No announcement yet.

Article: Immigration Crisis Without a Solution-Really? By Dan Vara


  • Article: Immigration Crisis Without a Solution-Really? By Dan Vara

    Immigration Crisis Without a Solution-Really?


    Immigration Crisis Without a Solution-Really?

    The recent influx of Central American children is reported as an apparent crisis without a solution.

    At least not without a major change in the law or the way the immigration process works.

    Nothing is further from the truth.

    This is not the first mass migration crisis. Ask career immigration officials about such events as the late 1970’s Mariel Boatlift, the late 1980’s Nicaraguan South Texas influx, the early 1990’s Haitian Boatlift, and the mid-1990’s “Mini-Cuban Mass Migration Crisis.”

    The required fix to the immigration laws was made after the Mariel boatlift, the only mass migration event that caught this country by surprise. In essence, what was changed was to make it an offense to attempt to bring an alien without authorization to the United States, even if you present the alien directly to this country’s immigration authorities rather than sneak the alien in to the country.

    Since that time, each crisis was known either before or shortly after it began. And the laws on the booked worked just fine.

    I know. I was one of the feds in the inner circle of decision-makers, advisors, and official government actors during each of the subsequent crises except this one.

    The Nicaraguan crisis was easily handled. In less than a week after it began, it was handled. A couple of strategy meetings of the top officials at the former Southern Regional Office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), a couple of teleconferences with Headquarters, the Department of Justice, and a nod from the White House, and a plan of action was implemented that, in very short order, crushed the mass migration effort.

    Tent “cities” were set up on the southern border, incoming migrants were held rather than released, INS trial attorneys, including, at my request, me, and Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) judges were flown in from all over the country, and hearings were held in place and without delay.

    The hearings offered no challenge to federal officials other than logistical. The reason is that while the law and due process requires that an alien suspected of entering or being in the U.S. in violation of law be provided a hearing, the process is designed to allow that hearing to be shortcut if the alien has no basis for relief.

    In short, an illegal alien is presented before a judge and read a charging document that says that he or she is subject to deportation/removal for specific violations. In the case of aliens detained upon arrival, the charge is a very simple one that has to do with their failure to have any status or documents that allow them to be in this country.

    The alien is then given an opportunity for a short continuance to seek counsel, by statute, at no cost to the government. If no counsel is sought, or if the alien comes back a couple of days later without counsel or any promise of a possibility of obtaining counsel, the hearing can proceed. If the foreign national comes back with an attorney, the hearing should proceed. Contrary to popular belief, even among some immigration practitioners and uninformed government officials, this is where the hearing can be completed.

    The law presumes that once the government proves alienage, the burden shifts to the alien to establish, in essence, his or her right to remain in the U.S. At this point of the hearing, the judge is required to ask what, if any, “relief” from removal the alien will be applying for. If the alien or their counsel identify relief that the alien appears eligible for, the hearing is then continued for a “Merits” hearing at which the parties will present evidence and arguments for or against that assertion. Unfortunately, this is where the process first goes awry if the participating judge and trial attorney do not do their job.

    The process has become so sterile and so routine that, in most cases in most jurisdictions, the matter is continued upon a “mere” assertion that the alien will “apply” for relief. In most jurisdictions, at best, that means that the next hearing is months if not years away. And, that means that the immigration service, based on resources if not simple concepts of humanity that should abhor holding a non-criminal violator in custody for months if not years, will release the alien on a mostly hollow “promise” that he or she will appear for their hearing in the future.

    However, nothing in the law requires that the matter be continued unless the alien is at least prima facie eligible for the relief that will be addressed at the later hearing.

    An alien who just arrived in the U.S., did so illegally, has no meaningful relations, such as a U.S. citizen spouse who can confer immigration benefits on them, and has no obvious eligibility for relief from deportation/removal, has no right to have his or her hearing continued.

    Instead, such an alien can and should be ordered deported/removed, an action that starts the 30-day clock for filing an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and one that forces the alien or their counsel to an election—file a frivolous appeal that can be summarily dismissed while in custody, or use the “key” to their cell, waive appeal and take the bus or plane ride home.

    Harsh? Maybe. Especially when applied to a minor. Fair, depends on how you are asking. The law ? Absolutely.

    The judge has the right to force the alien and/or counsel to this election by requiring them to state with some specificity what it is that they will apply for and how it is that they might qualify for it.

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) trial attorney has, at least in my book and when I was in a position to demand it, an obligation to force the election. Even when the judge does not do that on their own. They can and should do so by seeking a “proffer” on the facts and law that support such claimed eligibility, and/or making a motion to take testimony from the alien regarding such matters, and then making a motion to “pretermit” the alien’s application for relief and thus the alien’s attempt to get his or her case continued for that purpose.

    In regard to the Nicaraguan crisis, in places like Harlingen, Texas, this process was repeated over and over again with rooms full of aliens in what were called “mash” hearings.

    Once the process got started and everyone got on board, the hardest thing that the government trial attorney had to do, aside from managing the volumes of physical files he or she had to carry into the courtroom, was to say “the government waives appeal.”

    The bottom line is that when all of this happens the way it should, the “game” is shortcut and the intent and purpose of this country’s immigration laws are fulfilled.

    Moreover, and from a practical standpoint, you “break the back” of the mass migration influx.

    Nobody wants to come if they are just going to be turned back in short order.

    And, no foreign government wants to deal with the reverse of an outbound mass migration by having to receive and process volumes of their nationals being officially returned home on a continual and accelerated basis.

    The obvious key is to act upfront and pre-empt the event from becoming a crisis.

    The very key to how we dealt with the Nicaraguan influx, and the bases for how we effectively did the same for all of the later mass migration events using such arguably controversial but effective actions and determinations as the “wet-foot/dry-foot” repatriation policy to deal with the Haitian matter, and the “Southbound Interdiction Concept” using the post-Mariel law changes to deal with and stop the mini-Cuban crisis in its tracks.

    This may all seem very Draconian and very uncaring. In particular as it applies to the current mass migration “crisis” consisting mainly of children.

    It is not intended as either.

    Instead, it is a way to dissuade adults in Central America and elsewhere from coming much less sending their children on a treacherous and very dangerous journey to illegally come to the U.S.

    It is intended to ensure that foreign governments who seek to deal with their internal strife or economic woes by seeking to transfer their obligations to the United States by encouraging masses of their population to seek to illegally immigrate to our country see that they will instead will have to deal with processing the masses of repatriated nationals that we send back in record time.

    It is intended as a wake-up call to those who have had the wool pulled over their eyes about what can and should have already been done but has not been done based on the political machinations of our Chief Executive and those who work for him, who swore to enforce the laws of this country, but who, based on ideology or based on the very real fear of retribution from within, haven’t done what they should have done to prevent the event from becoming a crisis.

    As I once personally said to a very-liberal leaning senior INS official who confronted me after hours in the underground parking lot of the old INS facility in what I considered a continuation of his not so subtle attempts to impede my efforts to get the job done, there is nothing wrong with trying to help aliens with immigration issues or disputes in this country (In fact, in many ways, I consider it admirable under the right circumstances and a significant part of my now private practice is devoted to that). “But, reach into your coat pocket. You have a badge and credentials that say that you are an immigration officer. You got that status by swearing under oath to enforce the law. If that is not what you want to do, I suggest that you turn in your badge and get to it. Otherwise, get on board and help me do my job.”

    The excuses, rhetoric, and theatrics have got to stop.

    As noted, the legal and operational solutions are not that complicated.

    The fix is really not that hard.

    What apparently is, at least to this administration, is the will to do what they were elected and hired to do.

    The Executive, our President, has got to stop pandering to the special interests, has got to start taking definitive action, and has to issue the orders to his vast army of agency heads, lawyers, judges, and staffers to act.

    Or, they can all “turn their badges in” and let somebody else, someone who will do what they swore to do even when it is unpopular, do the right thing.

    For this country, for the taxpayer, and, most of all, for the children.

    About The Author

    Dan Vara served 22 years in this country’s immigration Service, and was the INS District Counsel, United States Department of Justice, in Miami, Florida from 1990 until 2003. He was also the ICE Chief Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, in Orlando, Florida from 2003 until 2006. He is now in private legal practice in South Florida.

    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

    • Laurajazz
      Laurajazz commented
      Editing a comment
      Great article Dan Vara. Politically incorrect so you are in treacherous waters here, but offers a point of view we should consider. As I understand your analysis, alien is given opportunity to request asylum or relief under trafficking laws, but not as a tool to create a multi-year delay for the mere sake of delay.

      Not clear to me why MEXICO does not provide refuge or asylum to these individuals arriving at Mexico's border or found within Mexico.

    • Guest's Avatar
      Guest commented
      Editing a comment
      Any relief available to ANY foreign national in the custody of or subject to being charged by this country's immigration service can and should be raised and considered first by DHS, an agency with the legal authority and power to grant immigration benefits, exercise prosecutorial discretion, and with the statutory requirement to apply the law--including any statute or section of law that benefits the alien. Once DHS decides that no such relief, action or law does, or as a matter of discretion, will be applied, and places the person in removal proceedings, an immigration judge is required to inquire into and seek to apply any applicable relief that an alien before them is eligible for.

      In the cases addressed by my article, the presumption is that none of that applies.

      Otherwise, why is DHS simply not releasing everyone on parole or other status for a later grant of status or other action beneficial action and why are the hearings not simply resulting in very quick grants of relief?

      the answer is, just like it has been during other mass migration crises, that most if not all of the involved foreign nationals are "economic refugees" (like most of the Haitians in the early '90's were deemed to be) and do not qualify for asylum under the law and that most are not victims of trafficking as defined by law but instead "voluntarily" (as voluntary as a child might be deemed to be able to make such a choice) chose to come to the U.S. and/or were brought by their relatives, parents, or friends.

      The point, as it is for the entire immigration mess as a whole, is that the powers that be should stop playing political games and "testing the winds" for popular opinion and instead either declare that all the children will be let in regardless of the impact to the U.S. and the taxpayer, not to mention the upcoming mid-term elections, or get to it and put a stop to this event now deemed a crisis.

    • federale86
      federale86 commented
      Editing a comment
      And with good reason, because if you read the article you would have known that IJs and INS Counsels were sent to the border and processed the aliens for removal in 240 hearings, but without the delays common today, such as releasing the aliens. It is similar to the rocket dockets for re-entry by deported aliens in the Federal courts on the border. They did everything, including let the alien plead their case before an IJ, in much less time. You just don't like the speed at which things were done. Delay always favors the illegal alien.
    Posting comments is disabled.





There are no tags yet.

Latest Articles


  • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko

    If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

    08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
  • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
    Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
    08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
  • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
    Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
    08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
  • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.

    Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence


    On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families).

    USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

    08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
  • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
    Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
    08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
  • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
    USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
    08-14-2018, 10:51 AM