Last week, I attended a concert at my synagogue by the Jerusalem Youth Chorus, a group of young Palestinians and Israelis who perform music together. In his introduction, my Rabbi explained the purpose of the evening. We were not going to stop a brutal war or bring back hostages from captivity. We would not be able to give respite in a way that mattered and is necessary to Gazans or end the suffering there. That’s not what tonight is, he said. I wish it was, but it isn’t. Here’s what tonight is, tonight is a gigantic middle finger (his words, not mine) to everybody who tells us that there is no way forward together. Tonight is what happens when you take microphones out of the hands of yesterday’s leaders and put them in front of today’s leaders. Tonight is the only story that we will see 50 or 100 years from now, G-d willing. We’re opening doors, and we’re opening hearts.
In a way–a less melodious or entertaining way–asylum serves a similar purpose. (more…)
Let’s play a game. Below are a series of quotations. The speaker is either Donald Trump or Adolph Hitler. Your goal is to guess which leader made each statement. (more…)
Question: Who do you think is more likely to deny an asylum case, an Immigration Judge appointed by a Republican president or an Immigration Judge appointed by a Democratic president?
As far as I can tell, no one has ever researched this question before; so our team of statisticians here at The Asylumist spent the last few months crunching the numbers, and we now have our answer. If you’re like me, you might find their conclusion a bit surprising. (more…)
Conventional wisdom holds that resettling refugees and asylum seekers is a burden on the host country. Indeed, many of our nation’s immigration policies are based on this premise: We make it difficult for asylum seekers to enter the country; once they are here, their cases often take many years to resolve and in a majority of cases, they are denied; politicians routinely malign asylum seekers as economic parasites, criminals, and terrorists. But why should this be? What is the evidence that refugees and asylum seekers have a negative impact on their host countries?
The governors of Texas, Arizona, and Florida have been transporting asylum seekers from the border to “sanctuary” jurisdictions, such as Washington, DC, New York City, Chicago, and Martha’s Vineyard. Many of these migrants have suffered persecution in their home countries and have undergone difficult and dangerous journeys to reach the United States. The governors have enticed them to travel from the border to other parts of the country by falsely promising them jobs, work permits, and other benefits. In most cases, the receiving localities have not been forewarned about the new arrivals, and so have had difficulty coordinating a humanitarian response.
Immigration advocates have referred to these transfers as a “cynical political game,” a “publicity stunt” and a “political ploy.” Others have called it an effort to “own the libs.” While I agree that lying to vulnerable people and manipulating them is cruel and immoral, I think we on the Left are not being honest or wise when we dismiss the migrant transports as mere political theater. The issues underlying the governors’ efforts are serious and we ignore those issues at our peril. (more…)
The President and his allies are doing everything in their power to subvert the result of last month’s election. So far, their efforts have not changed the outcome, but we are still in a very dangerous place. Hopefully, the system and our country will withstand this unprecedented assault on democracy and the rule of law. If so, and if Joe Biden assumes office in January, he will face a number of daunting challenges: The pandemic and healthcare, the economy, climate change, divisiveness and decaying faith in democracy, racial justice, and immigration reform, to name the most obvious. How much attention immigration–and specifically asylum–will receive in this mix remains to be seen.
Prior to the election, the Democratic Party and the Biden campaign set forth their proposals for immigration reform, which are quite sweeping. Many of Mr. Biden’s ideas can only be enacted with the cooperation of Congress. Others could be put into effect without Congressional action, just as President Trump implemented his immigration agenda through agency rulemaking and executive orders.
A minority of the immigration policy changes proposed by Mr. Biden relate specifically to asylum, and most of these concern asylum seekers at the Southern border. This is not surprising, as the border is a disaster, but my concern is that applicants at the Asylum Office and in Immigration Court–which together represent close to two million people–will be overlooked.
Kudos for Biden; Coup Don’ts for Trump.
In this series of posts, I hope to set forth my ideas for reforming and improving our nation’s asylum system.
Before we discuss substance, however, I want to talk politics, since any reform will take place in the context of the current political crisis where, even in the best case, millions of Americans will view Mr. Biden’s Administration as illegitimate and where many Republican leaders will be vying to outdo each other in obstructing the new President’s agenda. The divisive political climate will potentially limit Mr. Biden’s ability to make changes, and in turn, any changes he manages to implement could lead to further division. This begs the question: Should the new Administration follow the Trump game plan, and do all within its power to achieve its goals? Or is it better to focus on areas of bipartisan agreement (if any can be found)?
I’m of two minds about this dilemma. On the one hand, non-citizens in our country have been treated unfairly and cruelly. They have been lied about (and to), terrorized, exploited, and in many cases, forced to wait for years for status to which they are legally entitled. Also, when President Obama tried to take a middle road on immigration (remember when he was referred to as the “Deporter-in-Chief”?), it did nothing to move the other side towards compromise. Perhaps that’s because there is a stark partisan divide over illegal immigration: Only 23% of Democrats view it as a “big problem,” while 67% of Republicans see it that way. So if compromise is impossible, maybe the Biden Administration’s better approach is to implement whatever reforms it can manage regardless of the political consequences.
On the other hand, what is most needed now is to try to heal the divisions in our nation. Pushing through partisan immigration reforms (legislatively or administratively) will likely exacerbate the divide. Further, if President Biden overplays his hand on immigration, it could result in a backlash that advantages Republicans and other immigration restrictionists. Of course, the same predicament exists for other issues–like climate change–and the idea of waiting for a broader consensus when action is needed imminently makes little sense. Immigrants and asylum seekers urgently need relief and protection. So while ideally I believe it would be best to reach out to moderate Republicans and to continue working to educate the public about immigration, I also believe that we need to start enacting changes immediately.
That said, I think the Biden Administration needs to move with caution. Some immigration issues–such as DACA and (surprisingly) refugee resettlement–have broader bipartisan support than others, such as border security and deporting people who are here illegally. Certainly, the new Administration can focus on areas where it will encounter less resistance and face fewer negative repercussions.
The proposals I will make in this series fall, I think, on the more bipartisan side of the spectrum. I plan to discuss ideas for improving efficiency and fairness at the Asylum Office, the Immigration Court, and at USCIS.
In contrast to Mr. Biden’s pre-election policy agenda, my focus in this series will not be the Southern border. Protecting asylum seekers at the border is a more divisive issue than most other areas of immigration law, and I believe that advocates and policy-makers need to lay a political foundation before enacting successful change there. I’ve written about this in more detail before, but unless we build a more bipartisan consensus about who is eligible for asylum, we risk a severe backlash by easing restrictions at the Southern border. Indeed, one could argue that President Trump was elected largely as a reaction against perceived porous borders.
While the politics of border reform is a crucial concern, the situation along the U.S.-Mexico border is clearly untenable–people are dying and something needs to be done. How the Biden Administration will navigate that political minefield, I do not know, but I worry that the political capital required for improving conditions at the border will make it more difficult to enact needed changes in other, less politically-charged regions of the immigration system, such as USCIS, the Asylum Office, and the Immigration Court. In any event, those three areas will be the subject of the next several posts on this blog.
President Trump’s (hoped for) departure will open up some space to improve the situation for non-citizens: By reversing many of his Administration’s damaging immigration policies, but also–hopefully–by bringing long-needed improvements to the immigration system. The trick will be to balance that change with the current political realities, to minimize the inevitable counter-reaction, and to avoid doing further damage to the cohesion of our nation.
Next week is the election (in case you haven’t heard) and hopefully soon after, we will have a result. Whether the victor is Joe Biden or Donald Trump, immigration advocates have their work cut out for them.
If Mr. Trump wins a second term, it won’t be because he won the popular vote. It’s clear that more Americans will vote for his opponent (as they did in 2016). However, our system awards electoral votes by state, and states with lower populations–which tend to be more conservative–receive disproportionate representation. Perhaps there is some wisdom to this system, which disfavors change, since change is difficult and divisive, especially for those who already have power. Or maybe we would be better off with a system that is more responsive to the will of a simple majority. I am really not sure. In any event, as the President says, it is what it is.
So in terms of immigration, how would a second term look for President Trump? Since early 2017, the Trump Administration has been using its rule-making authority to restrict immigration in a variety of ways. This effort swung into high gear with the advent of the pandemic, and over the past eight months we’ve seen a barrage of changes, many of which make life more difficult for asylum seekers and immigrants. One thing we have not seen from President Trump is an effort to change the law, even when the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress (and remember, to change the law, Congress needs to pass a bill and the President has to sign it). Because the law has not changed, President Trump has had to work within the existing law to make regulatory and policy changes. When those changes have gone beyond the bounds of the law, courts have blocked them.
“Please vote as if my life depends on it.”
Assuming President Trump wins re-election and Republicans do not control both chambers of Congress (and it is very doubtful that Republicans will take the House), it is unlikely that we would see any positive immigration reform. Mr. Trump has periodically made noise about helping the Dreamers (people brought to the U.S. as children who do not have lawful permanent status here), and so perhaps we could see some bipartisan legislation to regularize their status. Also, there are some other possible areas of cooperation on immigration (temporary seasonal workers and Christian refugees, for example), but those are quite limited.
More likely, if Mr. Trump is granted a second term, we will see more of what we saw during the first term: Travel bans, reduction of due process protections, a weaponized bureaucracy designed to make it more difficult and expensive to obtain legal status in the U.S., regulatory changes that restrict eligibility for asylum and immigration, increased enforcement by ICE, punitive strategies to deter and harm asylum seekers at the border, etc. During the President’s first term, some (but not all) of his worst attacks were mitigated by the courts–mostly the lower courts, as the Supreme Court was more deferential to the President’s authority. Now, with the confirmation of a new conservative Justice on the Supreme Court, a second Trump Administration may be even less constrained in how it (mis)treats immigrants. All this will make it more difficult for non-citizens to receive the due process and the immigration benefits to which they are entitled under law, and the protection that many need to simply survive.
Finally, and it is no small matter, if Mr. Trump is returned to office, we can expect more lies about who immigrants and asylum seekers are, and about what they do when they get here. Demonizing non-citizens, minorities, and Muslims is an essential part of President Trump’s strategy and very unfortunately, his narrative has resonated with a significant portion of the electorate. Aside from fighting the Trump Administration’s policies in court, we also have to work to undermine the false narrative that he has been pushing.
In short, I expect that if President Trump is re-elected, we will see most of his restrictive policy changes pass judicial muster and his hateful and false rhetoric continue. All this will make for a difficult and painful situation for non-citizens and many others in our country.
If Joe Biden is elected, there is little doubt that the fate of asylum seekers and immigrants will be better: We can expect an end to the attacks on due process and rule of law, and to the bombardment of lies that we have come to expect about non-citizens. Mr. Biden has promised a number of positive changes, not least of which is to roll back many of President Trump’s abusive policies. Nevertheless, even under a Biden Administration, there will be much work to do.
For one thing, while Democrats will likely hold the House, it is quite likely that they will not control the Senate, meaning that any new legislation will have to be bipartisan. On its face, this should be a good thing–the broader the consensus on a new law, the better. However, if a Republican Senate behaves as it did during the Obama Administration, we can look forward to prolonged gridlock on immigration reform (and everything else). Even in a Democratic Senate, it may not be easy to pass comprehensive immigration reform, which has eluded us for decades. Advocates will have to push for legislation with our representatives and with the public.
In addition, it’s clear that more work needs to be done to educate the public about asylum seekers and immigrants. Though advocacy groups do significant outreach, the message hasn’t landed with many people. Advocates need to think more about how to communicate effectively with those who oppose immigration–how to reach them and how to engage with them.
For me, the choice on November 3rd is obvious. Joe Biden isn’t perfect, but he will restore due process and the rule of law to our immigration system. He will also be more honest about asylum seekers and immigrants. In addition, if he charts a moderate and common-sense course on immigration (and other issues), he might help diffuse some of the divisiveness that has grown to dangerous levels in our country. I hope that Mr. Biden is successful and that we see Democrats in charge of both Houses of Congress. But win or lose, immigration advocates will have work to do.
For years, advocates for asylum seekers have been discussing the degradation of our nation’s immigration system: Due process protections have been eroded (or eliminated), non-violent aliens have been detained (sometimes for years), and asylum applicants and other immigrants have been subject to humiliating and cruel treatment. Why should this be so? Our immigration laws and our Constitution are far from perfect, but they provide certain rights to non-citizens, including the right to due process of law, the right not to be denied immigration benefits for reasons that are arbitrary and capricious, and the right to humanitarian protection for those who qualify. Unfortunately, the government often fails to fulfill its obligations (repeat: obligations) under the law, and as a result, immigrants are being denied their rights–including their right to life-saving humanitarian protection.
Immigrants, of course, are not the only people whose legal rights have been violated by the government. The pattern of mistreating and disenfranchising minority groups goes back to the founding of our country (and before). In many cases, discrimination has been sanctioned by law–against African Americans, Native Americans, Chinese Americans, and women, to name the most obvious groups. Slowly, painfully, over time, laws have changed. The law now provides for much greater equality than it did at the founding of our Republic, and in practice, the situation has improved. But as we know, there is much more work to be done.
Trump: “I am your law and order President. I make the law and you follow my orders!” Bible: “Owww! Stop touching me – it burns!”
The Black Lives Matter movement is a part of that work. All Americans should listen to what BLM has to say. Even those who disagree or who think they know better should listen to the lived experience of people who feel threatened by our government. No Americans should have to feel this way. Something clearly needs to change. But why should immigrants and asylum seekers care?
For one thing, many immigrants are people of color, and so the issues BLM is addressing should be of concern to non-citizens, who might one day face similar problems themselves.
Also, when the government mistreats one minority group, no minority group is truly safe. If the government has the power and the willingness to take away rights for one of us, it can take away the rights of any of us. Indeed, the whole idea of “rights” is that they are inviolable; the government cannot take them away unless we are afforded due process of law. When a government agent kills an unarmed Black man without justification or when it deports an asylum seeker without due process of law, it is violating those people’s sacrosanct rights. It stands to reason then, that if we wish to support the rights of one person, we must support the rights of all.
The above arguments are based on self interest (I will help you because it helps me). But there is another reason for immigrants to support the BLM movement–it is the right thing to do. The asylum seekers and immigrants that I have known tend to be very patriotic people. They believe in the American ideal. That is why they came here in the first place. Part of that ideal is that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. No group should face harm or discrimination due to their race or ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation. It is un-American. And it is wrong. As citizens (or would-be citizens), it is incumbent upon each of us to help our nation move towards a more perfect union.
So what can be done to help?
Education: Learn about BLM’s goals and methods from leaders of the movement, rather than from secondary sources. Good starting points are the Black Lives Matter and Movement for Black Lives websites. There are also many movies, documentaries, and books that are worth checking out.
Protest: The ongoing protests are important, and will hopefully drive legislative and policy changes. Non-citizens can attend protests, and have a right to Freedom of Speech, the same as U.S. citizens. However, you should be aware that ICE agents have been deployed in response to protests and civil unrest. While these agents are (supposedly) not tasked with immigration enforcement, that is their raison d’etre, and so if you go to a protest, make sure to have evidence about your immigration status (such as a green card, work permit, I-94, filing receipt, etc.). If you have no status, make sure to have a plan in place in case you are detained (every non-citizen without status should have such a plan, whether or not they attend a protest).
Elections: As President Obama recently said, we have to mobilize to raise awareness and we have to vote for candidates who will enact reform. Non-citizens cannot vote. Indeed, such people can be deported for voting. So if you are not a U.S. citizen, please don’t try to vote. But this does not mean that you cannot participate in the upcoming elections. There is a lot you can do: Voter registration, canvasing, text-banking, phone-banking, etc. All this is important, as the outcome of the election will have life and death consequences for many people.
Contact Your Representatives: There is currently a bill pending in the House to condemn police brutality and racial profiling. The bill makes some good suggestions, including that the Justice Department should take a more active role investigating instances of police violence and discrimination, and for the creation of civilian review boards to provide community-based oversight of local police departments. Review the bill, and if you are so moved, contact your Congressional representatives and let them know. There is another bill pending in the Senate that aims to prevent discrimination by police and provide additional training. You can contact your Senators about this bill. Also, you can take action at the state and local level to push for reform.
Donate: For many of us, money is tight these days, but if you are able to make a donation, there are many worthy civil rights organizations that could use the support.
One last point, and I think this is important, as I often hear objections about BLM in the media and in conversation: It is not necessary to support every aspect of a movement in order to support that movement. I personally do not support all the goals of the Black Lives Matter movement. I do not support all their tactics, and I do not support all their rhetoric. This does not mean that I do not support the movement. I strongly believe that our country should focus far less on incarceration and far more on providing opportunities for all people to live safe, healthy, and productive lives. I also strongly believe that our country has not properly reconciled with its past and ongoing sins against African Americans and other racial minorities. Most of all, I believe that our nation has an obligation to listen to marginalized people and to respond to their needs. Thus, even if you do not believe in all aspects of BLM, I do not think that absolves you from listening to members of that movement and of working for a better society. All of us have an obligation to help bend the arc of history towards Justice. The Black Lives Matter movement is doing just that, and its success is our nation’s success.
With the escalating tension between the U.S. and Iran, DHS has been detaining Iranian Americans and Iranian nationals at the border and questioning them about their ties to Iran, their background, their family members, and their opinion about the Iranian government.
On the one hand, it’s perfectly reasonable to question people entering our country, particularly during wartime (and when was the last time we were not at war?). It’s also reasonable to apply additional scrutiny to people from “enemy nations.” And so, on one level, it makes sense to look more closely at Iranian Americans and Iranian nationals who are seeking entry into the United States.
On the other hand, it’s difficult to accept anything the Trump Administration does without feeling that there is an ulterior motive. At this point, we have been subject to so many lies, in the service of such bad policies, that nothing the Administration does can be viewed at face value. Is there any intelligence that indicates Iran is planning to retaliate by sending agents to our country? Is there any reason to suspect the particular people stopped and questioned at the border? Or does the Administration just want to scare us, in order to further justify its xenophobic policies? Or maybe to distract from the impeachment? There is no way to know, and when you can’t trust what your own government tells you, it is impossible to evaluate whether its actions are warranted.
Enrico Fermi (left) also invented the Photo Bomb.
In any event, here I want to talk about asylum during wartime. I suppose one response to war would be to shut down the border completely, block all nationals from the enemy country from coming to the U.S., and take measures against any of those nationals (or their decedents) living in the United States. We did the latter during the Second World War, when we detained Americans of Japanese decent. Notably, we did not detain Germans or Italians, even though we were also at war with those countries. But what about granting asylum to “enemy aliens” during wartime? Welcoming them to our country, even though we are at war with their homeland?
There certainly is precedent for giving refuge to “enemy aliens.” Probably the most famous examples are the scientists who fled fascism and anti-Semitism during the Second World War. People like Albert Einstein and Enrico Fermi found refuge in the United States and made important contributions to our efforts during the War (I’m not a fan of the Bomb, but I’m glad we got it before the Nazis). Another well-known example is the Cubans who fled Communism after Fidel Castro took power on their native island. For the past six decades, those same Cubans have been fierce opponents of the Castro regime. A third example is the Iranians who came to the United States after the 1979 revolution. While they generally oppose military intervention against their homeland, most Iranian Americans support democracy and human rights in Iran.
I encountered a less well-known example when I lived in Philadelphia in the mid-1990’s. I met an old man at my synagogue who had been a refugee during WWII. He was Jewish, born in Germany. During the 1930’s, he fled to Britain as a refugee. When the War started, he was detained as an enemy alien and shipped (by boat) to Australia. He was stuck down under for a while, until the Brits realized that he spoke German, and so they shipped him all the way back to England to serve in an intelligence unit. He assisted the Allies during the War, and then later immigrated to the United States.
Also, in my job, I meet people every day who are working to bring democracy and human rights to their countries of origin. Once they get their bearings in the U.S., many of my clients work directly or indirectly to assist the United States with diplomacy and national security. My client from Iran, for instance, is a computer expert who works to overcome censorship in his home country (and in other authoritarian countries), so people can access websites blocked by the government. Another client, from Afghanistan, organizes conferences, bringing high-level American and foreign experts together to discuss national security challenges. A third client advocates for democracy in Cambodia, and is regularly in contact with important U.S. government officials. And a number of my clients work for Voice of American (on and off the air), bringing news and promoting American values in their home countries. You get the point: Foreign nationals who have obtained refuge in the United States, often from hostile regimes, are working to advance U.S. interests and to educate U.S. decision-makers and the public, so we can better respond to national security challenges.
And herein lies the rub: How do we obtain the benefits of this expertise while minimizing the risk to our security? The answer, I think, is asylum. Remember, we do not offer asylum to just anyone who fears harm. Asylum is for people who face persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or particular social group. These “protected grounds” reflect our national values, and thus, asylum is basically set up to benefit people who will benefit us. Asylum seekers are also subject to rigorous security background checks. And so if the system is working properly, we will receive refugees from hostile regimes who will be well-vetted and will present minimal risk to our national security, and who are well-positioned to assist our country vis-a-vis their homelands.
Of course, when a conflict exists between our nation and another nation, we must exercise caution in dealing with citizens of the hostile power. We should use all the tools at our disposal to advance our interests and to keep ourselves safe. Asylum is one of those tools. Rather than discard the asylum system during wartime, we should use it as it was intended–to benefit those who support our values, and to benefit ourselves.
This is a guest post by Katharine Clark, Managing Attorney for Immigration at the Silver Spring, MD office of Ayuda. She has previously worked on citizenship and nationality issues at the U.S. Department of Justice. The views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author, and not necessarily those of any organization, employer, or agency.
On July 14, President Trump tweeted that four members of the House of Representatives – known as “The Squad” – should “go back” to “the crime-infested places from which they came.” The tweet targeted three representatives who were born in the United States, and one naturalized citizen, Rep. Ilhan Omar.
Given Omar’s naturalized status, it’s no accident that Trump and his supporters have settled on her as the long-term focus of their racist ire, chanting “Send her back!” at subsequent rallies beginning on July 17, in reference to Omar alone.
Katharine Clark
Much ink has already, rightly, been spilled about how Trump’s tweets and the crowd’s chants were racist, Islamophobic, detrimental to national rhetoric, and offensive to refugees and naturalized citizens. For example, the LA Times in July focused on how the racialized aspects of Trump’s immigration policies, including his denaturalization task force, are likely to suppress political opposition because these efforts are disproportionately concentrated in jurisdictions where naturalized citizens tend to vote Democratic. Jelani Cobb in the New Yorker explored how Trump’s rhetoric aligns with past efforts in the U.S. to make citizenship provisional for non-whites, U.S.-born and naturalized alike.
These are important points, but I believe there is another, more specific legal action that Trump may be proposing in his ongoing comments about Rep. Omar. He is not just using his tweets to energize his base in advance of the 2020 election. More particularly, I believe Trump and his followers are calling for Rep. Omar to be denaturalized and removed to Somalia.
The Legal Context of “Send Her Back”:
There are two ways to lose United States citizenship. Any U.S. citizen, born in this country or naturalized, can voluntarily renounce citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1481. However, renunciation requires a citizen to follow strict procedures for abandonment (it is also possible to lose citizenship after a conviction for treason or a similar criminal offense).
Unlike renunciation, which is initiated by the citizen, denaturalization is a civil action initiated by the federal government under 8 U.S.C. § 1451. To denaturalize a citizen against his or her wishes, a federal court must find that the citizen’s naturalization was illegally procured or procured by willful misrepresentation of material fact.
If a person willfully misrepresents a material fact on a naturalization application, or on the application for a green card that preceded the naturalization application as required under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c), that misrepresentation can provide a basis for denaturalization many years later. Not only that, the consequences can pass from generation to generation. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(d), children who naturalized through their parents can be denaturalized if their parents are found to have procured their naturalization through willful misrepresentation of a material fact.
History of Denaturalization:
Historically, denaturalization actions have been extraordinarily rare. These cases were primarily instituted against war criminals, such as Nazi concentration camp guards, who hid their crimes when they applied for green cards or citizenship. The New York Times reported that from 2004 to 2016, the Justice Department initiated only 46 denaturalization cases.
Denaturalization cases are not only rare, but also difficult for the government to win. This is true by deliberate judicial design. In denaturalization cases, courts hold the government to a very high burden of proof and do not afford great deference to lower court findings of fact on appellate review. Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665 (1944); United States v. Zajanckauskas, 441 F.3d 32, n.5 (1st Cir. 2006). As the Supreme Court explained, “rights once conferred should not be lightly revoked,” particularly where the right in question is as “precious” as citizenship. Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 125 (1943).
Ultimately, then, denaturalization has long been reserved for people who told serious lies, often about their crimes against humanity, in order to become citizens. In other situations, citizenship has been treated as a settled question once naturalization occurs.
Denaturalization Task Force:
This trend began to shift in 2018, when the Trump administration created a denaturalization task force within United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, to review the A-files of naturalized citizens for previous fraud. In the first few months of its existence, the LA Times reports, the task force referred at least 100 cases to the Justice Department for initiation of a civil action.
In some ways, the administration’s focus on denaturalization is simply one small part of the United States’ long history of failing to respect citizenship rights. This history includes laws denying birthright citizenship to Americans of Chinese descent, and forced “repatriation” of US citizens of Mexican descent during the Great Depression.
However, Trump’s threat to Rep. Omar is also uniquely insidious. If Trump is, indeed, calling for Rep. Omar’s denaturalization, we are witnessing the chief executive of our nation, calling for the denaturalization of a duly elected representative on account of her race, religion, and political opinion. This is, to my knowledge, unprecedented.
Trump’s history of policy-making by tweet demonstrates why this threat is so serious and sinister. In this context, Trump’s tweet can be seen as a directive to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota, to USCIS, and to the Office of Immigration Litigation, to investigate and prosecute Rep. Omar for denaturalization. Ken Cuccinelli’s new role at the helm of USCIS does nothing to reassure me, given his 2008 attempt to repeal birthright citizenship while serving in the Virginia legislature, by calling for a Constitutional convention.
Ilhan Omar:
One’s opinion of Rep. Omar’s politics simply do not matter here. I have never seen her immigration file and I am not her attorney, so I have no specific insight into her case.
What is clear from press reports about her naturalization is that, if there were any problems with her immigration or naturalization, they would have occurred before she was old enough to play any meaningful part in the process. Media reports all indicate that Rep. Omar was born in 1982 in Mogadishu, came to the U.S. in 1992, received asylum in 1995, and naturalized in 2000 as a 17-year-old child.
This means that Trump is explicitly threatening, and implicitly assigning his task force to investigate, the possibility of bringing an extraordinarily rare denaturalization action, historically reserved for war criminals, against a political opponent based on immigration applications filed when she was a child.
If the Administration today threatens to denaturalize duly elected representatives, who have the protections of visibility, it will not only make all naturalized citizens provisional, and second-class under the law. It will also demonstrate the Administration’s full intention to use citizenship – by birth and naturalization alike – as a weapon of political war. If this does not make us concerned for the very foundations of our democracy, then we are not paying attention.
When the 116th session of Congress opens on January 3, 2019, the Democrats will control the House of Representatives. Republicans still hold the Senate and, in case you didn’t notice, the Presidency. However, this is an important change from the last two years, when Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress. What will a Democratic House mean for asylum law and policy?
First, let’s talk about changes to the law. Since the time of the Refugee Act of 1980, which established our current asylum framework, there have been relatively few changes to our humanitarian immigration laws. In 1996, Congress amended the definition of “refugee” to include victims of forced abortion and forced sterilization, and in 2005, the REAL ID Act attempted to tighten up the legal requirements for a grant of asylum.
During the first two years of the Trump Administration, when Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency, there have been no amendments to the nation’s immigration laws. Instead, the Administration focused on changing immigration policy based on executive orders–the travel ban, for example. It is curious that the same Republicans who criticized President Obama for his reliance on executive orders (such as DACA), failed to pass any legislation to further their own immigration agenda. Congress and the President could have acted to restrict the law vis-a-vis asylum seekers. For whatever reason, they did not, and now their window is closing. Given the hostility of the President and many Republicans towards asylum seekers, this is probably a good thing.
The beginning of a beautiful friendship. Or not.
Now, with the Democrats in charge of the House, any change in the law would need to be approved by them. This means that a purely punitive immigration reform is very unlikely to pass into law. So while the President can–and probably will–continue to impose hostile policy changes in terms of how the law is implemented, he will be constrained by the existing law. This means that, for the most part, non-citizens who fear persecution will remain eligible to seek and obtain asylum in the United States.
Another way that the Democratic House majority may help asylum seekers is in the area of oversight. With control of the majority comes the ability to issue subpoenas and more carefully oversee government agencies. This is important in the area of immigration, where many agencies–DHS, ICE, CBP, DOJ, EOIR–have engaged in questionable (or worse) practices with impunity.
The most high-profile example of agency malfeasance was the separation of children from their parents at the border. The policy was seemingly enacted as a way to deter asylum seekers, and the best thing you can say about family separation is that it was managed incompetently. Congress has thus far failed to investigate this fiasco, but that could change with Democrats in charge of the House.
Another area where Congressional oversight would benefit asylum seekers is at EOIR, which has been improperly hiring Immigration Judges based on their political leanings. Some of this is publicly known, but much of it has remained below the radar (though those of us in the business hear about it through the grapevine). My guess is that EOIR will be more careful going forward, given that House Democrats could subpoena employment documents to determine whether hiring officials acted improperly. Other agencies within the federal government will likely be similarly constrained.
House Democrats can also exercise oversight to protect the Immigration Judge’s union, which has been working hard to preserve judicial independence and resist the Administration’s efforts to turn their gavels into rubber stamps. I’ve heard rumors about a plan by the Administration to break the union. Whether this is true or not, I do not know, but House Democrats can potentially kibosh any such effort.
A third area where Democratic control of the House could affect asylum seekers is funding. Blocking and detaining immigrants is not cheap. The President’s most high-profile project is the border wall, but immigration enforcement in general is expensive. The Trump Administration has expanded the use of detention, and apparently plans are afoot to continue this trend. House Democrats can exercise some control by denying funding for the President’s more far-fetched projects. They could potentially limit funding for detention, investigate the private prisons where many non-citizens are held, and encourage the use of alternatives to detention. I suppose they could also grind deportations to a halt by reducing funding for Immigration Judges, though I doubt many Democrats are inclined in that direction.
In short, control of the House gives Democrats significant leverage over immigration matters. But it also comes with significant political risks. President Trump has effectively used the immigration issue to motivate his supporters, and if Democrats are seen as checking the President’s agenda, they can expect to be blamed for any real or imagined failures in the immigration realm. How this will translate in terms of votes, I do not know. President Trump and his surrogates raged about the caravan, but if that motivated their base, it was clearly not enough to archive success in the most recent election cycle.
Aside from simply blocking the President’s agenda, Democrats would do well to propose some positive legislation of their own. Of course, any reform would require bi-partisan support, since Republicans control the Senate and the Presidency. Whether such compromise is possible in the current climate, I do not know, especially since the President seems to view immigration in political, rather than policy terms. I expect he will be more-than-happy to let Democrats block his harsher proposals so he can use that to rally his base in 2020. But just maybe, after having lost in 2018, Republicans will conclude that their resistance to immigration reform is doing them more political harm than good. If so, perhaps there might still be a path towards constructive immigration reform.
Being an immigration attorney at a time when immigrants are under assault means that people often ask me what they can do to help.
Frankly, I am usually at a loss about how to answer this question. There are many ways to help, depending on what you mean by “help” and where your interests and abilities lie. The problem is, there is no magic bullet to solve our current difficulties. But there are things that people can do, both on the individual level and the collective level. I will discuss a few of those ideas here.
“I would have gotten away with deporting them all if it weren’t for you meddling kids.”
Volunteer with a Non-Profit: There are plenty of non-profit organizations that assist refugees, asylum seekers, and immigrants, and they need plenty of help. Such organizations can be found throughout the U.S. (here is a link to a list of organizations in each state), and they provide all sorts of opportunities to volunteer: Teach English or other skills, spend time assisting organizations or individual immigrants, help with job searches, resumes or job counseling. People with specialized skills can provide specialized assistance. For example, those lucky enough to be lawyers (gag!) can take a case pro bono, or—for a less burdensome commitment—attend a group event where you assist with immigration forms. Some asylum seekers need forensic medical exams or psychological reports for their cases, and could use expert assistance. Others need mental health therapy, or assistance navigating the DMV, Social Security Office or school or university bureaucracies. Still others need help with housing or public benefits. Many people who are new to our country are lost, and someone familiar with “the system” can provide invaluable guidance.
Also, many faith-based institutions, such as churches, mosques, and synagogues, have programs to assist non-citizens. My synagogue, for example, has helped refugee families from Syria and Afghanistan to resettle in the Washington, DC area. Synagogue volunteers assist with babysitting and setting up the new apartments. Some religious institutions are involved in the sanctuary movement, offering living space to non-citizens in an effort to shield them from deportation (ICE has thus far declined to enter churches to detain people). Perhaps you could encourage your church or mosque to consider joining this movement.
Get Involved Politically: There are numerous opportunities here too, and not just at the federal level. A lot has been happening at the local and state levels (where it is often easier to have an effect). One group that supports pro-immigrant candidates is Immigrants List. A group that assists with impact litigation and public awareness is the American Immigration Council. Many local non-profits are also involved in advocacy for immigrants. You can find such groups here.
Reaching out to politicians can have an impact as well. During the Obama Administration, opponents of immigration famously mailed hundreds of bricks to Congress. This was a not-so-subtle message to “build a wall.” If the other side can advocate effectively, we can too. Congress needs to know that many Americans support our humanitarian immigration system. Unless we reach out to them, our representatives will only hear half the story. You can contacting your Senators here, and your Representatives here. You can find links to the different state legislatures here. You don’t have to be a U.S. citizen to contact your representative. Anyone can do it.
Contact the Media: There are many misconceptions about asylum seekers and refugees in the news. If you see an article or program that misrepresents such people, you can contact the journalists and let them know (contact info is often available on the journalist’s website). I think it is especially powerful for refugees themselves to engage in such advocacy. It’s very difficult for stereotypes to survive in the face of individual truths, and so when asylum seekers and refugees tell their stories, it can be quite influential. Also, if you ask in advance, journalists will usually agree to keep identity information confidential, so you can talk to them without fear that your personal information will be made public.
Take to the Streets: I’m of two minds about public protests. Sometimes, I think they are useless; other times, I think they are transformative. Of course, there are all sorts of protests from mass rallies to performance-art type events (and there was also our very own Refugee Ball back in January 2017). Such events can be inspiring and energizing for the people involved. They can also help coalesce disparate people into a unified group. Such events also send a message—to politicians and to the American public.
Hire an Immigrant: The government is making it easier to discriminate against non-citizens. And in any case, it’s never been easy to get a job when you’re new to America. So if you have the ability to employ someone, why not consider an immigrant?
What if the intended employee does not have work authorization? Some people–such as people with asylum–are eligible to work even without the employment authorization document (the EAD card). It is obviously not legal to employ someone who is not authorized to work, but for many asylum seekers, who often wait months for their EAD, the only way to survive is to work without permission. Such people are frequently mistreated by employers. Hiring such a person comes with a risk to the employer as well as to the employee, and as a lawyer, I can’t advocate for breaking the law. However, at least in my opinion, employing such people, paying them fairly, and treating them decently is an act of resistance against an immoral system.
Talk to People Who Disagree with You: Advocates for immigrants have failed to convince the American public about the rightness of our cause, or at least we have failed to convince enough of them to win a presidential election. Rather than talking at people who disagree with us (as we often see on social media and left-leaning news outlets), we should be talking with such people. Speaking respectfully with people, listening empathetically and asking questions, and explaining a pro-immigrant view will not win everyone over to our side. But it might win over some. And even if we talk to people who disagree with us, and they are not swayed, a respectful conversation can help open doors later on. Anti-immigrant views seem to thrive in our current divisive environment. Perhaps if we work to tone things down and help move our country towards a more rational debate, it will also help immigrants. This needs to be done in big ways, but it also needs to be done in small ways, one conversation at a time. If you want to educate yourself about immigration issues, a good (pro-immigrant) source is the American Immigration Lawyers Association, which has policy statements on various issues.
So those are some ideas. Like I said, there is no magic solution for our current situation. But by supporting immigrants, in big ways and small, it is possible for each one of us to make a difference.
I’ve written here many times about the difficulties faced by asylum seekers in the United States. But the fact is, asylum seekers and refugees are not powerless. They need not sit passively while politicians and pundits impugn them as “rapists” and “terrorists,” and pretend that America’s problems are caused by “the other.” In fact, asylum seekers have a powerful tool at their disposal to fight back against such accusations: They have their stories.
Refugees have power! (Though maybe this guy is more of a DACA recipient than a refugee).
Talk to any asylum seeker or refugee, and you will hear a great story. It is often a tragic and depressing story, to be sure, but it is always a story about overcoming adversity, about survival, about perseverance. It is, more than anything, an American story. My ancestors fled pogroms in Russia or conscription in the Czar’s army. My wife’s grandfather escaped from a Nazi concentration camp in Austria. Many American families have stories like these.
The clients I talk to every day also have amazing stories: Eritreans who escaped national service (i.e., slavery) by outrunning military guards and then traveling through dozens of countries to reach the United States; Afghans who served shoulder to shoulder with American soldiers and who were then threatened by the Taliban; transgender women from El Salvador who face persecution from their families; journalists from Pakistan who were threatened by the ISI; a gay man from Rwanda who was subject to a bizarre and harmful exorcism ritual; a Chinese whistle-blower who exposed billions of dollars of corruption and then faced threats from powerful businessmen; democratic activists from Egypt imprisoned after the Tahrir Square crackdown; religious converts from Iran who face death for their apostasy. The list goes on and on.
Indeed, people don’t come to America because they’re doing great in their homeland. They come here because they want a better life, and the stories about why they left and how they came here are often riveting.
Here’s my theory: Even people who generally oppose immigration will support the immigrants that they know personally or who they feel a connection to. For example, the only legislative amendment to the legal definition of “refugee” came when pro-life advocates lobbied Congress to make asylum available to victims of forced family planning. Pro-lifers are not necessarily associated with liberal immigration policies, but through this legislation, they greatly expanded the number of people eligible for asylum. On a more interpersonal level, I have a friend who worked for Pat Buchanan, the anti-immigrant firebrand who once challenged President George H.W. Bush for the Republican nomination. My friend’s fishing buddy—an immigrant from West Africa—was arrested for assault and battery against a police officer. My friend referred the case to me, and when we ultimately won, my friend sent me a note: “You did the most important thing a person can do, you made me look good for recommending you.” I love that. The point, of course, is that even a Pat Buchanan supporter was sympathetic to the immigrant he knew personally.
Why should this be the case? Why should people who normally oppose—and even hate—immigrants still support the immigrants they know?
I think the simple truth is that immigrants are no different than anyone else. And for most people, when they hear stories of struggle and survival, and of love and gratitude for America, it’s difficult not to be sympathetic. In other words, if immigrants and their supporters can get people to listen to immigrant’s stories and to meet immigrants in-person, we win.
The difficulty lies in making the connection, and in getting people to listen. How can we do that?
First, I think we need to connect in-person, not through traditional or social media. The problem with the media is that it has become so Balkanized as to be largely useless for bridging ideological divides. In addition, media “interactions” are generally too superficial to change minds. Personal connections are harder to achieve, but they are far more powerful, convincing, and long-lasting.
Second, we need to invite people in and make them comfortable. We should not put them on the defensive. This means engaging them on their turf, not ours. It means listening to people with different points of view, and not judging them. Most people who oppose immigrants and refugees are not bigots and xenophobes. They are not irrational. But in many cases, they do not have all the facts. They do not personally know refugees, and have not heard their stories. We may not be able to change their minds, but at least we can provide them with more information, and give them a more complete picture (a picture, by the way, which is sorely lacking in our partisan media environment).
Finally, we need to accept that some people will not be persuaded, no matter how compelling the story, or how many statistics we cite. We need to respect that decision, and this often requires self-control. It also requires recognizing that it’s not easy for a person to change her views. Sometimes, all you can do is tell your story and accept that there is no perceptible change. Perhaps, though, we can hope that a positive interaction will at least plant a seed in the person’s mind, and maybe that is enough.
So how does this work in practice? If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know that my three favorite words are, I don’t know (in fact, I don’t even know if “I don’t know” counts as three words or four!). But here’s how I would imagine implementing this idea:
Refugees and asylum seekers (and their supporters) would reach out to a church, school or community association, and ask to come tell their stories. The purpose would not be to debate refugee or immigration policy. Instead, it would be to tell a personal narrative and express gratitude for what American has offered. Hopefully, the audience would consist of people with little exposure to non-citizens. Or better yet, an audience that is skeptical of “illegals.” Preferably, the speakers would be proficient in English (and presumably, if you’ve read this far, you are proficient in English). After the story, perhaps there could be a Q&A. And that’s it. It does not have to be political. It does not have to specifically touch on policy. It would just be individuals connecting, telling stories, and listening.
So maybe if you are an asylum seeker or refugee, and you’ve read this far, you would consider reaching out to your neighbors and telling your story. Or if you are a member of a religious or civic group that might benefit from hearing refugee stories, you’d consider contacting a refugee organization for a speaker. In this way, one person at a time, we can change the world for the better.
I may belong to the last generation of Americans who make analogies to Eddie Haskell, Wally Cleaver’s two-faced friend from Leave It to Beaver who used to give Beaver “the business” and then turn around and feign sweetness towards his mother. Mrs. Cleaver never bought Eddie’s act, but she was always too polite to say anything. In the current scenario, the House Republicans are Eddie Haskell and the American People are June Cleaver.
Golly Gee Willikers! What's wrong with reading the Constitution?
The House Republicans read the Constitution at the start of the new Congress, and then dared anyone to object: What red-blooded American could oppose reading the Constitution, they ask with feigned incredulity. I object, and I think all Americans should too.
So what’s wrong with reading the Constitution? The problem, of course, is not the Constitution itself, but the underlying message, delivered with a wink: We Republicans and Tea Partiers–not you–own this document. It is ours to interpret. We–not you–know what it means. We’ll explain it to you in our folksy, no nonsense, commonsensical style. We’ll use words like “originalism,” “Judeo-Christian,” and “American exceptionalism.” No reasonable person—no real American—could possibly hold any other view of our founding document. It’s so simple, the Republicans tell us, even a liberal could understand.
But the Constitution does not belong to the Republicans, or the Tea Partiers. It belongs to all Americans. To everyone. The triumph and the tragedy of the Constitution is that it is subject to different interpretations. The search for certainty in the document is a red herring. In the 1920s and 30s, the search for certainty led many countries to turn to the Übermensch, the strong father figure who promised security in a dangerous and uncertain world. We all know how that turned out. As adults, we must accept that certainty is an illusion.
And while the lack of certainty might be discomfiting, this is also the brilliance of our founding document. It requires vigorous debate. It requires engagement on substantive issues. Without the uncertainty of the Constitution, we would not have had the great or the terrible decisions that shaped our nation: Dred Scott, Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore. The Constitution’s ambiguity led us to debate the important issues of our time, but the document has also given us an historic framework and a legal process for those debates.
They say, we are who we are because of, and in spite of our parents. We as a nation are what we are because of and in spite of the Constitution. By attempting to seize exclusive control of this document through a seemingly innocent, Eddie Haskell-like reading, Conservatives want to force their interpretation upon us and to cut off debate. They did the same thing with the American flag, turning it into a symbol for the Right, worn on every “real American’s” lapel. Co-opting jingoistic symbols of patriotism is one thing, but when they try to make us swallow their version of the Constitution and no other, we need to stand up and say no. That is why the Republican’s reading of the Constitution in the House was so offensive.
