My law partner and I are adjunct professors at GW Law School, where we teach Asylum and Refugee Law (yes, we are basically one-trick ponies). This week, we learned that a scheduled debate called “Immigration 2018: Words Matter” was effectively canceled after one of the panelists was dis-invited due to his affiliation with the Center for Immigration Studies (“CIS”), an organization that some consider a hate group.
The event was billed as a “debate on the words used in the immigration debate.” Panelists were to discuss “words and phrases like maras, chain migration, criminal alien, and others.” The controversial panelist was Andrew Arthur, a Resident Fellow at CIS, and a former Immigration Judge (and a GW alum). However, Judge Arthur’s association with CIS proved controversial and ultimately led to the dis-invitation.
I can’t really discuss the situation at GW, as I don’t know all the details. Instead, I want to talk more generally about why it is so important for immigrant advocates to engage with groups like CIS.
Let’s start with the organization itself. CIS bills itself as “low-immigration, pro-immigrant.” It wants to restrict the number of foreigners we allow into the United States. In contrast, the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled CIS an anti-immigrant hate group due to its founder’s alleged ties to white supremacists and because it circulates writings by supposed white nationalists and anti-Semites.
As you might guess, I’m not a huge fan of CIS either, and I have found some of their writers to be intellectually dishonest and needlessly divisive (though at least one of their writers thinks I’m a babe, which is quite flattering). However, my overall observation of the organization is that it is making important contributions to the immigration debate, and that its policy positions are generally within the mainstream of our society (unfortunately). For these reasons, I believe CIS’s viewpoints deserve serious attention from those of us who care about immigration policy. Also, I’m skeptical of the SPLC’s designation of CIS as a hate group. While I support the SPLC and believe it does vital work, I think designating CIS as a hate group is a stretch.
Further, even if you have a lower tolerance for hate than me, and you believe CIS is a hate group, that does not seem a good enough reason to exclude its writers from the immigration debate. CIS is in-like-Flynn with the current Administration, and so its views really can’t be ignored. Also, there are many Americans—including many in the main stream media–who do not view CIS as a hate group, and who pay attention to its opinions. Thus, we need to listen to the organization’s views in order to better understand people who seek to restrict immigration.
I’m not arguing that we need to engage with all individuals or groups that seem hateful. Some people are simply beyond the pale (David Duke, Richard Spencer) or exist merely to provoke reactions rather than advance any real policy agenda (Ann Coulter, Milo Yiannopoulos). Such people have little to contribute to any real discussion on immigration (or anything else), and exist mostly just to promote themselves. Giving them a platform is not productive. But that’s not CIS, and when we fail to engage with legitimate and/or influential organizations, the quality of our national debate is diminished.
There are other reasons to engage with CIS as well. For one, when we fail to engage, we effectively abandon the field to the opposition. While it may seem a principled stand to refuse to debate with a “hate group,” that’s not how the majority of Americans–who only pay periodic attention to immigration issues–will interpret the situation.
Indeed, we need to be present when groups like CIS distort the facts, which they sometimes do, and we also need to articulate alternatives to their restrictionist policy proposals. We cannot correct the record or advocate for our own vision unless we are part of the conversation.
There’s also the matter of scoring political points. While I dislike the sophistry of cheap “point scoring” in our political debates, this is still part of the equation. Dis-inviting a group like CIS only plays into the organization’s hands. What will they and their allies say about a dis-invitation? Frankly, it doesn’t look good, and it tends to bolster right-wing tropes about “snowflakes” and “PC campus culture.”
Finally, there’s the issue of safety. Some people (immigrants, for example) might feel targeted by CIS, and perhaps this is a reason to avoid engagement with the organization. In fact, CIS does target immigrants in its policy proposals (the “pro-immigrant” part of its mission statement notwithstanding), and so there is some justification for this concern. But in my opinion, individuals who feel targeted by CIS need to understand the organization’s policy positions so that they can help refute those positions. Such individuals also need to explain to CIS how its work hurts real life people. Another aspect of this is that many of CIS’s proposals would harm the weakest members of our society, and so we need to engage with the organization in order to stand up when defenseless people are bullied.
In the end, I don’t think we have anything to fear from engaging with CIS. We “pro-immigrant” advocates largely have logic, humanity, and American values on our side. The hard work lies in engaging with those who disagree with us, and hopefully moving our nation in a better direction.
I applied end of 2014 up to now no interview in sight
I’m just reading through a backlog of emails and coming to your blog posts from a while back. First, I think you are exactly on point. I wish you could have made this argument to GW, maybe you did, to maintain the invitation and hear the speaker from CIS. The trend, especially on college campuses, to only entertain viewpoints with which one agrees, is ultimately self-defeating. If someone cannot advocate a point of view clearly enough to defend it against someone who holds a different view, then perhaps that person should reconsider his or her position. Engaging in the debate is how one hones one’s argument. Labeling anything with which one disagrees as “hate speech” is the sign of a weak position and is intellectually dishonest. Second, I am sure people are grateful that you are so incredibly generous with your time in answering so many questions. You are an important resource for people seeking asylum.
Thank you – I only learned about it after the fact, and I never looked too deeply as I did not have time. I did consider inviting Judge Arthur to my class, but it wasn’t practical given that it would have been our last class for the semester and we had to finish up. But I was disappointed by the whole incident. Take care, Jason
[…] Debating the Immigration Debate (The Asylumist Blog, April 2018) [text] […]
Hello Jason!
Do you have any news of Houston office if they are strictly following LIFO or doing some older cases too?
Thank you!
I don’t. We recently expedited a case that was interviewed there, and I think we have a new case to file there, so we will learn more, but for now I do not know. Take care, Jason
Thank you!
When did you apply? I applied in Sept 2016, no interview yet!
Me too . What ‘s interview date in Houston now?
i was there today they said they are on 2014 cases and recent cases(LIFO)
Jason, words are never enough to describe the greatness of what you’re doing.
I have been granted asylum back in Mars 2015, I applied for GC in June 2016 and before i get it (September 2016) i applied for Travel Document. I got my GC in October 2016 and TD in May, 2017. So, I travelled to Canda for couple days in October 2017.
Now, my TD is about to get Expired.
My questions are :
1) what is the difference between a Refugee Travel Document and a Reentry Permit ?
2) which one should I apply for now that i have a GC ?
3) Can I apply now (20 days before TD expiration) or I will have to wait till my TD get expired ?
4) will i have to send the current TD with the application or no ?
5) How can I expedite it ?
PS: the current TD has this under my photo: (form i-571) what does it mean?
Sorry for high amount of questions.
Thank you
1 – RTD is normally used in lieu of a passport. The RP allows you to enter the US (and could be valid for up to 2 years), but normally you would not use it as a passport (even though it looks like a passport). 2 – If you have asylum, the RTD is probably more appropriate (and cheaper). 3 – You have to check the instructions on that, as I don’t remember. 4 – Check the instructions; for some types of travel documents, you do need to send the old one in. 5 – It’s not easy. I wrote something about that on September 11, 2017. Basically, ask them to expedite and give a reason with some evidence. Take care, Jason
Thank you
Reentry permit is a same as RTD but more expensive and have 2 years vaild.
The good thing of RP is you can go some county without visa like South Korea. If you use RTD you need visa but RP you do not need.
And most of contries you have to have at least 6 months on your travel document. So RTD only work 6 months
But RP can work 1.5 years
I would check with the country where you want to travel to see whether they accept either document. Typically we recommend the RTD to anyone who has received asylum, even if they have their GC. But if you can travel using the RP, and not use your home country passport, that would be fine too. Take care, Jason
Nyc,
First of all, while RTD and re-entry permits are both travel documents, they are NOT the same.
USICS recommends that asylees who wish to travel abroad do so with an RTD. A re-entry permit is if you, as a PR, intend to stay overseas for more than 6 months/a year? I believe that the asylee/refugee would first have to become a PR before he/she is eligible for a re-entry permit (I may be mistaken as USCIS doesn’t explicitly say so.)
“RTD only work 6 months”? I thought an RTD is valid for 1 year.
There are a lot of countries, especially European countries, that accept the RTD without the need for country visa/Schengen visa.
The problem with RTD is it’s validity. For people who needs to travel frequently, it is very difficult to do so using RTD.
RTD is valid for 1 year, and as most countries require a 6-month validity on travel documents, it’s basically only useful for 6 months. To make matters worse, USCIS will not renew RTD unless you send the current one back and it might took them up to 6 months to approve.
This makes the RTD virtually one-time thing and unusable for frequent travelers.
RP is only for GC holders.
Jason.
1. That’s why you have to apply well in advance of your travel.
2. You can travel as many times as you wish in 6 months. If you are working as a flight attendant, or studying overseas, then I can understand. Otherwise, I don’t think you should have a problem with an RTD, despite its “limited” validity.
3. I don’t think that the refugee/asylee has any other option but to use the RTD, if he or she intends to get back into the US successfully.
I have had clients travel using the RTD, even when there are less than 6 months of validity remaining – it may depend on the country you are visiting. Also, I think only a person with a GC can get a reentry permit. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I applied for assylum at the Chicago office through a lawyer in fabuary till this moment, I haven’t receive a receipt that my application was received. What did you think is going on?
Thank you
That seems like a long delay. The first step is to contact the Chicago office – maybe they can tell you if the case is received. You can find their contact info if you follow the link at right called Asylum Office Locator. If not, make sure the case was mailed to the correct address. If it was, and if it was received, the lawyer may be able to make an inquiry with the service center. If that fails, you may need to re-file. You might also want to do a Freedom of Information Act request to try to get a copy of the case you filed, and proof that you did file it (form G-639, available at http://www.uscis.gov). Take care, Jason
Hi Jason, i won my assylum case in August 2017 at the Los Angeles office and soon i will be applying for Adjustment of Status. What is this i hear about people being scheduled for interview for Adjustment of Status? Can you please Advise.
My understanding is that principal asylum applicants (as opposed to derivative family members) will not be interviewed. So if it was your asylum case, I expect you will not be interviewed. However, USCIS can do as it pleases, and it is unpredictable, so I would not be terribly surprised if they did interview you. Take care, Jason
Thanks for your reply Jason and thanks for all you do for the community on keeping them informed with the latest information for Asylum Seekers.
Any update for Boston office? Please I have bo idea how long it will be. I have been waiting for 4 years now.
Nobody knows, especially now that they are supposedly doing recent cases first. You might try emailing them to ask about this. You can find their contact info if you follow the link at right called Asylum Office Locator (you might have to contact the NJ office – I am not sure whether Boston has its own email). Take care, Jason
I have been reading your blog for a couple of days and it’s very helpful. Thank you. I have a question. If I applied for asylum in Boston in the beginning but now I moved and I live to New York, what happens to my case? What if I want to continue leaving my case in Boston but I still live in New York how do I proceed with this.
My case was in Boston and I had to move to different cities until my interview but I only moved my case once to Seattle which was my final destination. If you moved and didn’t send AR11 you have to explain your reason during the interview. I was moving because of contract work but still updated my list of address during the interview. I wouldn’t move my case because of temporary relocation but if you relocate and don’t want to move your case be ready with a logical/ acceptable reason
If you move, you have to file a change of address form (AR-11, available at http://www.uscis.gov). This will cause your case to be moved to NY (or whichever asylum office is appropriate). You don’t have a choice about that. If you keep your permanent address in Boston and only go to NY temporarily, probably you would not need to file a change of address. If the case move, you should keep your place in the queue (to the extent that there still is a queue). Take care, Jason
Hi Jason
Today after almost a decade of wait I got a notice from the USCIS denying my application of adjustment of status to PR. I was granted asylum by the Immigration court a decade ago and when I applied to register as PR my application was put on hold because of TRIG and today’s notice states that it was removed from the hold and denied. I would like to know if you heard of similar denials and what would would you suggest that I may have to do….It is a very confusing situation…
That is unfortunate. I have not seen a similar case, as far as I can remember. I think you should talk to a lawyer to see about a possible appeal or to check whether there might be any other avenue open to you. Remember that you have a very limited time to appeal – usually the appeal must be received within 30 days of receiving the decision. Good luck, Jason
Thanks for your prompt reply…I guess I have to …
R H,
I am sorry to hear this. Your case may have been found inadmissible under INA 212 (a)(3)(B). If you didn’t already, you and your lawyer may want to look into applying for a waiver.
Hey everyone!
I got my interview at Newark office October & December 2018 and I’m still waiting for the decision. Is there anybody in the same situation here ?
It depressing….
When you applied for asylum can you please tell me?
My friend got approved Saturday
He applied 7/2016
Interview 3/2018
Recommend approval 4/13 /2018
Newark offic his state NJ
Did he expedited or short list?
yes but it was not approve
That is good news – Thank you for sharing it, Jason
I applied on July 2015
Did you get an interview?
Newark is usually pretty good about issuing decisions, but we have one client who has been waiting almost a year for his decision. You can contact the office and inquire about the case. You can find their contact info if you follow the link at right called Asylum Office Locator. Take care, Jason
I interviewd august 2017 newark still waiting no decition but i knew couple of people from one of the ban country interviewd after me they got approved in few monthes i think it depend in the country some countries their decition faster than others good luck and all asylum seeker
You are right
My frind is syrian
And got approval in 7 weeks after interview
Applied july 2016
Interview March 1 2018
Recommend approval April 13
It may depend on the country and the case – it can be very unpredictable. Take care, Jason
I had interview Nov 2017 still waiting for result
Hello,
My regards to Mr. Jason for his dedicated and knowledgeable advices.
My inquiry is about the new time frame (LIFO) in Arlington office, Are they following it precisely? And
has anybody who filed i-589 in March 2018 got an interview or interview appointment?
Thanks in advance.
They are following LIFO in Arlington, and they are also still doing some old cases. We have not gotten interviews for March cases yet, but we did file a couple and we expect to get notices soon. Take care, Jason
Thank you so much, you are always the best.
Since this is the way to find out these days… Did anyone on here who filed with the Chicago asylum office between November 2015 – January 2016 have an interview or expects one soon?
I applied decamber 2015 chicago office
No interview yet 😔
I applied decamber 2015 chicago office
No interview yet
I applied September 2015, no interview yet
I mean September 2015 in Chicago, no interview yet
Thanks everyone! Same for me…
I applied with Chicago office in 2015, got interviewed in January 2017. Since then, my application had been placed in the limbo or sent back to my home country. I have been living my life as if I was expecting nothing to happen because I am sick and tired of waiting for the decision
I can feel your pain…
Maybe your application is stuck in the headquarter review. Hard to tell.
While there is very little you or your lawyer could do, I suggest you contact your congress member in your district to ask him/her to inquiry USCIS and Asylum Office on your case if you haven’t done so already. While this might not work all the time, it’s usually very effective.
How do you know that it’s usually very effective? Is this based on knowledge of numerous cases whereby you saw a clear trend that this works (very) effectively?
Maybe I shouldn’t give too much hope on this.
While I do not see much cases relating to Asylum decisions, for cases pending with USCIS offices like I-485/I-765 adjudications, there is a high chances that they will give decisions soon after your congress member makes a contact even if they just give a generic response.
Beyond that there are not much options anyway. It won’t hurt to try if you want a decision fast (though it might not always be a desirable one).
😊
My lawyer has been making inquiries on a monthly basis but the answer is always the same s***. and he sees no need to get the involvement of a Congressman since they will only tell him the same story or sing the same song
Yeah… but again, never hurt to try. Don’t loose hope just hang in there. At least give it a try.
I think there is no harm in getting a Congressional inquiry, but I also think it is not effective and a waste of time – we almost never do that, unless it is a situation where the Congress person him- or herself gets directly involved. That can help. But if it is just a form inquiry from an intern in the Congress office, that seems pretty useless. An Ombudsman inquiry followed by a mandamus lawsuit will likely get you a decision, though it may be a bad decision – if background checks are not complete, they will probably deny the case. But some people prefer going to court as compared to waiting in limbo for a decision. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason, As always Thank you for all you have done for us. I have been waiting for my decision for more than 3 months and request update once via email and once by phone both times the replay was “wait” and there is no estimation how long should I wait. my question is does it help if I go to the office in person? (I am in Seattle so I have to travel) and I have traveled while on pending asylum, even though I had AP does it make them require a long background check? (impacting the time now) After waiting for more than two years and now waiting for another uncertain period of time is depressing me any information that you think would help is greatly appreciated!
Thank you!
I do not think going in person will make any difference. It is pretty common to wait months for a decision – especially for people (mostly men) from Muslim countries. Whether travel on AP affects the time frame, I do not know, but I doubt it. Unfortunately, there is not much to be done after the interview. I suppose you could try contacting the USCIS Ombudsman – a link is at right, but I would wait a few more months before you do that (and anyway, they are not so helpful). Take care, Jason
Hello
Please let me know if anyone know anything about Los Angeles or San Francisco’s office,me and my friend we both applied in sep 2015!and we haven’t received interview!
Thanks
Hi,
I applied on November 2015 and didn’t receive an interview date yet. I hope they start interviewing old cases too, it’s been so long. Sad.
I hope so thanks for sharing
Applied in NOV 2015 interviewed Jan 2018, waiting for a decision. Good Luck!
Thanks but where ?los Angeles?!or San Francisco’s?
I applied Sep-2016 in Los Angeles office no interview yet
the Asylum division will have the quarterly stakeholder meeting May 1st… I would expect a lot of questions regarding scheduling priorities and process of legacy cases.
We shall expect some answers from the division… Last time the director mentioned that the division has allocated some resources to process old cases as well but the logic is not clear. However as new caseload came to full throttle we shall see how it settle down. Those who get interviewed is very lucky I have to say!
I applied July 2015 LA no interview
Does anyone know about Newark office?I emailed them today inquiring about the backlog but they send me a general reply
I think our most recent case interviewed in that office was from 2015, but I forget which month. That was several weeks ago. Take care, Jason
Hi! I applied in December, 2017. Got my interview in March, 2018. It is almost month after my interview and I haven’t received any decision yet. Today I called the AO and they say I can come to the AO and ask about it there. I also called the Immigration Court and fortunately they said they haven’t received my case so it’s not in a court. Any idea about that? What can it mean? On more issue is I can’t check my case status online. Thanks.
Pls which office did you apply?
Did you expedite your case?
I applied in November 2017 but no news yet!
Chicago AO. And you? No, I didn’t expedite my case. I hope you will hear back from the AO too.
I’m exactly like you and same office. Interviewed march 20, no decision yet. I think the Chicago office is very slow. I read here someone who is waiting 3 months after his interview with no decision.
Hi again! Have you received the decision? Thanks.
Hi sorry I didn’t know you commented asking me. I have not received a decision yet, how about you?
It is very typical to wait for a while (weeks, months, sometimes longer), and so I think there is nothing unusual about your wait time. If there is no decision in another month, contact them again. The receipt cannot be checked on-line, though if the case is approved, apparently, it is possible to check, but I do not know if that happens in all cases. Take care, Jason
A question to those who receive their asylum decision recently, how the asylum office sends the decision. Was it through USPS, UPS or FedEx (Overnight, priority of ground?). As per the asylum office, they sent my decision last week but still did not get the mail. I have been waiting the decision for 28 months
In addition, I cannot still see the status of my case online. It does not recognize the receipt. . Fingers crossed.
USPS Certified Mail.
Thanks Sara. I will watch my mailbox
That mean your case is denied or recommended
Nyc, How do you know it was denied or recommended? is it because I can’t see the status online?
Yes if they said they mailed it. That mean they already made decision so if you can not check your status online that mean RA or denied.
Dear nyc. My case was also approved but when I check online my status it is not recognising my receipt no. So I think when your case is granted they are not showing anything online. Thanks
In some cases, when there is an approval, you can see the receipt number on-line. However, I am not sure whether that is true in all cases, and so I think you cannot assume anything in terms of the result. Take care, Jason
For me personally, before the grant, the receipt number wasn’t recognized. After the grant, it recognized it but it didn’t say anything about asylum grant. I don’t remember what is says exactly, but it says something about employment authorization- something to that effect. BUT, I don’t think that it necessarily means that you are demined. It cold also mean that they have updated that part of system yet.
Good luck, Jason
Can anyone share news from Los Angleses office? Just want to know which month they are taking interview? Thank you for your help
Is it better to travel after you get green card with the travel document or it doesn’t matter if you have GC or not?
Thanks!
If you got the GC from asylum, it is always better to use a Refugee Travel Document (until you are a US citizen) and not use your home country passport. Take care, Jason
LIFO got me an interview scheduled within 21 days of filing!
Jason filed on my behalf last month, USCIS received our packet on Day 4. By Day 9, I had my Biometrics appointment in hand. On Day 19, USCIS dispatched my interview appointment letter!
On the down side though, because where I come from and the nature of my predicament, my case is likely to trigger TRIG and enter the indefinite limbo blackhole!! 🙁 :'(
After long time waiting for interview, I got approval letter after 10 days interviewed .iam So happy
Thank youuu so much Jason ,you are the greatest lawyer
Congrats!
Thank you Tina
CONGRATS
Congratulations – It is wonderful to hear good news. Welcome to the US of A! Take care, Jason
Congrats when you applied for asylum and which office thankyou and good luck
Hi congrats,
can you share your time line please.
I am so happy for you, enjoy your happiness, you deserve it.
Congrats
Thank you everyone
Applied November 2014
Interview scheduled April 2018
Approval letter after 10 days
Arlington asylum office
Congratulations!!! Did you expedite?
Congratulations
Did you expedite the case or you’ve been in the short list? Did you apply in the beginning of November or in the end? Because we applied in the end and still have no appointment. Thank you very much!
Congratulations 🙂
Thank you everyone,
No I didn’t expedite ,and No short list , they just
Called me before one month interviewed
It was in the middle of November. Take care
Congrats!!!!🎉
And Jason(not Jason Dzubow)prays : “Dear Mr president , here I stand before you…A perfect legal immigrant.I pay my taxes, drive speed limit, I even volunteer, super educated, and very righteous too. I deserve to be a citizen, but I could manage a green card. Why? Because I am not like the illegals, those asylum seekers,those daca people who came here illegally, who are not as righteous as I am. Can’ t you see that my kids are more important than those daca kids? My kids came legally and the daca kids crossed the border by themselves illegally.” I could go on and on but your point of view is BS. Do you know what people go through? Concentrate on being promoted from semi legal to legal, and leave people alone to fight their battles. Fortunately, you have no say and your opinion is irrelevant to the government.
Hello Jason,
I applied for asylum in October 2017 but did not get the interview notice yet (I live in Florida). I’m going to mail the EAD application to USCIS which I’m just filling. I read on your blog about people having problems because of giving wrong answers to some question connected with there asylum application and now I’m not sure what I should do with one of the questions. Question 23.b on Form I-765 says: ‘Have you EVER been arrested for and/or convicted of any crime?’ After that question there comes an information about referring to ‘Item Number 5, Item H or Item I in Who May File Form I-765’. My problem with that question is that I was detained, convicted and sentenced for prison for insulting an official in my country. This is one of the reasons I applied for asylum. Do you think it is better for someone like me to check ‘yes’ at question 23.b? I would not like to be accused of lying to the US government in future but from the other hand if I check ‘yes’ USCIS might think that I was convicted of a crime that I committed in the US. Did someone have the same problem with the EAD form?
Thanks
Greg
I can’t give specific advice on forms, but in general, when we have a political arrest, which was not for a crime, we check “no” to a question that asks about criminal arrests and provide an explanation in the cover letter (“I checked ‘no’ for questions X, as I was not arrested for a crime, but I was arrested for political reasons in my country on [date], which is discussed in my asylum application” or something to this effect). The fact that we provide an explanation should protect the person from an accusation of lying on the form. If you are not sure about the situation (maybe the arrest was legal in your country), talk to a lawyer about the specifics to be sure. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I have a very tough situation like other asylum seekers .
I did my interview 3 months ago at Chicago office, have not received an answer yet my kid suffering of not seeing one parent for almost 3 years. I am suffering as well and we both have physical problems.
I have a letter from the doctor for the need of surgery soon , we don’t have insurance even my kid , they stopped the insurance.
It’s so hard to wait with physical and emotional problems.
My question is that if it’s a good idea to go to the office and ask for expediting the answer? I already expedited my interview date after 25 months of waiting.
Please give me some sign of hope from Chicago!!
Or at least if I can do anything??!
God bless you and thank you so much.
I applied in Chicago as expedite and got accepted. Try that
Thank you so much for the encouragement,
Do you mind if I ask you to share more details on your timeframe? Like how long did you wait to receive your expedited answer, did you go in person??
I would be appreciated.
Thank you so much
I think you can prepare a letter and attach the doctor’s note, and you can state that you are suffering hardship and ask to expedite the decision. I do not know whether that will work, but a short, polite letter will not hurt, and it might help. Good luck, Jason
Hello dear Jason,
Thank you so much for your advice. I would definitely do what you said as always. You bring hope to my moments and it’s so appreciated. God bless your heart and I am sure you are so blessed in your life cuz so many people are praying for you and your family.
Hi Jason,
Now that Q3 has passed. do you see any new patterns? is the 21 days case processing rule followed? are old cases looked at or they going from the top down and if so what month are they in, in your area?
Thanks
Adam
They are processing new cases, but at least in our office (Virginia), we have seen a drop off of old cases being interviewed. This might be meaningless, or maybe they are now doe with old cases because they are receiving enough new cases to fill all their interview slots. I have not seen new data about interviews yet, but I think we will see that pretty soon. Take care, Jason
I sent my application I-485 form at dallas on march 30th,2018
Last week i got mail notice that they received my case on April 4, today I got another mail that they can reuse my previous biometric so no need to take another snd no biometric fees refund ! Last time i my biometric done was around September while appying for asylum !
is this normal ?
last bio was september 2015
Nothing is “normal” these days and everything is unpredictable. But I have heard of this happening before, and I think there is nothing to worry about (other than having wasted the biometrics fee). One solution in the future is to send two checks – one for the form fee and one for the biometrics fee. That way, if they do not need biometrics, they will hopefully send that check back. Take care, Jason
Hi everyone,
I applied yesterday for my EAD for the first time anyone knows
How long take in this days ?
three months
Some people are getting the EAD in 30 days, but we are seeing people wait 3 or 4 months, so it is difficult to predict. Take care, Jason
Hi sir ,
I am a green card holder best on asylum. I have applied for my wife’s green card 9 months ago but , no news yet . I got mine in 6 months .it has been delayed for her . I don’t know why. Do you know about the new process. Is any of your clients have been interviewed for green card . What is the new process look like . Thanks
The process is slower these days, and we generally tell people 10 to 12 months. One reason it is slower is because USCIS is supposedly interviewing asylee dependents. In any case, I think they are still well within the normal processing time. Take care, Jason
Dear jason
Do you know what kind of questions they ask in GC interview? Is it gor anyone or just randomly?
It depends on the case, and if you are applying for a GC after having received asylum as the principal applicant, probably you will not have an interview. If you do have an interview, one thing they ask about are all the questions listed on the I-485 form – the officer should go over those with you. Other questions depend on the case. Take care, Jason
Dear jason
What you mean by principal applicant ?
The principal applicant is the person who signed the I-589 and received a full interview. That person could include a spouse and children in the case. The spouse and children are dependents. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
Regarding the interview of asylee dependents, have you noticed a rise in the number of interviews conducted by uscis for derivative asylees adjustment of status? The changes seemed to at first been directed towards employment based adjustment of status and form I-730 relative petitions- Not derivative asylees who attended the interview with the principal asylee. Thank you for your insights as always.
I have not seen that – we don’t have many cases of dependents adjusting status, so I don’t really know the answer. As time goes on, we will know more, and if you are a dependent and receive an interview, please let us know as that will help others. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason and everyone
And hope you receive good news soon
Is there anyone who knows or applied for Los Angeles or San Francisco’s office in September 2015 and get the interview ?
Thanks
Hi Jason, I need your suggestion on few things if you’ll say something it will be great help.
(1) I applied asylum on Aug 2015 still waiting for an interview,have any idea when I’ll get call for that?
(2) I’m planing to go to third country to see my family as my parents desparete to see me and they have some health issue I decided I’ll go and meet them, Is it ok to travel with Advance Parole and safely get back in? Any of your advice will be greatly appreciate.
And last thing is my passport is expired and I need to renew for travel,is it explainable to the officer on interview day that I had important need to travel or they will 100% count my mistake and reject my case.
Let me know what you think.
Thanks.
I’m not Jason D. nor attorney but here are some of my thoughts:
(1) Hard to say. It depends on which asylum office your case if pending, case load, LIFO effects and many other factors. As the new scheduling rolls in, we shall see how the Asylum Office will process legacy cases. It is not yet clear as to their exact approach.
(2) and (Last) is basically same question. In short, I STRONGLY DISCOURAGE YOU RENEWING YOUR PASSPORT.
Is it legally OK? absolutely. But it will hurt your case VERY BADLY NO MATTER YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES.
The problem with renewal your passport is irrelevant with the reason of your travel. It hurt your case because, it will casts doubt in AO/IJ’s mind that your government(I assume) is not aware of your activities and/or do not have the intention to harm you. I totally understand that such doubt might not be true and the law does not require the government ALREADY knew your activities. But that’s not how most AO/IJ/BIA saw things.
By renewing your passport, you are just handing them one strong reason to deny your case. Especially at the AO level.
At the minimum, your case will become more difficult. You need a lot of explanation and don’t forget, asylum process is very subjective. AO/IJ might doubt your story because you are able to renew your passport which lead them to cite some other minor inconsistencies to discredit you. And it’s in the law that they are not required to use inconsistencies that goes to the heart of your claim.
Believe me this happens a lot (AO/IJ ‘refer’/deny your case due to their bias but of course they didn’t say so).
In summary, it’s not 100% denial of your case. But it is a very strong negative factor in general (Some AO/IJ are more empathetic but most of the mare not). I understand you and your parents’ pain, but end of the day you have to weight the danger of denial of your case and face deportation, or cannot meeting your parents (if they cannot fly to USA).
If you have an AP and valid passport, it’s generally safe to travel to 3rd country (unless your are a N.K. citizen who travels to S.K.).
Hi “Jason”, I agree with most of what you are saying. However, I disagree that you shouldn’t renew your passport as it would definitely hurt your case. I know several people who renewed their passports, travelled overseas (this was pre-President Trump so this might have some bearing), and they never encountered the type of difficulty you are opining.
First, you must understand that NOT all asylum applicants fear their government. Many asylum applicants actually fear their fellow countrymen.
However, If you fear your government and you renewed your passport, then chances are your case will be rejected at the asylum office as the AO would want to know how you were able to successfully renew your passport and travel on said passport, if you fear your government. This, I believe, would amount to voluntarily re-availing yourself to the protection of your government, which, when you think about it, would be absurd and imprudent.
If, however, your claim is not about your government, you may argue that applying for the passport does not negate your claimed fear, as it is not your government that you fear.
Aside from the aforesaid, it is imperative that an asylum applicant knows that he/she runs risks when he/she leaves mainland US and or applies for the country’s passport of feared persecution.
You are right, that’s why I mentioned that “I assume” the applicant is escaping from the government, which consists of most of the Asylum cases.
However, as I mentioned even if you renew your passport in such cases it does not mean that you are not qualified for asylum in legal terms.
It is perfectly possible that the entities issuing the passport abroad is the government body that might harm you is different.
To your point of available yourself to the protection of the government, it might not be voluntary as it is the US government that forces the applicant to renew passport by somewhat unlawfully delaying process of such applicant’s asylum claim thus there is NO possible way that the applicant could travel outside US.
It should also be highlighted that Anny could and should request an expedited interview. If denied he/she shall have some valid reason for passport renewal.
That being said, in AO/IJ’s view there is a high chance such action would negatively impact the case. It does not mean you do not have legal stand just the complications that has to be balanced.
Please also do talk to an attorney for a careful review of your specific case.
1 – I don’t, and it varies by office. The most I know, I wrote about on February 28, 2018. 2 – I know of no examples where someone traveled with AP and could not get back to the US, so I think it is safe. 3 – You will need to explain. If you fear the home government (which will issue the passport) it is more of a problem than if you fear terrorists and your government cannot protect you. We have had clients renew the passport and not have an issue, but it could be an issue, and so you should be prepared to explain. Take care, Jason
Thank you for the advice.
TRIG community,
Since I only suspect that my case is being reviewed under TRIG law, and have not heard any word from USCIS to confirm my suspicions. I would like to inquire some statistics on this website community. Whoever was falgged as TRIG, how long did it take them to officially put your case on hold because of TRIG? How many interviews you have been through until you received the official notice of TRIG. What is their common behavior on this matter?
Hi Ertu
What is your current immigration status? And have you recieved any communication from USCIS telling you that your case is been reviewed under TRIG?
Hi Jason
Thanks for all the help and support you have for us
I have applied for asylum last year and want to know if I can buy an apartment here in USA ? Am I eligible for bank loan etc
Thanks and regards
You have to talk to the bank (or different banks if the first one says no) about a loan, but I have clients who buy property here. There is no reason you cannot do that. Take care, Jason
Thank you so much
Regards
I’m a legal (not-yet approved) immigrant. And I support CIS’s position.
There is one thing that the main stream media and many pro-immigration group ignore: rule of law and fairness.
As an attorney and law professor, you should understand the principles of law and our democracy process in general. Laws are never perfect, but they have to be enforced.
Take the example of DACA. The main stream media does not even call them “illegal” and, don’t think DACA law( if passed) is simply another amnesty.
For illegal immigrants, I do not hate them. But, I firmly believe they should all be put into removal proceedings, and deported, according to law (with respect to their full due process rights and available waivers/relieves).
You came in illegally, unless you are eligible for other relief, you shall be deported. Period. Because it’s the law. America is not a country without borders that allow everyone to come and stay.
I have spent 1/3 of life here, and I do not qualify for so called DACA even though I’m perfectly following every single bits of the law. So, I and all my fellow highly educated co-workers are punished for following the law. My India co-workders face decade long wait for their PR status, without EAD(mostly), and their children who passed 21 while they wait will have to leave (and NOT covered by DACA-related laws if they ever pass).
I don’t see the logic here. It’s just not right. Where is the “heart” of Americans to our legal immigrants who are chasing our American dream?? Why only those law breakers deserve some “heart”??
CIS makes lots of points, so I am not sure what you support or don’t support. However, the fact that you support due process and rule of law means that you are in agreement with most pro-immigration advocates, including me. Also, I think you are conflating the problem of illegal and legal immigration. You seem to think that “illegal” are somehow taking something from “legal” immigrants, but there is no evidence for that. Also, of course, seeking asylum is legal in the US, regardless of visa status or how you entered the country. That is the law that we (the US) created, so I guess I am not sure what you are disagreeing with (or agreeing with?). Take care, Jason
I do see where you’re coming from, but you have to understand something: As a legal immigrant, I dislike the Byzantine and outdated immigration system we have in the US, as you rightfully point out. This system needs a serious overhaul, and I agree with you on that: We, legal immigrants, have to deal with a vexing and onerous set of rules. But here’s the thing, while some undocumented immigrants come here just because they want to make more money, there’s thousands more who escape their countries because of a well-founded fear.
I have talked to many undocumented immigrants who have told me they would go back in a heartbeat if they could, but they can’t, and that’s the point of the asylum system and this website.
You also have to remember that, as a legal immigrant, plenty of things that are easy for you aren’t for undocumented immigrants: getting a social security card, a driver’s license, tax benefits, higher-paying jobs, or the simple fact that you can choose to walk to your local grocery store without fear when you see a cop.
I agree, sometimes it seems like this system gives less consideration to us when others demand the right to stay here, but remember, there’s thousands of them with stories of courage, and perseverance when facing adversity that you may or may not have experienced in your life. Which is, again, the reason why everybody has the right to apply for asylum.
Mariano,
Maybe you mis-understood, I support and believe in Asylum system itself.
The law give illegal aliens, in some cases, relief from deportation. That includes asylum (and some other form). For those truly face danger in their home country, a civilized society shall provide shelter.
What I do not support, however, is abuse of such systems, and another amnesty without complete fix of border security. That will be unfair to legal immigrants and bad for American society.
But nobody here, I’m sure, supports an abuse to the system. I’m pretty sure everybody would agree that those who file frivolous claims just for the sake of staying here or to get an EAD without a meritorious claim, shouldn’t be here or apply for asylum in the first place. Every system is going to have some degree of abuse, and we should all work to make it less so.
But your idea on how we should go about is wrong: For example, visa overstays outnumber illegal border crossings (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/visa-overstays-outnumber-illegal-border-crossings-trend-expected-continue-n730216), which means a “fix” (and I’m assuming you’re talking about a wall) is POINTLESS. You want to reduce illegal immigration? Then something must be done about visa overstays.
Your rhetoric is particularly dangerous, as you mirror that of the Presidents: “let’s blame all our ailments on illegal aliens, who also happen to be criminals, and rapists, etc.” This type of vitriol is not constructive, useful, and leads to further division and alienation. The last president to grant amnesty was Reagan, so I don’t know what time frame you’re referring to here. And for the reasons I stated above, we, legal immigrants, clearly enjoy more benefits than undocumented immigrants.
I would add that this idea that illegal immigrants somehow have advantages or benefits over legal immigrants (or US citizens) is a myth. Take care, Jason
Mariano, it seems to me that you, as a legal immigrant, take issue with the current immigration system. You’ve concluded that the system isn’t working and therefore needs a complete overhaul. You also said that, as a legal immigrant, you have to deal with a “vexing” and “onerous” set of rules. ???
I am curious. What part(s) of the immigration system you believe is(are) not working? How do you suggest the US government overhaul the immigration system?
You also concluded that sometimes the system- and I assuming that you are referring to the current immigration system- gives less to legal immigrants like yourself when others (I am also assuming that you are referring to undocumented immigrants) “demand the right to stay here”. Can you provide examples of this?
The current immigration system is outdated in the sense that it does not meet the demand of a global, fast-paced economic milieu in which the US is a key player. Hundreds of people applying for work visas have to wait years and years to get approved, sometimes having to return to their countries because their current permits have expired; green cards via family sponsorships take sometimes 10, 15, 20 years to get approved. And this is only waiting time. Then comes the fact that there are hundreds and hundreds of obscure, arcane immigration policies and rules sometimes you don’t even know you’re breaking that could put you in legal jeopardy (e.g. did you know that as an F-1 Student visa-holder you’re required to file taxes EVEN if you did not earn any income in the US? I found out about this because I am an accountant, but hundreds of international students are TOLD they don’t have to worry about it, but not filing is a violation of your immigration status).
Then comes the fact that, more often than not, legal immigrants try to avail themselves of professional legal counsel, which can be quite costly. As an international student, you also have access to limited financial aid (which is why US colleges love international students), and sometimes you’re subject to special university regulations (such as having to buy insurance through the school, which is often more expensive). If you choose to apply for a work visa after (assuming you first find an employer WILLING to sponsor you), your chances of getting one are determined through a lottery–not merit, which means that if you don’t get one, you’ll have to go back to school and try again some other time. Even getting married can be costly (and I’m not talking about throwing a bachelor’s party), you have to prove (or your spouse) you have enough money to guarantee you won’t become a “public charge,” and you have to pay fees for adjusting your status on top of attorney costs, etc.
These are just SOME of the regulations that makes the immigration system rather archaic. I have friends and family who have moved to France and Sweden as students, and after 5 years (usually), they’re eligible to become citizens. That’s not the case in the US. This is what some people refer to when they complain about undocumented immigrants coming and working here, but like I have said before, every case is different and, at the end of the day, as much as I dislike these rules, they’ve allowed me to live comfortably and with peace of mind to pursue a career, something most undocumented immigrants do not enjoy.
Mariano, very well said. I agree with you. I doubt a lot of the proponents of overhauling the immigration system would agree with you, though. I think their idea of overhauling is limiting the number of people who can legally immigrate to the US.
The current philosophy seems to be fewer immigrants = more jobs for Americans. But I think this is outdated (if it was ever true). It seems that most economists agree that immigration is generally an overall positive on the economy, even if some workers are adversely affected. Also, a very high percentage of new business are started by immigrants, and this seems a large positive for our economy. Take care, Jason
Jason (the other Jason- NOT Jason Dzubow), first of all, the media does in fact refer to DACA recipients as “illegal aliens brought to the US a children”. To me, this characterization does not make sense as their unlawful presence would have ended once they were recognized as DACA recipients by the US government. I may be wrong, given the complexity of the immigration laws and the fact that I am not an immigration lawyer, but do illegal immigrants qualify for an EAD and advance parole? It’s tantamount to saying that asylum applicants, TPS recipients, people given conditional green cards whose American spouses petition for them (a lot of whom become “illegal” immigrants before they are petitioned for by their US spouses), etc. are illegal immigrants.
Secondly, you seem to have a very limited understanding of DACA. DACA is similar in characteristics to humanitarian reliefs: The previous administration reckoned that deporting this group of young people en masse would be inhumane and possibly impractical. The administration, therefore, bestowed upon these people, via executive action- which the last time I checked, such action is made possible by the US constitution- some kind of “quasi” (for want of a better adjective) legal status.
While I do not condone the root cause of DACA, many of the people who benefit from DACA were brought to the US as very young children, sometimes as toddlers. Many of these young people do not have any recollection of their country of birth. Also, many of them don’t even speak the language, or have any relation to the cultural norms of the countries that they were born in.
Thirdly, were you attempting to blame DACA recipients or “illegal immigrants” for delays in processing of green cards for your “Indian co-workers”? If so, neither “illegal immigrants” nor DACA recipients are eligible for green cards currently.
Fourth, are you blaming legit DACA recipients for spending 1/3 of your life here and still “do not qualify for so called DACA”? Let me see if I can help you with this one: I am guessing because you either don’t meet the laws’ requirements (yes, these same laws you proudly talk about) to be granted DACA status, or you failed to apply for DACA status when you were eligible- if you were ever eligible.
I am not sure what you mean by you and your highly educated co-workers are being punished because you’re following the law. Can someone please show me where in the US immigration laws that expressly- or implicitly- says that people are to be punished for being too smart/for following the law? Continuing on topic of being smart, I hope when you were talking about you and your “highly educated” co-workers, you weren’t putting yourself in that same category of people.
Fifth, you claim that anyone who enters illegally and doesn’t qualify for any relief “shall” be deported. By using the word “shall”, are you making new laws here? I am sorry, I was just being a jerk by asking this rhetorical question.
You concluded by saying you don’t see the logic in the arguments that you presented. Could the reason for not seeing logic lie in the way you put forward the argument?
Oh Jamie,
When can I buy you lunch?? Infact, you and dear Sarah😁😁😁😁. I speak my mind, and when I find people who do so, sensibly, I rejoice. 😂😂😂😂Thank you for cracking me up.
LOL @ Tina
High fives, Tina 😊 Drinks on me!
Jamie,
Fist of all, for me, DACA recipients are not legal. You can argue whatever you like. But to be a legal immigrants, the congress must passed laws to designate so. Asylum, Marriage, TPS, or an amnesty like they did to Chinese students back in the 90s. They are all passed through the congress. So that is called a lawful status.
Lawful status is different from an authorized stay. US government can authorize your stay but cannot grant you lawful status unless authorized so by the congress. That is why DACA CANNOT be legal immigrants. The government simply do not have the authority to do so (yet). They cannot make DACA recipients legal but can authorize their stay or issue EAD (but if the states sue it’s highly likely states will win)
Secondly, your point of view for humanitarian is mooted. Legal immigrants’ children who are brought here legally when they are also VERY YOUNG like you mentioned for DACA, but their Indian parents waited 20 years for their PR status so they passed 21. Guess what happens to them? Where is your humanitarian for these kids?
Thirdly, I didn’t blame DACA recipients for the backlog.
Forth, Again, I do not blame them for what happens to me. That is US congress and government’s fault. I just feel unfair that DACA people might be able to cut through the line.
Think about the example of a legal dreamer’s story I mentioned. That’s what I mean by being punished. Illegal guys got EAD, legal dreamers got to be deported.
Fifth, Hell no. It’s the law. What I mean is that anyone who the law says has to be deported shall be deported. I only mean to enforce the law. That’s all. I simply don’t get it which part you didn’t understand so you have to accuse me “making new laws here”. The immigration laws today clearly mandates deportation for those who enters illegally unless they qualify for a form of relief such as asylum(or, of course, some form of waiver to convert to lawful status such as waivers available to marriage PR).
“Jason” (quotations used to distinguish the two Jasons), the media, politicians, and ordinary people like me and you may classify DACA recipients as “illegal aliens”; however, technically and legally speaking, they are not. According to 6 CFR 37.3 (Title 6 – Homeland Security; Chapter I – Department Of Homeland Security, Office Of The Secretary; Part 37 -Real Id Driver’s Licenses And Identification Cards; Subpart A – General), a person in lawful status is “a citizen or national of the United States; or an alien: lawfully admitted for permanent or temporary residence in the United States; with conditional permanent resident status in the United States; who has an approved application for asylum in the United States or has entered into the United States in refugee status; who has a valid non-immigrant status in the United States; who has a pending application for asylum in the United States; who has a pending or approved application for temporary protected status (TPS) in the United States; who has approved deferred action status; or who has a pending application for lawful permanent residence (LPR) or conditional permanent resident status. This definition does not affect other definitions or requirements that may be contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act or other laws.”
Furthermore, according to americanbar.org (2016), citied on Wikipedia, though the US Constitution does not have a provision that explicitly permits the use of executive power, ”Article Two of the United States Constitution gives the president broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive branch .” Also, according to constitution.org, “An executive order is a directive from the President that has much of the same power as a federal law.” Thus, from a technical point, an executive order granting a protection status such as DACA, at least until the congress has determined otherwise, does in fact render recipients of DACA lawfully residing in the US. This is the reason, for example, DACA recipients can be admitted back into the US after travelling abroad. As well, this is the reason DACA recipients are eligible for work authorization. There are many categories, despite not being lawfully admitted as PR in the US, of lawful status in the US- DACA being one of them. An asylum applicant, for example, is not lawfully admitted but is “authorized” to remain in the US until a decision has been made on the applicant’s case for asylum. It’s just a matter of matter of different sources of law; all in all, both categories of people are authorized to stay until a final decision has been made.
I stand corrected (it sounds, to me, like you are blaming DACA for your woes with the US immigration system): You are NOT being punished because of the DACA recipients’ challenges. That’s a very false, and insensitive, claim. If you are referring to family petitions, Indians waiting for 20 years for green cards is as a direct result of the US government. The aforesaid is purposely done by the US government because of the large number of Indians immigrating to the US. Other than family petitions (I may be wrong), I don’t know of any other green card applicants waiting for 20 years unless they are essentially barred from adjusting status, or they have a thorny issue such as a TRIG case, for example. In the end, DACA recipients should NOT be blamed for the amount of time you wait to adjust status. Have you ever tried putting your feet in the shoes of the DACA recipients, so to speak?
I am not sure if you were attempting to conflate DACA recipients with “illegal immigrants” when you said if you entered illegally, and have no possible way of adjusting your status, or qualifying for some kind of humanitarian relief, but that is not something I am willing to debate with you. That would be futile. And, I am humbly suggesting that you don’t beat yourself up over who can adjust their status to LPR. I think that there is a system in place- fair or not- that ultimately determines if you can adjust status. Sometimes you never know what kind of situations you, or a family member, can find yourself in.
Thank you – that is the closest definition of “legal” and “illegal” alien that I have seen in the law. It also helps clarify the use of such terms, which are not actual defined terms in the statute, but are used in the immigration debate all the time. Take care, Jason
I agree with you on the point that DACA receipts is residing legally in the US. That is what an “authorized stay” means.
However, in any practical terms they are not legal immigrants or more non-immigrants.
You mentioned that they can travel outside US and then ADMITTED back to the US. That is simply not true. Because DACA is not a legal status in any legal terms, they simply CANNOT be admitted into the US. They are PAROLED into the US. There is a huge difference here.
Most, if not all, DACA recipients are not admissible to the US because of their prior illegal entries (to be clear I’m not blaming them for this just stating a fact from an immigration law perspective). This creates a legal bar for them to apply for most legal status in the US.
While you can argue that DACA recipients are legal, such arguments are not only mooted but also meaningless in practical terms.
Arizona Supreme Court’s decision that DACA recipients are not eligible for in-state tuition is a (definitely) correct and good example of this (no matter how heart breaking the judgement might sounds). In immigration laws, DACA is not in any terms a legal status (unless the congress issues an amnesty). Legal status is important as only (non)immigrants that have such status could change their status in the US. DACA recipients simply CANNOT change their status with USCIS (of course, unless they qualify for a legal waiver). They cannot get H-1B, they cannot get F-1. Because they are not legal.
Even if I agree with you that they are indeed legal immigrants, it’s meaningless. Because practically they are not eligible for the legal benefits legal (non)immigrants normally enjoy and they are most likely still not admissible to the US.
Of course there is a system in place for LPR, which I’m quite familiar with. I can say with some certainty that most DACA recipients are not eligible to adjustment of status (for the reasons discussed above. And with exceptions to some waivers or relief). Otherwise they would have done so. Let alone LPR, they cannot even change to non-immigration status due to the fact that they are not considered legal in immigration law terms.
And Jason(not Jason Dzubow)prays : “Dear Mr president , here I stand before you…A perfect legal immigrant.I pay my taxes, drive speed limit, I even volunteer, super educated, and very righteous too. I deserve to be a citizen, but I could manage a green card. Why? Because I am not like the illegals, those asylum seekers,those daca people who came here illegally, who are not as righteous as I am. Can’ t you see that my kids are more important than those daca kids? My kids came legally and the daca kids crossed the border by themselves illegally.” I could go on and on but your point of view is BS. Do you know what people go through? Concentrate on being promoted from semi legal to legal, and leave people alone to fight their battles. Fortunately, you have no say and your opinion is irrelevant to the government.
Tina,
I have to say you sounds like those from a hate group. First of all, I never say Asylum seekers are illegal. As a matter of fact, I personally advocate, and helped many of them. And, it is in the law, that allows people to apply for asylum as a relief for deportation. It’s totally legal.
However, the DACA, on the other hand, is very likely to be illegal on the same grounds as DAPA. If the same states sue DACA using the same grounds they sue DAPA, DACA will be stopped right there.
I mentioned in my comments as well as in the followups, that I think people shall enjoy full due process and any legal relief if they qualify. If you face life threatening danger back home, for all reasons you deserve asylum. Or if your American citizen /PR family member will face extreme difficulties, I have no problem for you to have green card.
What I have a problem with, however, is for people who only face minor difficulties using people’s empathy to cut through the lines.
What Jason D mentioned that illegal immigrants have some benefits that legal immigrants do not have is a myth. Well not quite. Like I mentioned already, for example, your immigrants or “dreamers” who came here with their parents legally, who passed 21 while their parents when through the legal PR process, will have to leave the country. (BTW most of them do leave even though they face the same difficulties most of the DACA recipients will face) . Even though they might otherwise qualify for DACA, they will not be able to get EAD like illegal immigrants do. So, here it is. Illegal immigrants will have more benefits than a legal immigrants even though they are exactly the same other than their legal status.
To some degree you are right. I’m not happy with this. But I will not pray like that assuming some supremacy because of some legal status. I’m unhappy for the same reason people will be pissed off when they lined up in a long queue and some random guy squeezed into the front of the queue.
Finally, I have no issues with DACA recipients. I also have no issues give them(referring to individuals not otherwise qualify for legal relief) legal status, provided they shall not have employment authorization or any PR pathway unless they qualify otherwise, or until all legal immigrants before them are cleared from the backlog.
Hate group? I rest my case! Goodluck with being “legal”.
Where I disagree is that some illegal immigrants have more rights than legal immigrants. Any “rights” immigrants have, besides due process, are derived from statute and interpretation of statute, and so effectively their “rights” are what we as a society offer them. Since terms like “legal” and “illegal” immigrant are not legal terms (they are lay terms), it is not possible to really compare what each type of immigrant receives, as these categories are not legal categories – they are general labels applied by non-lawyers – and so each alien’s “rights” really depend on what statutory rights they can claim. In other words, I think there is no way to really compare how “legals” and “illegals” are treated by the immigration law. I do think we can say that certain people who seem to behave worse than others might receive better treatment than seems fair. Maybe that is a more accurate way to put it, but since we (the United States) decides what each alien is entitled to, I think the only real argument to be made is that the law should be changed to be more fair; the implementation of the law is exactly as “we” decided it should be. Take care, Jason
Apparently, I haven’t been following this blog long enough to know what CIS was, but clicking on the hyperlinked words was helpful.
I agree with the point you’re making about not excluding them from the discussion, but I also understand why the gentleman was dis-invited — this is based on my very quick glance at the content this organization puts out.
I’m picturing the debate organizers seeing his name, and collectively saying “ain’t nobody got time for that” like the meme lady. And I get it.
Still agree with you, though, and I sort of may have kind of peeped an Austin Powers joke somewhere that may or may not have been intentional, but still made me laugh. Yes, some of us are that juvenile.
I don’t agree with CIS on most things, but I do think it is very important to engage with them. Especially at a law school, where there should be plenty of tolerance for unpopular views (after all, dealing with people who disagree with you is basically the job description of “lawyer”). As for the joke, no comment. Take care, Jason