"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.
Join us for a free webinar Tuesday February 6 at 2 pm EST on Immigration Slavery in America: A True Story of Forced Labor and Liberation
Author Saket Soni and panelists will discuss his book The Great Escape, which tells the astonishing true story of a group of immigrants trapped in the largest human trafficking scheme in modern U.S. history. Weaving a deeply personal journey with a riveting tale of modern-day forced labor, The Great Escape — named a 2023 best book of the year by the New York Times, NPR, and Amazon — takes us into the hidden lives of the foreign workers that America relies on to rebuild after climate disasters.
Saket Soni is a labor organizer and human rights strategist working at the intersection of racial justice, migrant rights, and climate change. Joining him on the webinar is New Yorker staff writer Sarah Stillman, who writes on immigration and detention issues. Cornell Law School professor Stephen Yale-Loehr will moderate the discussion. Among other things, the panelists will put this tale of human slavery into the larger context of our broken immigration system.
Undoubtedly, if the plans of a “bipartisan” group of legally and morally challenged politicos to effectively do away with our legal asylum system comes to fruition, it will feed the extralegal system run by cartels and smugglers, thereby leading to even more exploitation of migrant labor in America!
On Monday, the Supreme Court lifted an injunction that had prevented the Border Patrol from cutting and removing concertina razor wire that the state of Texas had installed along a migrant crossing at the Rio Grande.
Federal officials view the razor wire as exceedingly dangerous because it could trap bodies in rapid flowing waters, leading to drownings. According to officials, last week three family members—a mother and her two children—died at the river in part because Texas guard and state troopers prevented the Border Patrol from reaching them.
The conservative Fifth Circuit had ordered the injunction put in place pending its final decision, keeping the razor wire intact. But a slim majority of the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the three liberals, overruled the panel.
At stake is more than whether the Border Patrol can safely do its job and help prevent deaths like those that occurred last week. Our entire federal system is premised upon the principle that the federal government has exclusive authority to enforce border policy. States like Texas should not have the right to run interference or act as if they are the border patrol.
And yet, four extremist justices—Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh—would have left the federal government powerless for now to remove a dangerous barrier illegally erected by Texas.
The latest battle over the border should be viewed within the broader question of what is the proper role of the states when it comes to immigration. And this isn’t the only battle that Texas Governor Greg Abbott and extremist Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton have picked to try and claim more of that power for the states.
Today, I’ll discuss how the Supreme Court came to review this case about the cutting and removal of razor wire at the border. Then I’ll zoom out so we can see how this fits into a larger challenge to federal authority over immigration.
Subscribed
Razor wire and the Texas federal courts
When Texas first erected razor wire at the river—the kind designed to catch clothing and tear flesh—it was roundly condemned by human rights organizations, and legal scholars quickly pointed out that Texas was acting extrajudicially. After all, at the border, it is the federal government that oversees enforcement, including what kinds of barriers to erect and how to treat and handle migrants. Many of the border crossings are by asylum seekers, and they are therefore there legally in accordance with international law.
Allowing Texas to insert itself as a state actor would upend all traditional notions of federalism and the limit of states’ rights when it comes to questions of homeland security. But a federal district judge and later the Fifth Circuit didn’t see it that way. On December 19, 2023, a panel in New Orleans temporarily barred Border Patrol agents from cutting or removing the wire in the area around Eagle Pass, with an exception for “medical emergencies.” This was a shocking opinion given its apparent disregard of settled law establishing exclusive federal power over immigration policies and execution.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the injunction barred border agents from doing their jobs, specifically, from having clear access to the U.S.-Mexico border and “reaching migrants who have already entered U.S. territory.” Moreover, the exception for medical emergencies was insufficient because it takes time to cut through the wire, and while the clock is ticking there is a “very real” risk of serious injury or death for those trapped.
Texas claimed that federal border agents were not actually apprehending and processing migrants even after they passed through the gaps in the wire that had been cut by the feds some twenty times. The state had property rights of its own, Texas argued, as well as an interest in stopping “deadly fentanyl,” human trafficking,” and to “minimize the risks to people, both U.S. citizens and migrants, of drowning while making perilous journeys to and through illegal points of entry.” (The fentanyl argument is a red herring; the vast percentage of fentanyl entering the country arrives not via migrants crossing the river at the border, which would be a decidedly foolish way to try and transport drugs, but through smuggling by U.S. citizens and legal residents.)
In January, Texas upped the stakes by moving to block federal agents entirely from the area where they normally launch patrol boats and conduct mobile surveillance. This contributed to the three family members’ deaths because fedeal agents had no clear access to the river. In fact, they couldn’t even determine whether a “medical emergency” was occurring, as Prelogar pointed out.
Prelogar won her appeal for the U.S. government and got the injunction lifted by the High Court, but by only a single vote.
The State of Texas keeps trying to enforce national border policy
Governor Abbott has a multi-billion dollar program in place called “Operation Lone Star” that includes massive allocation of personnel to the border, the erecting of illegal and often dangerous barriers, and most recently a new law that authorizes state and local law enforcement to arrest migrants crossing from Mexico.
This has set up yet another showdown with the federal government. That law goes into effect in March, and it is seen as a test case to challenge a 2012 case, Arizona v. United States, that narrowly left the power to determine immigration policy to the federal government, not the states.
Texas and Louisiana already lost a case where they had challenged the Biden administration’s immigration guidelines and its deportation policies. Those guidelines had been halted nationwide by a federal judge in Texas, who ruled they violated federal law. In that case, by a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court initially and rather alarmingly had allowed the injunction to remain in place. But ultimately it ruled 8-1 in June of 2023 against Texas and Louisiana, with only Justice Alito in dissent, reaffirming the federal government’s central role on matters of immigration policy.
Where things go from here
Governor Abbott and state Attorney General Paxton remain keen to find where the new conservative majority on SCOTUS might rule their way. So they keep pushing and testing the limits. In the razor wire case, while there’s no way to know why four extremist justices dissented from the lifting of the injunction—and it conceivably could have been because the full matter will be taken up shortly anyway by the Fifth Circuit in February—the impression it has left is unmistakable.
As CNN legal analyst and University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck observed, “Whatever one thinks of current immigration policy, it ought not to be that controversial that states cannot prevent the federal government from enforcing federal law—lest we set the stage for Democratic-led states to similarly attempt to frustrate the enforcement of federal policies by Republican presidents.” He added, “That four justices would still have left the lower-court injunction in place will be taken, rightly or wrongly, as a sign that some of those longstanding principles of constitutional federalism might be in a degree of flux.”
In response to the loss before the Supreme Court, a spokesman for Abbott put out a statement claiming that the “absence of razor wire and other deterrence strategies encourages migrants to make unsafe and illegal crossings between ports of entry.” He added that the governor “will continue fighting to defend Texas’ property and its constitutional authority to secure the border.”
But this assertion about unsafe crossings was disputed by federal officials, underscoring the need for a single government policy. Said a White House spokesperson, “Enforcement of immigration law is a federal responsibility. Rather than helping to reduce irregular migration, the State of Texas has only made it harder for frontline personnel to do their jobs and to apply consequences under the law. We can enforce our laws and administer them safely, humanely, and in an orderly way.”
This was for now only a battle over a temporary injunction. The Fifth Circuit will next consider the full case in February, incluing whether to lift the injunction permanently. But it will do so with an understanding that five SCOTUS justices view Texas as unlikely to succeed on the merits. An appeal back up to the Supreme Court is likely, no matter which side prevails at the appellate level.
*****************
Texas’s legal argument was frivolous. The vote at the Supremes should have been 9-0. That it wasn’t should make us all fear for our country’s future as a nation that operates under the rule of law!
Jefferson Davis Racist, traitor, insurrectionist President of Confederate Stares of America Public RealmJohn C.Calhoun White Supremacist, racist, nullifier U.S. Vice President Public Realm
Jeff Davis and John C. Calhoun would be proud of the dissenters — although, ironically, those two “nullifiers” wouldn’t even recognize one of the dissenters, Justice Thomas, as a “person” with any rights at all, let alone the ability to sit on our highest Federal Court! Remarkably, despite claiming to be a student of history, Thomas was unable to connect the dots between Calhoun’s and Davis’s rebellious, racist, dehumanization of African Americans and Greg Abbot’s rebellious, racist, dehumanization of legal asylum seekers of color!
The Federal Government’s authority to stop State Governments seeking to nullify and deny Federal authority matters! That’s particularly true when those acts of nullification are based on racial animus! That today’s righty-dominated Supremes won’t unite behind this straightforward principle of Federalism is a blow to equal protection under the Constitution!
As of December 31, 2023, only the first quarter of FY 2024, the Biden Administration had already initiated 696,400 cases at EOIR. That’s more than the highest FULL FY (12 mo.) of the Trump Administration, 2019, in which 694,771 cases were started.
Moreover, in FY 2023, Biden filed an astounding 1,485,769 cases, more than twice the number that Trump did in FY 2019. Biden’s numbers in FY 2023 topped Trump’s other three years (278,218; 356,034; 216,589) BY MULTIPLES. In fact, Biden instituted approximately as many Immigration Court cases in FY 2023 as Trump did in his entire FOUR YEARS and is on a path to greatly exceed his 2023 total in FY 2024!
So the Trump/GOP blather about Biden not enforcing immigration laws is complete BS!
Biden’s muscular immigration enforcement efforts give lie to the GOP’s “open borders” claims, a point seldom made by the “mainstream media.” But, such over the top enforcement is NOT necessarily good news for America.
Even with more Immigration Judges under Biden — going on 700 — the annual decision-making capacity at EOIR is somewhere between 350,000 to 550,000. So, the Immigration Courts will not come close to keeping up with the flow of incoming cases, let alone reducing the backlog that has now mushroomed to more than 3,000,000.
There is no apparent plan for controlling the EOIR backlog and improving the much-criticized quality of decisions, which disproportionately harms legal asylum seekers of color while often adding to the backlog when rejected on review. That makes the Administration’s institution of new cases on a level guaranteed to create additional backlog appear irresponsible.
Moreover, it hasn’t helped that Attorney General Garland ignored pleas from most experts to make EOIR reform one of his highest, ideally his highest, national priority. Nor has Congress paid much attention to the glaring, chronic dysfunction at EOIR, despite pending legislation to create an Article I Immigration Court!
Biden is following in the footsteps of his Dem predecessors Obama and Clinton. In their initial election campaigns they “played to their base” by criticizing harsh GOP enforcement policies and extolling the benefits of immigration. Once in office, however, they became convinced that their credibility, and perhaps manhood, depended on out-enforcing and “out-crueling” their GOP predecessors.
Of course, this naive approach never produces the apparently desired result: That the GOP will acknowledge that Dems are serious about enforcement and strike the long needed “grand bargain” on immigration reform.
Predictably, that always backfires. The GOP just keeps repeating their “open borders” big lies, and the mainstream media provide little, if any, critical analysis or pushback. As long as kids aren’t being proudly exhibited in cages, the “mainstreams” quickly lose interest in the suffering, dehumanization, and death piling up on both sides of the border and in the “New American Gulag” as a result of the disastrously (and predictably) failed “enforcement-only” approach.
What Biden’s effort to “out-Trump Trump” REALLY shows is that more enforcement and attempting to use anti-immigrant legal decisions and a hopelessly backlogged adjudication system that keeps legal asylum seekers waiting indefinitely with a significant chance of wrongful denial if and when they are reached as a “deterrent,” doesn’t work, and in fact never has worked!
What’s needed is actually painfully obvious: A balanced approach that combines a properly generous asylum adjudication system, more avenues for legal immigration (both permanent and temporary), and an independent, functioning, expert, due-process oriented Immigration Court with reasonable, targeted, humane enforcement. That’s a message that both parties and the mainstream media are ignoring, to our national detriment. Too many Americans seem to have forgotten that in the process of dehumanizing and demonizing “the other” we degrade ourselves.
Or, put another way, we can diminish ourselves as a nation, but it won’t stop human migration!
President Biden is asking Congress for $13.6 billion to fund border enforcement operations, a significant portion of which will go to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain more immigrants. This strategy is reminiscent of President Trump’s administration, which also poured resources into ICE detention in 2018 and 2019, but that effort produced very little change in the number of ICE removals—the stated goal for both Trump and Biden.
. . . .
In fact, President Biden is proposing to increase ICE detention by only 9,000 beds, from the current 37,000 to 46,000. The federal government should detain and deport individuals who pose national security and public safety threats to the United States, but it should not spend taxpayer dollars on useless anti‐ immigrant theater. Moreover, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties has found that ICE detention sites routinely mistreat their detainees in ways that are “barbaric,” and there is no reason to expose anyone unnecessarily to this type of treatment.
A more effective approach to address the border issue is to facilitate legal immigration: let people come legally. This approach has been demonstrated to work, would reduce government expenditures, and make the immigration process more orderly.
****************
Read David’s full article, with charts and data, at the above link.
As David points out, the“New American Gulag” is bad for our nation and humanity. Unhappily, though, it’s good for the corporations who run private prisons. They also provide jobs in out of the way places where migrants are stashed. And, they contribute money and lobby politicos of both parties. That’s why human rights lose out almost every time in the immigration debate.
Immigration enforcement is an “industry” where failure = success! The more detention, apprehension, and deportation fail, the greater demand there is by politicos for more of it!
You can bet that when the coming waves of “enhanced” repression and human rights violations predictably fail, there will be demands for even harsher and more expensive enforcement, imprisonment, and deportations to deadly places!
It’s a dangerous, degrading, wasteful cycle that America just can’t seem to break. There are too many interests that see the human and fiscal misery of the “Gulag” as a profit center or a political advantage and therefore are disinterested in what works or the common good.
Even some Dems find that joining the white nationalist bullies in degrading and dehumanizing migrants of color is a “better political strategy” than standing up for the human rights of those who can’t vote! Bully – The Noun Project icon from the Noun Project Date 18 December 2017 This file is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication
As my friend Dan Kowalski often says, “the cruelty is the point.” Dehumanization, degradation, and gratuitous abuse of migrants of color is both highly profitable and politically advantageous for those on the right. So much so, that often even Democrats and some so-called “liberals” are afraid to oppose it and find their best “strategy” is to align with or enable the playground bullies! After all, they figure, it’s “only migrants from s—-hole countries whose lives and humanity are at stake.” Nothing to be gained from defending vulnerable persons!
That’s something for human rights activists and progressives to remember when some of these same spineless folks pelt your inbox with requests for your hard-earned dollars and your vote to help them save democracy — a democracy that they and their GOP nativist buddies don’t really believe in or defend!
Another example of truth losing out: Despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary, a substantial majority of GOP voters believe Trump’s “stolen election” lies. https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/70-percent-republicans-falsely-believe-stolen-election-trump/. And, whether or not they actually believe Trump’s falsehoods, almost no GOP office-holders, at any level, have the guts to challenge his absurdist claims.
MIAMI (AP) — Eight months after crossing the Rio Grande into the United States, a couple in their 20s sat in an immigration court in Miami with their three young children. Through an interpreter, they asked a judge to give them more time to find an attorney to file for asylum and not be deported back to Honduras, where gangs threatened them.
Judge Christina Martyak agreed to a three-month extension, referred Aarón Rodriguéz and Cindy Baneza to free legal aid provided by the Catholic Archdiocese of Miami in the same courthouse — and their case remains one of the unprecedented 3 million currently pending in immigration courts around the United States.
Fueled by record-breaking increases in migrants who seek asylum after being apprehended for crossing the border illegally, the court backlog has grown by more than 1 million over the last fiscal year and it’s now triple what it was in 2019, according to government data compiled by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.
Judges, attorneys and migrant advocates worry that’s rendering an already strained system unworkable, as it often takes several years to grant asylum-seekers a new stable life and to deport those with no right to remain in the country.
. . . .
Experts like retired judge Paul Schmidt, who also served as government immigration counsel while the last major reform was enacted nearly forty years ago, say the broken system can only be fixed with major policy changes. An example would be allowing most asylum cases to be solved administratively or through streamlined processes instead of litigated in courts.
“The situation has gotten progressively worse since the Obama administration, when it really started getting out of hand,” said Schmidt, who in 2016, his last year on the bench, was scheduling cases seven years out.
. . . .
******************
At the above link, read Giovanna’s excellent full article, based on interviews with those who actually are involved in trying to make this dysfunctional system function. Thanks, Giovanna, for shedding some light on the real, potentially solvable, “human rights crisis” enveloping and threatening the entire U.S. legal system. Contrary to “popular blather,” fulfilling our legal obligations to refugees is not primarily a “law enforcement” issue and won’t be solved by more border militarization and violations of individual rights of asylum seekers and other migrants!
There are lots of ways to start fixing this system!Gosh knows, most of them have been covered here on Courtside, sometimes several times, and they are all publicly available on the internet with just a few clicks. See, e.g.,
The “debate” on the Hill defines “legislative malpractice!” The voices of legal integrity, experience, and practicality aren’t being heard! Also, lots of great ideas from experts on fixing EOIR are stuffed in the “Biden Transition Team” files squirreled away in some basement cubbyhole at Garland’s DOJ.
But most politicos aren’t interested in listening to the experts, nor do they seem motivated to understand the real human problems at the border, in the broken Immigration Courts, and how many of the things they are considering will make the situation worse while empowering smugglers and cartels! Those are real human corpses piling up along the border, carried out of immigration prisons, being abused in Mexico, and floating in the river — mostly due to the brain-dead “enforcement only” policies now being given an overdose of steroids by congressional negotiators.
So, things just keep deteriorating. Many in the backlog who deserve a chance at a permanent place in our society, and the ability to contribute to their full abilities and potential, remain in limbo! That’s bad for them and for us as a society!
We all have heard the story about the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. the night before he was killed. How he’d seen the promised land and might not be with us when we got to the mountaintop. It’s important that we remember King incorporated the good Samaritan story into his speech.
He was in Memphis to aid sanitation workers, who were marching for a livable wage and safe working conditions. He went despite threats to his life and the fact that other civil rights leaders were present to march along with 1,300 Black workers on strike. He went because if not him, who? Here’s where he incorporated a Bible story we’ve heard before.
“And so the first question that the Levite asked was, ‘If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?’ But then the good Samaritan came by. And he reversed the question: ‘If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?’
“That’s the question before you tonight. Not, ‘If I stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to all of the hours that I usually spend in my office every day and every week as a pastor?’ The question is not, ‘If I stop to help this man in need, what will happen to me?’ ‘If I do not stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to them?’ That’s the question.”
King ended his speech by emphasizing the work we all need to do together to make this nation great, working toward justice not just for ourselves but for all those along the road we come across who require it.
“Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation. And I want to thank God, once more, for allowing me to be here with you.”
This is what I want to remember and honor this Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
Jill McKibben, Reston
*********************
Compare this message of self-sacrificing kindness toward fellow humans with the GOP “race to the bottom” taking place today during the totally overhyped and over-covered Iowa caucuses! (One more breathless account of the “enthusiasm gap” among Haley voters — not to mention her double-digit deficit in the endless “up to the minute” polls — could make a person want to puke.🤮)
There, dominant front-runner Trump promises not a better, fairer, more humane America for all, but rather a selfish, grievance-filled, program of hate, revenge, retribution, dehumanization, and exclusion on his “enemies!” And, his floundering GOP “rivals” promise the same nasty, deeply anti-American, agenda, but without the “distraction” of Trump’s “personality.” Hardly a winning message! If Iowa GOP voters want a true bottom-dweller, and it appears they overwhelmingly do, why not go with the “original” rather than “semi-sanitized imitations?”
Thank goodness for NFL playoff games today which should allow the rest of us to avoid the networks insipid “Iowa coverage!”
In the 18 months since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, Republican officials have had ample opportunity to prove they’re not merely antiabortion but also pro-child. They keep failing.
GOP politicians across the country have found new and creative ways to deny resources to struggling parents and children. Take, for instance, the summer lunch program.
Under a new federal program, children who are eligible for free or reduced-price school lunches can also receive food assistance during the summer. The policy, created as part of the bipartisan budget deal in 2022, gives eligible families $40 per month per child, or $120 total over the summer. It often works essentially as a top-up for food stamps, since these families must buy more groceries when their children lose access to nutritious school meals when classes go out of session. (It’s similar to a temporary program offered during the pandemic, though it’s much less generous.)
The federal government pays the entire cost of the benefits associated with this new food program and half the administrative costs. The program isn’t automatic, though; states had to opt in by Jan. 1.
Republican governors across 15 states chose not to, as my Post colleague Annie Gowen reported. Up to 10 million kids will be denied access to this grocery aid as a result.
Why have these governors rejected food assistance, even amid soaring grocery prices and pledges to help families strained by inflation?
Some states, such as Texas and Vermont, cited operational or budgetary difficulties with getting a new system running in time for this summer. These obstacles could presumably be surmounted in future years. In other states, GOP politicians expressed outright disdain for the program.
Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, for instance, said of the new program, “I don’t believe in welfare.” A spokeswoman for Florida’s Department of Children and Families cited vague unspecified fears about “federal strings attached.”
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds suggested there was no point in giving this grocery assistance to food-insecure children “when childhood obesity has become an epidemic.”
Reynolds is apparently unaware that obesity is linked to a lack of reliable access to nutritious food and that children in food-insecure homes face a higher risk of developmental problems. This suggests withholding this nutritional assistance hurts not only the state’s children today but also its workforce tomorrow.
This is hardly the only time GOP politicians have worked to swipe food from the mouths of hungry children — and their moms.
. . . .
Indeed, if a version of a child tax credit expansion ultimately materializes — and it might in the next few days — that will happen only because Democratic lawmakers explicitly held those corporate tax breaks hostage in exchange for aid to poor kids.
Republicans keep assuring the American public that they really, truly care about helping women forced into bearing children even when they’re not financially or emotionally ready to do so. They claim they want to protect youngsters and invest in their financial future.
Time for the GOP to put its money where its mouth is.
The outcry of those claiming the United States has an “open border” reminds me of the “everything must go” or “for a limited time only” advertisements. People come only to discover it’s a bait and switch. Let me be clear: Migrants are not risking their lives solely because they believe false claims that the border is open. The overwhelming majority are fleeing desperate situations in their home countries; however, the drumbeat of “open borders ending soon” lends an urgency to their plight. Apprehensions of migrants entering illegally in December 2023 are projected to be a record high of 302,000.
The irony is that many conservative members of Congress try to blame the Biden administration for the surge in migrants, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted the Constitution as giving Congress plenary power over immigration. Since the 19th century, this authority of Congress to control our national borders and determine whether a foreign national may enter or remain has been preeminent.
The executive branch is able to work only along the margins of immigration law through regulations and executive orders. When the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations tried to push these tools, the federal courts typically stopped them. Recent research by the Bipartisan Policy Center analyzing the border policies of the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations alongside apprehension data did not find clear-cut evidence that any particular executive branch action was more effective than another.
. . . .
As others and I have stated, the migration pressures at the U.S. southern border are not due to lack of enforcement of U.S. law; instead, these pressures result in part from laws written to address migration flows that differed sharply from the numbers of people we are dealing with today. Current law is based on the assumption that most migrants apprehended along the southern border are solo adults who can be turned back easily because they are motivated by economic reasons. Yet migrants today include many more families and children, people fleeing violence, people displaced by climate change, people leaving failed states, and people who are being persecuted — people who are afforded protections under U.S. law.
Regrettably, the House-passed border security legislation, as well as several of the other alternatives Congress is discussing, naively offers to tighten up the enforcement and narrow the categories of people who might be eligible to enter. Do they really think that raising the bar will deter people who are running for their lives? Such reforms portend an increase in the urgency of desperate people and ensuing chaos.
Immigration has always been a phenomenon that drives America’s success story, that undergirds our greatness. Time is overdue for us to reform our immigration laws — to create new pathways and update the old ones — to better reflect the national interest and our values. It will not be easy, as few critical issues are, but it is imperative that Congress gets to work.
Ruth E. Wasem is senior fellow at College of Public Affairs and Education, Cleveland State University. She has more than 30 years of experience in U.S. domestic policy, including immigration, employment, and social welfare policies.
************************
Read Ruth’s full article at the link! Also, congrats, Ruth, on your new appointment as Senior Fellow at the College of Public Affairs and Education, Cleveland State University!
As Ruth points out, the reason why all reputable studies show little if any relationship of forced migration to changing precedents and policies in “receiving nations,” is in the nature of forced migration. Forced migration is forced by combinations of conditions at or near the “sending” countries that operate largely without regard to unilateral actions in the U.S. or any other major receiving nation or group of nations.
At best, such futile unilateral actions have marginal, transitory effects, usually by forcing strategy adjustments and pricing changes within the world of human smuggling. But, like most markets, the human trafficking market eventually adjusts and the next, largely self-inflicted, “border crisis” ensues.
And thus, the cycle continues, with receiving nations investing more and more and doubling down on “proven to fail” cruelty and deterrence. Rather than acting rationally and responsibly — by listening to experts and those with experience managing refugee migrations — politicos falsely claim that the reason for their failed policies were that they weren’t draconian or expensive enough. But, throwing more money and personnel exclusively at enforcement and deterrence never works in a practical sense.
What it does do, however, is give certain moneyed groups a huge interest in uncontrolled border militarization. It also causes cynical politicos, largely but not exclusively on the right, to invest in sure to fail policies that will be a rallying point for White Nationalists without actual disrupting the supply of exploitable, disenfranchised, largely disposable “cheap labor” popular with many U.S. businesses and political contributors.
Ruth’s article states important truths about the border and migration echoed by expert after expert that are consistently, shamefully, and improperly being ignored by legislators and other politicos. For example, another leading “practical scholar,” Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr of Cornell Law recently “warned that detaining and quickly expelling migrants before asylum screenings would not solve the influx problem for cities like New York, which is grappling with a surge of migrants.” Read more: https://loom.ly/CLCoxqA.
Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr Cornell Law
So cowardly and misguided is the GOP’s approach that they waste public funds on a disingenuous “show trip” to the Texas border, but lack the guts and human decency to meet with and listen to the folks actually affected by their toxic policies and proposals.
Melissa Del Bosque Border Reporter PHOTO: Melissadelbosque.com
As reported by Melissa del Bosque in The Border Chronicle (in her overall discouraging and depressing forecast of the deadly political shenanigans that will be rolled out by GOP nativists during the 2024 campaign):
MAGA extremists in the House of Representatives, holding emergency funding hostage for Ukraine, cut out early from Congress for Christmas vacation, but they were willing to shorten their holiday break to make an appearance in Eagle Pass, Texas, on January 3, setting the tone for the coming months leading up to the general election. House Republicans will begin holding hearings on border security in February and are planning to impeach DHS secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
In Eagle Pass, House Speaker Mike Johnson, along with 60 other Republicans, held a press conference in front of coils of razor wire placed along the Rio Grande by Texas governor Greg Abbott’s Operation Lone Star. During the visit, Republicans declined to meet with local community leaders who had erected a public memorial in Eagle Pass for more than 700 people who had died trying to cross the border in 2023.
Expert organizations, like the Center for Migration Studies (“CMS”) with decades of experience studying what works and what doesn’t at the border have offered straightforward plans for “Managing the Border Without Sacrificing Human Rights,” only to have them arrogantly and insultingly ignored by Congress and the Biden Administration. See https://cmsny.org/statement-manage-border-without-sacrificing-human-rights/.
Michael Posner, Professor & Director, Center for Business and Human Rights at NYU Stern School of Business PHOTO: Linkedin
Long-time refugee expert/scholar Professor Michael Posner, writing in Forbes, also offers a far more nuanced and realistic approach to the b order that both parties are ignoring:
Rather than enacting the draconian measures Republicans are now proposing that will, in effect, deny everyone their right to seek asylum, the goal should be to strengthen the system so that the cases of genuine refugees are heard quickly, while those who don’t qualify are placed in deportation proceedings. The way forward is not to curtail everyone’s right to seek asylum, but to make the system both fairer and more efficient.
The idea that the constitutional right to due process and fundamental fairness and the right of refuge guaranteed by international agreements that we signed and long-standing domestic implementing laws are “negotiable” is simply outrageous and fundamentally un-American!
Meanwhile, Dems cower and run away from the border issue, apparently irrationally believing that ignoring it and ceding ground to the GOP will “make it go away” in 2024. News Flash: It won’t!
Sadly, while experts and advocates who actually understand the border and migration fruitlessly rally, demonstrate, write op-ed’s, and file research-backed reports in favor of protecting asylum rights, Senate Dems by most accounts are busy negotiating them away in response to GOP demands. See, e.g.,https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/10/senate-border-ukraine-negotiations/.
Ignoring the advice of experts and acting out of fear, myths, and bias seems to be the “order of the day” for both parties!🤯That’s a national problem that won’t be solved by ever more extreme and wasteful doses of cruelty, repression, and bogus “deterrence,” no matter how politically and financially profitable continued failure might be to some within our nation’s power structure.
That summer, I met Ben and Whitney Waxman, husband-and-wife co-founders of American Roots, who had been making all-U.S.-sourced clothing like hoodies and quarter-zips in Westbrook, just outside of Portland, Maine, since 2015. When the country hit pause, the Waxmans worried that demand for their wares would dry up. Without revenue to pay the rent on their factory space and their workers’ salaries, they knew that they’d lose their company in a few months.
To avoid that fate, they could make things the country desperately needed: masks and face shields. So the Waxmans asked their workers if they would be willing to return if they did all they could to make the factory safe. It was a big ask — vaccines were still a year away and information about how the virus spread was limited. In spite of the risks, every single employee said yes, energized by the idea that they could make a real difference at a moment of crisis.
The Waxmans shut down their factory to retool it for safe mask production. By that summer, they nearly quintupled their staff from 30 to 140-plus workers who were cranking out tens of thousands of American Roots’ custom-designed face masks for emergency workers and employees across the country.
Ben and Whitney had founded their company with a mission: to prove that capitalism and labor can work together to create community, good jobs and great products. They chose apparel making because it was fairly easy to get into and all components could be sourced domestically. All they needed was a few sewing machines and an army of workers willing to show up day after day. For these reasons, apparel manufacturing was one of the first industries to get offshored when tariffs were dropped following the signing of NAFTA in 1992. As a Maine native, Ben believed he was bringing back that lost industry — the state had once been a textile powerhouse — and through his mother, who had founded a locally sourced blanket and cape business, he had connections to get them started.
. . . .
I spent time on the shop floor and in the homes of their dedicated workers, many of whom are new Americans, who, with their families, had fled untenable, dangerous situations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Angola and other countries, and had found themselves in Maine, eager to build new lives there.
While I was learning about the ups and downs of the textile and apparel industry, I was also introduced to labor history. Ben Waxman had spent a decade at the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the largest federation of unions in the country, representing 12.5 million workers, working closely with President Richard Trumka. During that time, he witnessed the impact of offshoring with his own eyes, standing shoulder to shoulder with factory men and women as their livelihoods were shipped abroad and their pensions dwindled.
Haunted by what Ben had seen, he and Whitney made sure their employees were unionized from the get-go, that their workers earned a living wage, and received health insurance, vacation time, and sick leave to care for themselves and their families. “Our company’s economic philosophy is ‘Profit over greed,’ ” he told me. “We have to make a profit, but it will never be at the expense of our workers, our values or our products.” In that way, the Waxmans were well positioned to attract and retain a work force in a tight labor market.
. . . .
But what do manufacturers really need to build a resilient domestic supply chain? Topping their wish list is universal health care, which would unburden small manufacturers of approximately $17,000 per worker with a family per year, allowing American companies to compete with foreign producers, especially the technologically advanced European factories which are attracting high-end brands looking to make quality products closer to home.
But we also need to talk about formulating a new industrial policy, just as Alexander Hamilton and George Washington did at the moment of the country’s founding. A manufacturing-first agenda, one not just focused on green energy production and chip manufacturing, would funnel government resources toward policies that manufacturers need to remain robust. That includes job-training programs, transportation infrastructure, research and development funding, sectorwide coordination and financing support in every industry. The policy would also take a hard look at tariffs and intellectual property laws to protect American innovation, and encompass broad, clear guidelines for collective bargaining and environmental standards.
Shifting this country back to making things requires cleareyed policy that would stimulate all kinds of production that would, in turn, lift up those abandoned by the new tech and service economy. But there are so many additional benefits. Manufacturing jobs pay better than average and require less education for entry than many other industries. Apprentices learn their craft by doing. Manufacturing also offers diverse opportunities for people who aren’t so inclined to sit in front of a computer eight hours a day. We’ll need programmers, machinists, inspectors, thinkers, inventors, tinkerers: people who enjoy building things and working closely with machines that move and learn.
. . . .
******************
Read Rachel’s full article at the link.
These are the things that “smart government” should be investing in for our future. Instead, politicos, including some so-called “fiscal conservatives,” are proposing outrageously expensive, cruel, counterproductive immigration enforcement gimmicks supposedly designed to discourage the very workers, innovators, entrepreneurs, and investors that American manufacturing needs, not to mention reducing the potential pool of eventual U.S. consumers.
Repealing or undermining “Obamacare” — as many in the GOP advocate — is pure idiocy! Exactly the WRONG direction for America!
Sound like disconnects? That’s because they are! Ones that responsible voters should no longer put up with!
The GOP’s racist rants about asylum seekers, and the failure of some Dem politicos to push back hard, is bad for America. They fly in the face of two truths: 1) American benefits from immigration, and 2) many of the immigrants we need are already here or at our borders. Instead of thinking of ways to screen and welcome them, we are wasting money and resources trying to deport them, deny or delay their legal work authorization, and discourage them from coming.
A recent report by Don Lee in the LA Times put it very succinctly:
And that resurgence of immigration has not only given the U.S. a modest gain in total population but also done something far more vital for the economy: It has fueled the nation’s workforce in the last year.
This guy’s ugly presence and vile racist views hang over the 2024 election campaign and Congressional negotiations. Why? Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) says he has transported 95,000 migrants from the Texas border to New York, Washington, DC, and other cities. On New Year’s Eve, Abbott flew hundreds of migrants — including many children — to the Rockford airport in Illinois, 30 miles outside of Chicago. It was snowing upon their arrival, and some of the migrants had no coats or shoes. Others were wearing flip-flops. The migrants were then loaded onto buses chartered by Abbott and dropped off in various suburbs.
Abbott says that he is transporting migrants to “sanctuary cities” as punishment for the cities’ permissive policies. A “sanctuary city” is a derisive term used by the right to describe a city that chooses not to volunteer local law enforcement resources to assist federal immigration agents. But in this case, the issue is largely irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of people being used as pawns by Abbott are in the United States legally.
One approach to deterring migrants is ignoring human rights and making the ordeal as traumatic as possible. That appears to be Abbott’s strategy. But it is not the law.
The Refugee Act of 1980, which passed Congress unanimously, gives migrants inside the United States the right to claim asylum based on “a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” It was enacted “in part to make amends for the country’s shameful refusal to accept Jewish refugees during the Holocaust.”
Previously, most people seeking to cross the southern border of the United States came from Mexico. They were generally seeking seasonal work inside the United States and, therefore, sought to evade detection by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). But beginning in 2010, there was an influx of migrants from Central America fleeing gang violence, racial discrimination, and extreme poverty. More recently, political and economic disruption has prompted an increase in migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Haiti. These new migrants are seeking legal asylum and want to present themselves to border agents — not evade them.
Migrants are being transported by Abbott to places where housing is expensive and in short supply. Most asylum-seekers would like to work to support their families, but the law does not allow them to receive a work permit for 180 days. Because of bureaucratic delays, asylum-seekers often wait a year or more before they are able to work legally.
Abbott also says his efforts are in protest of President Joe Biden’s “open border policies.” Biden has not opened the border. He did recently repeal Title 42, the Trump-era program that denied migrants the right to seek asylum, citing the public health emergency created by the COVID pandemic. Title 42 was legally questionable from the outset, but its continued use after other pandemic-related restrictions were lifted was indefensible. Title 42 also encouraged repeated border crossings. After Title 42 was imposed, “migrant encounters reported by CBP increased every month for 15 straight months.” Under Title 42, many migrants were deported immediately, and no record was created. This meant there was an incentive for migrants to attempt to cross the border again and again until they were successful.
Despite the rhetoric of Abbott and other prominent Republican officials, Biden has taken a hard line against migrants. Some advocates believe that Biden’s efforts to deter migrants from crossing the southern border have exceeded his legal authority.
The truth about Biden’s immigration policy
During his campaign for president in 2020, Biden vowed to undo Trump-era immigration policies. His promises included not building “another foot of wall” on the border and a pledge to stop using private prisons as immigration detention centers. On day one of his presidency, Biden proposed legislation “to restore humanity and American values to our immigration system.” His plan, known as the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, would have created pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, increased assistance to Central America, and strengthened oversight and accountability of border operations.
The bill, however, died in Congress. Since then, Biden has only managed to make modest changes to immigration — like overruling Trump’s Muslim Ban and creating a task force to reunify separated migrant families. For the most part, experts say, Biden has continued many of Trump’s policy decisions.
Earlier this year, for example, Biden imposed new restrictive rules for asylum seekers who are not from Mexico. Dubbed by critics as the “Asylum Ban,” the rule assumes most migrants are ineligible for asylum and were similar to ones previously proposed (but never implemented) by Trump. In most cases, migrants will only be considered for asylum if they make an appointment in advance through a smart phone app, CBP One. There are far more people seeking asylum each day than appointments available through the app. In October 2023, the Biden administration announced that it was waiving 26 federal laws to construct up to 20 miles of the border wall in Texas.
A Washington Post analysis found that “nearly 18,000” family members were deported in fiscal year 2023 – about 3,000 more than were deported under Trump in fiscal year 2020. Since Biden took office, the number of migrants detained by ICE has also more than doubled. The majority of these people, the ACLU says, are held in private detention facilities. According to the group, the share of migrants detained in facilities “owned or operated by private prison corporations” has increased under Biden. In some instances, the administration has even kept open detention facilities “that its own oversight agencies have recommended for closure in light of abusive conditions and safety risks.”
Last month, immigration advocacy groups alleged in a federal complaint that officials have “forced asylum seekers to remain in CBP custody in open-air detention sites along the U.S.-Mexico border in California.” The group accuses CBP agents of forcing migrants to wait in “dangerous, exposed conditions” and “failing to provide the adequate food, water, sanitation, shelter, and medical care required under the law.” So far, at least one migrant has died while waiting outside.
Texas passes its own immigration law
On December 18, Abbott signed a law, Senate Bill 4 (SB 4), that will allow state law enforcement to arrest migrants in Texas. The new state law would make it illegal to cross into Texas from Mexico without using an official port of entry. This practice is already illegal under federal law. But now state law enforcement officers will be permitted to arrest individuals based on their suspected immigration status.
SB 4 includes exceptions for migrants in “public or private schools; churches and other places of worship; health care facilities; and facilities that provide forensic medical examinations to sexual assault survivors,” but does not protect those on college or university campuses. The law does not require that law enforcement officers complete any additional training on immigration law, “despite the fact it would authorize them to quickly make decisions about a person’s immigration status.”
Opponents argue that SB 4 is unconstitutional because the federal government, not Texas, is responsible for enforcing immigration laws. On December 28, the Justice Department sent a letter to Abbott stating that SB 4 “violates the United States Constitution.” Yesterday, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Texas and Abbott. The lawsuit states that “Texas cannot run its own immigration system” and that SB 4 “intrude[s] on the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate the entry and removal of noncitizens, frustrate[s] the United States’ immigration operations and proceedings, and interfere[s] with U.S. foreign relations.”
In response to the December letter, Abbott posted on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “The Biden Admin. not only refuses to enforce current U.S. immigration laws, they now want to stop Texas from enforcing laws against illegal immigration,” Abbott said in the post. According to NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth, when signing SB 4 into law, Abbott said, “We think that Texas already has a constitutional [right] to do this but we also welcome a Supreme Court decision that would overturn the precedent set in the Arizona case.”
HISTORICAL NOTE: The article states that the Refugee Act of 1980 “passed Congress unanimously.” But, that isn’t completely accurate.
There was indeed very strong bipartisan support for that Act. It passed the Senate, 88-0.
A different version of the bill overwhelmingly passed the House, 328-47. Therefore, a Conference Committee was formed to resolve differences.
The Conference Committee report largely adopted the Senate version. The Conference bill unanimously passed the Senate again. But, the vote in the House was closer, 207-192, with 34 Representatives abstaining.
The above summary was reconstructed from the outstanding historical article by refugee guru Professors Deborah Anker and Michael Posner in the San Diego Law Review (1981) with an assist from my own recollection of events in which I long ago participated. https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1735&context=sdlr.
Another helpful resource that I consulted is Ballotpedia.
The Popular Informationarticle reprinted above does very accurately set forth the lies, misinformation, and invidious intent behind the GOP’s attack on and attempt to dehumanize legal asylum seekers!
When a party has no issues, no accomplishments, and no plans for governing in a responsible way, “ginning up” hate, resentment, and “revenge” with lies, misrepresentations, and myths becomes a “strategy.” And somehow, the mainstream media largely falls for it.
Question: Is there anything more absurd than red state governors rejecting federal programs that directly benefit their constituents?
Easy answer: Yes. It’s the explanations they give to make their actions appear to be sober, responsible fiscal decisions.
The Republican governors of Iowa and Nebraska brought us the most recent examples of this phenomenon just before Christmas.
The issue in both states is a summer food program that provides $40 a month per child in June, July and August to families eligible for free or reduced-price school meals.
The program is known as the Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer Program for Children, or Summer EBT. Its purpose is to give the eligible families a financial bridge during the months when their kids aren’t in school.
The governors didn’t see it that way. Here’s how Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds justified her decision to reject the federal subsidy
for low-income Iowans: “Federal COVID-era cash benefit programs are not sustainable and don’t provide long-term solutions for the issues impacting children and families.”
Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen’s explanation was,
“I don’t believe in welfare.”
Both governors said their states already had programs in place to address food needs for low-income families, and that was enough.
It’s worth noting that the explanations by both Reynolds and Pillen are fundamentally incoherent. What does Reynolds even mean by calling the program “not sustainable”? It would be sustained as long as Congress continues to fund it, which is almost certain as long as Republicans don’t take control of both houses and kill it.
As for Pillen’s crack about “welfare,” he didn’t bother to explain what he believes is wrong with “welfare” as such; he just uttered the term knowing that it’s a dog whistle for conservative voters aimed at dehumanizing the program’s beneficiaries.
What makes these governors’ refusals so much more irresponsible is that the federal government is picking up 100% of the tab for the benefits; the states only have to agree to pay half the administrative costs. Their shares come to $2.2 million in Iowa and $300,000 in Nebraska, according to those states’ estimates.
In return, 240,000 children in Iowa would receive a total of $28.8 million in benefits over the three summer months, and 150,000 Nebraskans would receive a total of $18 million. Sounds like a massively profitable investment in child health in those states.
The governors’ defenses smack of the same strained plausibility of those statements made by banks, streaming networks and other commercial entities that explain that their price hikes and service reductions are “efforts to serve you better.”
. . . .
*************************
Read the complete article at the link.
Cowardly, irresponsible GOP governors pick on poor kids and their families.And, the other things that might lift families out of poverty:higher wages, shorter hours, more childcare, better health care, educational opportunities, vocational assistance, family planning assistance — the GOP opposes them all in their totally corrupt and disingenuous “race to the bottom.”
Just look at the amount of money GOP politicos have wasted on cruel stunts and gimmicks intended and guaranteed to make the humanitarian situation worse!
Mary Meg McCarthy Executive Director National Immigrant Justice Center PHOTO: LinkedinA girl peers out from an encampment at the U.S.-Mexico border where she and several hundred people waited to present themselves to U.S. immigration to seek asylum. Politicos of both parties disgracefully treat the lives of asylum seekers as “collateral damage” and apparently expect no consequences from their deadly, inhumane, and often illegal actions against legal asylum seekers! / Photo by David Maung
Elected officials must act to prevent more migrant deaths
The United States has the resources to welcome new neighbors, but it is going to take cooperation, from the White House to the mayor’s office, to prevent further loss of life and improve safety for migrants.
By Letters to the Editor Dec 21, 2023, 3:32pm CST
It was heartbreaking to learn of the death of 5-year-old Jean Carlos Martinez Rivero, who had been living with his family at a privately contracted Chicago migrant shelter. This tragedy must be a wakeup call for all levels of government to start working together to protect people’s basic human rights at a time of increasing global humanitarian displacement.
For months, community members raised concerns about conditions inside the city’s shelters and volunteered to help better meet migrants’ basic needs. The accounts of life inside the shelter now coming to light are disturbingly similar to those that my colleagues at the National Immigrant Justice Center hear from clients held in immigration detention centers.
The city and the companies profiting from shelter contracts must be held accountable.
No doubt, the city has been forced to face the unprecedented challenge of welcoming thousands of new neighbors with minimal support from the federal government. The Biden administration and Congress must also be held accountable to repair the broken immigration system, support cities like Chicago that are welcoming migrants, and provide legal pathways so new arrivals have access to employment, secure housing and safety.
Jean Carlos’ death occurred at the same time the Biden administration and some U.S. senators are considering signing off on extreme anti-immigrant legislation in exchange for military aid for Ukraine and Israel.
The proposals under negotiation would create permanent new barriers to asylum protection and put U.S. immigrant communities at heightened risk of mass deportations. The proposals are structured to put Black, Brown and Indigenous communities at most risk.
Biden seems to have lost sight of his prior promises to defend immigrants’ rights, not to mention the U.S. government’s obligations to uphold international human rights law. Chicagoans should be holding our own Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth accountable to loudly oppose these proposals.
The United States has the resources to welcome new neighbors, but it is going to take cooperation at every level — from the White House to the mayor’s office — to prevent further loss of life and improve access to safety for migrant communities.
Mary Meg McCarthy, executive director, National Immigrant Justice Center
***********************
Unfortunately, accountability seems unlikely unless it happens at the ballot box.The GOP has become the party of inhumanity, irresponsibility, and immunity. And, although the Biden Administration and “wobbly” Dems tend to avoid overtly dehumanizing asylum seekers with their language, their actions and attitudes too often mirror those of Trump, Miller, and the GOP nativists. Indeed, quite disgustingly, politicos of both parties appear to expect to harvest political gains from the blood of migrants! 🤮
The Senate is basically engaging in “bipartisan” negations to knowingly and intentionally violate domestic and international protection laws, abrogate constitutional due process, and increase the number of unnecessary deaths of asylum seekers. That arrogant politicos, on both sides of the aisle, although primarily the GOP, openly advocate for such actions shows just how little fear of any type of accountability they have.
In many ways, that’s precisely the message that Trump and his MAGAmaniacs have been pushing — intentionally hateful and inflammatory language, followed by horrible, sometimes deadly, actions with little or no fear of any type of accountability.Sadly, the Dems seem to think that a program of cowardly acquiescence, rather than principled opposition, is the key to political success.
Reading* the news, it appears that many are freaking out about the “crisis” along the U.S. / Mexico border.
In fact, there is no crisis. Yes, there are logistical problems around feeding and housing migrants, and legal problems around sorting out their legal claims in immigration court.
Thanks for reading Dan’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
But the numbers are the numbers: “[T]he past decade has seen unusually slow growth in immigration. In fact, the period from 2012 to 2022 saw slower growth in the immigrant share of the population than the 2000s, 1990s, 1980s and 1970s. You have to go all the way back to the 1960s, when the immigrant population actually shrank, to find a lower growth rate.” – David J. Bier, Oct. 3, 2023
America is graying. We need more immigrants, not fewer, and the younger the better. “With the national unemployment rate reaching a historic low of 3.4% in 2023—and states like Massachusetts (2.5%) and Pennsylvania (3.5%) reaching record lows—employers and elected officials have been desperate to find new workers.” – Andrew Kreighbaum, Dec. 29, 2023.
But under current law, it can take many months, if ever, for migrants to obtain work permits. Meanwhile, they are forced to work for cash, under the table, exposed to horrible working conditions, sub-market wages and the continual threat of deportation. Once they have work permits, however, they gain bargaining power.
Hein de Haas, professor of sociology at the University of Amsterdam, and the author of How Migration Really Works, says: “Fundamental choices have to be made. For example, do we want to live in a society in which more and more work – transport, construction, cleaning, care of elderly people and children, food provision – is outsourced to a new class of servants made up mainly of migrant workers? Do we want a large agricultural sector that partly relies on subsidies and is dependent on migrants for the necessary labour? The present reality shows that we cannot divorce debates about immigration from broader debates about inequality, labour, social justice and, most importantly, the kind of society we want to live in.”
Many years ago I was “on the bus” for a border journalism junket. With me was Wall Street Journal editorial writer Jason Riley. His 2008 book, Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders, is still fresh as a daisy.
Look I get it: I was lucky enough to grow up bilingual, enjoy the benefits of “higher ed,” and travel a lot, so I am not afraid of immigrants. Many Americans aren’t so lucky. Still, unless we are OK with China and India eating our economic lunch, we need to face facts and let in more immigrants, stat.
* Pro Tip: Never watch television.
Thanks for reading Dan’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
There’s plenty of empirical support for Dan’s view that we are largely creating a “crisis” while missing a golden opportunity. Indeed, while the U.S. is the world’s richest and most powerful nation, many smaller and poorer countries are able to resettle more asylum seekers, refugees, and other types of forced migrants, by both absolute numbers and proportion. See, e.g.,https://www.nrc.no/shorthand/fr/a-few-countries-take-responsibility-for-most-of-the-worlds-refugees/index.html.
What we appear to have is more of a politically-driven crisis of lack of confidence, political will, and basic competence to manage a humanitarian situation that is predictable, largely inevitable, and an opportunity to harness the human capital of migration — the same energy that actually built our nation and made it great. We’ve wasted huge amounts of money, resources, and time on cruel, failed, counterproductive enforcement gimmicks, while underfunding and failing to creatively update adjudication and resettlement functions.
Sadly and disturbingly, politicos of both parties and the Administration are basically pledging and scheming to ignore the advice of experts and creative problem-solvers and to do an even worse job next year and into the future. They will certainly leave a scurrilous trail of fraud, waste, abuse, cruelty, futility, failure, death, and missed oportunities in their wake — if we let them get away with it!
Austin Kocher, Ph.D. Research Assistant Professor TRAC-Syracuse PHOTO: Syracuse U.
Dan’s essay also reminds me of another recent Substack essay from immigration expert and statistical guru, Professor Austin Kocher. Austin’s theory is that backlogs in and of themselves might not be as bad as we often portray them — particularly in light of the alternatives and the intentional failures to make obvious reforms to improve the “robustness” and fairness of our immigraton system. Seehttps://austinkocher.substack.com/p/3-million-cases-are-now-pending-in.
Here’s the core of what Austin says:
First, it is worth questioning our basic assumptions about whether the “backlog”, as it is somewhat sensationally referred to, is actually a bad thing. Unlike the Obama administration, when the rapid growth of court cases was more attributable to people who lived in the U.S. for a long time getting caught up in interior enforcement, the recent growth is almost entirely due to the arrival of asylum seekers into the country. If you believe that asylum seekers deserve an opportunity to have their cases heard, then these numbers might be a positive sign. More people will have at least a nominal opportunity to apply for asylum instead of being turned away outright at the border.
Second, it remains absurd to me that the current practice in the U.S. is to force recently arrived asylum seekers into court in front of an immigration judge rather than to direct their cases toward asylum officers at USCIS who are trained for precisely this purpose. Immigration courts were designed to adjudicate cases of non-citizens who are suspected of violating U.S. immigration laws. The courts are adversarial environments that, as far as I can tell, require far more taxpayer resources and migrant resources than non-adversarial asylum interviews do. The fact that there are 3 million cases in court is, to me, an indictment of a system that treats humanitarian crises through the lens of quasi-criminalization.
Third, since no real change is likely forthcoming, I think we should rethink our sensationalization of the backlog number and simply accept the growing immigration court backlog much like we accept the U.S. national debt ticker in New York City.2 It’s just going to keep going up unless something absolutely fundamental changes about the world we live in. Get over it. This is how things work now. We need to end the delusional thinking that reforms—even much-needed reforms, such as the creation of an independent court system—are going to “solve” the backlog. The U.S. immigration system either needs radically rethought or we need to simply accept that the number of pending cases will reach 4 million, 5 million, or 6 million cases in the next few years.
Lastly, if we really want to solve the backlog, the easiest way to resolve the backlog is for Congress to give everyone with an NTA (i.e., everyone with a pending court case) and who meets certain minimal criteria a special visa that regularizes their status and puts them on a path to citizenship just like other lawful permanent residents. Yes, yes—I know that not everyone will like that solution for political reasons, but at least admit that you don’t like it for political reasons, not because it wouldn’t solve the backlog (because it would). After all, the US Census Bureau is already forecasting absolute population decline in the US within our lifetimes. Three million new citizens now wouldn’t solve that problem, but it might not hurt in the long run.
I was struck by his second point. One of the positive regulatory changes made by the Biden Administration was to confer authority on USCIS Asylum Officers to grant asylum immediately, at the border or in reception centers, rather than referring all arriving asylum seekers who pass credible fear to the Immigration Courts. Nevertheless, as I among many pointed out, the Administration had neither the personnel nor the training in place to make this change effective.
I also argued that without a new BIA of expert Appellate Judges and exceptionally-well-qualified asylum expert Immigration Judges assigned to key Immigration Courts to provide dynamic leadership, de facto supervision, and a series of far better positive precedents guiding adjudicators to grant asylum in many repetitive situations, this positive change was doomed to failure.
Sure enough, the Administration botched the implementation — running inept, timid, and minute “pilot programs” that could only be termed “sad jokes.” To make matters worse, when recently faced with a humanitarian situation at the border, where a “surge” of qualified Asylum Officers working with NGOs to screen arrivals could have made a huge difference, the Administration inexplicably “suspended” this most useful part of their regulations. Meanwhile, they opted to keep more problematic provisions in effect.
To compound the problem, nativist GOP State AGs mounted frivolous court challenges to the expanded role of Asylum Officers. Stripped of its legal gobbledygook, they essentially and absurdly argued that the Administration lacked authority to empower statutory Asylum Officers to grant asylum.
Dan’s essay found favor with well-known expert Careen Shannon:
This post about the opportunity presented by migrants who want to live in the United States is a sensible message with which to end the year. Kudos to Dan Kowalski for stating what should be obvious but apparently cannot be repeated often enough.
On the eve of a U.S. presidential election year and under the shadow of wars in Ukraine and Gaza, asylum seekers and refugees have become chips on the Capitol Hill bargaining table.
What risks being lost in this high-stakes game is a recognition that fundamental human rights are not negotiable, including “the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution” enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
. . . .
******************
Read the rest of Bill’s article at the link.
Echoes what many of have saying for a long time! The problem is that the politicos of both parties have abandoned due process (except as it applies to them personally or to their cronies) and human rights.
Subscribed
LIKE
COMMENT
