Trump’s Asylum & Immigration Policies Must be Rolled Back

In 2016, after a legal career of 30 years in refugee and asylum protection, including eight years as a federal refugee officer and seven years as an immigration judge, I accepted a position in the Arlington, Virginia asylum office as a Supervisory Asylum Officer. I had tremendous respect for the U.S. asylum program and I knew from experience that most asylum officers choose the job as a humanitarian calling; their ranks include many attorneys and individuals with graduate degrees, with experience in the Peace Corps and other humanitarian backgrounds. And I can affirm that Asylum Officers have the hardest job of any immigration officers in USCIS-United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, due to the complex and ever-changing asylum law, and the nature of the intensive interviews.

The law enforcement side of our immigration system is exercised by ICE — Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a sub-agency of DHS that was created, along with Department of Homeland Security, in 2003 after the tragedy of 9/11. ICE officers are hired from a completely different profile of applicants and receive much less training in the humanitarian aspect of immigration law. The equivalent at the border is CBP — Customs and Border Protection.

The Netflix Series Immigrant Nation, airing in August 2020, exposes how, soon after Trump’s ascendancy to the presidency, he and his nativist cronies put into place a series of executive measures designed to practically eliminate refugee admissions; to curtail and eventually eliminate access to our asylum system; and even to severely reduce lawful migration to the United States. Virtually all of these executive measures are unlawful, in conflict with our nation’s immigration statute and in violation of our international treaty obligations, and even demonstrably harmful to the economic well-being of the U.S. They have all been challenged in court and practically every such executive measure has been deemed unlawful by federal district and appellate courts, yet the anti-immigrant juggernaut sails on. Recently the GAO — Government Accounting Office, an independent body, declared that, according to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act the current Acting Directors of both DHS, Chad Wolf, and USCIS, Ken Cuccinelli, were unlawfully appointed, and presumably every edict that they have issued since their appointments this past year will also be deemed unlawful.

One of the first ignoble acts of the administration’s new appointee to head U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, Director Lee Cissna, was the removal of this truism from the agency’s mission statement: “America is a Nation of Immigrants.” Why would the head of the agency that receives all applications for visas, both temporary and permanent, and for asylum and refugee protection choose to redact such seemingly innocuous and self-evident verbiage from the agency’s mission statement?

In the same time frame the Department of Housing and Urban Development, headed by Trump’s appointee Ben Carson, removed the words “inclusion” and “free from discrimination” from its mission statement. We’ve seen in history how totalitarian regimes try to control the dialogue within their populace by changing and sanitizing language, including the use of language within federal institutions.

When this White House requested a study to map the net costs of refugees, conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, and the results showed a net benefit to the economy over a period of ten years of $63 billion, the White House buried the study. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.htm

Simultaneously the administration was implementing the so-called Muslim ban against citizens and residents of seven mostly-Muslim countries out of supposedly national security reasons. No one has ever explained why Saudi Arabia, the home of 15 of the 19 9/11 bombers, was not included in the list. (Saudi Arabia is also the home of the Al Qaeda sympathizer who shot up the Naval Air Station at Pensacola,Florida Air Base in December, 2019, killing three sailors and wounding eight.)

In the early days of this administration there was much hype over the “migrant caravans” composed mostly of Central Americans from the “northern triangle” countries, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, that were “invading” our country — the old “barbarian hordes” trope that is a favorite of every totalitarian regime. In fact the numbers of each such “caravan” for the most part would easily fit inside a typical college stadium. (Current demographics demonstrate that even if we admitted all of them as potential workers and residents, the U.S. would still experience labor shortfalls in the near future and they would not supplant the decline of our native-born population.)

In the final months of 2016, I traveled with a group of asylum and refugee officers to San Salvador where we interviewed and vetted minors who were requesting refugee protection because of threats to themselves and their families by the ruthless MS-13 and 18th Street gangs. The children we spoke with or their parents had all received such threats as, “Either you work for us or you and your parents will be dead next week,” or “Give me your daughter or you have two days to leave the country.” And they all knew neighbors or close relatives who had died when such threats were ignored. We felt gratified knowing that we were granting these kids a lifeline of resettlement to the U.S.. I would only hope that any American father or mother, if ever faced with such a choice by a credible threat, would have the courage and means to flee across borders in order to protect their children, just as those parents joining the caravans with their children have chosen to do.

The new administration ordered a halt to such in-country interviews and even the resettlement of the cases we had already approved for travel. Its spokesmen have continuously and falsely characterized such asylum applicants as fraudsters who are gaming the system. The administration’s first morally challenged Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, claimed there was a conspiracy of corrupt attorneys who are manufacturing all of their stories. Believe me, they are not manufactured. All credible international reporters, including our own State Department, rebut the claim that such migrants are merely seeking jobs in the U.S. International reports affirm that some gangs in El Salvador are able to maintain such power and territorial control that they exercise the functioning equivalent of State authority, making it impossible for potential victims to resist their demands.

Sessions even admonished the assembled group of immigration judges at a conference, telling them they must not let their humanitarian impulses interfere with some fictitious mandate to deport as many applicants as possible. (Stephen Miller, the self-hating white nationalist who has dictated this administration’s immigration policy from the beginning, was once a staffer for then-Senator Jeff Sessions. Miller subscribes to the “white replacement” or “white genocide” theory that the brown-skinned migrant hordes will replace the superior descendants of Western civilization if not stopped.)

Jeff Sessions also chose to meddle in the administration of the immigration courts, in such a bungling manner that his mandated reforms achieved the opposite of his goal to reduce backlogs. By restricting the ways in which immigration judges can control their own docket, such as eliminating a judge’s ability to place a case on hold or “administratively close” a case while collateral legal action is ongoing in the migrant’s case, and by taking away ICE trial attorneys’ discretion to agree to grants of compelling cases, backlogs blossomed by the tens of thousands — within the two and a half years of this administration from approximately 500,000 to currently one and a half million.

The Netflix film crew obtained unprecedented access to ICE and CBP operations in the making of their series. I have trained asylum officers at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center at Glencoe, Georgia, featured in the first episode of the Netflix series, and I have supervised asylum officers at the ICE family detention centers in Texas featured in the first episode. And I experienced, along with my colleagues, the devastating effects of the administration’s continuing attempts to deter refugees from coming to our southern border through abuse and cruelty, the so-called family separation policy. It is telling to see how many ICE and CBP officers and supervisors conceded, on camera, that the deterrence of ripping children from their parents’ arms upon arrival at the border is cruel and inhumane and un-American, but they felt compelled to follow the orders because “it’s the law.”

The so-called Zero Tolerance policy that was advanced by retired Marine General Kelly, first DHS Secretary and later White House Chief of Staff, and AG Sessions was a sham from the get-go. An impossible task, launched for public consumption and to create the impression that only by locking up all unlawful border crossers could any order be returned to the enforcement of our laws. The sham is that no law enforcement body in the country, federal or state, has a zero tolerance policy, simply because no one has the resources to detain, charge, prosecute, adjudicate and jail all offenders. (This stark reality is in fact the reason for the plea bargaining system in criminal court). In my career I observed how the U.S. Attorney’s Offices in Washington, D.C., and in San Diego, would, within their discretion, “no-paper” cases they considered too minor or insignificant to prosecute, saving their powder for bigger game. This was also the policy that the Obama Administration, under guidance of then DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, established as ICE policy, when ICE agents and prosecuting attorneys were advised to let the low-hanging fruit go, such as hard-working but undocumented laborers, and concentrate instead on serious felons for apprehension and removal. The admitted consequences of this administration’s Zero Tolerance policy was to require all migrants be detained and prosecuted. Since children cannot be detained in an adult facility, they were to be separated from their parents, in order to achieve the maximum of trauma and pain upon the children and their parents. The trauma itself was to be a deterrent to future unlawful crossers, by “sending a message” not to come to the U.S. The notorious photos of kids in cages have tarnished our international reputation and provided talking points for terrorists.

Netflix film crews accompanied agents on raids in multiple locations, when the Zero Tolerance policy initially led to mass inland roundups. The cameras recorded agents blatantly lying to targets about who they are and their authority to enter private dwellings and arrest suspects without criminal arrest warrants, clear violations of the Fourth Amendment. We see numerous ICE veterans, and even FODs-Field Office Directors — lamenting the new ‘catch everyone’ policy, knowing from experience that such tactics are inhumane and bound to fail in the long run.

We see a gung-ho ICE public affairs officer trying to convince the Field Office Director of the Charlotte, North Carolina office to lie in a press briefing and indicate that 90% of the migrants detained in a community-wide sweep have criminal records; the FOD twice corrects him that the correct figure is 30–35%, meaning the remaining 70% are harmless field workers, hotel employees, construction workers or single mothers with U.S. citizen children.

Even though political appointees such as DHS Secretary Kirsjten Nielsen and AG Sessions were willing to blatantly lie to Congress about the motivation and consequences of such cruel policies, they were still tossed out by the president when the reality on the ground impaired their ability to achieve deportation numbers sufficient to satisfy the Nativist in Chief. Ultimately it took an even more barbaric policy, the Migrant Protection Protocol (MPP), another unlawful executive order, to force legitimate asylum seekers to remain on the Mexican side of the border while their cases were piling up in the bureaucracy. MPP is Orwellian double-speak, because the migrants, rather than being protected, are being sent into circumstances where they are easy prey for cartels targeting them and are notoriously subject to kidnappings, rapes, robberies and murders. No migrant being forced to wait for months in tents or temporary shelters along the border is safe.

Most disappointing to me as a Supervisory Asylum Officer was how management at the Arlington Asylum office, as soon as the MPP operating instructions came down in early 2019, was so willing to coerce asylum officers into violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the U.S. At an internal meeting with management and the asylum officers, supposedly to hash out the ground rules of this new MPP program, one of my officers complained that he felt both ethically and morally conflicted for the first time in his career, knowing that forcing asylum seekers to wait in Ciudad Juarez, one of the most dangerous cities in the world, was a violation of his oath and his training to offer protection to asylum seekers.

I wondered how our managers could justify to themselves the cruel and unlawful policies they were insisting that their subordinates carry out. Were they hoping that the federal courts would soon overturn the blatantly illegal policy and they would thus be off the hook? Were they thinking that at least they, as a federal officer with some limited power, were better than whoever might replace them if they were to resign? I’m sure that is how many attorneys and jurists, working within totalitarian regimes, justify their collaboration and acceptance of policies that are dehumanizing and deadly. When they were asked by their subordinates for justification they threw up a disingenuous wall of semantics, and when asked what procedures Customs and Border Protection were following in the context of MPP, they were told, “We believe CBP knows how to do their jobs.” Basically, just shut up and do what we tell you to do.

I was one of the first supervisors sent to oversee our officers conducting the new MPP screening interviews at the San Ysidro border crossing south of San Diego. Under the new guidelines the migrant must demonstrate to the asylum officer that it is “more likely than not” that they would meet serious harm if forced to wait for many months in Mexico until returning for an audience in front of an immigration judge, in order to be exempted from the requirement of waiting in Mexico. One of my very conscientious officers decided to refer for protection a young Guatemalan woman who had been held captive in an apartment in Tijuana by her domestic partner and brutalized and assaulted, and then viciously stalked when she fled from the dwelling. She should be allowed to remain in the U.S. pending her court date because it was clearly too dangerous for her to return to where her tormentor could easily locate her. I reviewed the interview notes and consulted with my officer and I agreed that it was a good case for protection. We informed CBP and our chain of command of the decision. The next day I received a call from the Deputy Director of the Arlington Asylum office., Jennifer Rellis. I was told that we had to be very careful with our assessments of the MPP cases because the “front office” had eyes on these cases. I was instructed to overturn our decision and to deny the young woman protection. And I was instructed that, going forward, any time I was inclined to approve any of my officers’ decisions to grant protection, I must first have one of my managers also review and sign off on it. There was no such requirement if we decided to deny protection to an applicant. Thus a presumption was created that we should deny protection in our MPP adjudications, a reversal of all of our training as asylum and refugee officers, and a blatant violation of our own statute and of U.N. refugee guidelines. In the following months this presumption against protection has continued to be enforced.

I wondered how Ms. Rellis could live with herself in so callously stripping me of my discretion to afford protection to legitimate refugees, given her training as a humanitarian lawyer. I’m sure if asked, she would argue we have no choice but to comply, and we can still protect asylum seekers within the limits of this new program. But there was no articulable reason why she would order me to enact an unlawful presumption of ‘not qualified’ where none exists in our asylum statute, regulation, case law, or international refugee law. The fact that such managers, whom we had always believed were motivated by their own humanitarian commitments, would so enthusiastically fall in line with a blatantly unlawful program caused great distress among the ranks of asylum officers. Many of my colleagues sought reassignment to other divisions within USCIS or even left the agency altogether. When I received that phone call I also began making arrangements to leave what had become a compromised agency.

Only months after I departed in June, the much-beloved Director of the Asylum Division was reassigned by the unlawfully appointed Acting USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli to a management position in an uncontroversial department of USCIS. It was conceded that he had lamented to his asylum officers in an internal e-mail that it was unfortunate that the troops were being asked to adjust to these new policies with no forewarning or opportunity to adequately train.

It is remarkable that American Federation of Government Employees Union Local 1924, the union that represents asylum officers, has submitted “friend-of-the-court” briefs in numerous lawsuits against the administration’s attempts to implement the MPP program and otherwise curtail and dismantle the asylum program; and that Union Local 1924 President Michael Knowles has testified before Congress in opposition to such policies.

Jeff Session’s replacement AG William Barr has shown himself willing to continue the dismantling of our asylum program. He issued an edict that immigration judges would no longer have the discretion to grant bonds to asylum seekers in custody — clearly another attempt to discourage applicants from seeking shelter in the U.S. through the use of cruelty. This is an issue that is especially dear to my heart, as it has always been my principle that no asylum applicant should remain detained a day longer than necessary for routine administrative procedures. In fact, I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2013, at a time that comprehensive immigration reform was optimistically expected to be passed, in favor of granting immigration judges additional authority to issue bonds. My proposal wound up in the Senate’s draft legislation, which regretfully was never even taken up by the House. (In a meeting with Senator Marco Rubio’s immigration staffer I was assured that “the Senator is behind your proposals 100%.” During his subsequent presidential campaign in 2016 Rubio claimed he had never been in favor of comprehensive immigration reform). Again, several weeks after Barr’s edict against bond, a federal court blocked Barr’s draconian and heartless ban on conditional release from custody of asylum seekers from taking effect.

From the earliest campaign rallies in 2016, Trump has used fear and hatred of others to divide Americans and energize his base. The forefathers of most European Americans gained entry to the U.S. in exactly the same fashion as all those “illegal aliens” at our southern border; by showing up and asking for admission, at Ellis Island, at a time when there were no immigration controls in place other than routine screening for communicable diseases. Today the vast majority of Americans would not qualify for admission if measured against the standards this administration is trying to implement.

I was a refugee officer in the field at the time of the current President’s election. My colleagues and I were already conducting “extreme vetting” on Syrian, Iraqi, Somali, and numerous other populations, in conjunction with security resources of the CIA, FBI, Defense Intelligence Agency and Pentagon, years before this President decided to use fear as a means of control. My last assignment at the Refugee Affairs Division in 2015, before transferring to the asylum program, was to assist in the heightened vetting of all Syrian applicants at headquarters. Ironically, it is demonstrable that, on average, Syrian and Iraqi migrants to the U.S. are among the highest educated migrants in sciences and technology.

Refugee Admissions Decimated

During the last year of the Obama administration, in the context of the worst international refugee crisis since the end of the 2nd World War, the Obama administration asked that the Refugee Affairs Division increase refugee admissions from the already admirable number of 90,000 in fiscal year 2016 to 110,000 for 2017. However, on the heels of the Muslim ban came the new administration’s pronouncement that rather than 110,000, in fiscal year 2017 the program would be suspended for the rest of the year, thus grounding all refugee officers. . In 2018 the admissions was capped at 45,000 refugees, and it was determined that a ceiling of 30,000 admissions would be set for 2019. At a time when the U.S. should have been manning the bulwarks of refugee protection (Germany received a million refugees in 2015, comparable to the U.S. taking in 4 million) the U.S. effectively withdrew from the field, sending the signal that the U.S. no longer considers itself a leader in the world for refugee protection. A ceiling of 18,000 was set for fiscal year 2020, and this amount was only agreed to after push back from the Pentagon in reference to promises we had made to allies and interpreters working with our troops in the field in Irag, Afghanistan and Syria.

In 2018 Director Cissna also made the shocking announcement that USCIS would close all of its overseas offices, passing numerous tasks onto the State Department and domestic offices. The offices, established over a period of decades in such countries as Kenya, Ghana, South Africa, China, South Korea, Thailand, Mexico and Peru, primarily function as facilitators for family unity and refugee operations. Perhaps the first time that a federal bureaucracy has voluntarily given up turf, but in line with the administration’s seeming loathing for family unity.

The Myth of Skilled Migration

When then Chief of Staff General Kelly, formally DHS Secretary, disparagingly pronounced that most Central American migrants are “rural” migrants, as though of less value than presumably better educated “urban” migrants from white European countries, I took personal offense. My grandfather Grussendorf migrated with his family from a rural village in Lower Saxony, Germany at the end of the 19th Century at a time when there were no immigration controls at Ellis Island. He settled in the farming community of Grand Rapids, Minnesota, where he ran a farm and begat five children, one of whom became a high school math teacher; one became a state judge, one opened a nursery in Duluth, and one, my father, became a highly decorated Marine colonel, former company commander at the WWII landings at Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. (I was born at Camp Pendleton). The state judge’s children included Cousin Benny Grussendorf who became Speaker of the House in the Alaskan Legislature. My father’s children included a Navy Captain and minister, a Navy enlisted man and transportation professional; a political activist, and an immigration judge. My brother the Navy Captain’s children include an Air Force flight surgeon and base hospital director; a veterinary, and a multi-lingual translator with her own business in France. All of these offspring were imbued with strong “rural” family values. That’s how migration works.

The idea of skilled-based migration, to be administered by a point system involving education, employment background, and language skills, isn’t all that bad in and of itself. Our close alleys Canada, the U.K., Australia and New Zealand all administer a version of this skills-based migration. The problem is the suggestion to eliminate family-based migration, when clearly the vast majority of our nation’s people, including the President’s own family, have benefited from it. The better idea is to double the current admissions level of permanent residents, half to be drawn from a skills-based system. It is the unnaturally low numbers of annual permanent resident admissions that is partly responsible for the log-jam of our immigration system, in today’s world where there is such an interest in immigration to the U.S., and given that our otherwise native-born population is in decline.

We must recognize that the recent surge at our southern border is not some kind of existential challenge to the nation’s existence, as seen in a vacuum, but rather only one component of the world-wide refugee crisis, a symptom of wars and world-wide insecurity. The long-term solution to any refugee crisis is always peace and prosperity in the country/region that is generating the refugees. Only peace and stability in Syria and northern Africa can allay the human waves of refugees into Europe. Only a Marshal-type program for the northern triangle countries, coupled with short term humanitarian protection for those fleeing eminent death, can resolve the crisis at our southern border.

And finally, regarding the present state of the U.S. Immigration Court system under this white nationalist administration, I’d like to quote my friend and colleague, Judge Paul Schmidt:

Once upon a time, there was a court system with a vision: Through teamwork and innovation, one of the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all. Two decades later, that vision has become a nightmare. (…)

Today, the U.S. Immigration Court betrays due process, mocks competent administration, and slaps a false veneer of “justice” on a “deportation railroad” designed to evade our solemn Constitutional responsibilities to guarantee due process and equal protection. It seeks to snuff out every existing legal right of migrants. Indeed, it is designed specifically to demean, dehumanize, and mistreat the very individuals whose rights and lives it is charged with protecting.

It cruelly betrays everything our country claims to stand for and baldly perverts our international obligations to protect refugees. In plain terms, the Immigration Court has become an intentionally “hostile environment” for migrants and their attorneys.

https://immigrationcourtside.com/ tag: Good Litigating in a Bad System