Trump takes another dump on Mexico and Asylum Seekers

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, Trump's Administration is pushing a new regulation on asylum seeking that will put enormous pressure on Mexico.

"Pursuant to statutory authority, the Departments are amending their respective regulations to provide that, with limited exceptions, an alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States across the southern border after failing to apply for protection in a third country outside the alien's country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence through which the alien transited en route to the United States is ineligible for asylum," the document reads.

So it states that you can't cherry pick the US and must choose a country before reaching the United States before being able to ask for asylum. This would mean, in order to have a chance in the US, asylum seekers must be denied asylum by Mexico, and likely any other country they pass through to get to America's southern border.

Presumably, this will be be tried in court and will have to get over hurdles. I have no idea as to the legality of this, it may violate American Law and International Treaties. The pressure it puts on Mexico, even after trying to renegotiate a new economic treaty, is unbelievable. Trump will use this as leverage against asylum seekers or Mexico.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What an idiotic waste of time. Thank the IPU deplorables are dying out. We need to hold an international dance on their graves day every single time a deplorable dies. And special attention should be paid to when they die childless.

 

[Derec]

The asylum system needs to be fundamentally reformed. This situation where you have mass migrants all claiming to be "asylum seekers" so they can stay in the US for years while they are gumming up the immigration courts is not sustainable.

What an idiotic waste of time. Thank the IPU deplorables are dying out.

Sure. US will be so much better off with millions of uneducated fake asylum speakers who don't even speak English (not have any desire to learn) flood in.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The asylum system needs to be fundamentally reformed.

I agree. Trump is doing the opposite:

Trump is right that the U.S. asylum system “is being overwhelmed by migration through our southern border.” Unfortunately, his remedies not only violate the letter of U.S. law and the humanitarian spirit that animates it — they’ve compounded the problem, by adding to the backlog and hence to the incentive to cheat.

A federal judge ruled last month that Trump’s executive order narrowing access to asylum to those who apply at ports of entry contravened Congress’s clear intent. And the administration’s accompanying policy of “metering” applicants at ports of entry is designed more to discourage applications — regardless of their validity — than to impose greater order on the process. Bringing order to the process is the crux of the matter.

This is by no means impossible. The U.S. doesn’t need to send more troops or shut down “the whole border.” During the mid-1990s, the U.S. faced an influx of new asylum seekers that led to record new claims and a backlog of nearly 500,000 asylum cases by 1995. As the Migration Policy Institute recently noted, reforms backed by sufficient resources virtually eliminated that backlog over the next decade. This discouraged spurious applications and gave speedier relief to legitimate asylum seekers.

The same approach can work now. Hire and deploy more asylum officers. Appoint more immigration judges and clerks to clear the backlog. In a nation of lawyers, hiring an immigration judge shouldn’t take 21 months. And in 2018, the immigration courts’ record-keeping and case-management systems shouldn’t still be largely paper-driven. Compared with the money thrown at border enforcement, investment in the courts has been puny. Little wonder dockets are clogged.
...
In the meantime, instead of trying to restrict access to asylum through questionable or outright illegal executive orders, the U.S. should be processing applications more humanely and expeditiously. It really isn’t complicated. In this instance, greater administrative efficiency is the key to protecting the vulnerable and upholding American values and interests.

In order to request asylum, by law, you have to either be in the United States or at a port of entry in the US. What are the steps and why the backlog (emphasis mine)?

The length of the asylum process varies, but it typically takes between 6 months and several years. The length of asylum process may vary depending on whether the asylum seeker filed affirmatively or defensively and on the particular facts of his or her asylum claim.

Under the affirmative asylum process, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) requires USCIS to schedule the initial interview within 45 days after the application is filed and make a decision within 180 days after the application date.

Under the defensive asylum process, applicants must go through the immigration court system, which faces significant backlogs. As of July 2018, there were over 733,000 pending immigration cases and the average wait time for an immigration hearing was 721 days. The backlog has been worsening over the past decade as the funding for immigration judges has failed to keep pace with an increasing case load.
...
Data show that 96 percent of asylum applicants show up to all their immigration court hearings.

Why? Because they are legitimately seeking asylum.

US will be so much better off with millions

Thousands.

of uneducated fake asylum speakers

Less than 4% are "fake." So of the 733,000 pending cases, that would mean only about 29,000 would be "fake" and they in turn would be deported or otherwise denied.

who don't even speak English (not have any desire to learn) flood in.

OH NO! They don't speak english!!!!!!!!!?????????????? OH. MY. GOD. THE HORROR!

How will you ever survive?

 

[Derec]

Less than 4% are "fake."

Bullshit. Less than 4% are genuine. Probably far less than 4%. Vast majority are like Santa Oscar de Rio Grande - faking asylum but really wants to make more money than in El Salvador.

Thousands.

Millions, cumulatively. Over 100,000 per month have been coming recently. It doesn't take long to reach millions at those rates.
The only reason the rate has slowed somewhat now is the deal Trump did with Mexico to keep the migrants from entering Mexico in the first place. The numbers are still high.
But when Dems win and implement their idiotic policies of decriminalization of illegal entry, of no detentions etc., all that will increase the mass migration rate even more.

OH NO! They don't speak english!!!!!!!!!?????????????? OH. MY. GOD. THE HORROR!
How will you ever survive?

So you think Americans should learn Spanish instead of immigrants learning English?

 

[Politesse]

You know, I almost hope our enemies do invade, and that Mexico sides with them when they do. We're making an enemy of them for no logical reason that I can see, ceding the one great tactical advantage we've had in every global conflict (the lack of a shared border with enemy nations) for the last century and a half, while gaining nothing in return.

 

[scombrid]

So you think Americans should learn Spanish instead of immigrants learning English?

They do learn English. Just like the Italians and Germans before them or my Ukranian great grandmother. The ladies that open my favorite lunch counter at 4AM (to feed the field hands) and sling tacos until 2PM before they go to their second job down the road cleaning the Best Western speak better English than our president. Sure that's a low bar. But they can understand enough to take my order in English. But then those lazy bums only work 16-18 hours a day so they need to go back from where they came.

 

[Politesse]

So you think Americans should learn Spanish instead of immigrants learning English?

Plenty of Americans do know Spanish already. It hasn't hurt them any. In fact, bilingual workers are far more financially successful than their monolingual peers.

Creerse la última coca-cola en el desierto, pero... no.

 

[Derec]

Plenty of Americans do know Spanish already.

So, yes, you do think Americans should have to learn Spanish rather than require immigrants to learn English.

In fact, bilingual workers are far more financially successful than their monolingual peers.

Only because we have so many illegals who refuse to learn English.

 

[Derec]

They do learn English.

Traditionally, immigrants have.
These illegal hispanic mass migrants in the main never do. That's why when a neighborhood is overran with hispanics, regular American stores close and all the storefronts have signs in Spanish. "Carniceria de Jalisco", "Supermarcado", "Salon de belleza". Does that sound like a community that learns English?

 

[Derec]

You know, I almost hope our enemies do invade, and that Mexico sides with them when they do

They ARE invading as we speak. Not all invasions are armed.

 

[Politesse]

Plenty of Americans do know Spanish already.

So, yes, you do think Americans should have to learn Spanish rather than require immigrants to learn English.

In fact, bilingual workers are far more financially successful than their monolingual peers.

Only because we have so many illegals who refuse to learn English.

There's no need to make anyone do anything; people learn whatever languages are practical for them to learn.

 

[Politesse]

You know, I almost hope our enemies do invade, and that Mexico sides with them when they do

They ARE invading as we speak. Not all invasions are armed.

I'm not too worried about the great Guatemalan takeover, but even if I were, making an enemy of Mexico will do nothing to stop the migration. What motivation do they have to help another nation that treats them with nothing but hostility? There's un palo sin una zanahoria in this situation

 

[Derec]

There's no need to make anyone do anything; people learn whatever languages are practical for them to learn.

And we have made it too easy for migrants, especially Spanish-speaking ones, to not learn English. That needs to change. We need to stop enabling refusal to learn English.

Why for example print ballots in languages other than English? When you get citizenship, you should know English!

 

[Politesse]

And we have made it too easy for migrants, especially Spanish-speaking ones, to not learn English. That needs to change. We need to stop enabling refusal to learn English.

Why? We're not voting in England's elections, we're voting in ours. What the hell do we owe to a crusty European power that opposed our own freedom, as opposed to a fellow revolutionary state that has never done us any real harm despite abundant provocation? English is not our official language of state, and I'm glad it's not. I'll take my freedom and keep it, thanks, princes and kings deserve their ultimate fate.

 

[Gun Nut]

The asylum system needs to be fundamentally reformed. This situation where you have mass migrants all claiming to be "asylum seekers" so they can stay in the US for years while they are gumming up the immigration courts is not sustainable.

What an idiotic waste of time. Thank the IPU deplorables are dying out.

Sure. US will be so much better off with millions of uneducated fake asylum speakers who don't even speak English (not have any desire to learn) flood in.

I like strawberries and having my lawn cared for.. and I am not willing to pay the $20 per lb / $100 per cut it would cost if an educated English speaking person were the only option to do that work.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This evidently needs to be posted wherever Derec posts:

In fiscal year 2018, Department of Justice (DOJ) figures show that 89 percent of all asylum applicants attended their final court hearing to receive a decision on their application. When families and unaccompanied children have access to legal representation, the rate of compliance with immigration court obligations is nearly 98 percent.
...
ANALYSES OF GOVERNMENT STATISTICS CONFIRM:

92 percent of individuals who filed asylum claims attended their court hearings between fiscal years 2013 and 2017

According to DOJ statistics, between 2013 and 2017, 92 percent of asylum seekers appeared in court to receive a final decision on their claims. In FY 2018, 89.4 percent of those who applied for asylum complied with their court hearing obligations. Out of 66,592 final asylum decisions, 7,072 denials were the result of the asylum seeker failing to appear in court.​

Asylum seekers released from detention to pursue their claims attend immigration court hearings nearly 100 percent of the time

Government figures made available through the Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) asylum decision tracking tool show near 100 percent appearance rates for asylum seekers released from immigration detention. Out of 10,427 decisions in fiscal year 2018 for released asylum seekers, only 160 received removal orders because they missed a court hearing—resulting in a 98.5 percent court hearing compliance rate.​

98 percent of mothers with children who were represented by legal counsel complied with court hearing obligations

As of May 2018, when data analyzed by TRAC was most recently updated, mothers who had passed a credible fear interview and were represented by counsel attended their immigration court hearings over 97.5 percent of the time for cases initiated between 2014 and April 2017. TRAC’s data shows that 36 percent of families went unrepresented in immigration court. While overall apprehensions along the southern border are the lowest in decades, families continue to make up a significant proportion of those crossing the border and seeking admission at ports of entry to request asylum.​

In a 15-year study, 92 percent of asylum-seeking families who were released from immigration detention attended all immigration court hearings

A 2018 study published by the American Immigration Council found that, between 2001 and 2016, 92 percent of asylum-seeking families who were released from immigration detention had complied with all immigration court hearing obligations at the conclusion of those proceedings. Further, 96 percent of families with still pending asylum cases who were released from immigration detention attended their hearings.​

98.8 percent of children with legal counsel showed up for their court hearings in 2018

TRAC data shows that 98.1 percent of unaccompanied minors who were represented by legal counsel and whose cases began between 2014 and 2017 complied with their court hearing obligations. Of the total number of unaccompanied children who filed cases during this time, however, 40 percent were not represented by counsel.​

The rate of missed hearings for individuals who passed a credible fear interview has dropped by nearly 25 percent since 2012

Data released by DOJ show that the percentage of individuals who passed a credible fear interview but failed to appear for court has declined significantly in recent years. The rate fell by 24 percent from a high of 41.6 percent in fiscal year 2012 (2,887 removal orders out of 6,935 cases completed) to 31.8 percent in 2018 (10,859 orders out of 34,158 case decisions). This means that in 2018, nearly 70 percent of individuals who were placed into immigration court proceedings after passing a credible fear interview appeared in court as required.​

In absentia rates often reflect overlooked needs of asylum seekers

Immigration judges may issue a removal order in absentia when an individual in immigration proceedings misses a hearing, if the government provides clear and convincing evidence that the individual received written notice of the hearing. However, Human Rights First and CLINIC have documented reasons why some asylum seekers miss their court hearings, including that:

• Immigration agencies fail to provide adequate, language-appropriate information related to appearance and supervision requirements, as well as the legal consequences of the failure to attend hearings;
• The government provides incorrect information regarding the time, date, or location of the hearing;
• Multi-year delays in filing notices to appear with the immigration court and in the scheduling of hearings can lead to inadvertent failures to appear;
• Medical issues such as trauma or cognitive disabilities prevent individuals from attending;
• Asylum seekers confuse immigration court hearings with ICE check-ins because ICE does not inform asylum seekers that check-ins are separate and distinct from court obligations nor does it inform asylum seekers about court obligations at check-ins;
• Asylum seekers believe they must have an attorney present to appear in court because ICE does not inform them of court procedures; and
• Asylum seekers are given immigration court hearings in different states without explanation of the process for correcting such errors.
• While an individual may appeal an in absentia removal order if he or she can demonstrate that the government failed to providing notice of the hearing or supplied incorrect information, many asylum seekers are not aware of this right or of the process for filing an appeal, particularly where unrepresented.

The presumption that asylum seekers who do not attend court hearings lack legitimate claims for protection is erroneous. That conclusion obscures the range of factors that lead some asylum seekers to miss their immigration court proceedings or even fail to file an asylum application. Indeed, a federal district court has held that the failure of the Department of Homeland Security to notify asylum seekers who have passed a credible fear screening of the obligation to file an asylum application within the one-year deadline violates the immigration laws and due process rights under the Constitution.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/us/politics/trump-asylum-rule.html



Has anyone mentioned that Trump's so called rule will be challenged in the courts?

Most migrants who travel by land to enter the United States from the Mexican border will be denied asylum protections according to plans the Trump administration announced Monday. The new rule was expected to be immediately challenged in court.

Hours after the rule was released, the American Civil Liberties Union said it “could not be more inconsistent with our domestic laws or international laws.” Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the A.C.L.U.’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said the rule undercut Congress’s commitment to asylum protections.

“The Trump administration is trying to unilaterally reverse our country’s legal and moral commitment to protect those fleeing danger,” Mr. Gelernt said in a statement. “This new rule is patently unlawful and we will sue swiftly.”

I personally would like to see it made easier for asylum seekers to enter the country. I have two new friends who I think are undocumented, although I'm not going to ask them directly. They've been here for many years, one for twenty. It's not that people don't want to learn English. It's that they have little or no opportunities to learn to speak English. But, since I love Spanish and I've not had the opportunity to speak to many Spanish speaking people since I lived in Texas, I'm having fun trying to pick up more Spanish so we can communicate without using auto translation on our phones. These two people have taken in a poor, friend of mine who used to be one of my patients. She doesn't speak Spanish but she knows they care about her. They have treated her with so much kindness and patience, that I refer to the female as my friend's "guardian angel." Americans could learn a lot from these wonderful people.

Sure, not every Mexican or Central American immigrant is as lovely as the two I know, but most are good, hard working people who never commit crimes or bother anyone. I want more of these people in my country! Fuck Trump and the xenophobes who are trying to keep them out!

 

[J842P]

They do learn English.

Traditionally, immigrants have.
These illegal hispanic mass migrants in the main never do. That's why when a neighborhood is overran with hispanics, regular American stores close and all the storefronts have signs in Spanish. "Carniceria de Jalisco", "Supermarcado", "Salon de belleza". Does that sound like a community that learns English?

Do you have any actual evidence that the current wave of immigrants learns English at lower rates than previous waves?

 

[scombrid]

They do learn English.

Traditionally, immigrants have.
These illegal hispanic mass migrants in the main never do. That's why when a neighborhood is overran with hispanics, regular American stores close and all the storefronts have signs in Spanish. "Carniceria de Jalisco", "Supermarcado", "Salon de belleza". Does that sound like a community that learns English?

You can replace hispanics in your statement with any number of migrant populations back in the early 20th century and the rhetoric is exactly the same. It doesn't match the reality that I see in our migrant dominated agricultural areas here in Florida. The bakery/butcher shop where I go for tacos and cheap fresh baked sweet breads and the best chorizo you'll ever eat has a Spanish sign and Spanish labels and a lot of Mexican stuff including Mexican Coca Cola (bottle labels entirely in Spanish). Everybody there speaks some level of English.