely.
At the same time as the agency is deemphasizing the part of its job that involves turning immigrants into citizens, its new mission implies that the two groups — immigrants and Americans — are naturally in conflict:
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services administers the nation’s lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.
Cissna’s email also told USCIS staff that they’re not supposed to call applicants “customers” anymore because their real customers aren’t immigrants — they’re the American people:
Referring to applicants and petitioners for immigration benefits, and the beneficiaries of such applications and petitions, as ‘customers’ promotes an institutional culture that emphasizes the ultimate satisfaction of applicants and petitioners, rather than the correct adjudication of such applications and petitions according to the law. […] Use of the term leads to the erroneous belief that applicants and petitioners, rather than the American people, are whom we ultimately serve.” [emphasis added]
It’s an odd statement to make. For one thing, USCIS is the rare federal agency that isn’t primarily funded through taxes — most of the money to run the agency comes from application fees. Immigrants applying for visas, green cards, and citizenship — and the US citizens and companies that have to sponsor some of those applications — are paying USCIS for the services they provide. By a commonsense definition, that’s what a customer is.
But what’s even more jarring than the redefinition of “customer” is the definition of “American.” Cissna’s statement strongly implies that “applicants and petitioners” don’t count as part of the “American people.” That might make sense if he were talking just about people newly coming to the US, or even if he were distinguishing “Americans” from noncitizens. But he’s not.
The “applicants” Cissna refers to include immigrants who are applying for US citizenship — the part of USCIS’s function that got stripped out of the mission statement. Not only does the new mission statement suggest that helping immigrants become Americans is no longer part of USCIS’ job, but by distinguishing “applicants” from “the American people,” it suggests that they can’t.
Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of petitioners for immigrants are US citizens petitioning for family members (or American businesses petitioning for employees). Those citizens may have been born abroad, but they’ve naturalized. They are as American as anyone else.
Does the Trump administration believe immigrants can integrate?
USCIS tends to be the most obscure of the Department of Homeland Security’s three immigration agencies, precisely because it’s the one that doesn’t deal with immigration enforcement (Customs and Border Protection addresses border enforcement; Immigration and Customs Enforcement takes care of interior enforcement). But immigrant rights advocates have been worried about the agency.
Cissna worked for Senate Judiciary Committee Chair (and immigration hawk) Chuck Grassley (R-IA) before being appointed to USCIS. The agency’s ombudsman office, which is supposed to provide transparency to the people who used to be called “customers,” is headed by Julie Kirchner, the former executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform — a group whose mission includes reducing legal immigration to the US.
There are already indications that the new leadership is encouraging applications to be processed more slowly and with more scrutiny. In winding down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, they were more aggressive than Trump’s statements implied. At the same time, there’s been an apparent slowdown in the processing of naturalization applications and of work permits for some categories of immigrants.
By overhauling the mission statement, it’s clear that the new leadership wants to be noticed.”
***************************
The White Nationalist attack on America continues. At least they don’t make any secret about their xenophobia and disdain for immigrants, their rights, and their advocates.
It’s “war.” That’s why we need the “New Due Process Army!”
“Over the course of President Donald Trump’s first year in office, his administration’s top immigration priority has shifted subtly. He’s talking less about deporting “bad hombres” and talking more — a lot more — about how “chain migration” is bad for the United States.
“We have to get rid of chainlike immigration, we have to get rid of the chain,” Trump told the New York Times’s Mike Schmidt in an impromptu interview at his West Palm Beach golf club in December. He followed it up, as he does, with a tweet:
“Chain migration” — which is loosely used as a synonym for all immigration to the United States that happens based on family ties (when a US citizen or, in some cases, a green card holder petitions for a relative to join them) — has become a conservative boogeyman, and an excuse to cut down on legal immigration. It’s long been a target of immigration restrictionists whose concerns about immigration are less about people “respecting the law” than about the government exercising stricter control over who enters the country.
Under the Trump administration, those restrictionists have more political power than they’ve had in a generation — and they’re using it to prosecute an aggressive case against the family-based system as it stands.
The Trump administration’s attacks on “chain migration” have helped shift the terms of the debate over immigration policy. “Chain migration” is being invoked, among other things, to frame two totally different demands Republicans have made in the debate over legalizing immigrants temporarily covered by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program: preventing current DACA recipients from sponsoring their parents after becoming citizens, and cutting or eliminating some categories of family-based immigration for all immigrants in exchange for legalizing DACA enrollees.
But it’s not just during the DACA debate. The Trump administration blamed the failed New York subway bombing in December on “chain migration” because the would-be bomber came as the child of a US citizen’s sibling in 2010. Its National Security Strategy, issued Monday, called chain migration a security threat.
In other words, the Trump administration’s attack on “chain migration” isn’t just a setup for a particular policy fight. It’s about who is allowed to be a part of America — and whether changes to the country’s makeup are healthy demographic development or a sign of uncontrolled invasion.
“Chain migration” is the technical name for a commonsense idea: People are more likely to move where their relatives are
The dynamic underlying “chain migration” is so simple that it sounds like common sense: People are more likely to move to where people they know live, and each new immigrant makes people they know more likely to move there in turn.
But as obvious as the reality is on the ground, it wasn’t always incorporated into theoretical models of migration (particularly economic models). Economists tended to think about the decision to migrate as a simple calculus of how much money someone was making at home versus how much he could be making abroad, rather than understanding that the decision was more complicated — and that family and social relationships played a role.
Princeton demographer Doug Massey, one of the leading scholars on immigration to the US at the end of the 20th century (and the beginning of the 21st), was one of the scholars who tried to correct this oversimplified view. As he put it in an essay for the Inter-American Parliamentary Group on Population and Development in the early 1990s:
The first migrants who leave for a new destination have no social ties to draw upon, and for them migration is costly, particularly if it involves entering another country without documents. After the first migrants have left, however, the costs of migration are substantially lower for their friends and relatives living in the community of origin. Because of the nature of kinship and friendship structures, each new migrant creates a set of people with social ties to the destination area.
These immigrants would also end up behaving differently once they arrived in their new countries. If they were just there for economic reasons, they’d have an incentive to move back once they’d made enough money, or circulate back and forth. But immigrants who move for social reasons are moving to a new community — a new place they’ll stay. That’s an upside if you think it’s important for immigrants to become American — and a downside if you think the US should be much pickier about who gets to move here for good than it is about who gets to work here.
One upshot of chain migration: Any policies that made it easier for immigrants to bring their relatives would allow migration chains to form, thus expanding immigration into the country. “Family reunification systems,” Massey wrote, “work at crosspurposes with the limitation of immigration.”
Massey and the other demographers of “chain migration” weren’t presenting it as a negative. But their words were easily adopted by people who did. The Massey essay quoted above ended up being reprinted in an issue of The Social Contract — the journal founded by immigration restrictionist mogul John Tanton, who also founded the three most visible restrictionist organizations in American politics (the think tank the Center for Immigration Studies and the advocacy groups NumbersUSA and FAIR).
The Social Contract was a forum for concerns about the threat of mass immigration (particularly mass nonwhite immigration) to the United States. (The Southern Poverty Law Center, which considers all Tanton-affiliated institutions to be “hate groups,” has a rundown of some of the journal’s more incendiary content.) Massey, on the other hand is a longtime supporter of reforms that would make it easier for immigrants to come to America.
An article by a supporter of expansive immigration policy could be reprinted, with few apparent edits, in a journal for his intellectual opponents only because the debate over chain migration is fundamentally not about whether it happens, but whether it’s okay. Defenders of chain migration tend to argue that it’s important for immigrants to put down roots in the US, and that having a family here is part of what that means.
Opponents, on the other hand, see family-based immigration as the government ceding some control for who gets to come here, so that it’s not selecting individuals in a vacuum — which leads rapidly to fears of the US government losing control of the immigration system entirely.
The actual policy behind “chain migration”
It’s not clear whether President Trump understands how family-based immigration actually works — and when it can lead to “chains” of relatives. Trump has claimed that the man who ran over several pedestrians in New York in November brought 23 (sometimes he says 24) relatives to the US in the seven years he’d lived here — a claim that chain migration opponent Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration studies said was impossible. And the White House’s “chain migration” diagram makes it looks like each generation of adults brings in children, which brings their children — which isn’t how chain migration works.
To better understand what policies, exactly, opponents of “chain migration” are worried about, check out this chart from the restrictionist advocacy group NumbersUSA — which is a more detailed representation of the same fear of overwhelming, uncontrollable waves of migration.
Let’s walk through the scenario in that chart. It depicts an immigrant who’s come to the US on an employment-based green card (in black) and is able to bring over his spouse and children immediately. He can also petition for his parents to come to the US on green cards, and — after he becomes a citizen (something the NumbersUSA chart doesn’t clarify) — he can petition for his siblings as well (all in gray).
The siblings all bring over their spouses and children immediately, and the spouses (in orange, maroon, navy, and teal) petition to bring over their own parents and (upon naturalization) their own siblings. The original immigrant’s parents (eventually) petition for their own siblings to come to the US, and the siblings then petition to bring over their married adult children — whose spouses can then petition for their own parents and (eventually) siblings, etc., etc.
Meanwhile, the original immigrant’s spouse can petition for her parents (in pink) and, once she becomes a citizen, her siblings (in blue, purple, red, and green). Those siblings bring over their spouses, who subsequently petition for their own parents and siblings, etc., etc.
There are a ton of assumptions in this model about the way immigrants behave — why is everyone in families of four or five? Does no one really want to stay in her home country? Is there no such thing as a bachelor in any of these families? — but the visa categories under US law make it a hypothetical possibility. But the thing is, US policymakers know that it’s a hypothetical possibility. And there are safeguards built into the system that restrict family-based immigration far more than the diagram would have you believe.
In practice, bringing over a family member takes years — which makes it very hard to build a chain
No one is automatically allowed to immigrate to the US. Anyone applying for residency in the country has to go through a standard vetting process — including a criminal and terrorism background check, and an evaluation of whether they’re likely to become a “public charge” in the US (i.e., be unable to support themselves for income and rely on social programs).
Trump’s National Security Strategy claims that “chain migration” is a problem for national security, but there’s nothing inherent to the way someone is allowed to immigrate to the US that makes it harder for the US to catch would-be terrorists — that is, if anything, a failure of the screening process.
The bigger obstacle, though, isn’t qualifying to immigrate — it’s that the number of hypothetically qualified family-based immigrants greatly exceeds the number of slots available for immigrants each year. The US doesn’t set caps on the number of spouses, minor children, or parents of US citizens who can come to the US each year — but, again, those categories in themselves don’t create chains.
The categories that do create chains are strictly capped: 23,400 married children of US citizens (plus their own spouses and minor children) are allowed to immigrate each year, and 67,500 adult siblings of US citizens (plus spouses and minor children). Furthermore, because the total number of immigrants coming from a particular country each year is capped, would-be immigrants from Mexico, China, India, and the Philippines end up facing even longer wait times.
When people talk about the “visa backlog,” this is what they mean: In January 2018, for example, the US government will start processing applications for F4 visas (the siblings of US citizens) who first petitioned to let them immigrate on June 22, 2004, or earlier. That is, unless the sibling lives in India (in which case the petition had to be filed by December 2003 to get processed in January 2018), Mexico (November 1997), or the Philippines (September 1994).
Sudarshana Sengupta, pictured here with family in Massachusetts, had been waiting for a green card for seven years when this picture was taken.Washington Post/Getty Images
Understanding that an F4 visa is a 13- to 23-year process throws that NumbersUSA diagram into a different light. How implausible it is depends on your assumptions about how close together generations are, and how young the immigrants are when they come to the United States. But if you start by understanding that the first members of the orange, maroon, navy, teal, blue, purple, red, and green chains don’t enter the US until 18 years after the original immigrant (signified by black) does — and that the first immigrants in the yellow section of the chart don’t enter the country until 23 years later — it should give you a sense of how long it will take in to fill in the rest of the chain.
In practice, this ultimately looks like a lot of people coming to the US in late middle age. That’s backed up by the data: A study from Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies — which is critical of “chain migration” — found that the average age of immigrants to the US has risen over the past few decades, and that family-based immigration was a substantial cause.
But even then, the NumbersUSA scenario assumes that all the immigrants can afford to sponsor a family member to immigrate to the US. A US citizen (or green card holder seeking to bring an unmarried child or parent) has to prove to the government that they can provide financial support if their relative needs it, rather than relying on the government for aid.
In practice, this means that every immigrant needs to have someone vouching for them whose household income is 125 percent of the poverty line — and the “household” includes the relative who’s trying to come to the US. In other words, a single adult could sponsor his parent to immigrate if he made at least $20,300 — 125 percent of the federal poverty line for a two-person household — but if he had a spouse and two children, he’d have to be making 125 percent of the poverty line for a five-person household. And that includes any other immigrants who the household is sponsoring at the same time.
So an immigrant with a wife and two children who wanted to sponsor his parents and four siblings to immigrate as soon as he became a citizen would have to be making $56,875 — around the median income in the US. And if his spouse were trying to do the same thing with her parents and four siblings, as in the NumbersUSA chart, they’d have to be making $83,000 — which would place them in the 66th percentile of US household income.
That’s not impossible. But it certainly calls into question the stereotype of family-based migration as a way for “low-skilled,” low-earning immigrants to bring their low-skilled, low-earning relatives into the US.
There are ways for citizens to get other people to agree to help support a potential immigrant relative. But at the same time, the US government has discretion to reject an application, even if the citizen meets the income threshold, if they suspect that in practice the immigrant won’t be supported in the US. (Another factor in determining “public charge”is age — which is interesting, given the data about family-based immigrants being older.)
Add all of these factors together, and it becomes clear that an immigrant won’t be able to bring that many relatives to the US over the course of his or her lifetime. Vaughan’s studyfound that as of 2015, immigrants who came to the US from 1981 to 2000 had sponsored an average of 1.77 relatives to come join them. The most recent immigrants in the study — those who came to the US in the late 1990s — had sponsored the most relatives: 3.46. But both of those numbers include the minor children they brought with them at the time: In other words, they were hardly starting 3.46 new “chains.”
If anything, in fact, the family-based system is so overloaded that it ends up creating unrealistic hopes in people that they’ll be able to immigrate to the US. If your sibling moves to the US on a work visa, for example, you might start to hope that he’ll eventually be able to bring you along — but if you try to plan your life around that, you’ll end up waiting for two decades.
There are hints all this panic over “chain migration” is really about fear of cultural change
All of this is relevant to a conversation about whether to further restrict, or eliminate, the F3 and F4 visas for married children and adult siblings of US citizens. And indeed, that’s the most common policy demand being made by Republicans who are seeking to end or reduce “chain migration.”
But the most stalwart opponents of “chain migration,” the ones who use it to refer to all family-based immigration, period, are talking not just about the mechanics of the chain but about a bigger normative question: whether allowing immigrants to come as family units, or allowing people to immigrate based on family relationships, gives the US too little control over who gets to come.
The ultimate impression of both the White House and NumbersUSA “chain migration” diagrams is to make it seem that admitting a single immigrant unleashes an uncontrollable tide of infinite future family-based immigration — that each immigrant is a one-person Trojan horse for hundreds more.
This is an image from the pro-Brexit campaign, but the theme’s the same: a lack of control.Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP via Getty
“As more and more immigrants are admitted to the United States, the population eligible to sponsor their relatives for green cards increases exponentially,” the restrictionist group FAIR says on its website. “This means that every time one immigrant is admitted, the door is opened to many more.”
This potent visual is why “chain migration” has been a longtime target of immigration restrictionists, even when the Republican Party as a whole was attempting to welcome legal immigrants. For people whose biggest fear regarding immigration is that immigrants will change the face of America — that they’ll trample the country’s “traditionally” white, Christian majority — there’s little more potent than the idea of immigrants bringing over huge families, replanting their communities whole in American soil.
This fear goes hand in hand with a fear that immigrants won’t assimilate. When immigration restrictionists cite the second quarter of the 20th century as a great time for the United States, they’re not (at least explicitly) praising the racist country quotas that governed immigration at the time. They’re (explicitly) praising the fact that, with overall immigration levels low, immigrants were forced to interact with and eventually integrate among US citizens. The more immigrants that come over — and especially the more that immigrants bring their families over — the less, in theory, that they and their descendants will have to interact with people from outside of their community. In turn, this gets into fears that parts of America could become alien to Americans — cultural, or literal, “no-go zones.”
The use of “chain migration” in the current debate over DACA, to refer to DACA recipients allowing their parents to become legal immigrants, complicates the matter even further. Because the parents of DACA recipients have, by definition, lived in the US as unauthorized immigrants, this isn’t really about bringing new people into the US — it’s about legalizing people who are already here (or bringing people back who have been deported, something US policy already makes pretty hard).
The insistence among some Republicans that “Dreamers” not be allowed to sponsor their parents, even after they become US citizens, is really about not wanting to “reward” unauthorized immigrants for living in the US without papers. They’re worried about losing “control” in a slightly different sense — worried that any “reward” for illegal behavior will incentivize a new wave of unauthorized migration to take advantage of potential rewards. This is pretty far afield from the way that “chain migration” is commonly understood — but that’s the word being used in the DACA debate anyway, not least because the president has helped turn it into a buzzword.
Because these memes, and the fears that they provoke, are all so tightly connected, “chain migration” is both an ideological concern about America selecting immigrants based on their merit, and a racist smokescreen for fears of demographic change. It can be hard to separate the two. And it’s certainly not in the interests of the opponents of “chain migration” to try.
There’s a reason that family-based immigration has lasted as long as it has
It’s a lot easier to get people to agree, in theory, that the US should be accepting immigrants on the basis of “merit” — i.e., without concern for whether they have relatives living here — than it is to get them to agree on exactly what should be done to reduce the importance of family-based immigration to the current system.
For one thing, many policymakers, including many Republicans, see allowing some family members to immigrate as an important factor in encouraging integration. Allowing immigrants to bring along their spouses and minor children, for example, makes it less likely that they’ll decide to return to their home countries — and it means their children will grow up American, in more ways than one.
There are also policymakers who see family unity as a value worth protecting for its own sake (an argument you’ll often hear among religious advocates). And there’s, of course, an ethnic component. Asian Americans, in particular, feel that they are still trying to make up ground after decades of racist exclusion from the immigration system — and family-based immigration has been the best way for them to make that ground up. Mexican Americans, too, feel that the current system has unfairly forced Mexican immigrant families to be separated while other families get to reunite with ease.
All of these objections have combined, so far, to make Democrats firmly opposed to any proposal that would restrict future family-based immigration. But as “chain migration” begins to eclipse other issues (like immigration enforcement in the interior of the US) as a top Republican priority, it’s not clear whether Democrats’ commitment to hypothetical legal immigrants of the future is going to win out over their commitment to legalizing unauthorized immigrants who are currently here.”
****************************************
The fear that the US won’t be a “White Christian country” is what’s really driving the campaign against family migration (a/k/a/ “chain migration”). But, in reality, the days of the US as a “White Christian Empire” are in our national rearview mirror, no matter what the White Nationalist restrictionists do. It’s really just a question of how much pain, suffering, and divisiveness the White Nationalists can inflict as their already tenuous control inevitably continues to slip.
As almost all “non-restrictionist” economists tell us, restrictive national immigration policies are not in our national interest. In fact, more, not less legal immigration is going to be a necessity to keep our economy from stagnating like that of Japan and some European countries. Indeed, Paul Ryan’s goofy “everyone should have more kids” was an acknowledgement of how our future success depends on a robust legal immigration system.
Also, the concept that the legal admission of Dreamers is a “negative” that has to be “offset” by cuts in legal immigration elsewhere is pure fiction. Dreamers are already here and contributing to our society and our national welfare. Giving them legal status is not only the right thing to do, but also the smart thing. And doing the “smart thing” requires no bogus “offsets.”
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/11631193/GettyImages_983050074.jpg)
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/11631215/GettyImages_986622846.jpg)
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9911171/Screen_Shot_2017_12_21_at_11.13.27_AM.png?w=660&ssl=1)
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9945429/GettyImages_665129180.jpg?w=660&ssl=1)
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6667687/GettyImages-540653952.jpg?w=660&ssl=1)