Latest news with #NationalImmigrationForum
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Huge majorities support due process for migrants. They haven't always gotten it in Ohio
ICE center photo from Getty Images. A new poll finds that by a yawning margin, Americans believe people should get due process of law before being ejected from the United States — but advocates say they've sometimes been denied it in Ohio. President Donald Trump is clashing with the courts over what detainees are legally entitled to as Immigration and Customs Enforcement rounds up people it believes are undocumented and takes them overseas. A federal judge in Boston on Wednesday ruled that eight migrants sent to the violence-torn country of South Sudan were not given a meaningful chance to contest the deportations on the grounds that they would be put in danger. Only one of the individuals is from South Sudan. The administration deported Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to El Salvador even though a court issued an order forbidding it. The U.S. Supreme Court has subsequently ruled that the administration cannot deport people without giving them due process. Most people of all ages and partisan affiliations believe that's the proper course. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem stumbles over questions from Democrats on habeas corpus A poll released Tuesday by the Bullfinch Group and the National Immigration Forum gave respondents a brief definition of due process. Then they were asked whether they supported or opposed requiring due process before deporting people. Sixty-three percent said they supported doing so, 23% were opposed, and 14% were undecided. That's a 40-point margin in favor of due process. Democrats supported due process for people facing deportation by a 81-11 margin. Independents supported it by a 59-23 margin. For Republicans, it was 51-35. In other words, the closest margin was 16 points. The poll surveyed 1,200 adults between May 9 and 13. 'Due process is essential to keeping American communities safe and immigration processes orderly,' Jennie Murray, president and CEO of the National Immigration Forum, said in a written statement. 'This bedrock American value protects all of us.' Even so, not all detainees have received due process in Ohio, said Lynn Tramonte, founder of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance. Last month, her group got an attorney for a man who'd gotten a final order of deportation. The jail where the man was held wouldn't allow the attorney to visit the man on less than a week's notice, Tramonte said. 'All of a sudden, the night before the attorney visit, he's gone,' she said. 'This was weeks before his scheduled deportation, so this is a clear indication that they wanted to get him out quickly because they knew he was getting a lawyer to fight his case.' Tramonte added, 'It's just not fair. The government has attorneys in every immigration case — in the courtroom — every single time. The immigrant deserves to have an attorney by their side, too.' Tramonte didn't give the man's name or nationality to protect his identity. Most Americans appear to agree that such treatment is unfair, and unwise. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE A poll also conducted by the Bullfinch Group and the National Immigration Forum in December found that Americans overwhelmingly think that deportations should focus on immigrants who commit violent crime, that the persecuted should be protected, and that families should be kept intact. The Trump administration's continued harsh treatment of immigrants might be costing it in the court of public opinion. An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in late April found that immigration remained Trump's strongest issue. Even so, more Americans disapproved of the job he was doing in that arena than approved — 53% to 46%. There also appeared to be little appetite for Trump to take measures on immigration that are even more sweeping. Forty-eight percent of respondents said that Trump had gone too far on immigration, 32% said his approach had been about right and just 18% said he hadn't gone far enough. Murray of the National Immigration Forum said people want the Trump administration to follow the law. 'Americans do not want our immigration system to undermine the rule of law,' she said. 'We look forward to working with leaders on approaches that uphold fairness and due process.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The National
12-05-2025
- Politics
- The National
US terminates Temporary Protected Status for Afghanistan
The US announced on Monday the termination of Temporary Protected Status for Afghanistan, throwing the future of thousands of Afghans into doubt. The Department of Homeland Security said that 'conditions in Afghanistan no longer meet the statutory requirements' for TPS, which provides protection from deportation as well as the ability to work in the US to citizens of countries experiencing conflict or other crises. It does not in itself provide a pathway to permanent residency, though it may be held concurrently with another status. TPS for Afghanistan, which was issued in 2022, will expire on May 20 and the termination will be effective from July 12, the Department of Homeland Security said. 'This administration is returning TPS to its original temporary intent,' said Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. 'Afghanistan has had an improved security situation, and its stabilising economy no longer prevent[s] them from returning to their home country.' Ms Noem added that the termination 'furthers the national interest', as some recipients were under investigation for fraud as well as threatening public safety and national security. The plans for the termination of TPS for Afghanistan were announced last month but were made official on Monday. More than 8,200 Afghans currently have TPS, according to the National Immigration Forum. After having a presence in the country for 20 years, the US withdrew from Afghanistan in August 2021. The power vacuum was quickly filled by a resurgent Taliban which took back the capital Kabul and ousted the US-backed government. Amid the chaotic withdrawal, Afghans who had worked with the US military fled the country out of fear of reprisal. Tens of thousands are in limbo abroad as they wait to be processed for possible immigration to the US. Since it returned to power, the Taliban have reinstated their strict interpretation of Islamic law. They have essentially erased women and girls from public life, from schools to journalism to public parks. It has also removed protections for minority ethnic and religious groups. The group has even issued regulations on hairstyles and board games, banning chess this week over 'gambling concerns'. In addition, ISIS-Khorasan Province continues to carry out attacks against civilians across the country. The Taliban takeover sent the already fragile economy into a tailspin, with foreign assets frozen and much-needed aid cut. Though Afghanistan's gross domestic product is estimated by the World Bank to have expanded by 2.5 per cent last year, it remains a deeply impoverished country.
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Dedicated dockets can help tackle the massive US immigration court backlog
Four years ago, the Biden administration announced a dedicated docket program for newly arriving families apprehended after making an illegal border crossing. The goal of the program was to 'decide cases expeditiously' — within 300 days of initial master calendar hearings — without compromising due process or fairness. I expressed my view of this program at the time, referring to it as a 're-tread of old policies that didn't work.' By that time, both the Obama administration and the previous Trump administration had established dedicated dockets to adjudicate cases of newly arriving unaccompanied children and families more quickly. Human Rights First claims that these programs were counterproductive, impaired due process, undermined the right to counsel, and led to high rates of in absentia (in their absence) removal proceedings. In May 2024, the Biden administration announced another dedicated docket program. This one was for single adults apprehended making an illegal border crossing. For my part, I don't understand why special programs were set up to benefit newly arriving illegal border-crossers in the first place. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, then secretary of Homeland Security, said that 'Families who have recently arrived should not languish in a multi-year backlog.' I agree, but shouldn't that apply also to millions of aliens who have been waiting up to 10 years for a hearing? But the Biden administration released those favored groups into the interior of the country under its Alternatives to Detention program, which gave them an opportunity to disappear instead of appearing for their hearings. And many of them did fail to appear. Access to counsel was another problem, but the need for legal representation isn't limited to dedicated dockets — it is a problem for the regular docket, too. Even so, illegal immigrants do not have a right to counsel in removal proceedings. The Immigration and Nationality Act just provides that they 'have the privilege of being represented, at no expense to the government.' The dedicated dockets were established in cities with pro bono networks that could provide legal services. But there were 143,532 unrepresented individuals with pending removal cases in these cities when the dockets were established. According to the National Immigration Forum, 'In the first seven full months of the new dedicated docket, only 15.5 percent of participating immigrants (11,225 out of 72,289) had secured legal representation.' It doesn't make sense to provide preferential treatment to illegal border-crossers. Illegal border crossing is a federal crime. The first commission of this offense is punishable by a fine and up to six months of imprisonment. A second offense is subject to fines and up to two years of imprisonment. Preferential treatment for illegal crossers encourages violations of this law. Dedicated dockets should be used instead to reduce the immigration court backlog. In fact, Biden might have eliminated the backlog if that had been the objective of his dedicated dockets. The backlog was only 1.3 million cases at the beginning of his presidency; it rose to more than 3.7 million cases by the time he left office. To the extent that it is feasible, the entire immigration court should be divided into dedicated dockets made up of cases with similar issues — leaving a substantial number of judges free to handle the cases that do not fit into those dockets. For instance, there could be separate dockets for the most frequently occurring persecution claims, for cancellation of removal, for adjustment of status, and so on. This would be helpful because, in regular dockets, immigration judges have to adjudicate a wide range of issues, including more than 19 forms of relief from deportation outside of asylum claims. The learning curve for handling so many different relief applications is quite steep. In fact, some have called immigration law 'has been called 'the second-most complex area — second only to tax law.' This can be a daunting task, especially for judges who did not have any immigration law experience when they were hired. It shouldn't be necessary to impose time limits on the judges in dockets for similar issues, or to make any changes in the way the hearings are conducted. The judges would become well familiar with the issues and the legal precedents in their assigned area, which should increase their productivity. It wouldn't be necessary to hold full hearings for all of the cases in the common issue dockets, either — many immigrants fail to show up for their hearings anyway, which results in disposal of their cases in absentia. The number of in absentia orders varied in fiscal 2015 through 2024, but it always was quite substantial: The low was 8,539 (10 percent) in fiscal 2021, and the high was 222,223 (34 percent) in fiscal 2024. A letter signed by 100 organizations that opposed dedicated dockets claims that they result in unfairly issued in absentia orders. According to these organizations, many families are subjected to in absentia proceedings even though their failure to appear was through no fault of their own. This may be true, but an in absentia removal order can be rescinded with a motion to reopen if the failure to appear was due to exceptional circumstances. The takeaway is that previous administrations should have used their dedicated docket programs to reduce the unconscionably long waiting times of illegal immigrants already in the U.S., instead of to help favored groups of new illegal border crossers. This can be accomplished without impairing due process if the acceleration of case completions is produced by having similar issue dockets instead of by imposing time limits. 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. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
25-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Dedicated dockets can help tackle the massive US immigration court backlog
Four years ago, the Biden administration announced a dedicated docket program for newly arriving families apprehended after making an illegal border crossing. The goal of the program was to 'decide cases expeditiously' — within 300 days of initial master calendar hearings — without compromising due process or fairness. I expressed my view of this program at the time, referring to it as a 're-tread of old policies that didn't work.' By that time, both the Obama administration and the previous Trump administration had established dedicated dockets to adjudicate cases of newly arriving unaccompanied children and families more quickly. Human Rights First claims that these programs were counterproductive, impaired due process, undermined the right to counsel, and led to high rates of in absentia (in their absence) removal proceedings. In May 2024, the Biden administration announced another dedicated docket program. This one was for single adults apprehended making an illegal border crossing. For my part, I don't understand why special programs were set up to benefit newly arriving illegal border-crossers in the first place. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, then secretary of Homeland Security, said that 'Families who have recently arrived should not languish in a multi-year backlog.' I agree, but shouldn't that apply also to millions of aliens who have been waiting up to 10 years for a hearing? But the Biden administration released those favored groups into the interior of the country under its Alternatives to Detention program, which gave them an opportunity to disappear instead of appearing for their hearings. And many of them did fail to appear. Access to counsel was another problem, but the need for legal representation isn't limited to dedicated dockets — it is a problem for the regular docket, too. Even so, illegal immigrants do not have a right to counsel in removal proceedings. The Immigration and Nationality Act just provides that they 'have the privilege of being represented, at no expense to the government.' The dedicated dockets were established in cities with pro bono networks that could provide legal services. But there were 143,532 unrepresented individuals with pending removal cases in these cities when the dockets were established. According to the National Immigration Forum, 'In the first seven full months of the new dedicated docket, only 15.5 percent of participating immigrants (11,225 out of 72,289) had secured legal representation.' It doesn't make sense to provide preferential treatment to illegal border-crossers. Illegal border crossing is a federal crime. The first commission of this offense is punishable by a fine and up to six months of imprisonment. A second offense is subject to fines and up to two years of imprisonment. Preferential treatment for illegal crossers encourages violations of this law. Dedicated dockets should be used instead to reduce the immigration court backlog. In fact, Biden might have eliminated the backlog if that had been the objective of his dedicated dockets. The backlog was only 1.3 million cases at the beginning of his presidency; it rose to more than 3.7 million cases by the time he left office. To the extent that it is feasible, the entire immigration court should be divided into dedicated dockets made up of cases with similar issues — leaving a substantial number of judges free to handle the cases that do not fit into those dockets. For instance, there could be separate dockets for the most frequently occurring persecution claims, for cancellation of removal, for adjustment of status, and so on. This would be helpful because, in regular dockets, immigration judges have to adjudicate a wide range of issues, including more than 19 forms of relief from deportation outside of asylum claims. The learning curve for handling so many different relief applications is quite steep. In fact, some have called immigration law 'has been called 'the second-most complex area — second only to tax law.' This can be a daunting task, especially for judges who did not have any immigration law experience when they were hired. It shouldn't be necessary to impose time limits on the judges in dockets for similar issues, or to make any changes in the way the hearings are conducted. The judges would become well familiar with the issues and the legal precedents in their assigned area, which should increase their productivity. It wouldn't be necessary to hold full hearings for all of the cases in the common issue dockets, either — many immigrants fail to show up for their hearings anyway, which results in disposal of their cases in absentia. The number of in absentia orders varied in fiscal 2015 through 2024, but it always was quite substantial: The low was 8,539 (10 percent) in fiscal 2021, and the high was 222,223 (34 percent) in fiscal 2024. A letter signed by 100 organizations that opposed dedicated dockets claims that they result in unfairly issued in absentia orders. According to these organizations, many families are subjected to in absentia proceedings even though their failure to appear was through no fault of their own. This may be true, but an in absentia removal order can be rescinded with a motion to reopen if the failure to appear was due to exceptional circumstances. The takeaway is that previous administrations should have used their dedicated docket programs to reduce the unconscionably long waiting times of illegal immigrants already in the U.S., instead of to help favored groups of new illegal border crossers. This can be accomplished without impairing due process if the acceleration of case completions is produced by having similar issue dockets instead of by imposing time limits. 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.
Yahoo
26-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump made an example of Springfield during the campaign. Immigrants there are bracing for the worst.
SPRINGFIELD, Ohio — Donald Trump sent this central Ohio city into a political tailspin when he falsely claimed during the presidential campaign that Haitian migrants here were eating residents' pets and 'destroying their way of life." Then Trump won. And now, as a snowy January squall whipped through Springfield's quiet streets, the Haitians still here were hunkering down and preparing for the worst. 'They're afraid the mass deportations are going to start in Springfield,' said Marjorie Koveleski, a Haitian-American Springfield resident of 20 years and self-proclaimed 'mama' or 'auntie' to the new arrivals. 'They think they're going to make Springfield the example.' Immigration groups across the country are bracing for the 'mass deportations' Trump pledged to start on Day One, expecting that he'll send a strong message that the border will be sealed and that undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. will not be safe from deportation. Hours after he was sworn into office on Monday, Trump signed a wave of far-reaching executive orders bringing back the hardline immigration policies from his first term — and extending them, making good on campaign promises to militarize a nationwide deportation operation and end birthright citizenship. The White House press office did not respond to a request for comment. Ahead of Inauguration Day, immigration groups nationwide had been preparing, with the working assumption that he would quickly enact sweeping policies that could include travel bans, extreme vetting, and his campaign pledge of executing the 'largest mass deportation operation' in American history. 'The administration is looking for some big splash right away — that's what they campaigned on, and [they want] to show that they are making good on campaign promises,' Jennie Murray, the president and CEO of the National Immigration Forum, a center-right immigration advocacy nonprofit, said in an interview last week. What that means for migrants in Springfield is still unclear. About 15,000 Haitian migrants have settled here in recent years under a program that grants a temporary protected immigration status to individuals from countries the U.S. considers especially dangerous, including Haiti. In a New York Times op-ed in September, Ohio's Republican Gov. Mike DeWine emphasized 'They are there legally. They are there to work' — and had contributed to a 'resurgence in manufacturing and job creation' in the town, which had economically stagnated since the 1980s. But since Trump elevated the online conspiracy theory that Haitians were 'eating the pets' to the national stage during his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, many of the Haitians here have been lying low. Brandon Sipes, who works as a humanitarian crisis adviser for Nazarene Compassionate Ministries, estimated that 20 to 30 Haitians used to attend his local church every Sunday. After Trump's comments and the ensuing debacle, Sipes said, 'that number just bottomed out.' 'The few families that would come to church, they were very afraid,' he said. Some of the migrants have already moved away, local advocates say, finding work in bigger cities like Dayton, Columbus and Chicago where they feel they can better blend in. Koveleski said she's acted as a 'travel agent' in recent months, helping some of the migrants here make arrangements to move elsewhere in the U.S. or securing visas to other countries. 'This was very hard mentally, because at some points in time, people were afraid to come out or to go for groceries, to go shopping or anything,' said Viles Dorsainvil, who leads the local Haitian Community Help & Support Center. 'That rhetoric was so negative that some folks in town left because they could not put up with all that pressure.' Still, Dorsainvil said it hasn't been a 'mass exodus.' Though there are no readily-available statistics, thousands of Haitian migrants likely remain in Springfield — and the center is preparing them for Trump to take office. 'All that I do in the organization is to get folks ready for anything that might happen, for them to know what to do, to know their rights, and to have a plan,' Dorsainvil said. That includes legal training for what to do if Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come to their home. Koveleski said she tells community members to keep their immigration papers on them at all times — as well as digital copies 'in case the ICE agents rip them' — and make arrangements for the possibility that parents will be separated from their children. 'I think during the first round, we were all so shell shocked, like, 'This must be just an anomaly, a mistake, what is going on? This isn't the values of our country,'' said Angie Plummer, who runs Community Refugee & Immigration Services, a nonprofit that resettles and supports refugees and immigrants in Central Ohio. 'But this time, I think, we're more realistic about it. We have plans in place.' One of those plans, Plummer said, is that the organization has 'been trying to receive as many people as possible before the inauguration,' cautioning that 'resettlement numbers may go to zero' once Trump takes office. Not far from Springfield, as a health aide rolled Roda Yaqub into the arrivals concourse of John Glenn Columbus International Airport last week, Deqa Alihashi ran to embrace the sister she'd never met. Alihashi, 24, had moved to Ohio from Somalia with her family in 2013, and they had filed an application right away for Yaqub, 28, to join them. That was over a decade ago — 11 years of paperwork and security vetting and medical issues and, mostly, waiting. 'Today is the day that she's finally here,' Alihashi said. 'I'm really so excited to renew with my big sister I've never seen before, hug her, make her feel like she's welcome here.'Behind her, about a dozen others waited to receive their family members, gathering with flowers and flags under an airport sign that read 'live to create opportunity.' There was a sense that they had arrived in the nick of time. 'She beat before he got to the [White] House,' said Fadumo Abdi, a friend of Alihashi who had come to support. Alihashi nodded: It was all part of 'God's plan.'
