For two-and-a-half months since the election and for what seems like years before that, we’ve been hearing from Donald Trump and his surrogates about how they would deport millions of people, block refugees, end birth-right citizenship, and implement a campaign of “shock and awe” against those in our country illegally. Earlier this week, Mr. Trump was finally sworn in, and his specific agenda is starting to take shape. In some ways, it is easier to deal with his actual policies than to wonder and worry about what he might do. Here, we’ll discuss some of the President’s initial executive orders and how they might affect asylum seekers and other non-citizens in the US of A.
border
An Asylum Lawyer Responds to Alexis Nungaray, Mother of a Child Killed by Illegal Migrants
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.
No CBP One = No Asylum?
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.
A Tale of Two Murders: Laken Riley and George Floyd
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.
Dear AILA: The Border Needs Realistic Solutions, Not Wishful Thinking
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.
Let’s Talk About the Bipartisan Immigration Bill – or – Don’t Speak Ill of the Dead
The long-awaited bipartisan border security bill has 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.
Federal Court Strikes Down Biden Border Policy, Delighting Immigration Advocates and Trump Campaign Officials
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.
The Benefits and Burdens of Court-Appointed Lawyers
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.
Disorder at the Border
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.
President Biden’s New Border Policy: Sound and Fury at the Border, Signifying Nothing for Those Who Wait
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.