In a Fox News interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, host Bret Baier played a clip of Alexis Nungaray, whose 12-year-old daughter Jocelyn was murdered this past June. Charged with the crime are two Venezuelan migrants who illegally entered the United States shortly before the murder. Both men were apprehended near the border and released with notices to appear in Immigration Court.
In the clip, Ms. Nungaray blames the “Biden-Harris Administration’s open border policies” for the death of her child. This same idea has long been promoted by Donald Trump, who accuses migrants of bringing crime and drugs into our country.
In reality, crime is down in the United States and migrants consistently commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans. Of course, statistics are cold comfort to anyone who has been victimized by “migrant crime.” But using Jocelyn’s death to justify further restrictions on asylum seekers would only compound the tragedy. That’s because our asylum system saves many lives each year. It also serves our national interests. (more…)
In January 2023, Customs and Border Protection launched a new iteration of its CBP One app. When it functions, the app allows migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border to make an appointment to present an initial request for asylum in the United States. The app has been plagued with technical problems, and many migrants simply did not have the equipment, language skills or know-how to use it properly. Nevertheless, starting on May 11, 2023, any migrant who arrives at the border and does not use the app may be barred from asylum in the United States. There are exceptions to the rule and the legality of excluding asylum seekers who do not utilize CBP One has been challenged in court.
Today, we’ll talk about CBP One and what can be done to overcome the asylum bar for people who failed to make an appointment using the app. (more…)
The murder of Laken Riley–a promising young nursing student–has spurred renewed calls for a crackdown against illegal migration into our country. Ms. Riley was allegedly killed by a Venezuelan man who entered the United States at the Southern border in September 2022.
In response to the killing, Republicans hammered the Biden Administration’s border policy: “Innocent Americans from Laken Riley in Georgia to the 14-year-old rape victim of an illegal immigrant in our home state of Louisiana…. They’ve all been victimized by those whom the Biden administration has released into our country,” says Speaker of the House Mike Johnson.
While there are instances of people crossing the border and then committing crimes, blaming all migrants for the bad acts of a very few is unfair and intellectually dishonest. That’s because immigrants–including “illegal” immigrants–improve our country in many ways and actually save the lives of many Americans each year. (more…)
Last week, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) wrote a letter urging the Biden Administration to “take action to manage migration at the U.S. southern border in an orderly and effective manner while also ensuring a fair and humane process for people arriving at our borders.” That’s an excellent idea. The problem comes with the implementation, and here, AILA’s solutions fall short. (more…)
The long-awaited bipartisan border security billhas finally been released. The bill was negotiated by Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT), Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), and James Lankford (R-OK).
Before details of the bill were even released publicly, Donald Trump came out against it. His main objection seems to be a fear that the bill might improve conditions at the Southern border, which would potentially harm his chances for re-election. As a result of his opposition, many House Republicans–including Speaker Mike Johnson–have labeled the bill “dead on arrival.” It is even questionable whether the bill can pass the Senate. While the chances for passage seem low, the bill could still have an effect. If Republicans are seen as opposing reasonable border reform, it might just come back to haunt them in the upcoming election.
Politics aside, let’s discuss the provisions of the bill, and how it might affect asylum if it happens to become law. (more…)
Last week, a federal court struck down President Biden’s border enforcement rule, known as the Circumvention of Normal Pathways rule. The decision jeopardizes “the administration’s strictest deterrence measure to date and comes as illegal border crossings have plunged to their lowest level since President Joe Biden’s first full month in office.”
Today, we’ll discuss the Biden Administration’s rule, why a judge found that the rule is illegal, and the practical and political implications of the court’s ruling. (more…)
The Associated Press recently reported that DHS will implement a “limited experiment” to provide detained migrants at the border with “access to legal counsel.” The new approach will start with a “tiny number of migrants,” and then perhaps expand from there. DHS is partnering with an as-yet-unnamed organization to supply the attorneys, who will help with credible fear interviews (initial evaluations of asylum eligibility for newly arriving migrants). The program is part of DHS’s efforts to accommodate the end of Title 42, which had restricted the number of people eligible to seek asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, and which is expected to wrap up in a few weeks.
This new “limited experiment” calls to mind the ongoing effort by advocates to create an immigration public defender’s service, which would provide everyone in Immigration Court access to a lawyer. These efforts have not made much progress, and currently, very few noncitizens in Immigration Court receive a government-appointed attorney.
Here, I want to discuss the benefits of universal representation for asylum seekers, including those in court and at the Asylum Office. I also want to suggest an alternative to representation by lawyers, who are expensive and relatively scarce. (more…)
The Biden Administration has proposed new regulations that restrict who is eligible to claim asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. The new rules anticipate the end of Title 42, a public-health program that limited the number of people who could seek protection at the border. Advocates have condemned the new measure, labeling it a “transit ban” that is unworkable and a violation of U.S. asylum law. Whether the policy is illegal, I am not sure, but it certainly seems unworkable in the sense that it will likely not deter many asylum seekers from coming to the border to ask for protection.
Here, I want to talk about the new rule, and what impact it might have on asylum seekers at the border and in the interior. (more…)
In response to record numbers of migrants arriving at our Southern border–2.2 million in FY2022–President Biden has announced some new rules designed to deter people from coming to our country to seek asylum. At the same time, these rules also open a new pathway for “up to 30,000 migrants from Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and Haiti… to enter the United States on ‘parole’ each month if they have financial sponsors here and pass background checks.”
Today, we’ll discuss the import of these new rules. We’ll also look at how the rules might affect asylum seekers who currently have cases before the Asylum Office or Immigration Court. (more…)
In a recent editorial, the Washington Post opined that Congress’s failure to pass immigration reform has led to the ongoing crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border. But even without Congress, the Biden Administration can use its regulatory power to better define the term “refugee” and thus better control who is eligible to enter the United States under our asylum law. (more…)
As an attorney who represents asylum seekers, I believe our country has a moral duty to help those coming to us for protection. I also believe that we as a nation benefit from our asylum system. Aside from enriching our country with patriotic, hard-working individuals, the asylum system makes manifest our highest ideals–freedom of religion and speech, democracy, equality, and women’s and minorities’ rights.
Unfortunately, those of us who support a robust humanitarian immigration system have not convinced enough of our countrymen on that point. Indeed, a poll of Trump voters found that their #2 and #3 most important issues are more secure borders and a more restrictive immigration system (the #1 issue for these voters was preservation of individual rights). Contrast that with Biden voters, who feel less strongly about reducing barriers to migration (ranking “being open to immigration” as the #27 most important issue facing our country, out of 55 issues surveyed).
There is little doubt that these views find expression in the voting booth–President Trump based his 2016 campaign on anti-immigration themes and we know how that turned out. (more…)
Last week, the Biden Administration released its Blueprint for a Fair, Orderly, and Humane Immigration System. The Blueprint contains a number of components. Here, we will discuss two: Expedited Removal and “fairness of the U.S. asylum system.” Despite the Administration’s good intentions, I fear that we cannot have it both ways. Either we have a system to remove new arrivals expeditiously or we have a system to fairly adjudicate asylum applications at the border. We cannot have both.
Let’s start with some numbers. The crisis at the Southern border seems to be perpetually getting worse. In June 2021 (the most recent month where data is available), “CBP encountered 188,829 persons attempting entry along the Southwest Border.” “This total represented a five percent increase over May 2021.” More than a third of these would-be migrants had made a prior attempt to enter the U.S., and so if you look only at “unique new encounters,” the numbers are slightly lower for 2021 than they were for 2019. Perhaps that’s good news (since repeat customers can be dealt with more quickly than new arrivals), or maybe its bad news (since migrants are not being deterred from repeated attempts to illegally enter the U.S.). The majority of those who arrive at the border are expelled under a public health directive related to the pandemic (in June 2021, 103,014 people were refused entry under this directive). More significantly for our purposes, during June 2021, there were 10,003 credible and reasonable fear cases recorded at the border. These are initial claims for asylum by arriving noncitizens. Of these, 4,464 people “passed” their credible or reasonable fear interviews and will presumably be permitted to apply for asylum before an Immigration Judge–at an expedited removal hearing. (more…)
The number of migrants arriving at the U.S. Southern border has been increasing since President Biden took office. According to one DHS official, “We are on pace to encounter more individuals on the southwest border than we have in the last 20 years.” Border agents have been turning away most adults and families based on a Trump-era public health rule. But unaccompanied minors are being admitted, and the Biden Administration is ramping up efforts to accommodate them.
The border situation represents three different crises. First is the crisis of violence and poverty in Central America and Mexico, which is pushing people to flee those countries.
Second, is the border “crisis” itself. I put crisis in quotes, since the influx of migrants is very manageable. Last month, for example, about 9,500 unaccompanied minors arrived at the border. Our country has the resources to humanely process this many young people. Indeed, when compared with historic trends, the overall number of arrivals during the last decade is significantly lower than what we’ve seen in the 1980s and 1990s. And so if there is a crisis at the Southern border, it is more about our willingness to deal with the influx, rather than our capacity.
The third crisis–and the one I want to discuss here–is the political crisis. New polling from Populace illustrates the crux of the problem: There is a sharp partisan divide on the issue of immigration. Trump voters rank “severely restricting immigration” as the #3 most important issue facing America. In contrast, Biden voters rank this as the #46 most important issue (out of 55 issues surveyed). For the question of whether America “is open to immigration,” Trump voters rank this as # 52 and Biden voters rank it as # 27. In short, Trump voters have strongly negative feelings about immigration, while Biden voters have moderately positive views towards immigration. There are a few lessons we can draw from this survey. (more…)
It’s less than two months since President Biden took office, and already it seems we are facing a new surge of arrivals at our Southern border. The increase is being attributed to the continuing dire conditions in Mexico and Central America, Mr. Biden’s promise to treat asylum seekers humanely, and pent up demand among migrants who were deterred by the Trump Administration’s harsh policies. Republican strategists are (predictably) teeing up Latin American migration as a “wedge issue” for the 2022 midterm elections, and so the situation at the border is not only a humanitarian crisis, but also a political crisis.
To address the problem, Mr. Biden is sending more resources to the border, expanding shelter capacity, and continuing a policy of the Trump Administration to turn away most adults and families based on the public health emergency (under Title 42 of the U.S. Code). His Administration is also trying to encourage would-be migrants to stay home. It seems pretty obvious that none of these measures will end the crisis. So what can be done? (more…)
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court has allowed a new asylum regulation to go into effect, at least until questions about the legality of that regulation work their way through the court system. Until now, the rule had been on hold, thanks to an interim decision by a lower federal court. The regulation–colloquially known as Asylum Ban 2.0–bars certain people from asylum, depending on when and where they entered the United States. Whether the regulation will ultimately be upheld by the courts is not yet known, but obviously, the Supreme Court’s decision does not bode well.
Here, we’ll take a look at the effect of the new rule on asylum applicants and on “the system.”
First, let’s talk about who is blocked by the regulation. The rule applies only to people who arrive at “the southern land border” of the United States. So if you arrive in the U.S. at an airport or seaport, or if you arrive by boat or drop in by parachute at a place other than the southern land border, the rule does not apply to you. Even if you arrived at the southern land border, the regulation does not apply to you if you got here prior to July 16, 2019. Those who arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border on or after July 16, 2019 are affected.
There are many ways to avoid the southern land border.
If you are affected by the regulation, you are barred from asylum unless (1) you demonstrate that you applied for protection from persecution or torture in at least one country outside your country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence through which you transited en route to the United States, and that you received a final judgment denying your application for protection in such country; or (2) you demonstrate that you satisfy the definition of “victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons” provided in 8 C.F.R. § 214.11.
So the first exception requires the alien to seek protection in a third country en route to the U.S. It’s worth noting that if you are seeking asylum from Mexico, the rule does not apply to you, since you have not passed through a third country. If you are from some other country, the only way to arrive at the southern land border is to pass through Mexico. Some people pass through dozens of countries to reach the U.S.-Mexico border; other people pass through only one country (Mexico). The regulation requires that you seek asylum in one of those countries; the regulation does not require you to seek asylum in more than one country.
In the preamble to the regulation, our government justifies its new policy by claiming that Mexico’s asylum system is a “robust protection regime.” This seems doubtful. Most reports indicate that the Mexican asylum system is overburdened and flawed. Moreover, the situation in Mexico is unsafe for many people trying to reach the U.S. Most other countries that asylum seekers might pass through are no better. And so the idea of barring asylum seekers simply because they did not seek asylum in a country that was unsafe for them and/or that does not have a functioning asylum system seems unfair (especially for those who did not know about the rule, which is effectively retroactive) and cruel.
What then do you do if the new rule applies to you? For people who are not yet here, my guess is that some of them will start seeking asylum in third countries and being denied. It seems to me that the rule will create a cottage industry where any Mexican or Central American official with a “no” stamp can issue a denial, and then the asylum applicant can use that denial to support a claim for asylum in the U.S. For people who arrive after July 16, 2019 and who have not tried to obtain asylum in a third country, there are still two main options–Withholding of Removal (“WOR”) and relief under the UN Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Both forms of relief are potentially available to people who fear persecution in their home countries, though they are both inferior in terms of benefits when compared to asylum. Also, the evidentiary burden for WOR and CAT is higher than the burden to obtain asylum. Nevertheless, WOR and CAT are forms of protection that remain available to asylum seekers, even those who are blocked by the new regulation.
The second exception to Asylum Ban 2.0 applies to victims of human trafficking. The regulation defines trafficking victim as follows–
Severe form of trafficking in persons means sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act is under the age of 18 years; or the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery
This is pretty broad and pretty vague. People who have been subject to sexual abuse or forced labor might meet this exception. Also, unlike the first requirement about seeking asylum in a third country, the regulation does not require that the trafficking took place “en route to the United States.” Potentially then, if you were ever a victim of human trafficking, you might qualify for this exception to the asylum ban.
Asylum Ban 2.0 will undoubtedly make it more difficult for certain people to obtain protection in the United States. That is the whole point. But I have my doubts about whether the new rule will accomplish what the Trump Administration hopes to accomplish, which is to deter people from coming here to seek asylum. The new regulation does not block people from WOR or CAT, and so when they arrive at the border and ask for protection, they will still be accorded a credible or reasonable fear interview (which is an initial evaluation of eligibility for asylum, WOR, and CAT). While it may now be more difficult to “pass” such an interview, the difference in the burden of proof between asylum and the burden for WOR or CAT is fuzzy, and it seems to me that aliens who would have passed for purposes of asylum may very well also pass for purposes of WOR and CAT. Thus, asylum seekers will still be entering the system, and so the deterrent effect of the new rule will probably be less than what the Administration wants. Further, I just don’t believe that people will be deterred from coming here by the Administration raising the bar a few notches. Look what is happening in the Mediterranean: Every year, thousands of migrants are killed trying to get to Europe, yet still they come. If people are not deterred by the real possibility of dying, it seems doubtful that they will be deterred by a higher legal hurdle.
In the end, I doubt that this new regulation will do much to alleviate the problem at the border or the backlogs in the Asylum and Immigration Court systems. However, it will hurt asylum seekers–by making it more difficult for them to get the protection they need and by encouraging those who arrive at the border to circumvent legal points of entry. The new regulation will also further erode morale among Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges, who simply want to follow the law. And finally, the new rule further degrades our country’s role as a beacon of hope and freedom for persecuted people throughout the world.
