ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM

description

  1. Can Trump refuse asylum to aliens who make illegal entries? BY Nolan Rappaport


    © Getty Images


    President Trump thinks aliens entering our country illegally should be returned immediately with no judges or court cases.

    This isn’t an idle threat. Vox Media reported the Justice Department is working on draft regulation that would result in “the most severe restrictions on asylum since at least 1965,” according to a source familiar with the asylum process.

    One of the proposed changes would bar aliens who enter illegally from getting asylum — and this is feasible. Asylum is a discretionary form of relief. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) just states that eligible aliens “may” be granted asylum.


    This does not mean that Trump would be able to refuse to consider persecution claims from aliens who have made an illegal entry. They could be eligible for other, mandatory forms of relief.


    The United States is a signatory to the UN’s Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.


    Read more at http://thehill.com/opinion/immigrati...llegal-entries

    Published originally on The Hill.

    About the author. Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.
  2. Supreme Court Says Foreign Nationals Have No Due Process Rights Here. By Matt O'Brien

    Introductory note. I didn't write this article. Although I think it is correct to some extent, the author seems to have ignored our treaty obligations not to send aliens to countries where they will be persecuted or tortured.

    Contrary to what the liberal media and open-borders advocates say, immigrants are not owed same constitutional protections as regular Americans
    July 5, 2018


    President Donald Trump recently suggested that illegal aliens should be sent back to their countries of origin without hearings and the years of litigation that often follow.

    He branded the current process, which permits illegal aliens to repeatedly contest orders of removal, as “a mockery to good immigration policy and law and order.”

    The mainstream media wasted no time in characterizing his suggestion as a “push to end due process for illegal immigrants.” And multiple news outlets made all manner of wild claims about the so-called rights of illegal aliens. But once again, in an effort to portray the chief executive as a xenophobe, the open-borders lobby has gotten its facts backward.

    Trump is actually right on the mark. Much of the current legal framework for removing illegal aliens from the United States consists of badly reasoned federal district-court decisions, ridiculous settlement agreements, and politically motivated policy decisions.

    The open-borders lobby and its handmaidens in the mainstream media have consistently represented this hodgepodge as a clear articulation of “affirmative rights.”

    But that representation is misleading.

    Illegal aliens are entitled to considerably less immigration due process than their advocates would have us believe.

    And the Supreme Court has been remarkably consistent on this point over the years:

    It is not within the province of the courts to order the admission of foreigners who have no formal, legal connection to the United States. "As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law." Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co.; Hilton v. Merritt)

    "It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty and essential to self- preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe." (Ekiu v. United States)

    The United States need only provide an alien with a judicial trial when charging them with a crime and seeking a punitive sentence. (Wong Wing v. United States)

    "Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the government to exclude a given alien." (Knauff v. Shaughnessy)

    Unadmitted, nonresident aliens have no right of entry to the United States as non-immigrants, or otherwise. (Kleindienst v. Mandel)

    Read more at https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/...s-rights-here/



    About the author. Matt O'Brien is the former chief of the national security division within the fraud-detection and national-security directorate at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS). He has also served as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s assistant chief counsel in the New York District. He is currently director of research at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

    Updated 07-08-2018 at 01:17 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. An alternative to Trump’s family separation policy. By Nolan Rappaport


    © Getty Images

    On April 6, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions notified the U.S. Attorney’s Offices along the Southwest Border of a new “zero-tolerance policy” towards illegal entries into the United States.

    According to Sessions, the situation at the border had become unacceptable. Illegal border crossings had increased by 203 percent from March 2017 to March 2018.

    He directed the U.S. attorneys in those offices to prosecute all referrals of offenses for an illegal entry, to the extent practicable.

    Entry without inspection is a serious crime. For the first commission of such an offense, the punishment is a fine or imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent offense, a fine or imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.

    Sessions’ zero-tolerance policy has resulted in the separation of children from parents who are prosecuted for an illegal entry. DHS officials recently reported that 1,995 children had been separated from their parents over the six-week period from April 19 to May 31.

    All four living former first ladies — Rosalynn Carter, Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush, and Michelle Obama — have condemned the Trump administration's practice of separating parents and children at the border.

    Even President Trump’s first lady, Melania Trump, has said that she hates to see children separated from their families. Her communications director, Stephanie Grisham, told CNN on Sunday. "She believes we need to be a country that follows all laws, but also a country that governs with heart."
    What happens to the child of a parent who has been referred for criminal prosecution for making an illegal entry?

    Read more at http://thehill.com/opinion/immigrati...aration-policy

    Published originally on The Hill.

    Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.




  4. Asylum claims of unaccompanied alien children contribute to backlog crisis in our immigration courts. By Nolan Rappaport



    The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008 required screening unaccompanied alien for possible trafficking risks and asylum claims. When former President George W. Bush signed TVPRA into law on December 23, 2008, he observed that it was intended to enhance measures to combat human trafficking. It is very unlikely that anyone anticipated that it would be used to require asylum hearings for tens of thousands of unaccompanied alien children from Central America.

    The immigration courts always have had big backlogs, and the backlogs have continued to grow. The number of cases awaiting resolution before immigration judges as of the end of June 2016, reached a new high of 496,704, and 69,278 of these cases were for unaccompanied alien children. To put this in perspective, this was an average of 1,819 cases for each of the 273 immigration judges. It would take approximately 2.5 years to clear up this backlog even if there were no new cases being filed. But instead of giving priority to removing criminal aliens who pose a threat to our country, the Executive Office for Immigration Review hasprioritized the applications from the unaccompanied alien children.

    I respect the Administration’s efforts to help the children from Central America, but I do not think that the United States should assume sole responsibility for their welfare. In an article I wrote in July of 2014, I pointed out that their plight is an international problem and asserted that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) should be involved in helping them. UNHCR was established on December 14, 1950, by the United Nations General Assembly. Its objective is to safeguard the rights and well-being of refugees. UNHCR has helped tens of millions of people to restart their lives. When I wrote my article, UNHCR had a staff of some 7,685 people in more than 125 countries. They were helping 14.7 million internally displaced persons, 10.5 million refugees, 3.1 million returnees, 3.5 million stateless people, more than 837,000 asylum seekers, and more than 1.3 million other persons of concern.

    Moreover, UNHCR had developed a Refugee Protection and Mixed Migration 10-Point Plan of Action which addressed the plight of unaccompanied alien children. It is described in their report, “Children on the Run.” The plan includes methods for recognizing newly merging forms of displacement in Central America and the emergence of international protection issues; ways to strengthen and harmonize regional and national frameworks for ensuring international protection; and measures for addressing root causes.
    I pointed out that Congress could save unaccompanied alien children from the perils of the dangerous trip to the United States by making it possible for unaccompanied alien children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to benefit from the 10-Point Plan with a bill that would exempt them from the removal-hearing requirement in TVPRA and remove any other obstacles to moving them out of the United States. The children could then be moved to temporary locations outside of the United States, which could be chosen by agreement between the Governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and the United States. When the children are safely placed at these locations, UNHCR could screen them to see which ones are eligible for refugee status. The rest of the children could be returned to their native countries when arrangements have been with the governments of those countries to provide safe environments for them.

    I do not know whether my proposal had anything to do with it, but in September 2014, the Obama Administration announced a new Central American Minors(CAM) Refugee Program:
    We are establishing in-country refugee processing to provide a safe, legal and orderly alternative to the dangerous journey that children are currently undertaking to join relatives in the United States.... These programs will not be a pathway for children to join undocumented relatives in the United States.

    I applaud the Administration’s efforts to address this problem, but if the Administration had fully developed the CAM refugee program, as I think it should have, we would not have 69,278 unaccompanied alien children waiting for asylum hearings in the United States, with thousands more on their way, and our immigration courts would not have a 496,704-case backlog. And I worry about the unaccompanied children who made the trip with them who did not reach the United States. What became of them?

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    This article is reprinted with permission from the author. It was originally published by the author on Huffington Post.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/57daaf27e4b0d5920b5b25f0?timestamp=1473983190513


    About The Author
    Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years; he subsequently served as the immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for twenty years. He also has been a policy advisor for the DHS Office of Information Sharing and Collaboration under a contract with TKC Communications, and he has been in private practice as an immigration lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson.

    Updated 09-16-2016 at 12:01 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: