,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Hey reporters if EOIR just emailed you a “myths v. facts” sheet please do not quote it uncritically as some of the data is true but deeply disingenuous. For example, this bit, which uses “completions” data to falsely imply almost half of people miss court.
Here’s why it’s wrong:
Here’s why it’s wrong:
Looking only at completions (cases that have “ended”) distorts appearance rates.
Imagine ten people scheduled for court. Nine show up. One is deported for missing court and one has their case completed.
50% of "completions" missed court—even though 90% of people showed up!
Imagine ten people scheduled for court. Nine show up. One is deported for missing court and one has their case completed.
50% of "completions" missed court—even though 90% of people showed up!
When the government reports completion-based failure to appear rates (like here with the mention of cases which “end with an in absentia removal order”), don’t fall for their attempt to conflate this with how many people show up.
Here’s a better method:
Here’s a better method:
Here’s another misleading fact; EOIR paints a picture of most immigrants, and almost all asylum seekers, as having lawyers.
Why is that disingenuous?
Well, filing an application for asylum without a lawyer is damn hard—so of course most “asylum applicants” are represented!
Why is that disingenuous?
Well, filing an application for asylum without a lawyer is damn hard—so of course most “asylum applicants” are represented!
