
Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' will make the immigration court mess even worse
Naser had done everything we ask of those seeking safe harbor in the U.S. When Taliban fighters killed his brother and abducted his father from a family wedding for working with the U.S., Naser and his family fled to Brazil, then made the long and dangerous trek here on foot.
In 2024, he made an appointment with U.S. Customs and Border Protection as he entered the country. There, government officials paroled Naser into the U.S., where he applied for asylum and a Special Immigrant Visa created for foreign nationals who work with the U.S. in a war zone.
On June 11, 2025, Naser went to his first hearing before an immigration judge, as was required for his asylum application. When he arrived, however, a lawyer for the Department of Homeland Security claimed that his case had been 'improvidently issued.' Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents waiting outside the courtroom handcuffed him. He is now in immigration detention, and his wife and children are in hiding.
Although shocking, Naser's case is sadly no longer unusual. Since May, as part of their effort to meet a 3,000 person per day quota, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents across the country have been arresting hundreds of people as they leave their immigration hearings.
Arresting people in and around courthouses used to be largely off limits — and for good reason. Such practices mean that immigrants face an impossible choice: go to court to follow the law and apply for immigration or asylum status legally — and face possible arrest there and then, or fail to appear, give up your legal claims to asylum or a green card, and have the judge order deportation in your absence.
There is another, much less visible way that immigrants' access to the courts is now in peril as well. If Trump's budget reconciliation bill passes as written, immigrants and asylum seekers like Naser will face exorbitant fees that will prevent almost everyone from having their day in court.
Under the bill, people paroled into the United States would have to pay a $1,000 fee upon entering plus a $550 work authorization fee. To renew or extend parole — which people would have to do at least every six months — there would be an additional $550 fee. Then, to apply for asylum, there would be another $1,000 fee. And if an applicant needed more time to find a lawyer or to collect documents, the court would charge another $100 for each continuance the person requested in court. Similar fees would apply for people applying for other kinds of status, including for youth traveling alone and for people fleeing countries decimated by war or natural disasters.
Naser — who walked to the U.S. on foot from Brazil — almost certainly does not have thousands of dollars to apply for asylum. Neither most other immigrants and asylum seekers. These fees would effectively deny access to the courts for all but the very wealthy.
Arresting people as they try to do the right thing by going through our legal system — and charging them such high fees that no one can afford to go to court — undermines the rule of law that is the bedrock of our country. Due process, which is enshrined in the Fifth and 14th amendments to the Constitution, requires that the government prove its case in court and give individuals the right to be heard before it can deprive them of life, liberty or property.
Due process protects not only the rights of immigrants (or citizens mistaken as immigrants) from unfair deportation, but it also requires the government to prove its case against someone before imprisoning them, to go to court before taking someone's property or benefits, and to hold a hearing before removing a person's child.
Courts play an essential role in our society. Their purpose is to ensure that everyone is treated fairly under the law and insist that the government follows fair procedures. They place a critical check on abuses of power by the executive and legislative branches.
When due process breaks down and people can no longer access immigration courts — whether for fear of what will happen when they appear or simply because the price tag to access justice is too high — that will further stoke fear in immigrant communities and dissuade people from asserting their rights in court. But it should also strike fear in all of us because when access to justice is threatened for some, it is a threat to our entire system of justice, which is a grave threat to us all.
Lauren Jones is the Legal and Policy Director at the National Center for Access to Justice at Fordham Law School
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: The government should stop making ‘false promises' for hopes of legal immigration
To the editor: The story of Javier Diaz Santana is truly heartbreaking ('Deaf, mute and terrified: ICE arrests DACA recipient and ships him to Texas,' July 22). It is just one of many disturbing stories the Los Angeles Times has reported over the past few months. How many do we need to read before we Americans acknowledge that the land of the free and home of the brave has become the locus of cruelty? That really is the point. While I am at it, the Department of Homeland Security's offer of $1,000 to 'self-deport,' with a chance to return legally to live the American dream later, is more than likely a false promise. In light of the administration's recent actions, I think we can dispel the notion that legal immigration to the U.S. involves filling out an application, proving that you are a good person, then waiting in line. Unless an individual qualifies under one of the categories for immigrant visas, mostly related to family or profession, there is little chance of immigrating legally without being harassed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The U.S. government should stop making false promises and raising hopes. There is no hope, just more lies and more cruelty. Laurie Jacobs, San Clemente .. To the editor: Please tell me that Diaz will be suing the federal government for what it has done and is doing to him. I feel as if I'm living in a dystopian state. When I see the DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's commercial on television attempting to sell the public on the lie that it is the worst of the worst that are being rounded up by ICE agents, the rhetoric reminds me of the North Korean 'news' broadcasters touting the actions of their 'dear leader.' Ronald Webster, Long Beach .. To the editor: It was with great sadness and alarm that I read the July 22 stories of the detentions of Diaz and Narciso Barranco ('3 U.S. Marine brothers faced toughest mission: Getting their dad freed from ICE custody,' July 22). The brutality and inhumane treatment these men experienced at the hands of ICE should worry every citizen. Immigrants, legal or illegal, are human beings and deserve to be treated with respect and knowledge that they have legal rights. Carol Karas, Camarillo


American Military News
3 hours ago
- American Military News
2 US military bases to detain illegal immigrants
President Donald Trump's Department of Defense recently confirmed that it is planning to temporarily house and detain illegal immigrants at two U.S. military bases. In a letter obtained by NJ Spotlight News, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth notified the House Committee on Armed Services and members of Congress representing the areas where the U.S. military bases are located regarding the department's plan to house illegal immigrants at two U.S. military bases. 'I am writing to inform the Committee that I certify that the provision of Department of Defense real property at Camp Atterbury, Indiana and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey, for temporary use by the Department of Homeland Security to house illegal aliens will not negatively affect military training, operations, readiness or other military requirements, including National Guard or Reserve readiness,' Hegseth stated. While Hegseth identified the two U.S. military bases that will be used to temporarily house detained illegal immigrants, the secretary of defense did not confirm how many illegal immigrants will be housed at the two military installations or when the illegal immigrants will be transported to the bases. READ MORE: Illegal immigrants arrested in new military zone to be processed by CBP, official says In a statement to The Hill, a Department of Defense official said, 'The Secretary approved a Department of Homeland Security request for assistance to use real property at Camp Atterbury, Indiana and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey to establish temporary soft-sided holding facilities.' The anonymous defense official added, 'The timeline for these facilities will depend on operational requirements and coordination with DHS.' In a statement obtained by CBS 4 Indy, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, a Republican, gave his support for the Trump administration's decision to use Camp Atterbury to temporarily house illegal immigrants. Rokita described the move as a 'critical step' to 'restoring the rule of law and addressing the unfair crisis caused by unchecked illegal immigration.' 'By expanding detention capacity in states throughout the country, President Trump is ensuring illegal aliens are detained while they await deportation—not set loose into our communities due to a lack of bed space,' Rokita added. 'For too long, Hoosier communities have borne the burden of open-border policies, facing increased crime, human trafficking, and strain on our schools, hospitals, and other taxpayer-funded resources. Using Camp Atterbury to securely detain illegal aliens pending immigration proceedings or deportation sends a clear message: Indiana will not tolerate lawlessness.'


The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
The TSA may soon adopt a new liquids policy
The Department of Homeland Security recently announced that travelers will no longer be required to remove their shoes when being screened through advanced imaging technology at airport security checkpoints. Since travelers who do not have a REAL ID to authenticate their identity are subject to greater security screening, they will almost certainly not be eligible. This change in policy was announced by the DHS secretary, not by the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (the deputy administrator is currently serving as the acting administrator). The Senate has not approved a new administrator since David Pekoske was relieved of his duties by the president on Jan. 20, 2025. Given that some senators have called for the TSA to be abolished, such cacophony likely means that a new TSA administrator will not be named too soon. So why is this a problem? The TSA security gauntlet is an intricate system of layers, many of which are invisible to travelers. The most visible aspects are what is deployed at airport security checkpoints, including advanced imaging technologies for passenger screening and CT scanners for passenger baggage. Some of the less visible layers include federal air marshals deployed on certain flights, hardened airplane cockpit doors, and Secure Flight, which vets passengers prior to their flight. Risk-based security is the glue that ties all such layers together. It informs the use of security technologies and the creation of policies such that the air system can be maximally secured with minimal passenger inconvenience. Recall that after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, all passengers were treated the same from a security perspective. Such a one-size-fits-all approach was expensive and inconvenient to passengers, with little evidence that it made the air system more secure. It was also unsustainable. This led to the creation of TSA PreCheck, which gives passengers access to expedited screening lanes, where they can keep their shoes on when being screened and keep their electronic devices in their carry-on bag. TSA Precheck passengers have voluntarily gone through a background check — this is why they can be subjected to expedited, less intrusive physical screening at checkpoints. Allowing passengers with a REAL ID to keep their shoes on when being screened is, in and of itself, not bad. It is always easier to tighten security procedures than to relax them. In practice, passengers may discover that when wearing certain types of footwear, like work or hiking boots, choosing to remove them voluntarily may end up saving them time, since the full body screener may flag them for additional screening, which will then require the footwear to be removed anyway. What is next in airport security? Belts are likely on the docket for consideration, although the same delays may occur if the full body scanners flag certain belts for additional screening. The one that is on most people's minds is the liquid restriction. The United Kingdom relaxed its liquid policy at certain airports when it installed CT scanners for carry-on bags. The acting TSA administrator recently indicated that this policy would stay in place in the U.S. until around 2043, given the time needed to fully deploy CT scanners for carry-on bags at all U.S. airports. To confuse the issue further, the DHS secretary has now indicated that the liquid policy is up for discussion, provided the necessary guardrails remain in place to keep the system secure. Perhaps relaxing the liquid restriction for PreCheck passengers traveling from airports with CT scanners will be the next step forward. Most people would welcome this policy change. But what can be done to ensure that the system's security remains sufficiently robust? The answer is not promises from industry partners offering the newest and flashiest scanning technology to detect liquid explosives. It is, rather facial recognition. By requiring all passengers' identity to be authenticated using facial recognition, this layer will fill in holes left by relaxing some physical screening procedures. Facial recognition at airport security checkpoints has been a lightning rod of controversy for some time. A group of senators have called for it to be paused, based on concerns about personal privacy and civil liberties. The Travelers Privacy Protection Act of 2025 would give anyone the right to opt out of facial recognition being used to authenticate their identity. If such an act becomes law, it would set airport security back by a decade, by locking airport security into its threat item-centric paradigm, rather than focusing on threatening people, which is where the greatest risks reside. If the DHS intends to relax more of the security layers in place to protect the aviation system, ensuring that facial recognition continues to be a centerpiece of their strategy is critical. Putting a Senate-approved TSA administrator in place would also be important, to provide confidence that the collection of security layers being used is keeping the air system secure for all travelers. Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a computer science professor in the Grainger College of Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He has researched risk-based aviation security for over 25 years, which provided the technical justification for TSA PreCheck.