Short thread: When I started doing historical research on immigration, I was SHOCKED that only a small number of precedent BIA decisions are available to the public in volumes published since 1940. This decisions orders release of non-precedent decisions back to 1996.
There is no library open to public where a scholar like me can go find BIA unpublished decisions from the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s, for example, which would really help to understand the history of the evolution of immigration law (beyond merely legislative history).
Further, unpublished BIA decisions have not been deemed important enough for the National Archives to keep permanently. Ones from 50 years ago have likely already been destroyed. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS.
This Records Schedule makes me furious and I would love help from anyone who will help me pressure NARA to revisit it and ensure that copies of these decisions are permanently deposited at the archives. archives.gov/files/records-…
A history of the immigration courts--and the BIA--must be written. I REALLY WANT TO WRITE IT. Not only because I believe it will get us closer to truth about what immigration means and how immigrants and state interact. But also so that we can build a much better system!
My next project, after the book on asylum, will hopefully be on this topic. I know how it important it is FROM my research on asylum. And from visiting immigration courts in New York, Connecticut, Virginia, El Paso, San Diego, Harlingen AND in detention centers in Texas.
But I need to save the records!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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?
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/…