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…)
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…)
If you have engaged in criminal conduct in the U.S. or overseas, it could affect your eligibility for asylum in the United States. But how do you know what type of criminality impacts an asylum application? The short answer is that it can be very difficult to determine the effect of a given criminal conviction. Also, even where there is no conviction, in some cases, a person’s eligibility for asylum can be compromised. Indeed, the intersection of criminal and immigration law is a confusing and complicated area, and there exists a whole legal field–known by the portmanteau “crimmigration”–devoted to its study.
It is of course impossible to cover an entire legal field in one blog post, and so here, we will discuss only the basics. But hopefully this will provide enough information to help you determine whether your asylum application is in jeopardy, and whether you need to seek more specific advice from a lawyer. (more…)
In the ongoing saga of the Trump Administration’s efforts to dismantle our humanitarian immigration law, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security published a new rule imposing mandatory bars that prevent “convicted felons, drunk drivers, gang members, and other criminal aliens from receiving asylum.” The Trump Administration has not changed the law related to asylum–that would take an act of Congress signed by the President–and even when they controlled the Senate and the House in 2017 and 2018, Republicans did not attempt to modify the law. Instead, the Administration has been attacking asylum through regulatory and bureaucratic changes, many of which have been challenged in court.
This latest change is designed to block certain convicted and suspected criminals from receiving asylum. What’s wrong with that? Why should we grant refuge to criminals? I must admit that in the abstract, I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for asylum seekers with criminal records. They are asking for an immigration benefit after having violated our country’s law. However, when you actually meet non-citizens with criminal records and understand their circumstances, it is often more difficult to hold this view. Nevertheless, I suppose this new rule will be less controversial than others implemented by the Trump Administration, since it targets (supposed) criminals.
Before President Trump saved us, we were being overrun by criminals.
That said, there are a number of reasons why this new rule is bad. First, the Immigration and Nationality Act already bars asylum for many people with criminal convictions (and some who have been accused but not convicted). Those who are not barred under the old rules can still be denied asylum as a matter of discretion on a case-by-case basis, and few people with anything resembling a serious criminal conviction get asylum. So as usual with the Trump Administration’s rule making, this new regulation is a solution in search of a problem.
Second, some asylum seekers will be barred for committing a domestic violence offense even without a conviction. For cases in family court, it is sometimes necessary to admit guilt and enter a rehabilitation program in order to (for example) regain custody of your children. I worked on such cases early in my career, and I observed that people who adamantly claimed innocence would be forced to admit guilt if they wanted to reunite with their family. This is of particular concern for low income individuals, who are more likely to face government intervention in their lives. And so relaxing the rules about convictions will probably result in innocent people being barred from asylum.
Third, and on a related note, this new rule will have unintended “up stream” consequences for non-citizens in criminal or domestic court. They will now have a stronger incentive to fight their case and try to avoid any adjudication of guilt. This could result in people with minor issues (such as a second DUI or a minor domestic violence incident) failing to get the help they need, since obtaining assistance requires an admission of culpability. Thus, it will be more difficult to reach a good outcome in cases that would normally be amenable to positive government intervention.
Fourth, some of the criminal conduct targeted by the new rule is very minor–for example, the misdemeanor use of a false ID. Some asylum seekers use fake documents to flee persecution and enter the U.S. Others use fake IDs to work (and eat). Blocking such people from asylum is an unfairly harsh consequence for a relatively small infraction.
Finally, the new rule bars certain people from asylum if they are convicted of illegally re-entering the U.S. or for alien smuggling (and alien smuggling can be interpreted very broadly–for example, a person who enters the U.S. illegally and who helps a non-relative enter at the same time could be convicted of alien smuggling). Thus, the rule potentially prevents people from seeking asylum for fleeing persecution and coming to the United States.
Let’s turn to the new rule itself. One important point is that this rule is not retroactive. Meaning that if you have an old conviction, it does not bar you from asylum. However, if you are convicted after the rule goes into effect–November 20, 2020, unless blocked by a court–then you would be barred. So if you are arrested for a crime prior to November 20, 2020, but convicted on or after that date, you are barred from asylum. The new bars apply to aliens who are convicted of–
(1) A felony under federal or state law;
(2) An offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A) or § 1324(a)(1)(2) (Alien Smuggling or Harboring);
(3) An offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (Illegal Reentry);
(4) A federal, state, tribal, or local crime involving criminal street gang activity;
(5) Certain federal, state, tribal, or local offenses concerning the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant if the impaired driving caused serious injury or death, or if the offense was a second or subsequent DUI offense;
(6) A federal, state, tribal, or local domestic violence offense, or who are found by an adjudicator to have engaged in acts of battery or extreme cruelty in a domestic context, even if no conviction resulted; and
(7) Certain misdemeanors under federal or state law for offenses related to false identification; the unlawful receipt of public benefits from a federal, state, tribal, or local entity; or the possession or trafficking of a controlled substance or controlled-substance paraphernalia.
The new rule also makes it more difficult to modify or overturn a prior conviction in order to mitigate the immigration consequences of a crime. The rule specifically indicates that convictions altered for immigration purposes do not allow the applicant to avoid any bars to asylum. It has never been easy to reopen a criminal case and change a conviction, but some non-citizens have successfully used that approach to avoid the immigration consequences of their crimes. Under the new rule, that practice–already quite limited–will become nearly impossible.
The point to take from all this is pretty simple: If you are an asylum seeker, do not commit any crimes. The repercussions for even a small infraction can be severe. If you are arrested and charged with a crime (no matter how minor), or if you have a case in domestic or family court, you need to speak with a lawyer who is familiar with the immigration consequences of the charges against you.
To me, this new rule is redundant and unnecessary. Asylum seekers are often people who have had traumatic experiences, and sometimes those experience manifest in conduct that gets them into trouble. The old rule–which blocked most criminals but allowed for case-by-case adjudication in certain instances–was more fair, and enabled the fact-finder to consider all the relevant circumstances in an asylum applicant’s case. But when it comes to asylum seekers, the Trump Administration is not interested in fairness. Perhaps the courts will see fit to block this new rule, but to me, that seems doubtful. The vast majority of asylum seekers do not commit crimes, and under this new rule, it is imperative for anyone who needs asylum to keep it that way.
National Public Radio recently reported on the Trump Administration’s efforts to deport Vietnamese refugees with criminal convictions. Currently, Vietnam only accepts deportees who entered the United States after 1995, but the Trump Administration wants to convince Vietnam to accept all of its nationals with removal orders, regardless of when they came to the U.S. If Vietnam agrees, the change could affect more than 7,000 refugees and immigrants, some of whom have been living in the United States for over 40 years. Not surprisingly, negotiations over this issue have stoked severe anxiety in segments of the Vietnamese-American community.
The NPR piece focuses on an Amerasian man named Vu, who was ordered deported due to his 2001 convictions for larceny and assault. The convictions have since been vacated, but the deportation order apparently remains. Amerasians are children of American soldiers and Vietnamese women. They face severe persecution and discrimination in Vietnam, and Vu still fears return to his native land. If Vietnam ultimately agrees to the Trump Administration’s proposal, Vu could be returned to his birth country. “I think about it often and I don’t want to be deported,” Vu says, “I wouldn’t be able to see my children. I would lose everything. I would miss most being around my kids.”
“Seeking forgiveness for old sins? Don’t hold your breath.”
Legally, people like Mr. Vu, who have a removal order, can be deported (assuming their country will accept them, and assuming they cannot come up with a new defense against deportation). But what about morally? When–if ever–is it morally acceptable to deport criminals?
For me at least, this is a difficult question to answer. As a starting point, I must note that it is not easy to apply morality to any aspect of the immigration system. There certainly is a moral component written into the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). For example, to receive asylum and many other immigration benefits, an applicant must show (among other things) that he deserves relief as a matter of discretion. Good people deserve a favorable exercise of discretion; bad people do not. The problem is that, how we define “good” and “bad” bears only a passing relationship to morality, as we might normally imagine it, and so referencing the “moral component” of the INA only gets us so far.
Another problem exists with regard to how the INA delineates gradation of criminal conduct. You would think that the worse your conduct, the more likely you are to be deported, but that ain’t necessarily so. Crimes that might seem more worthy of deportation are sometimes less likely to result in immigration consequences. Put another way, under U.S. immigration law, you might be better off killing your mother than possessing cocaine.
The point is, it is very difficult to understand how morality applies to aliens with criminal convictions, at least when speaking in the abstract. It is easier–at least in my opinion–to approach the problem by looking at a specific case, and working from there. So let’s look at the example of Mr. Vu from the NPR piece.
First off, Mr. Vu’s case is quite sympathetic. His crimes occurred a long time ago, the convictions were vacated, he has U.S.-citizen children, and if deported, he faces persecution. Also, Mr. Vu might argue that his prior crimes were a consequence of his difficult upbringing (and few people have had a more difficult time than Amerasians during the post-war era in Vietnam). In addition, Mr. Vu has been in the United States for a long time, and so perhaps America is more “responsible” than Vietnam for setting him on a criminal path. Finally, as an Amerasian, Mr. Vu would not even exist if the U.S. hadn’t been present in Vietnam, and so this might also constitute a reason that we–and not Vietnam–are responsible for him.
On the other hand, Mr. Vu committed some serious crimes (larceny and assault), which harmed other people. He would likely have been deported in 2001 (per an Immigration Judge’s order), but was able to remain here only because Vietnam was not accepting its nationals for repatriation at that time. Further, as a sovereign nation, we have a right to determine who gets to stay in our country, and Mr. Vu violated that covenant. Worse, Mr. Vu likely came to the U.S. through a program to assist Amerasians. If so, we brought him to our country, only to have him turn around and slap us in the face by committing crimes. Finally, if we give Mr. Vu a pass, won’t that send a signal to other aliens that they can come to our country, commit crimes, and avoid the immigration consequences?
As I see it, there are legitimate reasons to deport Mr. Vu, and legitimate reasons to allow him to stay. Of course, making a moral determination in his case–or any case–hinges on how we balance the competing interests. The all-or-nothing nature of our immigration system compounds the challenge of reaching a fair conclusion: Either Mr. Vu gets deported, or he gets to stay. There is no middle ground.
Though I know where I stand on the case, I am not so sure that there is a correct answer here. Maybe it depends on one’s individual moral code. For what it’s worth, if we could somehow rate criminal-immigration cases, I think Mr. Vu would land on the more sympathetic side of the continuum. So if you believe Mr. Vu should be deported, there are probably few criminal-aliens who you believe deserve to remain in the U.S.
So is it morally right to deport Mr. Vu? Or any person with a criminal conviction?
For me, the answer to these questions is tied to the immigration system in general. I have seen far too many examples where non-citizens and their families are severely harmed for seemingly arbitrary reasons. If we had a more fair, more just, and more rational immigration system, I would have less of a problem with deporting criminals. But given the system that we are stuck with, it is difficult for me to morally justify most deportations. That is doubly true in a case like Mr. Vu’s, where his prior bad behavior has apparently been long overshadowed by his current equities. To deport Mr. Vu and break up his family seems cruel and pointless. But sadly, that is often exactly what we get from our current immigration system.
I hope that the Trump Administration will abandon its plan to remove Vietnamese refugees, especially Amerasians. But if it persists, and if Vietnam agrees, I hope that Mr. Vu–and others like him–will fight to remain here. He has been here for decades, his family is here, and this is his home. Despite his criminal acts, I believe he belongs here. To send him away would be immoral.
In his book, American Homicide, Professor Randolph Roth of Ohio State University argues that homicide rates correlate closely with four distinct phenomena: political instability; a loss of government legitimacy; a loss of fellow-feeling among members of society caused by racial, religious, or political antagonism; and a loss of faith in the social hierarchy. He examines 400 years of American history and concludes that these four factors best explain why homicide rates have gone up and down in the United States and in other Western countries, and why the United States today has the highest homicide rate among affluent nations.
“Don’t make me angry. You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.”
Prof. Roth recently elaborated on his theories in the Washington Post. He writes–
When we lose faith in our government and political leaders, when we lack a sense of kinship with others, when we feel we just can’t get a fair shake, it affects the confidence with which we go about our lives. Small disagreements, indignities and disappointments that we might otherwise brush off may enrage us — generating hostile, defensive and predatory emotions — and in some cases give way to violence.
He goes on to detail the varying homicide rates for different communities within the U.S., and how those homicide rates track with the particular community’s faith in our governing institutions–
The homicide rate peaked for African Americans during the Nixon administration, at 43 per 100,000 persons per year, when their trust in government was at its lowest and their feelings of alienation were highest. And it peaked for white Americans in 1980, at 7 per 100,000 persons annually, when accumulated anger over busing, welfare, affirmative action, defeat in Vietnam and humiliation in Iran boiled over into the Reagan revolution.
During the 2008 election, Prof. Roth predicted that “the homicide rate in America’s cities would drop because of what [Barak Obama’s] candidacy would mean to African Americans and other minorities, who live disproportionately in urban areas.” Prof. Roth also “worried that the homicide rate would rise in the areas of the country most resistant to the idea of an African American president.” Data from President Obama’s time as president now seems to support the Professor’s prediction (at least according to Prof. Roth–and I believe him).
So what does this mean for immigrants and asylum seekers?
Maybe the answer is fairly obvious–If we demonize and disenfranchise non-citizens, we increase the likelihood that they will engage in violent behavior, and perhaps other anti-social or criminal conduct as well. And of course, this is a vicious cycle–the more we alienate such people, the more likely they are to engage in bad behavior, and the more they engage in bad behavior, the more we will alienate them.
We also have to remember who we are talking about. Many aliens already feel, well, alienated. Many asylum seekers and refugees have already suffered trauma and feel insecure and victimized. Adding to that sense of alienation by labeling them terrorists or rapists, and by treating them as criminals, will only increase the likelihood of anti-social behavior in this population.
Prof. Roth, writing after the massacre in Las Vegas, notes that “most mass murderers have been deeply affected by the distrust, disillusionment and enmity that pervade our society…. We have all played a part in creating them.”
If the violent outliers of our society in some ways reflect who we are, then the obvious solution is for us to do better. To be more civil, more inclusive, more compassionate. To disagree respectfully. To listen more and talk less. Frankly, it’s not all that difficult. It’s what teachers teach in our schools every day. It’s what we require in our workplaces. It’s what we see in our places of worship.
Unfortunately, it is not what we have in the immigration debate. Read the comments section of any news article about immigration and you’ll see what I mean. Politicians–most notably our Commander-in-Chief–have taken the visceral feelings about immigration and amplified them. This creates its own vicious cycle, and empowers extremists groups, like we saw in Charlottesville.
Prof. Roth’s work (and common sense) suggests that if you keep hammering away at vulnerable people, a few of them will eventually react negatively. Hopefully, this will not take the form of violent behavior, but the likelihood of a problem seems greater in such a toxic and threatening environment.
I do think there are things that ordinary people can do to help. Many individuals and organizations have been working to support immigrants, Dreamers, Muslims, and other targets of xenophobia. Giving people hope, and showing them that they are not alone, can mitigate the damage. Government attorneys, Immigration Judges, Asylum Officers and USCIS Officers who continue to do their jobs, and who enforce the law fairly and treat non-citizens with respect, also help counter the harm caused by haters.
Most research suggests that immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans, but if Prof. Roth’s theory is correct, the current Administration’s nativist language and policies might help cause an uptick in criminal behavior in our immigrant communities. And of course, if immigrant crime goes up, the Administration can use the increase to justify its anti-immigrant policies. It’s up to us–those of us who stand with immigrants–to continue offering them help and hope, and to try to break this cycle before it begins.
A convicted sex offender who fled the United States to escape her 30-year prison sentence has been granted protected person status in Canada.
Canadian boys celebrated the decision in Ms Harvey’s case.
In August 2008, Denise Harvey was convicted in a Florida court for having sex with a 16 year-old boy–a friend of her son’s. After refusing a plea deal for 11 years, Ms. Harvey went to trial. She was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison. While her appeal was pending, she remained free on $150,000.00 bond. In 2010, when it became clear that the appeal had failed and that she would have to report to prison, Ms. Harvey fled to Canada.
She crossed the border and moved to Saskatchewan with her husband. They settled in a small community outside Saskatoon.
The Law caught up with Ms. Harvey in April 2011, when Canadian authorities arrested her. Later that month, she appeared before an Immigration and Refugee Board (“IRB”) adjudicator and was released on a $5,000.00 bond. Ms. Harvey requested “protected person status” and claimed that the 30-year sentence was cruel and unusual. She noted that her crime–having consensual sex with a 16-year old–was not illegal in Canada.
The IRB agreed that the sentence was cruel and unusual and granted Ms. Harvey protected person status. To obtain protected person status, an applicant must show that returning to the home country would subject the person to torture, cruel and unusual punishment or death. No nexus to a protected ground is required. People who received protected person status are eligible to apply for permanent residency and eventually obtain Canadian citizenship.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Chris Alexander, appealed the IRB ruling on two occasions, but Ms. Harvey’s protected person status was finally upheld last month. The Minister commented:
I find it mind-boggling that individuals from the United States, which has been designated a safe country, precisely because it respects human rights and does not normally produce refugees, think it is acceptable to file asylum claims in Canada. Lucky for them, they have no understanding of what true persecution is, and what it means to be a genuine refugee.
I am not sure that Ms. Harvey would agree with him. And luckily for her, the Canadian courts did not agree with him either. I suppose this highlights the old trope that no country is safe for everyone all the time (and indeed, even in the United States, Ms. Harvey is not without her supporters. In her home community of Vero Beach, Florida, 2,000 people–more than 10% of the total population–signed a petition requesting that Florida’s governor pardon her).
As for me, I must agree that a 30-year sentence for consensual sex with a 16-year-old boy is a bit over the top. Of course, reasonable people can differ about this, but the Canadians (and who is more reasonable than the Canadians?) have not even criminalized this behavior. Also, there is no indication that the victim suffered particular trauma as a result of the “unlawful sexual activity.” If there was evidence that he had been traumatized by Ms. Harvey’s conduct, then the punishment might be more easily justified.
While I agree with the result, the IRB decision does leave some unanswered questions: Would the decision have been the same if the perpetrator was a man and the victim was a 16-year-old girl? What if the sentence had been less severe? Does Canada plan to offer protected status to every U.S. citizen convicted for a crime that is not punishable in Canada? Does it plan to evaluate each U.S. sentence to determine whether it is “cruel and unusual”? The death penalty has been eliminated in Canada, so if a U.S. citizen facing the death penalty reaches Canada, will he be offered protected status?
The Canadians may have to deal with these issues in future cases, but Ms. Harvey’s case is relatively easy. The sentence is so excessive and the crime so seemingly minor that Ms. Harvey appears deserving of protection. Only time will tell if other convicted criminals will follow Ms. Harvey’s lead. If so, it will be interesting to see how the Canadian authorities respond, and if the U.S. government takes offense.
I once represented a Russian woman who paid a notario (or whatever you call the Russian equivalent of a notario) $10,000.00 to concoct a phony story about how the woman was a lesbian who faced persecution in her home country. The application was denied, in part because the notario failed to inform the asylum seeker about the contents of her application, and the woman was referred to Immigration Court.
Admit your mistakes and you may get asylum… or even a seat in Congress.
By the time I got the case, the woman had married a United States citizen (a man) and was facing deportation. We had to decide how best to approach the case, given the client’s previous lies. What we did is the same approach I have used many times since, because it tends to work. We admitted that she lied, explained how the lie happened (basically, a naive young woman following the advice of a high-paid crook), accepted responsibility for what she did wrong, and apologized.
In the end, the client received her green card based on the marriage. My favorite part of the case was when I informed the Immigration Judge that I would have an expert at trial to testify concerning country conditions in Russia: The husband was African American, and if his wife was deported, he planned to follow her to Russia, where he would likely face problems with skinheads and other racists. The Judge, who was also black, told me, “I don’t need an expert to tell me that there is racism in Russia.” We skipped the expert and won the case.
This basic formula–admit the lie, take responsibility, and apologize–is one that has worked for my clients on numerous occasions.
Just last month, for example, we completed the case of an asylee who had been convicted of stealing money from his employer. The crime was an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act (because he was sentenced to more than one year in prison). The refuge waiver, under section 209(c) of the INA, is one of the rare waivers that allows an aggravated felon to adjust status from asylum or refugee to lawful permanent resident. It’s not an easy waiver to get, and really isn’t that common (which–I hope–means that asylees rarely commit aggravated felonies).
In that case we used the same formula. The client took responsibility for his crime, apologized, and promised that he would not engage in such behavior again. We also submitted evidence of rehabilitation. The waiver was granted, the client was released from detention (after a good eight months in jail), and he received his green card.
This same strategy can be used for clients who lied to obtain a visa or who entered the country illegally. The fact finders want to hear that the alien accepts responsibility for what she did. And in asylum cases, there really is little to gain from covering up such lies, as people who falsely obtain a visa (or enter the U.S. illegally) in order to escape persecution are not ineligible for asylum.
The point of all this is not that the client can say the magic words and win permission to remain in the United States. Rather, the alien who accepts responsibility for what he did (and tries to turn his life around) is much more likely to receive relief than the alien who tries to cover it up or blame someone else.
