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…)
In a recent letter to USCIS, 61 members of Congress have expressed their “concern” about delays at our nation’s Asylum Offices. The letter calls on USCIS to prioritize the oldest cases for interviews and asks a number of pointed questions about the reasons behind the agency’s interminable delays.
Anyone familiar with the asylum system knows why this letter was necessary–approximately 800,000 cases (representing well over 1 million people) are stuck in the affirmative asylum backlog. More than 180,000 of these cases have been pending for five years or more, and some applicants have been waiting for their interview since 2015 with no real prospect of being interviewed any time soon. (more…)
In April, I wrote about our efforts to lobby Congress for help with the affirmative asylum backlog. Those efforts have finally born some fruit. Last week, forty Democratic members of Congress wrote a letter to Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and Ur Jaddou, the Director of USCIS.
In the letter, the Members of Congress express their concern about the affirmative asylum backlog, which currently stands at well over 400,000 cases. The letter notes that many people in the backlog have already suffered severe trauma in their home countries, and expresses particular concern for “those who have languished in the backlog for extended periods of time—some close to seven years.” Many of these applicants are separated from immediate family members and have not seen their spouses or children for years.
Unless it passes a new law, Congress does not have the authority to order DHS or USCIS to take particular actions. However, this new letter is significant in that–for the first time–Congress is “recommending” certain actions by the agency to address the backlog. I imagine such recommendations must be taken seriously, given that Congress does ultimately control funding for DHS and, to a lesser extent, USCIS (USCIS is largely funded by user fees). Hopefully, the agencies will take a look at these recommendations and make some changes to help those who have been waiting the longest. The main recommendations are as follows– (more…)
President Joe Biden sent the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 to Congress on January 20, his first day in office. This bill provides a roadmap to citizenship for undocumented individuals, prioritizes family reunification, addresses the root causes of migration from Central America, modernizes border security, and aims to reduce the Immigration Court backlog.
But even if the U.S. Citizenship Act becomes law (which seems increasingly unlikely), it does not address the backlog of over 373,000 affirmative asylum cases–these are mostly individuals who entered the United States legally with visas, and who then applied for asylum. They include democracy and human rights advocates, journalists, religious minorities, and members of the LGBT community, among others. Many in the backlog are torture survivors and others who have suffered severe persecution. Since one case sometimes contains several family members, the total number of people waiting in the affirmative asylum backlog is something like 600,000 individuals. Many of those in the backlog have already been waiting four, five or even six years for an interview. These individuals represent a “Hidden Asylum Crisis” because their suffering is invisible to the general public and has thus far been ignored by lawmakers.(more…)
As you’ve probably heard, President Biden has proposed a comprehensive immigration reform bill, called the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021. What does this proposal mean for asylum seekers? Who is included? When–if ever–will it go into effect? We’ll discuss those questions here. Spoiler alert: The answer to each question is “I don’t know.”
The first thing to know is that the bill is not yet public. All we have is a summary. Assuming the Biden Administration is being truthful (and I’m willing to grant them the benefit of the doubt, at least for Mr. Biden’s first week in office), a bill was sent to Congress on day one of the new Administration. Only a select few Congress people have the text of the bill, including New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez, who plans to introduce the bill in the Senate. Eventually.(more…)
According to a letter from four members of Congress to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, a “recent disclosure [by USCIS] regarding the number of aliens found to have a ‘credible fear’ in cases where the terrorism bar to asylum eligibility may have applied raised the concern that hundreds of known and suspected aliens with terrorist connections may be attempting to take advantage of our country’s asylum system.”
Eli Wiesel provided slave labor to the Nazis, so he may be subject to the terrorism bar.
The “recent disclosure” from USCIS to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform revealed that “the terrorism bar to asylum eligibility may be applicable to 299 aliens who were found to have a ‘credible fear’ of persecution in the first four months of Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, and to 339 aliens who were found to have a ‘credible fear’ in FY 2014.” The four Congressman–Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Trey Gowdy (R-SC), and Ron DeSantis (R-FL)–requested more information about the 638 aliens in question, including each aliens’ confidential A-file and whether and by what authority each alien was released from detention.
First, what’s this all about?
When an alien arrives at the border (or at an airport), she can request asylum. Rather than admit her into the U.S., the alien is usually detained and scheduled for a “credible fear” interview–a preliminary evaluation of eligibility for asylum. The large majority of aliens “pass” the credible fear interview. Their cases are then transferred to an Immigration Judge and–in most, but not all, cases–they are released from detention. Aliens who do not pass the credible fear interview are deported.
In 638 credible fear interviews, conducted since October 2013, the alien said something or the U.S. government had some information that may have implicated a Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility Ground (“TRIG”). This could have been something relatively benign (the alien paid extortion money to a gang) or something of great concern (the alien is Osama bin Laden’s best friend). We don’t know–the TRIGs are very broad (as I’ve discussed here).
One piece of information that we do have is the list of countries that send us the most credible fear applicants: El Salvador, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and Ecuador. These are not normally countries we associate with terrorism. However, these nations have major problems with gang and cartel violence, so we might suspect that many of the TRIG issues raised in credible fear interviews relate to paying extortion to criminal groups. Again, though, we really don’t know.
So what’s the solution? In their letter, the four Congressman request more information from DHS about the TRIG issues raised during credible fear interviews. This seems to me a perfectly reasonable request. We need to know more so we can better understand what is happening, who is coming here, and how we can make more appropriate policy decisions.
I do have a few concerns about the letter, however. At least some of the Congressmen making the request have demonstrated a clear bias against asylum seekers. Since everything these days is subject to spin, I worry that the Congressmen will use the data–no matter how benign–to stir up more anti-immigrant feelings and place further restrictions on asylum seekers. DHS should not let that happen. DHS can do its own evaluation of the data and release a report to the public (it would be difficult to make the raw data publicly available due to confidentiality issues).
Another concern I have is that the Congressmen are requesting the A-files for individual asylum seekers. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 208.6, these files are confidential, though they can be shared within the government for legitimate purposes. While I believe that the Congressmen have no intention of breaching confidentiality, we do not know what safeguards they have put into place to protect the individual asylum seekers. Who will be reviewing the 638 files (that will be a big job)? Interns? Regular staff members? What training do they have? Do they have a security clearance? Where will the files be kept? How will the results of the study be released so as to ensure confidentiality for individuals? What will happen to the files at the end of the process? These questions need to be answered before DHS releases the A files to Congress.
Finally, the letter demands that the files be turned over before COB on June 3, 2015–two weeks after the letter was written. How the Congressmen expect DHS to gather this information and turn it over on time–while ensuring confidentiality–is beyond me. The seemingly impossible time frame attached to the letter detracts from its credibility. If the Congressmen are serious about gathering and analyzing this data (which is a very worthy goal), they should approach the problem in a more reasonable way. For example, they could involve the Congressional Research Service, which has the expertise to review and analyze raw data from USCIS.
I have written before that we need more data about who is seeking asylum in the United States, how they get here, why they are requesting asylum, and the decision-making process itself. Such information would make our country safer and our asylum system better. Congress has an important role to play in this process and so does DHS. Hopefully, for once, the two can play nice together and get the job done.
Lately, I’ve been worrying that asylum might become a victim of its own success. Thanks to lawyers pushing the law, the number and categories of people eligible for asylum has increased pretty dramatically: Victims of FGM and domestic violence, LGBT individuals, certain victims of crimes. This is a good thing, as many lives have been saved. But it has started to attract the attention of immigrant restrictionists, who think the asylum system is too generous. Could the tide be shifting? Might we be on the verge of a backlash?
The Romans aren’t all that popular this time of year.
There’s precedent for such fear dating back to antiquity. When the Roman Empire conquered Greece, the various city-states had a well-developed system of temple asylum. In short, if you were a slave fleeing abuse, you could go for protection to a Greek temple. Over time, the types of people who could claim protection in Greek temples expanded, so that basically anyone, including rebels and common criminals, could find refuge in a temple. The law-and-order Romans would have none of it. In 14 AD, Emperor Tiberius ordered the temples to produce evidence of their right to offer asylum. Most temples could not do so, and so Tiberius’s little bureaucratic maneuver essentially ended asylum in the Greek city-states. So much for the history lesson.
Late last month, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), and Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) announced that they would be holding hearings on asylum and credible fear “abuse” by people arriving in the U.S. via Mexico. The press announcement does not sound promising:
It’s outrageous that members of Mexican drug cartels and others involved in illicit activity are so easily able to exploit our asylum laws and live in the U.S. virtually undetected. Our asylum laws are in place to help individuals who are facing truly serious persecution in their countries. However, dangerous criminals are gaming the system by claiming they have a ‘credible fear’ of persecution when often they’ve been the perpetrators of violence themselves. Their claims almost always get rubberstamped by the Obama Administration and once these individuals are in the U.S., the illegal activity doesn’t stop.
Unfortunately, it appears the Obama Administration is compromising our national security and the safety of our communities for its political agenda. The House Judiciary Committee plans to hold a hearing soon to closely examine this egregious abuse to see what can be done to put an end to it.
Over the last couple months, I’ve written pretty extensively about the influx of asylum seekers at the border, and there certainly seem to be issues that require attention. That’s why it’s disappointing to see such an overtly political description of the upcoming hearings. Hopefully, the hearings themselves will be more constructive (yes, for some reason, I am feeling unusually optimistic – maybe its The Season).
Not that anyone has asked, but I thought I would raise some issues that the Committee might explore:
– We need accurate statistics about who is seeking asylum and why: It is very difficult to know who seeks asylum, who receives it, who receives other relief, and who is denied. One problem is that the two agencies that track asylum cases–DOJ and DHS–use different metrics for calculating their numbers. Another problem is that there are no stats available on people who receive Withholding of Removal and Torture Convention relief (two benefits that are similar, though inferior, to asylum). Congress should mandate better record keeping on asylum cases: Where do asylum seekers come from? What is the basis for their grants or denials? How many are detained? How many leave of their own volition after receiving a denial? How many are deported? How many cases are re-opened for fraud or due to criminal convictions? Such information will allow us to improve our policy-making and will hopefully lead to a better and more secure system.
– We need to make some decisions about how to treat asylum applicants at the borders: There has been a significant increase in asylum applicants arriving at our Southern border. Currently, most are detained and–if they pass a credible fear interview–they are released with a date to return to Immigration Court. I have not seen specific examples of individuals who have entered the U.S. in this manner and then committed bad acts. But given the number of arrivals, the possibility for this to happen seems pretty high. So do we detain these asylum seekers until their cases are heard? Such an approach makes it much more difficult for them to prepare their asylum cases. It is also very expensive. Should each person be fitted with an ankle bracelet or some other tracking device? If we had more accurate data about asylum seekers, perhaps we could better answer these questions.
– We must decide how to treat people fleeing persecution where that persecution is not based on a protected ground: Many people arriving at the Southern border face real harm from gangs, cartels, and criminals. Many others face serious harm due to sexual violence. Often, such people do not fall neatly into one of the five protected categories. Most will not qualify for lesser forms of relief, such as the Convention Against Torture. So what to do with them? Of course, we could simply deport them as we are not obligated by our international agreements to protect them. But sending innocent people to their deaths seems not in keeping with our national values (or any other notion of morality). Could something be done for such people without creating an incentive for everyone South of the border to come to the United States?
– We need to plan ahead to deal with a potentially large refugee flow from Mexico: For years, we’ve been hearing discussion about the possibility of large refugee flows from Mexico due to the violence there. If this happens, our current asylum system will likely not handle the volume. Perhaps we need a contingency plan for how to deal with such refugees. Faced with refugee crises, other countries have created temporary camps for people, where they can stay until it is safe to return (though often that takes decades or longer, and then there is no where to return to). Maybe such a model would be appropriate if the situation in Mexico deteriorates further. Or maybe some type of TPS would be more appropriate. In any case, it seems to me that we can start thinking about this now, so that we are more prepared in case of a humanitarian disaster.
There is obviously more to say about these topics, but–since it is the season of miracles–I continue to hope that the Judiciary Committee will address these and other important issues related to our asylum system.
It seems that advocates for “Dreamers”–young foreigners who would benefit from the Dream Act–are trying a new tactic: Leaving the country and then returning to seek asylum. Not long ago, I wrote about the Dream 9, who presented themselves at the U.S./Mexico border and requested asylum. They were released and will have to appear before Immigration Judges, who will decide their cases. Now, we have the Dream 30, who have done pretty much the same thing. This new tactic holds promise and risk, both for themselves and for other asylum seekers.
“Dreamers” might be a particular social group, but I am not so sure about “dreamboats.”
Asylum, of course, is a legal tool that has been used and expanded by creative lawyers. When the modern asylum system was created by the Refugee Act of 1980, many people who routinely receive protection today–victims of female genital mutilation, LGBT individuals, victims of domestic violence–would likely have been ineligible for asylum. To the extent that their actions are not simply a type of civil disobedience, the Dreamers seem to be seeking to expand the category of protected individuals to include people who grew up in the U.S., and who face threats in their home countries because they are viewed as “American.” This strategy raises two basic questions: (1) Will it work? and (2) How will it affect other asylum seekers?
First, will it work? I think it might, at least in some cases. I’ve represented several asylum seekers who made claims similar to the Dreamers: A lesbian who had not been to her home country of Sudan since she was young, Afghan women (and a few men) who studied in the U.S. and who are viewed by extremists as “Westernized,” an Iraqi woman whose family was associated with the U.S. These applicants were successful (or their cases are still pending), but my guess is that their claims are stronger than most of the Dreamers’ claims. Nonetheless, the principle is the same.
A broader–and more radical–solution for the Dreamers might be if the Obama Administration defined them as a particular social group for asylum purposes. There is precedent for such a move: In 2009, DHS issued a brief in Matter of LR where it stated, “DHS accepts that in some cases, a victim of domestic violence may be a member of a cognizable particular social group…. This does not mean, however, that every victim of domestic violence would be eligible for asylum.” Prior to the end of DOMA, I (clumsily) advocated a similar approach to help LGBT couples.
If DHS agrees that deported Dreamers are a particular social group (defined as “young, Americanized Mexicans,” for example), they would then need to demonstrate that they face persecution in their home country based on their social group. DHS could potentially make a blanket determination that members of this social group would face persecution in Mexico, El Salvador or wherever, and – Voila! – Dreamers get asylum, and you effectively pass the Dream Act without Congressional action (and they could apply for asylum without leaving the U.S.).
Of course, there would be consequences to such an approach, which brings us to the second question: How will it affect other asylum seekers?
For one thing, unless significant resources were re-allocated, giving asylum to the Dreamers would completely overwhelm the asylum system. That system has already been ground to a halt by a few extra thousands arrivals at our border, so it certainly could not handle millions of new cases.
In addition, it would be very expensive. There are no government fees for asylum applications. Presumably, if the Dream Act becomes law, Dreamers will pay a fee to regularize their status. In general, USCIS is operated based on filing fees (that is why it has not been closed by the government shutdown), so these fees would be needed to adjudicate the Dreamers’ cases.
Third–and this for me is the real problem–it will harm (or destroy) the integrity of the asylum system. Asylum, by definition, is an individualized form of relief. While one person from a particular country may have a strong asylum case, another may have no case at all. To view these cases collectively sets a very bad precedent. Worse, to grant asylum to an entire group (i.e., Dreamers), many of whom probably would not otherwise qualify, turns the asylum system into a political tool for avoiding the normal legislative process (i.e., passing the Dream Act). Such a move would do great damage to the asylum system, a system that is supposed to be free from political influence.
Asylum as a blanket solution to the Dreamers’ dilemma is certainly not the best way to solve the problem. It would obviously be much better for Congress (specifically the House of Representatives) to pass the Dream Act and Comprehensive Immigration Reform. But as a strategic approach, perhaps the “threat” of giving asylum to all Dreamers might provide an incentive for the House to take up immigration reform. After all, the language of nihilism, self destruction, and ends-justifies-the-means is the only language that the House of Representatives seems to understand.
A new bill in the House of Representatives seeks to link resolution of the Palestinian refugee situation with the plight of Jews (and Christians) expelled from Arab lands. Both Palestinians and Jews suffered as a result of expulsions from their home countries during and after the creation of the State of Israel. Palestinians left and were forced to leave Israel (and the West Bank and Gaza). And most Jews living in Muslim countries left or were forced to leave their homes as well. The bill is designed to ensure that these Jews are not forgotten by linking resolution of their issues with resolution of the on-going Palestinian refugee crisis. The bill’s supporters state:
Any comprehensive Middle East peace agreement can only be credible and enduring if it resolves all issues related to the rights of all refugees in the Arab world and Iran, including Jews, Christians and others.
In the chess game of life, Palestinians are everyone’s favorite pawn.
The legislation has bipartisan support in the House and calls on the Obama administration to pair any reference to Palestinian refugees with a similar reference to Jewish and other refugees.
While I agree that it is important to remember and address the grievances of Jews and others expelled from Arab lands (I recently wrote about this issue), linking the resolution of that problem with the issue of Palestinian refugees sets a dangerous precedent and undermines international law related to the protection of refugees.
A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
The majority of Palestinians who fled Israel and now live in various Arab countries are “refugees” according to this definition. They do “not [have] a nationality and [are] outside the country of [their] former habitual residence as a result of such events.” Of course one reason they remain refugees is because the different Arab governments have refused to grant them citizenship. The other reason is that Israel does not permit them to return home.
As opposed to the Palestinians, the large majority of Jews who fled Arab countries are not “refugees” as that term is defined in international law. Most (if not all) such Jews have been granted citizenship in their new country of residence (be it Israel, the U.S., France or some other country). Also, for the most part, Jews expelled from Arab lands do not wish to return to their home countries. This does not mean that these Jews do not have legitimate claims for compensation for lost land, property, and the lives of loved ones. They most certainly do. But this is not the same as being a refugee. Thus, the new bill is factually incorrect when it refers to such Jews as refugees.
Far worse than the semantics of “who is a refugee” is the problem of politicizing a humanitarian benefit. Anyone who meets the definition of “refugee” is a refugee. Period. Such people are entitled to protection in the host country because they are refugees. There are no other requirements (though obviously there are exceptions for persecutors, criminals, and terrorists).
By linking the fate of one refugee population to another, the bill adds an external contingency to international refugee law. We no longer protect refugees because they are refugees. Now, we only protect them if some other conditions are met. Does this mean that we should deport legitimate asylum seekers from Mexico until Mexico compensates us for Pancho Villa’s 1916 invasion? Can Great Britain deny asylum to all Egyptians unless Egypt returns the Suez Canal? Is Japan permitted to reject all Chinese asylum seekers until China returns “Manchukuo?”
This is not how international refugee law works. We do not blame the victims and hold them hostage until some outside contingency–in this case a contingency not of their own making–is satisfied. In other words, it is not the fault of Palestinian refugees that Jews were expelled from Arab lands. So why should the Palestinians’ fate be tied to compensation for the Jewish “refugees” (something over which they have no control)?
I think the real motivation for this bill is not to help Jews from Arab lands. Rather, it is to justify Israel’s refusal to allow Palestinians to return to their homeland by demonstrating that there was suffering and loss “on both sides.” This seems to me a cynical and sinister use of international refugee law. I hope the bill will be soundly rejected.
