Since January, asylum applications at the Southwest border have been handled by an app called CBP One. The idea is to bring some order to asylum requests by requiring applicants to make an appointment via the app and then show up legally at a port of entry. For the past two months, if you cross the border illegally you are presumed ineligible for asylum.
In the first half of 2023 the Border Patrol has made about 30,000 appointments per month on the app and recently announced that this would increase to 40,000. As near as I can tell, there are no public records available for the number of asylum applications in previous years, but we can compare 2023 to the number of new asylum filings in federal court:
So asylum applications are (probably) up, but they're more orderly than before. At least, they were until a federal judge decided it was illegal to deny asylum to illegal border crossers:
U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar ruled against a system the Biden administration imposed more than two months ago to penalize migrants who crossed the border illegally and reward those who scheduled appointments to seek asylum instead.
....Tigar sided with advocacy groups who had urged him to reject the restrictions because they said they endangered migrants and violated federal immigration law, which states that anyone on U.S. soil may request asylum, no matter how they arrived.
....Biden administration officials say the rules, in part, contributed to a nearly 42 percent drop in illegal border crossings in June, the first full month the policy was in effect. The Border Patrol made 99,545 arrests last month, the lowest monthly tally since Biden took office.
This is a seemingly intractable problem unless Congress can agree to do something—which they can't. Legally, Tigar is probably right: the law says anyone on US soil can apply for asylum. At the same time, no one believes that the skyrocketing asylum rate is for real. Migrants are well aware that our backlog of asylum cases is so enormous that it will be years before they see a judge, and even if the decision goes against them we don't have the resources to do much about it. So for all practical purposes, you just have to say the word "asylum" and you can stay in the US more or less forever. Who wouldn't do it?
The only durable solution is to vastly enlarge the immigration court system and its enforcement arm so that asylum seekers get a quick trial and are deported if their asylum request is denied. It's hard to think of a reason Congress refuses to do this. It's not as if either side in the immigration debate would be "giving up" something in return for nothing from the other side. Everyone thinks we should expand the immigration court system. Who's against it?
Everyone thinks we should expand the immigration court system. Who's against it?
Answer: every Republican who stands to benefit politically from anti-Latino race-baiting and/or opposing the Biden administration, which would be ... [checks notes] ALL of them, Katie!
The Trump people took a flame-throwing wrecking crew to the immigration system, and in particular the courts/agencies who process asylum claims, for a very clear reason, and we are paying the price today.
That is exactly right. Republicans have found it to be in their best interest to make illlegal immigration an intractable problem. Fixing the problem would mean government can work; and it would mean that they could not exploit anti-immigration rhetoric.
Yes. The GOP were hoping to keep the troops fired up about abortion, which they assumed would always be just out of their grasp to outlaw, when their own litmus-tested SCOTUS actually did the deed, and left them dealing with the backlash. What to do? Got to fall back on their other tried-and true cause of bigotry.
Real on the web home based work to make more than $14k. Last month I made $15738 from this home job. Very simple and easy to do and procuring from this are just awesome. For more detail visit the given interface.. http://incomebyus.blogspot.com
"The only durable solution is to vastly enlarge the immigration court system and its enforcement arm so that asylum seekers get a quick trial and are deported if their asylum request is denied."
I can think of another durable solution: let more people legally immigrate.
I can think of another durable solution: let more people legally immigrate.
That wouldn't hurt. And I personally support increasing immigration inflows—especially of skilled workers. But we need to be very clever about it: There are probably several tens of millions of Latin Americans whose conditions would materially improve were they to settle in the United States. And there are many millions more in other regions who can manage to airfare to Colombia (and then trek north). There's no conceivable, foreseeable alignment of political stars that would result in the kinds of numbers that would simply obviate the economic incentives to claim refugee status.
But I would like to see the US implement a "blue card" lottery for hemispheric workers: we give 2nd, 3rd, 4th time (etc) entrants mathematically improved odds. IOW, the more times you've "lost" the lottery, the greater your chances of winning. This would be coupled with a strict "ejection" rule if a migrant is apprehended trying to illegally immigrate (that is, the person in question is barred from participating in the lottery). Basically, give people an incentive not to try their luck as undocumented immigrants. (I'd also require employers who want to hire blue card holders to pay a fair wage and provide health insurance).
As it stands now, there's essentially zero incentive not to attempt undocumented immigration, because for the overwhelming majority of people living to our south, zero prospect of legally coming to the US exists. And if you love your children, and they're hungry, you're going to do what you gotta do.
My understanding, from previous postings on this site, is that both parties benefit from the broken dysfunctional system the way it is. Each blames the other. Democrats blame the republicans for being heartless bigots and republicans blame the democrats for allowing”furriners” to overrun our country and illegally voting. They deserve each other.
Yeah not gonna buy the first part. This is very much NOT a bothsides issue. And to say that Democrats are at fault for something because they want to be able to blame Republicans for something horrible that Republicans actually do is just silly.
"Republicans do bad thing X, but that's actually Democrats' fault for not stopping them, which they won't do because they want to blame Republicans for doing X!"
See also Murc's Law.
It's also not a "both sider" issue in terms of political ramifications. Rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly) "uncontrolled" economic migration is Democrat-coded, and it is that party which pays the political price.
Troll detectors out! You've been warned; please do not go down this path.
"Everyone thinks we should expand the immigration court system. Who's against it?"
If you vote for for the candidate that tells you that "they" are the bad guys and "we" are the good guys, then you are, in effect, acting against expanding the immigration court system.
If you vote for the candidate that says, in effect, all for one and one for all (or ask not what your country can do for you, and etcetera), then you are, in effect, acting for the expansion of the immigration court system.
The failure to expand the system is a symptom of a disease. I'm not saying don't treat the symptom. I'm saying don't ignore the disease.
Republicans like the system as-is. They are the party that despises unions and would repeal the minimum wage if they could. They want a pool of laborers who can be paid diddly-squat and treated abominably, and they (frustratingly) can't do that to citizens or legal residents. Our huge pool of illegal immigrants meet that need.
The fact that this system also provides them an excuse to verbally abuse Democrats is just gravy.
How exactly do you get Five Parrots into a Shoe?
You take out the cow.
I had to pick something for a handle, and I know better than to put real ID information on random websites. I thought about going with "Zanclean Megaflood", and also John Scalzi's recommended "Warring Depeche Mode Tribute Bands of Los Angeles", but I decided I liked the way "Five Parrots in a Shoe" rolls off the tongue, and it allows for a cheerfully colorful avatar pic.
Scalzi, ugh. Why don't you read somebody who doesn't put out extruded product?
Republicans are against it because they don't actually want to do anything about immigration. They want it there as a hobby horse that they can beat on whenever they feel like it.
It's not really an intractable problem.
"So for all practical purposes, you just have to say the word "asylum" and you can stay in the US more or less forever."
This is exactly what nearly everyone in the political system wants... either because they believe the asylum laws are appropriate or because they like beating their opponents with the result. Or both.
Build the wall. The grift that never ends.
"Every day that Mr. Biden fails to stop Mr. Abbott leads to unnecessary, preventable suffering — and often death."
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/25/opinion/beto-orourke-abbot-lonestar-texas.html
And in other important news, why is Joe Biden such a dumbass? His dogs keep biting secret service agents. Dumbass.
Apparently this Judge made a similar ruling in a case against Trump's rules, a few years ago. What was the disposition of that case?
Um, conservatives would give up something big -- an evergreen, anger generating, political issue. There is a positive incentive to not allow it to be solved.