The murder of Laken Riley–a promising young nursing student–has spurred renewed calls for a crackdown against illegal migration into our country. Ms. Riley was allegedly killed by a Venezuelan man who entered the United States at the Southern border in September 2022.
In response to the killing, Republicans hammered the Biden Administration’s border policy: “Innocent Americans from Laken Riley in Georgia to the 14-year-old rape victim of an illegal immigrant in our home state of Louisiana…. They’ve all been victimized by those whom the Biden administration has released into our country,” says Speaker of the House Mike Johnson.
While there are instances of people crossing the border and then committing crimes, blaming all migrants for the bad acts of a very few is unfair and intellectually dishonest. That’s because immigrants–including “illegal” immigrants–improve our country in many ways and actually save the lives of many Americans each year. (more…)
Last week, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) wrote a letter urging the Biden Administration to “take action to manage migration at the U.S. southern border in an orderly and effective manner while also ensuring a fair and humane process for people arriving at our borders.” That’s an excellent idea. The problem comes with the implementation, and here, AILA’s solutions fall short. (more…)
The long-awaited bipartisan border security billhas finally been released. The bill was negotiated by Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT), Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), and James Lankford (R-OK).
Before details of the bill were even released publicly, Donald Trump came out against it. His main objection seems to be a fear that the bill might improve conditions at the Southern border, which would potentially harm his chances for re-election. As a result of his opposition, many House Republicans–including Speaker Mike Johnson–have labeled the bill “dead on arrival.” It is even questionable whether the bill can pass the Senate. While the chances for passage seem low, the bill could still have an effect. If Republicans are seen as opposing reasonable border reform, it might just come back to haunt them in the upcoming election.
Politics aside, let’s discuss the provisions of the bill, and how it might affect asylum if it happens to become law. (more…)
Last week, a federal court struck down President Biden’s border enforcement rule, known as the Circumvention of Normal Pathways rule. The decision jeopardizes “the administration’s strictest deterrence measure to date and comes as illegal border crossings have plunged to their lowest level since President Joe Biden’s first full month in office.”
Today, we’ll discuss the Biden Administration’s rule, why a judge found that the rule is illegal, and the practical and political implications of the court’s ruling. (more…)
The Associated Press recently reported that DHS will implement a “limited experiment” to provide detained migrants at the border with “access to legal counsel.” The new approach will start with a “tiny number of migrants,” and then perhaps expand from there. DHS is partnering with an as-yet-unnamed organization to supply the attorneys, who will help with credible fear interviews (initial evaluations of asylum eligibility for newly arriving migrants). The program is part of DHS’s efforts to accommodate the end of Title 42, which had restricted the number of people eligible to seek asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, and which is expected to wrap up in a few weeks.
This new “limited experiment” calls to mind the ongoing effort by advocates to create an immigration public defender’s service, which would provide everyone in Immigration Court access to a lawyer. These efforts have not made much progress, and currently, very few noncitizens in Immigration Court receive a government-appointed attorney.
Here, I want to discuss the benefits of universal representation for asylum seekers, including those in court and at the Asylum Office. I also want to suggest an alternative to representation by lawyers, who are expensive and relatively scarce. (more…)
The Biden Administration has proposed new regulations that restrict who is eligible to claim asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. The new rules anticipate the end of Title 42, a public-health program that limited the number of people who could seek protection at the border. Advocates have condemned the new measure, labeling it a “transit ban” that is unworkable and a violation of U.S. asylum law. Whether the policy is illegal, I am not sure, but it certainly seems unworkable in the sense that it will likely not deter many asylum seekers from coming to the border to ask for protection.
Here, I want to talk about the new rule, and what impact it might have on asylum seekers at the border and in the interior. (more…)
In response to record numbers of migrants arriving at our Southern border–2.2 million in FY2022–President Biden has announced some new rules designed to deter people from coming to our country to seek asylum. At the same time, these rules also open a new pathway for “up to 30,000 migrants from Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and Haiti… to enter the United States on ‘parole’ each month if they have financial sponsors here and pass background checks.”
Today, we’ll discuss the import of these new rules. We’ll also look at how the rules might affect asylum seekers who currently have cases before the Asylum Office or Immigration Court. (more…)
In a recent editorial, the Washington Post opined that Congress’s failure to pass immigration reform has led to the ongoing crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border. But even without Congress, the Biden Administration can use its regulatory power to better define the term “refugee” and thus better control who is eligible to enter the United States under our asylum law. (more…)
As an attorney who represents asylum seekers, I believe our country has a moral duty to help those coming to us for protection. I also believe that we as a nation benefit from our asylum system. Aside from enriching our country with patriotic, hard-working individuals, the asylum system makes manifest our highest ideals–freedom of religion and speech, democracy, equality, and women’s and minorities’ rights.
Unfortunately, those of us who support a robust humanitarian immigration system have not convinced enough of our countrymen on that point. Indeed, a poll of Trump voters found that their #2 and #3 most important issues are more secure borders and a more restrictive immigration system (the #1 issue for these voters was preservation of individual rights). Contrast that with Biden voters, who feel less strongly about reducing barriers to migration (ranking “being open to immigration” as the #27 most important issue facing our country, out of 55 issues surveyed).
There is little doubt that these views find expression in the voting booth–President Trump based his 2016 campaign on anti-immigration themes and we know how that turned out. (more…)
Last week, the Biden Administration released its Blueprint for a Fair, Orderly, and Humane Immigration System. The Blueprint contains a number of components. Here, we will discuss two: Expedited Removal and “fairness of the U.S. asylum system.” Despite the Administration’s good intentions, I fear that we cannot have it both ways. Either we have a system to remove new arrivals expeditiously or we have a system to fairly adjudicate asylum applications at the border. We cannot have both.
Let’s start with some numbers. The crisis at the Southern border seems to be perpetually getting worse. In June 2021 (the most recent month where data is available), “CBP encountered 188,829 persons attempting entry along the Southwest Border.” “This total represented a five percent increase over May 2021.” More than a third of these would-be migrants had made a prior attempt to enter the U.S., and so if you look only at “unique new encounters,” the numbers are slightly lower for 2021 than they were for 2019. Perhaps that’s good news (since repeat customers can be dealt with more quickly than new arrivals), or maybe its bad news (since migrants are not being deterred from repeated attempts to illegally enter the U.S.). The majority of those who arrive at the border are expelled under a public health directive related to the pandemic (in June 2021, 103,014 people were refused entry under this directive). More significantly for our purposes, during June 2021, there were 10,003 credible and reasonable fear cases recorded at the border. These are initial claims for asylum by arriving noncitizens. Of these, 4,464 people “passed” their credible or reasonable fear interviews and will presumably be permitted to apply for asylum before an Immigration Judge–at an expedited removal hearing. (more…)
The number of migrants arriving at the U.S. Southern border has been increasing since President Biden took office. According to one DHS official, “We are on pace to encounter more individuals on the southwest border than we have in the last 20 years.” Border agents have been turning away most adults and families based on a Trump-era public health rule. But unaccompanied minors are being admitted, and the Biden Administration is ramping up efforts to accommodate them.
The border situation represents three different crises. First is the crisis of violence and poverty in Central America and Mexico, which is pushing people to flee those countries.
Second, is the border “crisis” itself. I put crisis in quotes, since the influx of migrants is very manageable. Last month, for example, about 9,500 unaccompanied minors arrived at the border. Our country has the resources to humanely process this many young people. Indeed, when compared with historic trends, the overall number of arrivals during the last decade is significantly lower than what we’ve seen in the 1980s and 1990s. And so if there is a crisis at the Southern border, it is more about our willingness to deal with the influx, rather than our capacity.
The third crisis–and the one I want to discuss here–is the political crisis. New polling from Populace illustrates the crux of the problem: There is a sharp partisan divide on the issue of immigration. Trump voters rank “severely restricting immigration” as the #3 most important issue facing America. In contrast, Biden voters rank this as the #46 most important issue (out of 55 issues surveyed). For the question of whether America “is open to immigration,” Trump voters rank this as # 52 and Biden voters rank it as # 27. In short, Trump voters have strongly negative feelings about immigration, while Biden voters have moderately positive views towards immigration. There are a few lessons we can draw from this survey. (more…)
It’s less than two months since President Biden took office, and already it seems we are facing a new surge of arrivals at our Southern border. The increase is being attributed to the continuing dire conditions in Mexico and Central America, Mr. Biden’s promise to treat asylum seekers humanely, and pent up demand among migrants who were deterred by the Trump Administration’s harsh policies. Republican strategists are (predictably) teeing up Latin American migration as a “wedge issue” for the 2022 midterm elections, and so the situation at the border is not only a humanitarian crisis, but also a political crisis.
To address the problem, Mr. Biden is sending more resources to the border, expanding shelter capacity, and continuing a policy of the Trump Administration to turn away most adults and families based on the public health emergency (under Title 42 of the U.S. Code). His Administration is also trying to encourage would-be migrants to stay home. It seems pretty obvious that none of these measures will end the crisis. So what can be done? (more…)
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court has allowed a new asylum regulation to go into effect, at least until questions about the legality of that regulation work their way through the court system. Until now, the rule had been on hold, thanks to an interim decision by a lower federal court. The regulation–colloquially known as Asylum Ban 2.0–bars certain people from asylum, depending on when and where they entered the United States. Whether the regulation will ultimately be upheld by the courts is not yet known, but obviously, the Supreme Court’s decision does not bode well.
Here, we’ll take a look at the effect of the new rule on asylum applicants and on “the system.”
First, let’s talk about who is blocked by the regulation. The rule applies only to people who arrive at “the southern land border” of the United States. So if you arrive in the U.S. at an airport or seaport, or if you arrive by boat or drop in by parachute at a place other than the southern land border, the rule does not apply to you. Even if you arrived at the southern land border, the regulation does not apply to you if you got here prior to July 16, 2019. Those who arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border on or after July 16, 2019 are affected.
There are many ways to avoid the southern land border.
If you are affected by the regulation, you are barred from asylum unless (1) you demonstrate that you applied for protection from persecution or torture in at least one country outside your country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence through which you transited en route to the United States, and that you received a final judgment denying your application for protection in such country; or (2) you demonstrate that you satisfy the definition of “victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons” provided in 8 C.F.R. § 214.11.
So the first exception requires the alien to seek protection in a third country en route to the U.S. It’s worth noting that if you are seeking asylum from Mexico, the rule does not apply to you, since you have not passed through a third country. If you are from some other country, the only way to arrive at the southern land border is to pass through Mexico. Some people pass through dozens of countries to reach the U.S.-Mexico border; other people pass through only one country (Mexico). The regulation requires that you seek asylum in one of those countries; the regulation does not require you to seek asylum in more than one country.
In the preamble to the regulation, our government justifies its new policy by claiming that Mexico’s asylum system is a “robust protection regime.” This seems doubtful. Most reports indicate that the Mexican asylum system is overburdened and flawed. Moreover, the situation in Mexico is unsafe for many people trying to reach the U.S. Most other countries that asylum seekers might pass through are no better. And so the idea of barring asylum seekers simply because they did not seek asylum in a country that was unsafe for them and/or that does not have a functioning asylum system seems unfair (especially for those who did not know about the rule, which is effectively retroactive) and cruel.
What then do you do if the new rule applies to you? For people who are not yet here, my guess is that some of them will start seeking asylum in third countries and being denied. It seems to me that the rule will create a cottage industry where any Mexican or Central American official with a “no” stamp can issue a denial, and then the asylum applicant can use that denial to support a claim for asylum in the U.S. For people who arrive after July 16, 2019 and who have not tried to obtain asylum in a third country, there are still two main options–Withholding of Removal (“WOR”) and relief under the UN Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Both forms of relief are potentially available to people who fear persecution in their home countries, though they are both inferior in terms of benefits when compared to asylum. Also, the evidentiary burden for WOR and CAT is higher than the burden to obtain asylum. Nevertheless, WOR and CAT are forms of protection that remain available to asylum seekers, even those who are blocked by the new regulation.
The second exception to Asylum Ban 2.0 applies to victims of human trafficking. The regulation defines trafficking victim as follows–
Severe form of trafficking in persons means sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act is under the age of 18 years; or the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery
This is pretty broad and pretty vague. People who have been subject to sexual abuse or forced labor might meet this exception. Also, unlike the first requirement about seeking asylum in a third country, the regulation does not require that the trafficking took place “en route to the United States.” Potentially then, if you were ever a victim of human trafficking, you might qualify for this exception to the asylum ban.
Asylum Ban 2.0 will undoubtedly make it more difficult for certain people to obtain protection in the United States. That is the whole point. But I have my doubts about whether the new rule will accomplish what the Trump Administration hopes to accomplish, which is to deter people from coming here to seek asylum. The new regulation does not block people from WOR or CAT, and so when they arrive at the border and ask for protection, they will still be accorded a credible or reasonable fear interview (which is an initial evaluation of eligibility for asylum, WOR, and CAT). While it may now be more difficult to “pass” such an interview, the difference in the burden of proof between asylum and the burden for WOR or CAT is fuzzy, and it seems to me that aliens who would have passed for purposes of asylum may very well also pass for purposes of WOR and CAT. Thus, asylum seekers will still be entering the system, and so the deterrent effect of the new rule will probably be less than what the Administration wants. Further, I just don’t believe that people will be deterred from coming here by the Administration raising the bar a few notches. Look what is happening in the Mediterranean: Every year, thousands of migrants are killed trying to get to Europe, yet still they come. If people are not deterred by the real possibility of dying, it seems doubtful that they will be deterred by a higher legal hurdle.
In the end, I doubt that this new regulation will do much to alleviate the problem at the border or the backlogs in the Asylum and Immigration Court systems. However, it will hurt asylum seekers–by making it more difficult for them to get the protection they need and by encouraging those who arrive at the border to circumvent legal points of entry. The new regulation will also further erode morale among Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges, who simply want to follow the law. And finally, the new rule further degrades our country’s role as a beacon of hope and freedom for persecuted people throughout the world.
In case you hadn’t noticed, the asylum system has essentially collapsed. A lucky few still have their cases decided, but they seem to be a minority. It is painfully clear that the backlog continues to grow. It currently stands at about 327,000 affirmative asylum cases and more than 908,000 cases in Immigration Court (how many of these court cases involve asylum, I do not know). The heart of the problem is mathematical: Too many applicants; too few resources. Unfortunately, we are not moving towards a solution at either the legislative or regulatory levels.
In terms of new regulations and policies, the Trump Administration’s only apparent plan is to deter would-be asylum seekers by making the process more painful and by trying to block people from reaching our shores. In my opinion, making the asylum process more painful won’t work. That’s because whatever harm the Administration can impose (family separation, indefinite detention, “wait in Mexico,” hieleras, tear gas, stricter legal standards) pales in comparison to the harm many asylum seekers face if they return home (death). Asylum seekers, being rational actors, are simply choosing the lesser evil, and coming to the United States. Blocking people from coming here might be more effective, but again, I have my doubts. People are fleeing for their lives and determined to reach safety, and so gaining better cooperation from Mexico, building bigger walls, and tightening up visa requirements will only get us so far.
In today’s divisive environment, progress is measured in centimeters and Grahams.
The “problem” from the Trump Administration’s viewpoint is that the law of asylum still offers refuge to those fleeing persecution. Thus, the Administration’s efforts to change the regulations (which modify how the law is applied) can do only so much. To change the law requires Congressional action. During the first two years of Mr. Trump’s presidency–when Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress–there was no effort to reform the asylum law. Now, with the Democrats in control of the House, legislation is only possible if the two parties reach a compromise. And compromise in Washington has lately proved elusive (just a bit).
Elusive, yes, but perhaps not impossible. Recently, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham proposed changes to the asylum system to increase the length of time families can be held in detention and to add 500 new Immigration Judges, among other (mostly punitive) ideas. Despite the hard line, Mr. Graham expressed a willingness to “put other immigration ideas on the table to marry up with this.” Mr. Graham’s bill may be all stick and no carrot, but at least it signals a desire to address asylum reform. On the House side, the Democratic majority (with a few Republicans) passed a bill to protect Dreamers. Perhaps these opening bids could lead us in a productive direction.
The fact is, while asylum policy is a difficult issue, it should be amenable to a legislative fix. If politics were removed from the mix (a very big “if”), we could find policy solutions that would greatly improve the current situation. What would such a “solution” look like? Spoiler alert: I don’t have an answer. But I do have some ideas, at least about where we can get started–a foundation upon which legislation can be built. Here, I want to discuss the fundamental elements of this foundation:
– We must be honest about the problem: The Trump Administration has not been truthful about why asylum seekers are coming to our country, who they are, or what they do once they get here. It’s very difficult to move towards a reasonable policy solution when we are living in dystopian fantasy land. Asylum seekers are not invading our country. They are not coming to collect welfare or commit crimes. The data is pretty clear that they are basically regular people, who are coming here because they fear harm back home. They tend to commit fewer crimes than the average American, and they make an overall modest contribution to our economy. Reforming the asylum system will require a realistic and honest appraisal of asylum seekers, and so we have to stop the politically-motivated effort to demonize them.
– We need to decide who should receive asylum: The asylum law provides for five protected categories: Race, religion, nationality, political opinion, and particular social group (“PSG”). These categories exist because our nation decided to protect people who face these types of harm. Conversely, other types of harm–such as generalized violence in war or criminal violence–were not considered worthy of protection. Why did we make this distinction? Because these types of harm in some way reflect our national values (political freedom, religious freedom, and racial equality, to name a few). But these categories were largely created by white men to protect against harm inflicted on other white men, and national values evolve over time. In the case of the protected asylum categories, this evolution occurred through litigation, not through any sort of consensus legislation (with one exception, which relates to forced abortion and forced sterilization).
For example, litigation has expanded the definition of PSG to encompass a diverse range of applicants (LGBT individuals, victims of FGM, victims of domestic violence, members of a family, and many more) who were not on the radar when the law was created. This indeterminacy has led to shifting interpretations of the law (depending partly on the Administration in power), inconsistent decision-making at the individual level, and confusion and misinformation among asylum seekers about who is protected. This chaos has contributed to the influx of Central American migrants arriving at our Southern border, who are mostly seeking protection based on PSG.
In order to resolve this crisis, we need to make a decision by legislation, not by litigation, about who we want to protect. For example, we can choose to protect victims of domestic violence, or not. That is our right as a sovereign nation. However, in making that decision, we need to be honest about what we are doing–these people are often facing life-threatening harm. We can send them back, if we so choose, but we cannot pretend that they are returning to someplace safe. In other words, we can choose to let anyone in, or keep anyone out, but we have a moral obligation to make that decision based on facts–not based on anti-immigrant propaganda. If we can define more precisely who is eligible for protection, we can create more certainty for migrants, and hopefully deter those who do not qualify. Further, if this is done with the support of most Americans (i.e., through legislation), the decision about who to protect will have more legitimacy and be more sustainable.
– We need to decide how much due process is due: Even for people arriving at the border, we have a Cadillac-immigration system. This includes Border Patrol Agents, detention facilities, Asylum Officers, Immigration Judges, ICE attorneys, administrative support staff, and many others. All this is expensive, especially when you have thousands of asylum applicants presenting at the border each week. Our system is not designed to handle such a high volume of cases, and unless we are prepared to significantly increase resources to review asylum applications, something has to change.
One option is to screen applicants and release those who pass a credible fear interview (“CFI”), and then require them to return for a court hearing (what our President has eloquently called “catch and release”). This has the advantage of ensuring a high level of due process for everyone seeking protection at our borders, but has the disadvantage of essentially opening the border to anyone who can pass a CFI (a relatively low bar). It also seems to be politically unpopular. Another option is to detain some or all asylum seekers until we can give them a full hearing. This has the advantage of providing a higher level of due process (to the extent that a person can exercise her due process rights while detained), but comes with a heavy cost, both economically and in human terms. A third option is to provide a lower level of due process, maybe a rigorous CFI, followed by removal for those who are denied. Such a system would provide some measure of justice, but would result in the return of many people who might qualify for protection if they had time to gather evidence and present their cases. Another option might be to provide no due process at all: Anyone who requests asylum at the border can be placed into a refugee camp or sent to a safe third country, and will remain there until the crisis in the home country is resolved (which the way things are going, is probably forever). This would solve the problem of protecting people from imminent harm, but would result in long-term issues, since it would potentially create a permanent community of displaced people.
Perhaps the point here is that, while there may be no perfect solution, we need to think in realistic terms about the level of due process we want to offer asylum seekers who arrive at our border.
The idea that Congress and the President could actually come up with a rational solution to improve the asylum system seems almost fantastical in this age of divisiveness and gridlock. But something has to be done. The first step is to speak honestly about what is going on, and then to work towards a solution that is made democratically, and which considers our country’s national and economic security, moral ideals, humanitarian commitments, and the rule of law.
Mahir Ahmed really wants you to know that he’s a “legitimate” asylum seeker. Not like those other people who are “deliberately breaking U.S. laws” and “jumping in line” ahead of good people like him. To confront this crisis, which has delayed a decision in his case, Mr. Ahmed declares his support for President Trump’s border wall.
I have some sympathy for Mr. Ahmed ‘s frustration at the slow pace of his case, since many of my clients are similarly delayed. But his desire to slam the door on certain asylum seekers who he considers illegitimate demonstrates a deep ignorance of our asylum system, not to mention a profound arrogance about his own moral standing.
First, let’s take a look at Mr. Ahmed’s “legitimate” asylum case. Mr. Ahmed is from Ethiopia. He was born Muslim, in a “community that is virtually 100 percent Muslim.” After he came to the U.S. (legally!), he converted to Christianity. He writes that his “decision to leave and criticize Islam publicly forced me to resort to asylum.”
Mahir Ahmed offers his new-found Christian love to all asylum seekers. Except those who get in his way.
As an asylum lawyer, I have done apostasy cases from many countries. In some places, apostasy is illegal, and can be punished by death. Ethiopia is not one of those places. In fact, Ethiopia is mostly Christian, and while Mr. Ahmed’s community may be “virtually 100 percent Muslim,” his country is only 34% Muslim. This means internal relocation is a real possibility. If Mr. Ahmed can live safely in some other part of Ethiopia, he is ineligible for asylum. Further, it is unlikely that Mr. Ahmed fears persecution from the Ethiopian authorities, and so if the government can protect him from his Muslim community, he would also be ineligible for asylum. This is not to say that his claim is illegitimate, but an apostate from a country like Iran, Pakistan or Afghanistan might consider Mr. Ahmed to be unfairly blocking up the asylum system when he could potentially live safely in his own country. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Or something like that.
Now let’s take a look at some of Mr. Ahmed’s claims about these “law breaking” asylum seekers who have supposedly delayed the decision in his case. In fact, Mr. Ahmed was one of the lucky asylum seekers who received an interview quickly, based on LIFO. The Asylum Officer told him to return two weeks after the interview to collect his decision. Mr. Ahmed was excited: “You can imagine how thrilled I was knowing that no matter what the decision was, it would all be over within two months of filing. No more worrying, wondering, and being in limbo.” But then, the Officer called and informed Mr. Ahmed that he could not pick up the decision after all; it would come by mail. He “was told they have no idea when [the decision would be made] and that the fact that I had legal status might be a factor in the delay since priority is being given to illegal immigrants.” Mr. Ahmed was shocked: “I couldn’t believe that illegal immigrants would be given higher priority than someone who followed the law. It just seemed unfair to me that jumping in line would put you ahead.” More than seven months later, Mr. Ahmed is still waiting for a decision.
After doing a bit of research, Mr. Ahmed found that since the time he filed his case, “more than 460,000 illegal crossings took place” at the Southern border. The “vast majority of the crossers claimed asylum and basically got priority processing over everyone who filed their cases legally, myself included.” “That is exactly why I’m for the border wall,” he writes. “True asylum seekers will still be able to file for asylum at the ports of entry [and] maybe even in their home countries soon,” if a proposed anti-asylum bill becomes law.
There’s a lot to unpack here, and we only have time to address the major points of Mr. Ahmed’s thesis. Let’s start with his data–the 460,000 “illegal crossings.” If you look at his source for this number (Customs and Border Protection or CBP), you will see that this figure represents people “apprehended between points of entry” from October 2018 through April 2019. While Mr. Ahmed writes that the “vast majority” of these border crossers claimed asylum, a review of the latest asylum office data reveals a different story. During this period, about 70,000 people sought credible or reasonable fear interviews, which indicates their desire to apply for asylum at the U.S. border (this is an estimate since the asylum office data is not as current as the CBP data). Thus, even assuming Mr. Ahmed is correct that these “illegal crossers” are jumping ahead of him in line, the number of line jumpers is “only” about 70,000; not 460,000.
Regardless of the statistics, Mr. Ahmed misses a more fundamental point: The law makes no distinction between “legal” and “illegal” asylum seekers. It is legal to arrive at the border (at a point of entry or elsewhere) and seek asylum. It is also legal to enter the U.S. without inspection and file for asylum. The relevant legal statute, INA § 208(a)(1), states that “Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival….), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum.” And so these “illegal immigrants” that so concern Mr. Ahmed have the exact same legal right to file for asylum as he does.
Do “illegal immigrants” jump ahead of the line? Do they get priority over “legal immigrants,” such as Mr. Ahmed? In one sense, they do. When an alien arrives at the border and expresses a fear of return, she receives a credible fear interview or CFI (or if she was previously in the U.S., she receives a reasonable fear interview). This is an initial evaluation of asylum eligibility. Such interviews receive priority over “regular” asylum cases. The large number of CFIs in recent years is a major contributor to the backlog of asylum cases. In Mr. Ahmed’s case, however, he received an interview within a few months of filing. In other words, his case did not fall into the backlog. Thus, unlike other asylum seekers who filed and did not receive a timely interview, Mr. Ahmed’s case was not delayed due to “illegal immigrants” receiving CFIs.
Even for those “regular” asylum seekers who land in the backlog, I do not see how they have much basis to complain about CFIs. This is the system our country created to enforce its humanitarian immigration law. CFIs get priority because those applicants must either be approved and sent to Immigration Court for a full asylum hearing, or denied and deported quickly. If anything, people seeking asylum at the border need more protection than asylum applicants who are already in the U.S., since the latter are in no immediate danger of being returned to a country where they face persecution. As such, it makes sense to adjudicate CFIs first.
Mr. Ahmed also claims that a decision in his case was delayed because USCIS gives priority to “illegal immigrants.” He references a USCIS webpage, which indicates that “longer processing times may be required if you… are currently in valid immigration status.” First of all, this website lists several different reasons for post-interview delay, including “pending security checks” and headquarters review, which are common reasons for post-interview delay (especially, as far as I can tell, for cases involving Muslim–or formerly Muslim–men). Second, the reason a “legal” immigrant’s case may be slower than that of an “illegal” immigrant is because it requires more work to deny such a case. People in legal status receive a detailed Notice of Intent to Deny letter. People who are out of status receive a much less detailed Referral letter. Since it takes more work to create a NOID, it makes sense that such cases takes longer. A final note on this point: I have done many cases for people who are in status, out of status, and who have entered the U.S. illegally. At least in my anecdotal experience, I see no pattern of differences in processing times, and so I doubt that “illegal” cases are processed any faster than “legal” ones.
Based on his analysis, Mr. Ahmed endorses a border wall as a way to help “legitimate” asylum seekers like himself. But this “solution” has no relationship to the problem. If you want to prevent “illegal” aliens from seeking asylum, you need to change the law that allows such people to seek asylum. Perhaps by building a wall and increasing punitive measures, you can deter asylum seekers from coming here. This would help reduce the backlog (at the expense of our nation’s integrity), but you could achieve the same ends (more cheaply) by simply blocking aliens from coming here legally. If fewer people come here, fewer will ask for asylum. Indeed, the Trump Administration is trying to make it more difficult to obtain a visa if you come from a country that tends to produce visa overstays (had it been in place when he came to the U.S., this rule may very well have blocked Mr. Ahmed from coming here).
The bottom line for me is this: Anyone who reaches the U.S. and fears return to his country is a legitimate asylum seeker, and deserves to have his case carefully reviewed. Mr. Ahmed’s effort to distinguish himself from asylum applicants at the Southern border represents a basic misunderstanding of our country’s humanitarian immigration system and the values that that system represents. This is a difficult time for asylum seekers, and sometimes, among desperate people, there is an inclination to attack each other. Mr. Ahmed should resist this temptation. Instead of undermining his fellow asylum seekers, he should stand together with them. By supporting each other, we can improve the asylum system for all.
