Here are 10 questions I'm loosing sleep over regarding asylum at the border:
1) What process will the Biden administration put in place to help those who are already in MPP and have been waiting in danger in Mexico for a long time? Will it use parole for those with pending cases? What of those ordered removed and deported in abstentia?
2) Will the administration lift or change the CDC order so that asylum seekers can seek protection at the border?
3) If yes, will it rely on metering? Will it rely on swift screening that does not provide adequate due process? Will it shift away from detention?
4) There are many asylum seekers stranded in Mexico who were metered or expelled. Will there be any redress for them? Many of these folks are from Central America but many also from elsewhere--especially from Africa and Haiti (not subject to MPP).
5) How will the U.S. work with UNHCR, Mexico, local U.S. officials, and NGOs on both sides of the border to really make needed changes so that we turn the page on reception?
6) Processing is one thing. Adjudication is another. Will it be shifted to the asylum office? Left to immigration judges?
7) What Trump administration asylum eligibility restrictions will be rolled back and how?
8) How will the administration deal with the Remain in Mexico case slated for argument in the Supreme Court?
9) Targeted aid to Central America and establishment of legal pathways is great long term solution. Right now, U.S. promises to screen those who make it to our border are hollow if NOBODY can because they are stopped by force and rapidly deported by our allies to the south.
So will the U.S. ask these allies to take a different approach to the caravans?
10) How can the administration's new budget help to fund a more humane system? Will members of Congress help--with appropriations and new legislation--help make true reform?
Losing!
(i.e. the regulation barring from eligibility those who’ve transmitted a 3rd country and the BIA decision on gang and domestic violence survivors among others!)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Finally finished reading The President and Immigration Law. Of course agree all immigration policy is not fulfillment of Congressional will. But disagree thatCongressional intent is always too hard to discern--especially when it comes too the Refugee Act of 1980.
Fact of the matter is: Immigration policy starting in 1981 consistently ignored a very clear Congressional mandate: don't prevent people from seeking asylum.
Is the INA complicated: yes. But, to my mind, the way the 1996 law took away court review and gave more discretion to the executive has made things much worse.
"The Trump administration’s legal efforts have only intensified, with nearly 40 new eminent domain lawsuits filed in the Southern District of Texas since Election Day."
!!!!
Historians need to delve into this! "CBP’s toughest fights over eminent domain center on Starr County...where family properties date back to original Spanish land grants issued 250 years ago, well before the Rio Grande served as an international boundary."
As all comments note, this rule discriminates against ASYLUM SEEKERS (vs. other migrants). Non-response to this in final rule: No, it doesn't discriminate, because it applies to all asylum seekers.
That is not an answer.
The idea that national security means anything you say it means--especially that asylum seekers who haven't tested positive for COVID-19 will somehow spread COVID further in the US and thereby worsen its economic impact--is, frankly, beyond belief.
There's a lot that can be done with this "border wall" money to reform the asylum bureaucracy!
How about hiring new medical and social workers at ports and surging supplies?
How about, for USCIS, more asylum officers, new training, a research unit on country conditions?
Talking the anti-trafficking talk, not walking the walk. And it's much worse for immigrant victims of trafficking, especially labor trafficking (as per State Dept. 2020 TIP report).
Denial rate for T visas for victims of trafficking has risen steadily from 24 percent in 2017 to 50 percent so far this year. (Denial rate: denied/denied plus approved. Leave out pending). uscis.gov/sites/default/…
It's now official: the administration has adopted a policy of coercing poor asylum seekers into giving up their claims or pushing them into starvation and abusive work in the underground economy.
From the rule: "DHS acknowledges that these reforms will apply to aliens with meritorious asylum claims, and that these applicants may experience some degree of economic hardship as a result of heightened requirements for" work authorization.
There also seems to be a whole section of the rule--page 70-71--which essentially uses work authorization as a back handed way to raise the asylum standard from "well founded fear of persecution" to "fleeing imminent serious harm". Am I reading this right @ReichlinMelnick?