As part of the transition to my new firm, I have been learning their procedures: How they intake cases, create calendars, store documents, manage consultations, etc. As a lawyer, I’ve attended many consultations over the years, but I have always been the lawyer doing the consulting. I have to listen carefully to the person’s story and think of ways to help. I don’t get to focus on the humanity of the situation. But learning the ropes at Murray Osorio (ok, yes, shameless plug for my new firm) allowed me to observe other attorneys consulting with potential clients. Since I didn’t have to pay close attention to the substance of the meeting, I could think more about the human side of things. And this got me thinking about all we are about to lose once the new Administration takes office.
One consultation involved a woman from Asia who had been in an emotionally abusive marriage. She came to the U.S. to visit her children, who are students here, and she did not return home when her status expired. It was clear to me that she had suffered in her country, and that the prospect of going back was terrifying for her and for her children.
The woman isn’t anyone famous, and as far as I know, she is living an ordinary life in the United States. She is not a political activist or a member of a persecuted religious or ethnic minority, or a member of any other group that might easily qualify for asylum.
With the imminent arrival of the Trump Administration, it’s likely that we will see new restrictions on asylum seekers, particularly victims of domestic violence. And so, after exploring all the options, the attorney recommended that the potential client hold off filing for asylum, at least until we know better how the legal landscape will look under the new Administration.
The woman was friendly and grateful for the advice. She was also sad and fearful of what may come–in the United States or in her home country should she be forced to return. I always say that lawyers can help even when they can’t help, because at least the client has had an honest assessment of her case and will (hopefully) avoid being scammed by charlatans who take advantage of desperate people.
As for me, the meeting left me feeling sad. Sad for the woman, a good person in a difficult situation who our country will not help, and sad for our country, which has chosen to turn its back on people like her. I am also sad because we have based our anti-immigrant policies on falsehoods–that immigrants commit crimes, take jobs, collect welfare, eat pets. These are the blood libels of 21st Century America, the lies that we tell about immigrants to justify causing them harm.
Even worse than the lies about immigrants are the lies we tell ourselves. We are too cowardly to admit that we are gratuitously harming innocent people who have come to us for aid. At least we should have the honesty to admit what we are.
On the eve of the next Trump Administration, it is hard not to be pessimistic for our country. We stand to lose so much by excluding good people who want only to find a better life for themselves and contribute to our nation’s success. But worse than that is what we ourselves have lost. We have become a people too ready to compromise our ideals and our decency in order to protect ourselves from a boogeyman. We mistake cruelty for strength. We willingly accept obvious lies to shield ourselves from our own moral failings.
My favorite Founding Father, Ben Franklin, once wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In the coming years, many non-citizens will be losing their liberty and their safety. And whether we know it or not, our country is descending on a path that will harm us all. Immigrants are just the canaries in the coal mine.
I am sorry to hear about that as well.
But I want to ask why this Asian woman is not easily qualified for asylum ?
Is it because 1) Her PSG is not a protected status ? ( “women from X asian country” ?) or 2) The harm she fears is from private actor ?
Isn’t victim of dv in itself a PSG ?
The case of emotional spousal abuse would be a difficult asylum case to win under any administration, but the prior Trump Administration tried very hard to block people seeking asylum based on domestic violence and also people seeking asylum based on fear from non-government actors. Also, on another note, I will be continuing the same work that I have always been doing, only under the new firm. I am going to remove future comments from you that I think are inappropriate or not relevant. Take care, Jason
I mean…of course emotional spousal abuse is gonna be difficult…if the harm is only…emotional in a domestic context…
“but the prior Trump Administration tried very hard to block people seeking asylum based on domestic violence and also people seeking asylum based on fear from non-government actors.” This though, is very concerning, as I think it’s contrary to the intent and spirit of INA and refugee ACT…maybe asylum advocates should … do a class action suit ?