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.
Yes, traditionally, these lists include ten items, I know. But these days, you need to take your good news where you can get it, and nine was the best I could muster.
Despite the incoming Administration’s promises of mass deportation, travel bans, and general nastiness, there are some reasons to be hopeful in 2025. Well, maybe “hopeful” is too strong a word, but at least there are some reasons to not lose hope altogether. In any event, without further ado, here are nine reasons for optimism in the New Year: (more…)
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…)
I have been a member of the Green Party for more than 20 years. Our presidential candidate is Dr. Jill Stein, who is polling at between 1% and 2% in most swing states. That doesn’t sound like much, but in this year’s very tight contest for president, it could determine the outcome of the election.
A portion of Dr. Stein’s support comes from those who oppose Joe Biden and Kamala Harris on their policy towards Israel and Palestine. These voters, led by the Abandon Harris movement, have thrown their support behind the Green Party candidate, who is leading Harris among likely Muslim voters in several states.
The philosophy behind refusing to choose “the lesser evil,” is nothing new, and I have long disagreed with the approach. This year, the danger is particularly acute, as a Trump win will be especially harmful to Muslims, immigrants, and minorities in the United States (i.e., my clients), as well as people in Palestine. It will also set back the third party movement and cause great harm to our democracy. (more…)
In his 1995 book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, astrophysicist Carl Sagan explains the scientific method and encourages non-scientists to think skeptically and critically about science and pseudo-science (in Dr. Sagan’s telling, pseudo-science includes topics such as ghosts, psychic abilities, and witchcraft). He laments the failure of our institutions to educate the populace to distinguish fact from fiction, and explains how the scientific method is not a belief system, but rather a tool for discovering the truth.
I can’t say that I am 100% onboard with Dr. Sagan’s theses, as I feel he leaves too little room for subjective human experiences, whether those are religious revelations or more esoteric phenomena, such as alien abductions and bigfoot sightings. However, as a basis for policy-making in the real world, unverifiable subjective experiences–or claiming one’s own “truth” regardless of the facts–can be downright dangerous.
Exhibit A in that regard is the Trump campaign, which is largely untethered from anything close to reality. The “demons” that haunt Mr. Trump’s world are not abstract pseudo-scientific concepts. Rather, they are flesh and blood human beings, who are routinely lied about and scapegoated, and who are suffering real harm as a result. (more…)
With Joe Biden out and Kamala Harris in, the election map has become more favorable for Democrats. However, the upcoming election is far from a done deal. At best, it’s a toss up, since the Electoral College system favors Republicans by giving a disproportionate number of votes to less populated–and generally more conservative–states. That means that despite all the positive momentum, the possibility of a Donald Trump win is still very real.
Last time Mr. Trump was in office, his Administration did everything possible to block asylum seekers and immigrants, and to undermine the fair implementation of our nation’s immigration laws. Given what we’ve seen during this election cycle, a second Trump term would likely be far worse.
Few people have more at stake in this election than asylum seekers and other non-citizens. However, non-citizens are not permitted to vote or donate money to Ms. Harris or the Democrats. But that doesn’t mean there is nothing you can do to help. Here, we’ll talk about what you, as a non-U.S. citizen, can and cannot do to assist Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, and the Democrats. (more…)
In contrast to the Republican Platform, the Democratic Party Platform specifically discusses asylum, though mostly in the context of securing the border. While the Platform is fairly general and was created when Joe Biden was still the presumptive nominee, I would not expect major changes if Kamala Harris is elected president. Aside from future aspirations, the Platform discusses the Biden Administration’s accomplishments, though again, mostly related to border security. Here, we will look at the Biden Administration’s claimed accomplishments, as well as the party’s future plans. (more…)
The Republican Party has released its Platform for 2024. As usual with these things, it is short on specifics and long on political rhetoric. The first issue mentioned in the Platform is immigration: “Common Sense tells us clearly, in President Trump’s words, that ‘If we don’t have a Border, we don’t have a Country.'” It continues: “We must not allow Biden’s Migrant Invasion to alter our Country.” “Under the Trump Administration and a Republican Congress, it will be defeated immediately.” But how?
The Platform has a six-part plan “to stop the open-border policies that have opened the floodgates to a tidal wave of illegal Aliens, deadly drugs, and Migrant Crime.” Here, we’ll take a look at the plan and I will offer some thoughts. (more…)
Last week, I attended a concert at my synagogue by the Jerusalem Youth Chorus, a group of young Palestinians and Israelis who perform music together. In his introduction, my Rabbi explained the purpose of the evening. We were not going to stop a brutal war or bring back hostages from captivity. We would not be able to give respite in a way that mattered and is necessary to Gazans or end the suffering there. That’s not what tonight is, he said. I wish it was, but it isn’t. Here’s what tonight is, tonight is a gigantic middle finger (his words, not mine) to everybody who tells us that there is no way forward together. Tonight is what happens when you take microphones out of the hands of yesterday’s leaders and put them in front of today’s leaders. Tonight is the only story that we will see 50 or 100 years from now, G-d willing. We’re opening doors, and we’re opening hearts.
In a way–a less melodious or entertaining way–asylum serves a similar purpose. (more…)
Let’s play a game. Below are a series of quotations. The speaker is either Donald Trump or Adolph Hitler. Your goal is to guess which leader made each statement. (more…)
Question: Who do you think is more likely to deny an asylum case, an Immigration Judge appointed by a Republican president or an Immigration Judge appointed by a Democratic president?
As far as I can tell, no one has ever researched this question before; so our team of statisticians here at The Asylumist spent the last few months crunching the numbers, and we now have our answer. If you’re like me, you might find their conclusion a bit surprising. (more…)
Conventional wisdom holds that resettling refugees and asylum seekers is a burden on the host country. Indeed, many of our nation’s immigration policies are based on this premise: We make it difficult for asylum seekers to enter the country; once they are here, their cases often take many years to resolve and in a majority of cases, they are denied; politicians routinely malign asylum seekers as economic parasites, criminals, and terrorists. But why should this be? What is the evidence that refugees and asylum seekers have a negative impact on their host countries?
A new academic paper by Jennifer M. Chacón, Recounting: An Optimistic Account of Migration, challenges the idea that refugees burden their host countries. (more…)
The governors of Texas, Arizona, and Florida have been transporting asylum seekers from the border to “sanctuary” jurisdictions, such as Washington, DC, New York City, Chicago, and Martha’s Vineyard. Many of these migrants have suffered persecution in their home countries and have undergone difficult and dangerous journeys to reach the United States. The governors have enticed them to travel from the border to other parts of the country by falsely promising them jobs, work permits, and other benefits. In most cases, the receiving localities have not been forewarned about the new arrivals, and so have had difficulty coordinating a humanitarian response.
Immigration advocates have referred to these transfers as a “cynical political game,” a “publicity stunt” and a “political ploy.” Others have called it an effort to “own the libs.” While I agree that lying to vulnerable people and manipulating them is cruel and immoral, I think we on the Left are not being honest or wise when we dismiss the migrant transports as mere political theater. The issues underlying the governors’ efforts are serious and we ignore those issues at our peril. (more…)
The President and his allies are doing everything in their power to subvert the result of last month’s election. So far, their efforts have not changed the outcome, but we are still in a very dangerous place. Hopefully, the system and our country will withstand this unprecedented assault on democracy and the rule of law. If so, and if Joe Biden assumes office in January, he will face a number of daunting challenges: The pandemic and healthcare, the economy, climate change, divisiveness and decaying faith in democracy, racial justice, and immigration reform, to name the most obvious. How much attention immigration–and specifically asylum–will receive in this mix remains to be seen.
Prior to the election, the Democratic Party and the Biden campaign set forth their proposals for immigration reform, which are quite sweeping. Many of Mr. Biden’s ideas can only be enacted with the cooperation of Congress. Others could be put into effect without Congressional action, just as President Trump implemented his immigration agenda through agency rulemaking and executive orders.
A minority of the immigration policy changes proposed by Mr. Biden relate specifically to asylum, and most of these concern asylum seekers at the Southern border. This is not surprising, as the border is a disaster, but my concern is that applicants at the Asylum Office and in Immigration Court–which together represent close to two million people–will be overlooked.
In this series of posts, I hope to set forth my ideas for reforming and improving our nation’s asylum system.
Before we discuss substance, however, I want to talk politics, since any reform will take place in the context of the current political crisis where, even in the best case, millions of Americans will view Mr. Biden’s Administration as illegitimate and where many Republican leaders will be vying to outdo each other in obstructing the new President’s agenda. The divisive political climate will potentially limit Mr. Biden’s ability to make changes, and in turn, any changes he manages to implement could lead to further division. This begs the question: Should the new Administration follow the Trump game plan, and do all within its power to achieve its goals? Or is it better to focus on areas of bipartisan agreement (if any can be found)?
I’m of two minds about this dilemma. On the one hand, non-citizens in our country have been treated unfairly and cruelly. They have been lied about (and to), terrorized, exploited, and in many cases, forced to wait for years for status to which they are legally entitled. Also, when President Obama tried to take a middle road on immigration (remember when he was referred to as the “Deporter-in-Chief”?), it did nothing to move the other side towards compromise. Perhaps that’s because there is a stark partisan divide over illegal immigration: Only 23% of Democrats view it as a “big problem,” while 67% of Republicans see it that way. So if compromise is impossible, maybe the Biden Administration’s better approach is to implement whatever reforms it can manage regardless of the political consequences.
On the other hand, what is most needed now is to try to heal the divisions in our nation. Pushing through partisan immigration reforms (legislatively or administratively) will likely exacerbate the divide. Further, if President Biden overplays his hand on immigration, it could result in a backlash that advantages Republicans and other immigration restrictionists. Of course, the same predicament exists for other issues–like climate change–and the idea of waiting for a broader consensus when action is needed imminently makes little sense. Immigrants and asylum seekers urgently need relief and protection. So while ideally I believe it would be best to reach out to moderate Republicans and to continue working to educate the public about immigration, I also believe that we need to start enacting changes immediately.
That said, I think the Biden Administration needs to move with caution. Some immigration issues–such as DACA and (surprisingly) refugee resettlement–have broader bipartisan support than others, such as border security and deporting people who are here illegally. Certainly, the new Administration can focus on areas where it will encounter less resistance and face fewer negative repercussions.
The proposals I will make in this series fall, I think, on the more bipartisan side of the spectrum. I plan to discuss ideas for improving efficiency and fairness at the Asylum Office, the Immigration Court, and at USCIS.
In contrast to Mr. Biden’s pre-election policy agenda, my focus in this series will not be the Southern border. Protecting asylum seekers at the border is a more divisive issue than most other areas of immigration law, and I believe that advocates and policy-makers need to lay a political foundation before enacting successful change there. I’ve written about this in more detail before, but unless we build a more bipartisan consensus about who is eligible for asylum, we risk a severe backlash by easing restrictions at the Southern border. Indeed, one could argue that President Trump was elected largely as a reaction against perceived porous borders.
While the politics of border reform is a crucial concern, the situation along the U.S.-Mexico border is clearly untenable–people are dying and something needs to be done. How the Biden Administration will navigate that political minefield, I do not know, but I worry that the political capital required for improving conditions at the border will make it more difficult to enact needed changes in other, less politically-charged regions of the immigration system, such as USCIS, the Asylum Office, and the Immigration Court. In any event, those three areas will be the subject of the next several posts on this blog.
President Trump’s (hoped for) departure will open up some space to improve the situation for non-citizens: By reversing many of his Administration’s damaging immigration policies, but also–hopefully–by bringing long-needed improvements to the immigration system. The trick will be to balance that change with the current political realities, to minimize the inevitable counter-reaction, and to avoid doing further damage to the cohesion of our nation.
Next week is the election (in case you haven’t heard) and hopefully soon after, we will have a result. Whether the victor is Joe Biden or Donald Trump, immigration advocates have their work cut out for them.
If Mr. Trump wins a second term, it won’t be because he won the popular vote. It’s clear that more Americans will vote for his opponent (as they did in 2016). However, our system awards electoral votes by state, and states with lower populations–which tend to be more conservative–receive disproportionate representation. Perhaps there is some wisdom to this system, which disfavors change, since change is difficult and divisive, especially for those who already have power. Or maybe we would be better off with a system that is more responsive to the will of a simple majority. I am really not sure. In any event, as the President says, it is what it is.
So in terms of immigration, how would a second term look for President Trump? Since early 2017, the Trump Administration has been using its rule-making authority to restrict immigration in a variety of ways. This effort swung into high gear with the advent of the pandemic, and over the past eight months we’ve seen a barrage of changes, many of which make life more difficult for asylum seekers and immigrants. One thing we have not seen from President Trump is an effort to change the law, even when the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress (and remember, to change the law, Congress needs to pass a bill and the President has to sign it). Because the law has not changed, President Trump has had to work within the existing law to make regulatory and policy changes. When those changes have gone beyond the bounds of the law, courts have blocked them.
Assuming President Trump wins re-election and Republicans do not control both chambers of Congress (and it is very doubtful that Republicans will take the House), it is unlikely that we would see any positive immigration reform. Mr. Trump has periodically made noise about helping the Dreamers (people brought to the U.S. as children who do not have lawful permanent status here), and so perhaps we could see some bipartisan legislation to regularize their status. Also, there are some other possible areas of cooperation on immigration (temporary seasonal workers and Christian refugees, for example), but those are quite limited.
More likely, if Mr. Trump is granted a second term, we will see more of what we saw during the first term: Travel bans, reduction of due process protections, a weaponized bureaucracy designed to make it more difficult and expensive to obtain legal status in the U.S., regulatory changes that restrict eligibility for asylum and immigration, increased enforcement by ICE, punitive strategies to deter and harm asylum seekers at the border, etc. During the President’s first term, some (but not all) of his worst attacks were mitigated by the courts–mostly the lower courts, as the Supreme Court was more deferential to the President’s authority. Now, with the confirmation of a new conservative Justice on the Supreme Court, a second Trump Administration may be even less constrained in how it (mis)treats immigrants. All this will make it more difficult for non-citizens to receive the due process and the immigration benefits to which they are entitled under law, and the protection that many need to simply survive.
Finally, and it is no small matter, if Mr. Trump is returned to office, we can expect more lies about who immigrants and asylum seekers are, and about what they do when they get here. Demonizing non-citizens, minorities, and Muslims is an essential part of President Trump’s strategy and very unfortunately, his narrative has resonated with a significant portion of the electorate. Aside from fighting the Trump Administration’s policies in court, we also have to work to undermine the false narrative that he has been pushing.
In short, I expect that if President Trump is re-elected, we will see most of his restrictive policy changes pass judicial muster and his hateful and false rhetoric continue. All this will make for a difficult and painful situation for non-citizens and many others in our country.
If Joe Biden is elected, there is little doubt that the fate of asylum seekers and immigrants will be better: We can expect an end to the attacks on due process and rule of law, and to the bombardment of lies that we have come to expect about non-citizens. Mr. Biden has promised a number of positive changes, not least of which is to roll back many of President Trump’s abusive policies. Nevertheless, even under a Biden Administration, there will be much work to do.
For one thing, while Democrats will likely hold the House, it is quite likely that they will not control the Senate, meaning that any new legislation will have to be bipartisan. On its face, this should be a good thing–the broader the consensus on a new law, the better. However, if a Republican Senate behaves as it did during the Obama Administration, we can look forward to prolonged gridlock on immigration reform (and everything else). Even in a Democratic Senate, it may not be easy to pass comprehensive immigration reform, which has eluded us for decades. Advocates will have to push for legislation with our representatives and with the public.
In addition, it’s clear that more work needs to be done to educate the public about asylum seekers and immigrants. Though advocacy groups do significant outreach, the message hasn’t landed with many people. Advocates need to think more about how to communicate effectively with those who oppose immigration–how to reach them and how to engage with them.
For me, the choice on November 3rd is obvious. Joe Biden isn’t perfect, but he will restore due process and the rule of law to our immigration system. He will also be more honest about asylum seekers and immigrants. In addition, if he charts a moderate and common-sense course on immigration (and other issues), he might help diffuse some of the divisiveness that has grown to dangerous levels in our country. I hope that Mr. Biden is successful and that we see Democrats in charge of both Houses of Congress. But win or lose, immigration advocates will have work to do.