Part of what this video shows is that family separation is not merely a product of "zero tolerance." Mirna's family traveled together. But they were separated because of an insistence by DHS on keeping someone detained (Mirna's husband) as a "deterrent."
This is something DHS can, today, legally do. Children cannot be legally detained for long periods. But adults asylum seekers can be, even after they pass their credible fear screenings, as Mirna's husband did.
This campaign is about showing all the ways the reception of asylum seekers should be rethought. After his release, Mirna's husband joined her in Colorado and they pursued their asylum case in immigration court and won. Why was Mirna's husband detained? There is a better way.
Mirna's husband was not prosecuted for illegal entry. But that does not mean he was not treated as a criminal, as if seeking asylum is illegal. Detention of adults also leads families to split up and travel separately -- a parent with one child, other parent with child.
This can lead to prolonged separation or to families getting hurt along the way. When the Remain in Mexico policy began about two years after Mirna's family arrived, parts of families were in the U.S. and part made to wait Mexico if they had traveled separately.
Our next video, of Jose from Honduras and his family, will address that precise situation. And many other barriers to asylum seeking.
Both Mirna's husband and Jose were lucky to be able to find representation and had the ability to put up money for bond, otherwise they likely would have been detained even longer.
Asylum seeking families almost NEVER miss their immigration court hearings, especially if they are represented. What asylum seekers like Mirna and like Jose want is a fair chance to be heard. This campaign is about saying: we must and can make this possible.
And it is also about saying: there are people in border communities--like at Annunciation House in El Paso--and in communities all over the country--like at the school Mirna's children went to in Colorado--who want to do this work of welcome.
And when those seeking protection are given a chance to join our communities, as Mirna's family has, they can thrive.
This campaign is about showing that asylum does not have to make us cry. It can make us smile. We just have to work to make it right.
Ok, that last bit was a little corny. But you get what I mean :)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
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?