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. Also, a recent study of asylum seekers in Germany found that–
the presence of asylum seekers has a polarizing effect, increasing vote shares for both the right and the Greens [a left-leaning, pro-immigrant party]. For the right… the magnitude of this effect is independent of unemployment and disposable income. For the Greens, as unemployment increases or income decreases, the positive association between asylum seekers and vote shares abates, eventually becoming negative.
In other words, the presence of asylum seekers consistently motivates right-wing voters in opposition, but only garners support from left-leaning voters when the economy is good. While the German study may not directly correlate with voting patterns here in the U.S., it seems pretty clear that immigration policy–and in particular, border security–is more likely to bring anti-immigrant voters to the polls than pro-immigrant voters.
So what does this mean for our asylum policy at the border? And for our democracy?
First, as many commentators have suggested, today’s Republican party sees winning elections as more important than preserving democracy. That is why they continue to entertain the fantasy that Joe Biden stole the 2020 election and, more generally, that any election they lose is suspect. In November 2022, we will see hundreds of elections in every state–for members of Congress, governors, and state and local leaders. If current trends hold, we can expect Republicans to challenge any loss as fraudulent. Democracy simply cannot survive if nearly half the voting population believes that the system is rigged (or pretends to believe that in order to achieve its goals).
It seems to me that the upcoming election is crucial, since a decisive Republican defeat might convince party members that their anti-democratic approach isn’t working. Given the factors at play in this election cycle, such an outcome seems very unlikely. But this is not a foregone conclusion. Additional polling data “tells us that democracy and nonviolence are political winners, and that dabbling in political violence is a loser,” and so the Republican embrace of January 6th-type violence may be a liability. It may also mean that middle-of-the-road voters could still be persuaded to vote for Democrats, and–given the slim margins in many races–sway the results in their favor.
The question for Democrats is, How can they win over persuadable voters? And that is where the border comes into play. Voters with very strong views about border security are likely unwilling to vote for Democrats, who they view as “soft” on national security. Republicans have exploited this perception to their advantage, often by lying about migrants–that they are criminals, gang members, and terrorists, and that they bring disease and take jobs. Lies or not, many Americans have been persuaded that immigration–particularly along the Southern border–represents a threat to our country and this influences how they vote.
Changing that narrative has proved very difficult. Advocates have quoted positive data related to migrants’ contributions to the economy and the pandemic response (about a quarter of all health care workers are foreign born), and the fact that they commit crimes at rates lower than native-born Americans. All this has done little to convince anti-immigrant voters. Something needs to change, and it seems to me that resolving the situation at the border would prevent the Right from using the “crisis” as a means to bring people to the polls.
How, then, can we “fix” the border? Ideally, we would have a fact-based debate about who we want to protect, and then implement a policy based on consensus. This seems unlikely, in part due to the wide disagreement about immigration policy, but also because Republicans benefit from the continuing crisis at the border (since it motivates their voters).
Another approach–and one that I think we should be considering, given the imperiled state of our democracy–would be to simply end asylum at the Southern border for everyone. That would potentially require us to withdraw from international treaties related to protecting refugees. It would also create a humanitarian disaster at the border, at least in the short term, until migrants adjusted to the new reality. We could perhaps mitigate the damage by increasing our refugee admissions. We should also not agree to such a change without getting something in return, such as legalization for Dreamers and other undocumented people who are already in the U.S. All that would have to be worked out by Congress, and the window for such a deal is rapidly closing, as we approach the November mid-term elections.
To be clear, I do not think that ending asylum at the border is a good idea. However, I believe that it would take momentum away from Republicans and other anti-democratic actors in our country, and this will help fortify our democracy, which is currently in grave danger. So while offering asylum to people arriving at the border is important, in my view, it is outweighed by the need to preserve our democracy.
The border has been a recruiting tool for Republicans and the far right for too long. Pro-immigrant advocates have failed to change that sad fact. We on the Left now have to make a choice–continue banging our heads against the same wall, or accept that we can’t get everything we want and that sacrifices are needed to help defuse the existential threat to our democracy. If we can reach an agreement to help undocumented people who are already in the U.S., and if we can improve the odds for Democratic (and democratic) candidates, ending asylum at the Southern border may be the least of the bad options available.
[…] election? I do not know. But I do know that we who advocate for more liberal asylum policies have not yet convinced the majority of our countrymen, and as long as that disconnect continues, we will remain politically vulnerable if the situation […]
[…] less tolerant of asylum seekers at the border, and so allowing the current situation to continue is politically untenable. In the absence of Congressional action, the Biden Administration is left to walk this fine line, […]
Hi Jason, thanks you so much for everything you do!!
I have one question; I’m an asylum seeker & was planning to submit my application in Rochester MN and just wanna know if there is a permanent asylum office which held an interview in Minneapolis or the USCIS has to allocate an officer from Chicago field office for my interview. If so, won’t it delay the interview date?
And does it help if I apply where the USCIS asylum field office is located like Houston?
FYI i have another family in Austin TX.
I think people in MN have to go to Chicago for the interview, but I am not sure. Sometimes there are field offices, which are permanent offices that do asylum interviews, and those are under the main office (Chicago would be a “main” office in this example). Also, there are circuit rides, where officers go from the main office to a USCIS office for interviews. They do this once in a while, and so I think if you are being interviewed for a circuit ride, or even at a permanent field office, you may have a lower chance for an interview than if you are at a main office (since sometimes they are not doing circuit rides due to Covid). You can request that your interview be held at the main office – we have done that for the San Francisco office where the person would otherwise have been interviewed in Seattle, and the person did seem to get a faster interview. Take care, Jason
Thank you so much for the quick response…Just wanna know if there is an application form to request where i want my interview to be held or do i send them request letter when i send the I-589 application or by just calling the USCIS on phone.
Again, thank you!
It is held in whatever office has jurisdiction over where you live. However, if you are concerned about a main office versus a sub-office (since the main office may be faster), you can email the asylum office and tell them that you want to interview at the main office (if you are able to get there). You can find their email if you follow the link under Resources called Asylum Office Locator. Take care, Jason
Thank you, Jason.
Hi Jason,
I got an update regarding my application for a Travel Docment (i131). Looks like they will be reusing my existing Biometrics, which I didn’t have to pay that $85 for and it won’t be refunded. But, I am little concerned by the rest of the information:
Quote
“U.S. Citizenship and Immi gration Services (USCIS) has received your form and is currently processing your application, petition, or request. This notice informs you that USCIS is able to reuse your previously captured fingerprints and other biometrics. USCIS will run the same security checks and use your biometric data as in the past; however, it is not necessary for you to appear at a USCIS Application Support Center (ASC) for a biometrics appointment. The biometrics fee will not be refunded.
USCIS is continuing to process your application, petition, or request. USCIS will contact you in writing if any additional information is necessary to resolve your case.
This notice is not an approval of your pending application, petition, or request.”
Should I be concerned by any of the information given here since my application disclosed my intention to visit my home country?
Mr. Jason I am also asylum applicant and I am glad for your work and helping to the people for their immediate questions. You are great professional.
Thank you, Jason
Maybe I misunderstood the first paragraph, but I think you need to pay for biometrics whether they reuse them or not. The statement looks like standard language to me, and so I do not think there is any concern here. Maybe they will ask you about returning to the home country, and if so, you should explain why and how you plan to stay safe. However, at this point, you have only expressed an interest in returning there; you have not done so. And so I see no danger that they would use that to try to reopen your asylum case. Take care, Jason
Dear Jason,
Happy new year. I have only been reading posts but never had the courage to post anything anymore however I trust I may need your view point. After waiting for my asylum decision for almost 6 years, the AO just sent me a letter notifying me that they cannot issue a decision on my case because background checks aren’t cleared yet. How can you force USCIS to send your file to court? I am so sick and tired of waiting
It really is ridiculous. I did a post listing different ideas on June 2, 2021. But ultimately, you may need to file a mandamus lawsuit. That post discusses mandamus, and so does another one from October 2, 2018. Maybe those would help. Good luck, Jason
Hello Jason,
I m asylee dependent and I have travel document but still waiting for GC, may I travel back home?
In general, dependents can return home with no ill effect. However, if the principal’s asylum case indicated that the whole family was in danger, you (and the principal) should be prepared to explain why you went back and how you stayed safe. Take care, Jason
I expedited my work authorization last week based on the fact that I am a healthcare worker. Today I check the status of my work permit it says that a Card is being produced. I was so happy that I cried, I have no other source of income or support losing my job would have been hell. I hope they can do the same for all of us waiting.
Thank you and glad to hear that it is working (at least in one case). I certainly hope USCIS will expand this program to include everyone. They seem not to appreciate how important work permits are. Also, if you are interested, I plan to do a post about the healthcare worker expedite rules tomorrow (you can fact check it, since you’ve actually been through the process!). Take care, Jason
I made the request on 01/10/2022
It was submitted to the Nebraska office on 01/14/2022
Today 01/18/2022 Card is being produced.
I’m suprissed they did not request supportive documents.
Nebraska service center is probably fine but Potomac has huge delay. May be that’s why your expedite request was accepted quickly.
Interesting – Thank you for sharing this. Take care, Jason
Congratulations! So happy for you. It is so heartbreaking to see that people have been waiting for long just to get an EAD.
Ead expedited
I have a question for you , did you talk to them over the phone, if so was it hard to get through, what’s the phone number please, thanks
Hi Jason and the community,
Quick update for those waiting Green Card asylum based:
After ASAP(Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project) has emailed on December 1, 2021 “our” (Justice for Granted Asylum) Letter to USCIS Director, DHS Secretary Mayorkas, and other USCIS & DHS officials we have still not received a response. However, we are seeing movement in the 2018 & 2019 applications. Mostly TSC being transferred and adjudicated at other service centers like Nebraska and NBC. If you are an Asylee awaiting adjudication for your Green Card application please join us for more info https://t.me/+ygPn23D1opg2OTYx . We are keeping in touch with ASAP for future actions in this regard. Good luck to all of you!
Best Regards,
Pika
Thank you for sharing. They are doing great work (not only on this issue). Hopefully, USCIS will get its act together and start processing these cases faster (and also roll back the Trump-era rules that are contributing to the delay). Take care, Jason
Hello JB and …
Can you share what immigration office denied her application?
Thanks
Hello Jason,
Thank you for all what you do.
I have a friend who filed for asylum,called three times for an interview,and after those interviews she was referred to court..
So she is waiting for her master hearing in couple of months but the problem is,she sent an application to renew her EAD in June 2021,and her 180 days extension expired early this month.
So when she checked her case status,the message she got was..her application was denied and the denial mail has been sent to her.
What can she do?can she still work with an expired EAD??please advice.
She cannot work lawfully with an expired EAD, but she will have to wait for the letter to know why the EAD was denied. Unless there was some mistake she made on the I-765 application, I do not know why they would deny her. Once you get the first EAD, you should be able to renew, even if you are referred to court. The only exception would be if she was denied asylum at the asylum office and was not sent to court (because she was still in lawful status). In that case, her asylum case is finished and so there is no more EAD. But if she was referred to court, USCIS should renew the EAD. I think she will have to get the letter to see what the problem is, and then she might need to consult a lawyer. Take care, Jason
Jason, on EAD renewal application, is it must to write N/A on selections that does not apply to me? What if I did not mention N/A on my 765 application, will my application get denied or delayed? Thank you.
For the most part, that should have no effect. The issue with “N/A” was mostly for the asylum form, and supposedly, USCIS is not rejecting forms for failing to write N/A anymore. But it should not effect an EAD renewal in most cases. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason
Thanks for your valuable information
question is always confusing me , can green card holder base asylum applying for citizen after 4 years getting green card, for example if someone issued a card on April 2019 can apply for citizen on April 2023 and three months before means January 2023? because I read about that sometimes said asylum can become a US citizen 4 years from the day USCIS approved his or her green card?
and I know USCIS should backdate the former asylee’s green card one year.
Thanks a lot Jason
USCIS is supposed to back date the GC for asylees by 1 year, and so you can apply 5 years after the date printed on your GC (Lawful Permanent Resident since [some date]), which is 4 years after you got the actual card. We have seen cases recently where they are failing to back-date the cards, and unless you can correct that, you have to wait 5 years. But most people need to wait only 4 years. Also, you are correct that you can submit the N-400 (naturalization form) 90 days before the 5-year anniversary of the GC (assuming of course that you meet all other qualifications to naturalize). You then have to wait for USCIS to process the case, which these days is taking probably 8 months to a year (it is the one thing with USCIS that seems to be moving along). Take care, Jason
Hello Jason
My spouse filled the I-130 for me
while I’m in court for removal proceedings
The I-130 is approved but there is a message on the USCIS website says
“sent your case, Receipt Number , to the Department of State for visa processing. You can find general information on Consular Processing”
I live here in the US. Is it normal? Or was it filled under wrong category?
Please help Jason. Thank you
The form I-130 gives you the option of processing in the US or overseas. Maybe your spouse indicated that the case would be processed overseas. Either way, now that the I-130 is approved, you can try to dismiss the court case and adjust status (get your green card) in the US. Not everyone is eligible to do this. I did a blog post on August 6, 2018 about it, which might help. But probably you ought to talk to a lawyer to know for sure whether you are eligible. Take care, Jason
Thank you so much, Jason for your quick answer
I really Appreciate you
Jason,
How are things at Virginia office? What percentage of LIFO cases are getting interviews?
I applied in Arlington in 2015, it has been almost 7 years for me , no interview
It keeps changing, but in general, it seems like less than 50% of LIFO cases are getting interviews. They are focusing on Afghan cases and some of those (old and new) are getting interviews, but it is pretty darn slow over there lately. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason or anyone who knows the answer ) my work aurhorizarion expires September 23rd 2022, when is the earliest I can apply for renewal?
180 days prior to 9/23
Thank you
You can apply 6 months before the expiration date
If it is an EAD based on asylum pending (category c-8), the soonest you can apply is 180 days before it expires. If you apply earlier than that, it may be rejected as having been filed too early. Take care, Jason
Thank you
If I were you, I will renew it latest by 2/1/2022.
I want to ask a question.
Recently, I became aware that there have been attempts of different countries and governments getting INTERPOL to issue red notice to people who are seeking asylum in the U.S.
Obviously, a lot of countries will do this to their dissidents, accusing them of unsubstantiated crimes. What should an asylum seeker do in this situation ? I am also aware that ICE has previously removed people because of Red Notice…
May be you should stop watching too many Hollywood movies, that would be a perfect solution.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedbromund/2018/12/19/ice-wrongly-continues-to-use-interpol-red-notices-for-targeting/?sh=4c44c06f175e
No I believe you 100%, Famous dissidents like Ryan Reynolds and Dwayne Johnson have been persecuted recently by such cruel tactics.
Read Again the news article:
Does it mention that any of the individuals were Asylees or Asylum Seekers seeking asylum from their home countries.
This is also not a bad idea. Take care, Jason
https://www.fairtrials.org/news/interpol-success-fair-trials-over-use-red-notices-us-asylum-cases
This is extremely far fetched. I think if it were to happen, you would need to contact a lawyer. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
It is really disturbing to see that an asylee waits for 10+ months for a travel document and then its expires in a year. I don’t know if the USCIS does this intentionally or there are really stupid people there without knowing what they are doing.
Personally, I think the new director of the USCIS is a lazy woman without any initiative. There are hundreds of issues at USCIS that could be changed to help immigrants without involvement of the congress or senate but they don’t do it.
Pessimistically speaking, the US government (both republicans and democrats) has no intention to reform the immigration as they know that it will shift the religious and racial demographic of this country and then White dominance will be over. I might be totally wrong but it seems that way to me.
Unfortunately, you are absolutely right! I can see even a slight change in USCIS processes. Everything is getting worse day by day
I think the agency is just a mess and that is the reason for the long delay. But I agree completely that they could be making changes (and could have done this months ago) to un-do some of the damage from the Trump Administration. Also, regarding the RTD, they should simply extend that to 5 or 10 years instead of 1 year. There was a proposal to do that in 2007 or so, and they should revisit that idea and actually get it done this time (and they should have done that months ago). Take care, Jason
Hi Asylee is there any way to expedite the refugee travel document? 10+ months are very long time. As getting into this point is already takes several years.
You can try – I did a post about expediting with USCIS in general on January 29, 2020. Maybe that would help. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason I have tried to expedite RTD but they even deny my appointment for that, I have gotten emergency AP twice before but for RTD they are just not giving me appointment. I don’t know how to do fast process or who to approach for that.
The expedite process is very arbitrary. All you can do is try (and try again), and hopefully some of the ideas in that post I referenced would be helpful. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
Can a pending asylum who applied for adjustment of status through marriage, apply to join US military?
Thanks
I am not sure – but that info should be available on military recruitment websites, or you can contact a local recruiter. Once you have a GC, you can enlist, but I am not sure about the period of time while an application is pending. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason, my friend just got asylum interview after waiting over 5 years, when she update her asylum, she forget to add her recent employment, that because she is working two jobs, the new job she just started on November, and the old one she just resigned on January. For new one, although she started getting salary starting from November, the actual work was started from this January that why she forgot it and also she got interview on short notice ( from short list), just couple to prepare. What can she do to correct this innocent problem, do you think this can cause problem. And later when she apply for Green-card, for this new job which month should she write, November ( this were she start getting salary) or January ( this were she was actually assigned tasks)?
She can email the asylum office and explain what happened and provide the info about her job. In the subject line of the email, she can put her name, Alien number, and date of interview. She should also save a copy of that email. For her her I-485, she should be consistent with whatever she said on her I-589, I-589 updates, and the email she sends them. I expect this is no big deal and she will be fine. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason,
Thank you for all you do.My case was approved by an Immigration judge,I got the final order and I got an appointment at uscis office on the 29th of December 2021..I went and gave everything they required the final order and the two passport photos and they told me they will send me a mail the following week,this is the 3rd week and I haven’t received any mail from mail.
So what should I do because the extension of the 180 days that we get after sending the renewal of the EAD will be expiring February 2022.
Is there any way to contact the uscis for my 1-94 .
Thank you.
This is very annoying – I think you will have to call them (800-375-5283) and try to talk with a person. Hopefully, they can either give you another appointment or – better yet – help move things along. It should not take that long. Take care, Jason
I recommend you got get your unrestricted SSN and that will suffice to replace EAD. SSN office will only require final order and a copy of your ID.
Then once you get you new SSN card in 2 weeks, you can use unexpired drivers license+ unrestricted SSN to show proof of your authorization.
This happened to me too in December. Went for the first appointment then I waited for a call back from the USCIS office for a month and never got a call back. I then decided to call them for an another info pass appointment. When I went for the second appointment, the guy said that they had delayed calling be back because they had not received the documents they need from the court but luckily they had just received the documents that morning and he was able to issue the i94. So, book another info pass appointment and explain what happened when you went for the first appointment.
Hi Jason, i’ m pending asylum 8 years already , any news about this backlog or maybe law that can change my nightmare?
Not really and everything is slow now due to Covid. You can try to expedite – I wrote about that on March 30, 2017. Hopefully, once the Covid situation eases, cases will move faster – there are many more asylum officers than before, so they do (I think) have the capacity to interview more people. Take care, Jason
Hi ASYLEE, have you been interviewed yet? when was your interview?
You are not the only one waiting for that long. This is my 7th year now still waiting for the interview and now even the EAD is delayed since last 10 months and probably wont arrive before the extension expires and I will probably loose my job as well.
I sent almost 5 messages to USCIS and called them and spoke to them at-least 3 times. Each time I received a formal dummy response that they can’t do anything as the processing time for Potomac is more than 12 months now. I applied for renewal exactly 6 months before my EAD expiration date.
It is a disgrace. There is no reason an EAD renewal should take more than 10 minutes, let alone ten months. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason. My a friend have martiage with a usa citizen female. He has no GC and his immigration case is in Appealing Board in DC. He wants to file i131 in any good uscis office where approval rates should be best. Which states or uscis offices are best to file i131? Kindly guide. Regards.
I am not sure I understand the question. If the person has a case before the Board of Immigration Appeals (meaning, he probably lost his court case and filed an appeal), then he is not eligible for a travel document (usually, form I-131 is to get a travel document). If your friend is married to a US citizen, he may have a path to get a green card, but he should talk to a lawyer about this to see whether he can do it, and how. Take care, Jason
Dear Jason,
Thanks for everything you do for us here. I was surprised to see that on USCIS website you can file form i-765 EAD (Online). Why asylum seekers are not allowed to use this service? I am actually not sure if asylum seekers are eligible to apply for i-765 online! What’s your expectations Sir for that issue in the future?
Best
People with a pending asylum case cannot file the I-765 online. Why? I do not know. But for c-8 applicants, there are some additional questions (related to arrests and entry into the US) that other applicants do not have to file, and maybe this is one reason these forms cannot be filed online. I expect that eventually this will change and more forms will be eligible to file online. Take care, Jason
LOL Jason, it appears, at least to USCIS or the previous administration, that only asylum applicants can have a criminal history or commit crimes. The absurdity in their reasoning is mindboggling. It is nothing but discrimination against asylum seekers. This makes me sick to the stomach.
I agree. It really does seem odd to me that the INS is only asking asylum seekers for criminal history. And only asylum seekers are experiencing delays for their EADs.
I wonder if INS is favoring certain class of immigrants over the other…
@Discrimination
Why are you showing fake worries about discrimination????? Did you not say the following:
“It’s a shame that separate and equal is overturned…It worked so well…until radicalists overturned it.”
That is exactly what they did and why they did it (to harm asylum seekers). Why the Biden Administration has not reverted to the prior system, I have no idea. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason! Reading your blog it seems like there’s huge delays in EAD processing, so I have to apply as soon as I’m eligible ( it will be my 5th EAD!! Crazy. ).
I’m eligible to apply in April, however, due to work, I have to move permanently from LA to DC in March.
It seems like I have to move my asylum case first and apply for EAD after.
I read about clock stop on your blog, but as I understand that applies only to 1st EAD, correct? I shouldn’t have any problems by moving my asylum case in March and applying for EAD in April?
Thanks!
Jason, thank you for your response. Unfortunately, I do not necessarily agree that immigration, abortion, or what constitutes a particular social group (“PSG”), for example, have not been democratically decided. It is, depending on how you look at it, a bit of a stretch to say that these issues were not democratically decided. Unless, of course, you mean the way the electoral system was designed- one which “shortchanges” many US citizens- or you are implying that these issues should be decided by a referendum (one where the electorate makes the decisions on these issues and not the elected representative). This could, as well, be a debate about semantics. If, however, we agree that the US has a democracy, one where democratically elected officials in Congress make decisions for their constituencies, such as the appointment to the executive and judiciary, for example, then we cannot also agree that abortion and immigration, for example, were never democratically decided.
Let me preface what I am about to say next by saying that some of it is a bit tangential/needlessly philosophical. It, however, makes some amount of sense- especially from a practical standpoint.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), for example, is federal law passed by Congress (a democratically elected group of people) and signed into law by a POTUS (someone democratically elected). Depending on the vantage point, one could reasonably agree that the INA was democratically decided. By the way, are you saying that Congress should remove the section of the INA that affords asylum seekers the privilege to seek asylum at the US border? In addition, would you say it’s fair to say that this privilege (asylum seekers having the ability to ask for asylum at the US border), like many of the onerous requirements that are placed on any person who wishes to legally migrate to the US, regardless of immigration category, was already democratically decided since it’s law passed by Congress?
Further, judges, as a result of a democratic process, are able to interpret different sources of law and create precedents- like the SCOTUS did when they ruled in Roe v. Wade, Loving v. Virginia, Brown v. Board of Education, for example. To put it differently, and I do understand that I may be wrong, because there are different sources of law in the US and there is what is called stare decisis, which are made possible because of democratically elected officials, I do not believe that we necessarily need Congress to determine what constitutes a PSG, for example. If so, we risk creating a pattern where the legislative branch is expected to fix and define everything, irrespective of how trivial or political that thing is, that Democrats or Republicans disagree with. That would, essentially, render the judiciary null and insignificant. It is, after all, the constitutional duty of the judiciary to resolve controversies arising under the law. Besides, if the legislative branch passes laws, the judicial branch can strike them down- and vice versa (Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), for example).
Furthermore, realistically speaking, the relatively constant need to resolve certain elements of immigration and asylum laws, for example, is almost inevitable. This is so because, like we’ve witnessed over several decades, what it means to be a refugee or lawful immigrant/resident, for example, can change based on certain conditions. As such, and though I understand that a one-time comprehensive larger legislation for most issues seems ideal, either the judiciary or Congress should, to me, within the constraints of the law and what is just, resolve issues like defining PSG or seeking asylum at the border. One branch of government should not have sole responsibility for addressing these kinds of issues- nor should these issues, for many reasons, be decided by a referendum. In other words, things are not static and they will sometimes need to be decided, in a fair and lawful way, by different democratically elected bodies/entities/ representatives.
I guess my question are- what are the functions of this “democratically elected”… ? Who are the “democratically elected” when it comes to resolving social issues like seeking asylum at the border?
Hello Jason! Reading your blog it seems like there’s huge delays in EAD processing, so I have to apply as soon as I’m eligible ( it will be my 5th EAD!! Crazy. ).
I’m eligible to apply in April, however, due to work, I have to move permanently from LA to DC in March.
It seems like I have to move my asylum case first and apply for EAD after.
I read about clock stop on your blog, but as I understand that applies only to 1st EAD, correct? I shouldn’t have any problems by moving my asylum case in March and applying for EAD in April?
Thanks!
You are correct – once you have the first EAD, there is no problem if you move. It would be better – if possible – to file the I-765 and not have to change your address, as USCIS is a mess and moving could cause additional delay (or maybe not, but I think it is best avoided if you can). However, if you do have to change your address, use form AR-11, available at http://www.uscis.gov and remember to change the address for all pending forms (I-589 and I-765, if you file that form before you move). Take care, Jason
I think it is fair to say that our democracy is very imperfect, which does call into question all decision that have been “democratically” made (meaning in my post, made by Congress, which represents the people). But I think the case of PSG is unique for a few reasons: (1) the majority of asylum seekers arriving at the Southern border seek asylum based on PSG; (2) Whether or not a person gets to “join the club” and ultimately become American is, in these cases, determined by whether the applicant is considered a member of a PSG; (3) PSG was not initially intended to be such a broad category and has been expanded over the years. And so given its importance, I think PSG should be determined democratically (by Congress). Now I must concede that Congress is not particularly democratic. But it is the best we have, and really the only way to gauge the will of the people. My real hope is for some type of consensus about the meaning of PSG, but I do not believe that will happen any time soon. If it did, I think we would have a much more solid foundation for admitting people who qualify for asylum and excluding those who don’t, and I think it would (to some degree) defuse some of the political polarization related to the border. But since I do not expect any type of consensus on this, the proposal above would be to eliminate asylum altogether from the border – this idea is a blunt instrument, and I feel like it is a Civil War surgeon cutting off the leg to save the patient – awful, but better than the alternative. Also, of course, it may be pure fantasy on my part to think “fixing” the border would reduce polarization, but I do think that is the case – immigration generally and the border specifically was a big focus of the Trump campaign and if that were removed as an issue, I think it would help our democracy. Again, it is not something that I think it good; it is just less bad than the alternatives, as I see them. Take care, Jason
Jason,
Do you know what this means Your case has been accepted and routed to the USCIS Harrisonburg Storage Center for processing.
It’s my first time to hear it.
I submitted a paper application for ead and I just received this email with an efile receipt number.
There’s an issue with my application?
I have not seen that message before, but I believe that is one of the offices that processes cases, so I think this is normal. There are long delays for many EAD renewals, and so maybe they are distributing work to different locations in order to process the cases more quickly. I think you are fine, but if you are concerned, you can enter the receipt number into case tracking at http://www.uscis.gov to be sure it is pending or call USCIS (800-375-5283) to confirm this (though calling is tough, as it is difficult to reach a live person). Take care, Jason
Jason, thank you for your response! From my experience, I think it just simply means that they accepted the application- meaning the form is properly filed and there is nothing you need to do at this time- and the application was routed to another center for processing. Of course, if they need additional info in the future, they will let the applicant know.
What a really horrible idea! And, frankly, I’m tired of “debating” on the fascists’ terms as you suggest. The real reason some folks don’t want to honor our legal and constitutional obligations on the Southern Border is because the refugees we should be admitting are brown and black. So, that’s Jim Crow racism. If that’s the price of saving democracy, then it’s not worth saving. Appeasing haters doesn’t work. Just ask the ghost of Neville Chamberlain and those many US jurists and politicians who went along to go along with Jim Crow. There’s no debate to be had because there is no merit to the White Nationalist position. Unless you are interested in having your kids live in the White Supremacist fascist, racist autocracy they favor. You seem to have bought into “replacement theory.” I’m surprised. You basically are advocating “Torpedoing the St. Louis.” Don’t know where you learned it. But, it sure wasn’t in my courtroom! Eventually, maybe America will degrade itself to the point where nobody wants to come. But, as long as there is a perception that one can escape persecution and save lives by getting to the US, folks will come. Your proposal to insure that they all live underground and in fear is not going to stop human migration. You have proved my saying that “we can diminish ourselves as a nation, but it won’t stop human migration.
Due Process Forever!
Paul Wickham Schmidt
US Immigration Judge (Retired)
Your points are well taken, as always. I have a couple responses. First, while I think you can criticize this idea as terrible, I do not think you can criticize it as a violation of due process. DP at the border is whatever Congress says it is, and if Congress changes the law, then DP rights will change as well. What we currently have is the worst of both worlds. Asylum is purportedly available at the border, and so people are incentivised to make the dangerous journey here, but between Title 42 and MPP, it seems there is little opportunity for DP and whether asylum seekers actually get heard at all seems completely arbitrary. Second, and I think this is a fundamental point, I feel that we make a grave error when we assume that anyone who opposes asylum at the border is somehow a fascist or a racist. Unless we recognize that Americans have legitimate concerns about the border (economic, security, cultural), we cannot try to reach a consensus on border policy. While data supports the idea that migrants make a positive contribution to our country, I think the situation is subject to some interpretation, and it is easy enough to come to a less positive conclusion depending on what studies you look at and what metrics you consider most important. People who come to a negative conclusion are not necessarily racist. They may just value “security” (or a certain idea of security) very highly, and feel that allowing people into the country is an intolerable risk. Third, the majority of asylum seekers at the Southern Border qualify for asylum based on PSG, and the definition of PSG is very much in flux. It changes from one Administration to the next, and different adjudicators reach very different conclusion about what constitutes a PSG. But the expansion of PSG has always been done through litigation and regulation; it has never been done democratically. And this seems a weak foundation for deciding who should be eligible for protection in our country. While I favor an expansive definition of PSG, we would be in a better position if this issue had been decided democratically, so that there was some sort of consensus on the matter. Finally, I must admit that I wrote this post while in a very pessimistic mood. After one year of the Biden Administration, things seem worse than ever, and the idea of real and broad immigration reform seems very far off. If this can’t happen now, with Democrats in charge across the board, when will it ever happen? I also feel that the border is taking too much energy from the advocacy community when there is a hidden humanitarian crisis in the form of 2+ million people stuck in Immigration Court and the asylum office, people who cannot even renew their work permits due to the massive delays, and who have been languishing for year and years. Also, concern about the border is driving some voters to support Republicans. If we can reach an agreement on the border in exchange for CIR domestically, I feel that is better than what we have now, which is a disaster, and it might also help take some momentum away from Republicans, who are currently threatening our democracy. So while I do not think the above idea is good, I do think it may be the least bad option and I do think it is worth exploring. Take care, Jason
Jason,
“Unless we recognize that Americans have legitimate concerns about the border (economic, security, cultural), we cannot try to reach a consensus on border policy.”
1- Cultural: Sorry which Culture are you exactly referring to here?????? America was founded by immigrants and is home to a lot of different races and cultures??????May be you should speak in plain words and say that the white majority of conservative redneck Americans don’t want immigrants of different skin color and don’t like their culture.
2- Economy: Not sure where you are getting your information from but the majority of immigrants and Asylees in the U.S are business owners or working in high skilled professions employing thousands of Americans and paying billions of dollars in state and federal taxes and pouring money into your benefits like social security, medicare and medicaid. Paying for benefits that immigrants themselves can’t even use.
3- Unlike what all this racist rhetoric will have you believe, majority of Asylum seekers and immigrants only care about their own economic welfare and security and are peace loving. They can’t even buy guns. Majority of them are hardworking people who come to America to seek protection and economic security for them and their families. Don’t start believing conservative propaganda that Asylum seekers commit crimes.
4- National Interest: I bet it is in your national interest to take hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes from us every year but may be not in your national interest to let us settle here in America peacefully.
Jason, Surprised to see you have starting buying in to all the conservative propaganda B.S. Good for you.
BTW the group of Americans who have security concerns about ASYLUM SEEKERS and immigrants. Just wondering if they are the same group who descended on your capitol in full tactical gear an year ago.
So in your estimation, anyone with security concerns about the border is delusional? If you say so. Take care, Jason
I believe that USCIS runs a lot of background checks and vets people extremely thoroughly before letting them in and I also know that uscis takes bio metrics multiple times.
Also I know that you have a huge wall at the southern border and the U.S border patrol and ICE are doing a great job of protecting the southern border.
In my opinion some of your concerns do have some weight and are reasonable but I also know that the USCIS/DHS are very thorough in their processes and all this propaganda about immigrants being criminals and rapists is mostly based on racism.
Jason,
BTW I think everybody agrees with you on this forum and realize that your conciliatory approach is the right way to go but may be the end result should not be as drastic as saying let’s just “End asylum at the southern border”.
May be a less drastic approach would be to enforce the requirements for seeking asylum more strictly at the southern border. For example may be have DHS implement a more strict/stern approach on who genuinely fits particular social group of asylum seekers.
America is still the most wealthiest and most advanced country in the world and it has obligations under humanitarian treaties to provide a safe place for people who are running from violence and persecution.
I completely agree that we should provide protection for people, and if I were king, I would probably expand eligibility for asylum and more precisely define PSG. However, this post is not about what I think is best for asylum, it is about the political impact of asylum at the border (which is a real mess). While I think a less drastic solution would be better, I do not think that will “fix” the border or reduce the political impact of the problem there. Whether my idea would help, I do not know, but again, I think it is worth exploring this and also less drastic ideas (and of course, such a concession should only occur if there is also some help for people who are already here). Take care, Jason
1 – Culture meaning people are attached to their ways, and different ways are viewed by some as threatening. This also includes English language, religious views, and democratic values. Whether I agree with this or not is not the point. The point is that many American have concerns about changing norms and values, and to label all such people as racist or white supremacist seems inaccurate and unfair. 2 – Most studies show that immigrants contribute more to the economy than they use (even refugees, who come here with nothing contribute more), but this does not mean there are not winners and losers from immigration – some Americans will be worse off due to immigration, even though overall, we benefit. 3 – Noncitizens commit crimes at a lower rate than native born people, but that does not mean they do not commit any crimes. To dismiss concerns about security just because most migrants are law abiding does not address the concern of people that some migrants do commit crimes. 4 – Again, just because I personally think that our nation benefits from immigrants does not mean that all American think this, or that they do not have legitimate concerns. We need to address those concerns rather than dismiss people who disagree with us as racist or white supremacist. The Left does itself no favors by assuming moral superiority and that anyone who disagrees with us is a bigot. Maybe it feels good to do that, but it leads nowhere. Take care, Jason
I agree. As an immigrant myself I don’t want everybody from my home country to come here. I left because of the homophobic culture and the crime rate. I think people should listen before judging other people’s views, the cancel culture sucks.
@ASYLEE
I agree 100%, you are special, your life matters more than other people from your home country or other Asylum Seekers from different countries. Only you should have the right/privilege of seeking asylum in the U.S since you had the resources of getting a U.S visa and buying a plane ticket.
People who walk thousands of miles on foot from their home countries in perilous conditions and make the dangerous journey to the U.S are really a lower class of Asylum Seekers who really should not have the same right to seek Asylum as the Asylum Seekers arriving on planes.
I agree with you 100%. Asylum Seekers who arrive on planes and pay/hire attorneys like Jason should really be considered a special privileged high class of Asylum Seekers and should be differentiated from poor Asylum seekers arriving from South America.
No I agree Cancel culture sucks in general but it fits appropriately when it applies to bigotry as is this particular case here.
I have lost count of how many comments I have read on this forum in which guys who claimed asylum on gay status were then asking:
“Hey Jason I accidentally made a girl pregnant, Would USCIS create problem for me”?
Like what happened, Did you decide to be straight overnight or something???????
I don’t agree that due process at the border is what Congress says it is. That’s judicial double talk. It’s saying saying “Due Process under the Constitution means no process whatsoever” if that’s what Congress says. What a dodge! Of course that’s not true. You don[t need a law degree to see that. Total BS made up by judges afraid to enforce the Constitution as written when it means vindicating the rights of “the other.” That’s how we got “separate but equal” and lots of other judicial balderdash.
I recognize that like Dred Scott and Plessey, it’s what the Supremes said. So, right now it’s the law of tghe land. That doesn’t make it correct or something we should accept.
Just because we have a history of bad judicial and political decisions, many catering to the political wishes of White Supremacists, in America doesn’t mean that continuing to play at due process is a legitimate choice. Maybe that’s why our democracy is on the rocks in the first place. No values, no courage!
By your rationale, the Supremes can just say “no due process” for almost any group in America because they are “different” for some factionalized reason. Look what they have done to undermine voting rights which are clearly set forth in the Constitution (Art. 15).
That’s exactly why “dehumanizing” immigrants and persons of color in immigration was the first blow the Trump Administration made against democracy. Compromising with White Nationalists is NOT the answer! Again, it’s a wimpy concession.
White Nationalist won’t concede that persons of color in the US (including the. borders) regardless of status are “persons” at all — for any reason. Your proposal is to “at least discuss” the concept that they aren’t persons and see where we go from there.
Next, lets have a discussion of children born in the US not being citizens. We can move on to discuss the entire White Nationalist, anti-immigrant agenda as if it were legit. That’s exactly how those in the “power structure” — sometimes supposed “liberals” — bargain away the rights of those “on the outside looking in.” How many times in American history were pols and judges of all parties willing to “bargain away the humanity of African Americans, Indians, Chinese, etc.,” to achieve some type of supposed “political equilibrium” and “tranquility” for those in the White power structure. How has that worked out? In particular, how has it worked out for those whose human, legal, and constitutional rights and human dignity were “bargained away?”
I think there is a big difference between people arriving at the border and seeking entry and people who are in the US and who receive the full protection of the Constitution. For example, if someone arrives at the border and says, “I fear return to my country because I don’t like the food there and it makes my stomach upset,” that person will not pass a credible fear interview because that person cannot qualify for asylum. We could change the asylum law so the person will qualify, but that is not the law now, and no amount of due process will change that. Similarly, if we changed the law and eliminated PSG as a basis for asylum, many people would be excluded. That is something we can do as a sovereign nation. Would I prefer a world where we admit anyone who has a legitimate fear of harm regardless of nexus? Yes, I would. But that is not our world. There are many Americans, not just white supremacists, who are concerned about the border, and who will express that concern by voting. We advocates have failed (for years and years) to convince enough of our countrymen otherwise. I think we should consider concessions at the border in exchange for helping the millions of people who are already here and who are stuck. Would I prefer that we do both? Yes, I would, but that is not going to happen. Maybe, maybe, there could be a compromise to help those who are here, in exchange for “border security.” I do not think that is a concession to white supremacy; I think it is an acknowledgment of reality. I also think that in a democracy, such concessions are the best hope for reaching some type of agreement. I also think that diffusing the border would benefit Democrats at the polls (though as a recent WaPo article pointed out, Biden is enforcing most of Trump’s rules at the border and he is still being attacked for his “open borders”, so maybe there is simply no hope of a reality-based discussion about the border). Take care, Jason
Dear friends, do you know why some asylum cases can be added to the USCIS account and some can’t. When I enter my receipt number to add a paper-filed case in my online account at USCIS, it says that “No Case was Found” but I know some friends who have been successfully able to add their cases to their accounts? My case is being handled at the Chicago office and my status is “Application Is Pending”.
Hi Jason,
I recently changed my address using the USCIS online tool forcmy pending I-485 based on Asylum, few days after th4 change I received an email confirmation that my address had been changed. And they clearly mentioned in the email confirmation that theres no need to file the AR-11, my only concern that since I changed that two months ago I didnt receive any paper mail confirmation from USCIS, is thst usual or I should expect a mail from them confirming thr address ?
We usually do not receive a paper letter confirming the address, but sometime we do. Why do we get that in some case and not others, I do not know. Also, I am not quite sure what you mean when you say that changed your address with the online tool. The only way I know to do that is the AR-11, which can be filed online. If that is what you did and you received confirmation, you should be fine. Take care, Jason
I additionally send an email to asylum office whenever I change my address and I also call them and let them know but that is just because I am a little paranoid that they might loose my asylum file.
In any case sending an email to asylum office is no harm.
I have had that issue too, and I do not know why, though frankly, I am not too good with any of the online stuff so I had assumed I was somehow doing it wrong. Maybe someone else here has had better luck. Take care, Jason
There are 2 online tools, I am also not able to add my paper filled asylum case on the 2nd. Not sure why. I can see the Asylum status on the first one though.
1- USCIS Case Status: https://egov.uscis.gov/casestatus/landing.do
2- https://myaccount.uscis.gov/
This post presumes the existence of a mythical creature: the persuadable bigot. Your proposal tries to bargain with those who would rather quiet us (at least electorally) forever, and presumes that inroads can be made in their ranks.
I believe that in most recent electoral cycles, it has not been a matter of winning voters from opposing ranks, but increasing turnout, and you will not increase turnout through yet another broken promise, and yet another compromised principle. That does not motivate voters, and this is borne out in Biden’s continued negative favorability among conservatives and dipping favorability among moderate Democratic voters and the left. This strategy will fail. We should not let people die for a strategy that will fail.
Furthermore, it is important to remember that to treat the most vulnerable as cannon fodder undermines the duty we have accepted as advocates and lawyers in this field. It betrays all members of the affected communities to hand over our fellows to the lions like this – including members of the communities who also happen to be lawyers in this field.
I understand your concerns for our democracy, but this is not the way forward. Please reconsider.
Many thanks,
Diego
I think these are powerful arguments, but I think we should be having this discussion and should consider all possibilities. The goal is not to persuade bigots, and I think this view misinterprets the “secure borders” voter. It is not necessarily bigotry to want a strong border and it is not unreasonable to be concerned about who gets admitted into the US. I think we view “secure border” voters in this way at our peril. In terms of the politics, to me, the question is whether such voters would be influenced by a change on the ground. I think enough of them might be to make a difference at the polls, but of course, I do not know. I think it is worth exploring this point. Also, after decades of talk about CIR going nowhere, including now, with a Democratic President, House, and Senate, I feel like we need to try something new. I think “securing the borders” (whatever that means) in exchange for legalizing undocumented people in the US is a deal worth considering, and – if the border element is included – it might even attract some Republican lawmakers. This would be good for any new law, since the wider consensus, the better. Also, while I think fulfilling promises on immigration may create some enthusiasm and bring out some voters, the polling data cited above largely indicates that positive news on immigration is not a major issue for many left leaning voters, and so positive immigration news seems unlikely to increase voter turnout for Democrats. To be sure, I am not completely convinced by the argument I made in the article, but something needs to be different and I think these ideas are worth exploring. Take care, Jason
Your support for such a radical move to strengthen the Democrats’ hand in the upcoming election is on a par with the fighters from the Irgun and Betar giving up their struggle against the British Mandate and joining the British Army during WWII based on their realization that German Nazism was more of an existential threat to Jews than any British Mandate could be. The Betar Zionist Revisionists were the only group in Europe that recognized the Holocaust from the earliest days and clearly understood that the British ban on Jewish immigration to Palestine would millions of Jews to their deaths, but they knew that they had to join forces with the lesser evil to join forces to fight the greater evil. The foe of my enemy is my friend.
Republicans have recognized for a long time that fear and hate drive people to the polls better than any understanding of the issues. Exploit whatever ill will they can find and stoke the fires with lies about the other side’s policies being the problem and people who ordinarily don’t vote will rush to the polls to cast their vote against those evil politicians who kowtow to “them”, the others, who are the root of all our problems. Since the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s Republicans have relied on thinly veiled racism termed as “States Rights” to drive their foot soldiers to the polls. In the early 1970s they added anti abortionists to the ranks, and, until gay rights finally gained sufficient acceptance a common tactic was to get anti gay initiatives on the ballot to help drive the Christian “family values” voters to the polls. Then, finally, David Brat challenged Eric Cantor, one of the GOPs rising stars, in a primary and soundly defeated him based almost solely on attacks on Cantor’s policies towards immigration. When trump descended the golden escalator to announce his candidacy in May of 2015 it was no accident that he devoted the first and most emotional part of his speech to an attack on immigration. Immigrants, many with dark skin, the perfect patsies to blame everything that usual non voters feared and hated about our country on. Never mind that trump has a long history of profiting off the exploitation of undocumented workers in his various enterprises (https://time.com/5039109/donald-trump-undocumented-polish-trump-tower-bonwit-teller/).
The problem is, the plan won’t work because the GOP and the hard right wing white supremacists control the narrative. The right wing noise machine will twist the truth till it is unrecognizable and convince the non voters that the Democrats are just waiting till after the election to open the floodgates and grant asylum to every person who asks for it. What is needed is not some plan to try to take away one of their most potent weapons but something to scare and anger the voters against the GOP candidates. Don’t forget that trump got the second highest number of votes of any presidential candidate in history and only lost because he was running against the man who got the highest number of votes. The jump in the number of votes cast between 2016 and 2020 was more than 20 million. The only reason trump lost was because more people hated him and feared what he would do to their country than hated and feared what they were told Biden would do.
My strong preference would be to have an honest debate about who is seeking protection in the US and why, and whether we want to help them. Then, we could reach a consensus of sorts and come up with a policy. But the idea of an honest debate seems like utter fantasy. Whether any policy change can actually convince anyone, I do not know, but I think it is possible and is worth considering. I would not be surprised if that is wrong, and maybe the only hope is to make more people afraid of Republicans so they vote for Democrats. That is a depressing, but probably not unrealistic, idea. Take care, Jason
I also would visa overstayers and those who come to U.S. by airplane made ineligible for asylum. This is a much overlooked way for people to sneak into the country.
In my opinion, only people from visa waiver countries should be eligible to apply for asylum…
@ASYLUMSEEKER / BORDER Security
Hahahahahahahaha……….you are a joke bro…..just stop
@ASYLUMSEEKER
I am sure you and your ARYAN brothers would love white skinned asylees from netherlands, norway and such but that’s not how asylum law works…….Asylum is granted on protection grounds not skin color…….
hahahhahahahahahaha
I guess I just like only anglosphere’s people should seek asylum within angloshphere…
It’s a shame that separate and equal is overturned…It worked so well…until radicalists overturned it.
Don’t worry Bro….Soon your white skinned majority in usa will be gone in next 25 years then you will enjoy being the minority…We can implement separate and equal at that time if you wish…
hahahhahahahahahha
You should write an email to all the congressmen, Senators, USCIS and DHS and let them know that in your astute & learned opinion, People from the below countries are more deserving of asylum and should be given a preference, I am sure they will agree with you.
Thank you for enlightening us buddy with your extraordinary wisdom. Only if more people like you worked for the U.S government.
Visa Waiver countries:
Andorra (1991)
Australia (1996)
Austria (1991)
Belgium (1991)
Brunei (1993)
Chile (2014)
Croatia (2021)
Czech Republic (2008)
Denmark (1991)
Estonia (2008)
Finland (1991)
France (1989)
Germany (1989)
Greece (2010)
Hungary (2008)
Iceland (1991)
Ireland (1995)
Italy (1989)
Japan (1988)
Korea, Republic of (2008)
Latvia (2008)
Liechtenstein (1991)
Lithuania (2008)
Luxembourg (1991)
Malta (2008)
Monaco (1991)
Netherlands (1989)
New Zealand (1991)
Norway (1991)
Poland (2019)
Portugal (1999)
San Marino (1991)
Singapore (1999)
Slovakia (2008)
Slovenia (1997)
Spain (1991)
Sweden (1989)
Switzerland (1989)
Taiwan (2012)
United Kingdom** (1988)
I guess my remark touches the core interest of you ? so some people jump out to denounce and attack me ? lol
Don’t worry buddy, Given how the population growth is going….Immigrants will probably be the majority in next 30 years then if people like you wish we can implement all the racists laws that you wish…
LOLZ…..
BTW I don’t mean to be rude when I say this since I respect all races and genders but based on my own experience, your white women prefer immigrants anyways since we are more hardworking and successful financial….I personally have dated a few American white women… one of whom I almost married……..
I think the causation race will go extinct in next 30 years since we are also marrying all your women…..I hope you enjoy that thought hahahahahaha
This makes no sense unless the goal is to end asylum altogether, which is certainly not my goal. In addition, many people come here with visas and the situation changes, so they need to seek asylum. Also, rightly or wrongly, I have not seen any polling data to show that this group is not as polarizing as people arriving at the border. Maybe it is just the visuals of large numbers of people arriving in groups, but I think if the issue is trying to placate a certain segment of the electorate, solving the border situation would be more effective in that regard. Take care, Jason
Jason,
I don’t know, May be you are running out of things to write about may be.
Let me dare ask this question. You do realize that you have a huge wall at the southern border. Also people who do manage to cross the southern border illegally are mostly caught by border patrol. The biden administration quickly deported thousands of illegal immigrants from haiti a few months ago.
Also the title of your article above is so bad, Either end asylum completely but do not say that END asylum at southern border. That makes zero sense to me. Seeking asylum should be fair for everybody. I am not even from south america but I think the process should be fair and equal.
If any body who arrives at the southern border then the question becomes: Does he actually qualify for asylum based on law:
1- Race 2- Political opinion 3- Religion 4- Membership in a particular social group
5- Nationality 6- Torture Convention
You don’t have to blindly admit people into the U.S if they don’t fit in to one of the categories above. The U.S government already has a very strong border patrol and very effective ICE. Not sure where your concern is coming from.
And BTW may be you haven’t stepped out of your law office in a while but the people who come through the Southern border comprise the majority of workforce for low level professions that Americans themselves don’t want to do like farm workers, restaurant workers etc.
I will give you an example. In the last 2 years since since this pandemic started almost all the restaurants that I have been to and even other businesses have signs up that say “Hiring workers at 15/20$”.
Businesses in the U.S are failing miserably rather horribly because they can’t find workers to fill these low level jobs. Instead of denying people at the southern border why not create a temporary visa category that could be issued to them at the border check point. I am sure people from south america would be to work legally in the U.S.
But the problem is instead of resolving the root cause of the problem “Your broken immigration system” you intend to deny people.
Let me ask you this American employers are more than happy to hire illegal immigrants yet american government does not want to make the immigration process easier and more accessible so that these people can arrive legally.
Why don’t you talk about the elephant in the room (The real issue), The reason why so many people choose to apply for asylum is because every other immigration category is unfair, biased and cruel.
you ask why: So it is very easy to get green card if you just marry some marry some american but a working immigrant who has paid taxes and workes his ass off for 5/10 years has no other way to adjust status or get green by his own self unless he can beg employers to sponsor him.
People with advanced degrees are able to secure permanent residence based on their education and work experience in canada but in america all the power is given to american businesses and citizens to sponsor immigrants. That’s why most of the businesses are more than happy to keep exploiting immigrant labor.
But GOD forbid they would be willing to sponsor a law that allows immigrants to just adjust status without leaving the U.S if the immigrant has already lived and worked and taxes for several years.
SUMMARY: The only thing you should be worried about is to fix the immigration system completely. If you can have illegal immigrants work for you then allow them to settle down as well. Don’t just keep exploiting them just because you are too lazy to do low level jobs.
Jason,
Just admit it, The whole American immigration system is cruel, unfair and biased. That’s why so many people who don’t even qualify for asylum just go ahead and apply for asylum.
Asylum is the most difficult immigration category yet millions of people are applying for it ….WHY ……that is the question you should be asking in the first place…..And the answer is that your immigration system is broken and cruel…It gives all the power in the hands of American employers and citizen to treat immigrants and exploit them as they like but not allow them to settle down and get permanent residence easily.
Any person who has worked for more than 3 years and paid his taxes should automatically be allowed to adjust status….Why does he need to marry somebody or beg some American employer to sponsor him.
The real problem is that American immigration system is completely flawed unfair and cruel. That’s your problem right there. Fix that first if you are so concerned.
You’ll get no argument from me on these points – the system is a complete disaster in terms of how it treats people within the system and how it serves our national interest. If I had the magic power to fix it, I would. But absent an intervention from Gandolf (or Dumbledore, if you prefer, though I suspect they are the same person), that is not about to happen. We need to make proposals that might get some traction, and perhaps an idea such as this would get somewhere. Take care, Jason
My preference would be comprehensive immigration reform with a greater consensus about who qualifies for asylum – in other words, Congress and not courts should decide on the definition of a particular social group. My person opinion (in an ideal world) is that PSG would be more expansive, as that will help more people. Also, I agree that asylum seekers and other migrants enrich our country and are needed for our economy. All that said, as I argue above, the border “crisis” is polarizing in a way that other immigration issues are not, and that is being used by Republicans to sway voters. Also, I think that after 20+ years of trying to get a better immigration law, we need to try something else. And so while I do not like the idea of ending asylum at the border, I do believe it would remove a major recruiting point for Republicans and far right groups. Now I certainly could be wrong about whether making such a policy change would result in positive internal political change (as I am not an expert in polling or voting), but I think it is worth considering this point. Also, on an unrelated note, you are having a lot of exchanges with the commentor formerly known as asylum seeker. I will be taking down a number of that person’s post that I deem inappropriate and that may cause some of your responses to disappear as well. Take care, Jason
Thank you Jason,
Yes I guess Gandolf will have to return back to middle earth from valinor to bring about real reform/change in the immigration system. I guess we need a powerful wizard like gandolf here.
or
May be Professor Dumbeldore can teach some good spells to all the U.S congressman and senators to help them pass laws related to immigration reform since such tasks are not humanly possible otherwise.
I think the real problem is politics. It is easy enough to come up with a rational solution to the problem, but that has not happened in decades, and so I doubt it will happen any time soon. Take care, Jason
Jason, thank you for publishing this. This is well-said. Respectfully, though, I have to disagree with many of your premises- not necessarily your conclusion. I know they are not, but your arguments can be accused of undue or extreme simplification- or trying to make asylum seekers at the border the center of the debate over democracy in the US. Indeed, it is almost inherently unfair to suppose, like you’ve alluded, that there is some connection between asylum seekers at the border and saving what is left of this democracy (or experience with democracy).
I believe that when it comes to US politics, democracy, and other complex social and socioeconomic issues, one must first understand, or try to use, historical context and cause. For, trust and believe, even if the border between Mexico and US becomes physically impossible to cross, Republicans will find, and have found, other ways to pit Americans against themselves (Critical Race Theory, the Black Lives Matter movement, legal immigration of “Black” and “Brown” people to the US, LGBTQI+ people, the defund-the-police slogan, abortion rights, “socialism” (like they call certain social welfare programs), gun rights, Semitism, etc.), or some other way- gerrymandering and redistricting, for example- to douse democracy with gasoline and set it ablaze. The Republicans’ strategies stand “par excellence” as the most reliable when it comes to ginning up fear against Black and Brown people (in general- not only Black and Brown immigrants) and ultimately denying some American citizens their constitutional right to vote. Is it then reasonable to say that leadership, and not necessarily asylum seekers, matters when it comes to saving this democracy? Or is it reasonable to say that the types of people elected to office is a reflection of their constituents? Put another way, their constituents hate asylum seekers and they should get rid of them by any means necessary (even if it means overthrowing the government or destroying democracy).
The American democracy has always been limping. It’s also safe to say that it’s flawed- but which democracy isn’t, really?- in many ways. In some parts of the US, for instance, the government can pick their voters, instead of the other way around, or just opt to disenfranchise, with impunity, a whole group of people because of their demographic or social background or because of the way they vote. The US also seems to prefer, and enjoy, a minority rule, which is, even to the blind, antithetical to any healthy democracy. For instance, Joe Biden won almost 7 million more votes than Trump nationally, but Biden was only able to become POTUS because he won close to 200,000 more votes in a handful of “swing states”. This “minority rule”, courtesy of an outdated electoral college system, also happens to transcend presidential elections- it is the reason for the glaring malapportionment of legislative seats in the legislature, which ultimately affects voting rights, immigration, abortion, appointment of judges, LGBTQI+ issues, infrastructure, healthcare, democracy, etc. But, why do some Americans prefer to have a system- one that parades as democracy- that gives California, a state with almost 40 million people, and Wyoming, a state with almost 800 thousand people, the same legislative apportionment or power, for example? Is it true democracy? If not, did America have a democracy to begin with? Did it only only take a “leader” who openly (emphasis on “openly”) espouses the tenets of fascism and ultra nationalism to bring forth what, at some point in US history, became seemingly or relatively dormant? Are anti-democratic sentiments/practices, insurrection and coup attempts new to America? Can the elimination of legally seeking asylum at the US border curb xenophobia and racism in America, and ultimately save America’s democracy? What really is causing this rise in antigovernment and antidemocratic actions and sentiments? Is it the perception by some that there is a change in the US racial demographics? If so, and if we blame legal migration for the changing racial makeup in the US, would it be reasonable to say that legal immigration, of which seeking asylum in the US is a part, should be put on the chopping block next? What next, of the MANY things that Republican voters hate or anger them, should be cut from Democrats agenda to assuage Republican voters and thus save their democracy?
All these points are well taken and (not to pull a “Ted Cruz”), but I am not completely convinced of the argument I made above. I do think the general issue is worth discussing, which is my main point. Also, I think my argument is a bit more limited than how you see it. Immigration – and in particular the border – has been a (if not the) main talking point for Republicans in the last few election cycles. It is also an issue, like abortion, that has not really been decided democratically (since litigation has expanded the original eligibility requirements for asylum, especially the definition of particular social groups). This makes it a more easily exploited issue since there is no real consensus about who should be eligible for asylum. Combine this with the very strong feelings about immigration/the border in a certain segment of the population, and (I suspect) you have a group of voters who will vote for secure borders, even if they might not otherwise be thrilled with the Republican agenda (much as some “gun rights” people might vote Republican even if they disagree with other issues, because they vote based on “run rights” alone). So my theory is that some of these voters could be peeled off and persuaded not to vote for a Republican if the border became a non-issue. Obviously, this could be wrong – maybe these voters have other reasons to vote Republican. Or, maybe the Republicans will come up with something else to influence them (like fear of BLM, for instance), but I think that the border is unique, and polling seems to support that. In any event, I do think we on the Left should be discussing and considering this issue, as smarter and more politically savvy minds than me may be able to more accurately evaluate whether this proposal would result in a benefit for Democrats. Take care, Jason
Jason, thank you for your response. Unfortunately, I do not necessarily agree that immigration, abortion, or what constitutes a particular social group (“PSG”), for example, have not been democratically decided. It is, depending on how you look at it, a bit of a stretch to say that these issues were not democratically decided. Unless, of course, you mean the way the electoral system was designed- one which “shortchanges” many US citizens- or you are implying that these issues should be decided by a referendum (one where the electorate makes the decisions on these issues and not the elected representative). This could, as well, be a debate about semantics. If, however, we agree that the US has a democracy, one where democratically elected officials in Congress make decisions for their constituencies, such as the appointment to the executive and judiciary, for example, then we cannot also agree that abortion and immigration, for example, were never democratically decided.
Let me preface what I am about to say next by saying that some of it is a bit tangential/needlessly philosophical. It, however, makes some amount of sense- especially from a practical standpoint.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), for example, is federal law passed by Congress (a democratically elected group of people) and signed into law by a POTUS (someone democratically elected). Depending on the vantage point, one could reasonably agree that the INA was democratically decided. By the way, are you saying that Congress should remove the section of the INA that affords asylum seekers the privilege to seek asylum at the US border? In addition, would you say it’s fair to say that this privilege (asylum seekers having the ability to ask for asylum at the US border), like many of the onerous requirements that are placed on any person who wishes to legally migrate to the US, regardless of immigration category, was already democratically decided since it’s law passed by Congress?
Further, judges, as a result of a democratic process, are able to interpret different sources of law and create precedents- like the SCOTUS did when they ruled in Roe v. Wade, Loving v. Virginia, Brown v. Board of Education, for example. To put it differently, and I do understand that I may be wrong, because there are different sources of law in the US and there is what is called stare decisis, which are made possible because of democratically elected officials, I do not believe that we necessarily need Congress to determine what constitutes a PSG, for example. If so, we risk creating a pattern where the legislative branch is expected to fix and define everything, irrespective of how trivial or political that thing is, that Democrats or Republicans disagree with. That would, essentially, render the judiciary null and insignificant. It is, after all, the constitutional duty of the judiciary to resolve controversies arising under the law. Besides, if the legislative branch passes laws, the judicial branch can strike them down- and vice versa (Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), for example).
Furthermore, realistically speaking, the relatively constant need to resolve certain elements of immigration and asylum laws, for example, is almost inevitable. This is so because, like we’ve witnessed over several decades, what it means to be a refugee or lawful immigrant/resident, for example, can change based on certain conditions. As such, and though I understand that a one-time comprehensive larger legislation for most issues seems ideal, either the judiciary or Congress should, to me, within the constraints of the law and what is just, resolve issues like defining PSG or seeking asylum at the border. One branch of government should not have sole responsibility for addressing these kinds of issues- nor should these issues, for many reasons, be decided by a referendum. In other words, things are not static and they will sometimes need to be decided, in a fair and lawful way, by different democratically elected bodies/entities/ representatives.
I guess my question are- what are the functions of this “democratically elected”… ? Who are the “democratically elected” when it comes to resolving social issues like seeking asylum at the border?