Nation of Immigrators - A public policy blog on America’s dysfunctional immigration system

[Blogger's Note:  This week's guest column is by Jennifer Oltarsh, an immigration lawyer practicing in Manhattan. She writes about how the tendency of Congress and the Obama Administration to require the incarceration of low-level immigration law violators without providing individualized determinations of whether a detainee will be released from custody has led to massive increases in the population of incarcerated immigrants.]

Immigration Law -- Moving away from Individual Rights

By Jennifer Oltarsh

Immigration laws are increasingly more complex.  When the laws deprive individuals of discretionary decisions, the result comes with a heavy price for individuals, their families and our country.

Each time the government passes immigration laws designed to impede whole classes of peoples, it reflects  very poorly on this country.  These broad-based laws designed to deprive individualized decisions have long been a part of the immigration system.  Many of these laws have ultimately proved to be an embarrassment.  A now infamous example occurred following decades of racism and discrimination against Chinese, when in 1882 the Chinese Exclusion Act passed.  Under this law all Chinese were banned from immigrating to the United States and to naturalize.  Initially a ten-year policy, it was later extended indefinitely and made permanent in 1902.  This race-based policy remained in effect until 1943 when it was repealed when China became an ally to the United States in World War II.  130 years after passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act, Congress finally expressed regret for enacting discriminatory laws against the Chinese.

In 1996 two laws were passed with the goal to deprive judicial review and discretion.  The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) envisioned that the deportation process from beginning to end would be within the executive branch and the hope was to curtail judicial review.   Among IIRIRA’s many provisions, it mandated detention for a large number of non-citizens convicted of certain enumerated offenses, removed waivers of inadmissibility for many criminal offenses and sought to limit judicial review of final orders of deportation.  As a result, the laws snare not only offenders with significant crimes, but many with minor offenses as well.   As a consequence of these acts, the judiciary’s ability to curtail abuses has been stymied, courts have been foreclosed from reviewing many significant legal questions, including whether a foreigner can be released during proceedings.   

This movement to deprive judicial decision-making is in line with the central role that mass detention has in Department of Homeland Security’s immigration policy.   The explosion in detention is fueled by the Administration’s view on the centrality of detention and has been enabled by IIRIRA.  The law is based on the false premise that we need mass detention and deportation to keep dangerous "criminal aliens" off our streets.  In reality immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans.    Despite the Administration’s claim that they are interested primarily in serious criminal offenders, in reality, a substantial proportion of those in detention and subject to deportation are there as a result of old and/or insignificant offenses.   In the 15 years since IIRIRA's passage — detention has risen from 6,280 beds in 1996 to the current daily capacity of 33,400 beds; in FY 2010 alone 363,000 people were detained.  Taxpayers pay for these detentions.  The detention include thousands of immigrants and permanent residents who pose no threat to the community.  It is exceedingly costly and by exposing detainees to brutal and inhumane conditions of largely private detention centers, it portrays the worst of America.

We now face a situation where immigration detention has fueled a booming industry, while tearing apart families with no clear gains to public safety.   Indeed, following years of wasted taxpayer dollars and destroyed lives, mandatory detention and deportation must end!

The failure to take individual circumstances into account has always resulted in untold human costs.  We must finally and formally acknowledge that these are ugly laws and recognize that they are incompatible with America’s founding principles and that they should have no place in our society. 

Immigration stakeholders howled with joy this week over an announcement by Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS), and the DHS agency, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), about the forthcoming publication of a new immigration regulation.

Usually, the intention to publish a rule is no cause for huzzahs.  But this Notice of Intent is different.  It presages a rule that would prevent the separation of families for up to ten years by allowing unlawfully-present immediate relatives of U.S. citizens to file "provisional waiver" applications in the U.S. rather than abroad.

Under the rule as proposed, waiver applicants would be required to show that extreme hardship would befall their citizen family members if the three- and ten-year unlawful-presence bars were to apply as written in the Immigration and Nationality Act.  Individuals granted a waiver would be assured that they could appear for an immigrant visa interview at a U.S. consulate or embassy outside the country and be able to turn right around and be allowed back in as permanent residents (assuming that unlawful presence is the only inadmissibility ground the consular officer uncovers at the interview).

The announcement generated praise from editorialists (a "Common-Sense Immigration Move") and the immigration bar ("the move is . . . smart enforcement because it will reduce the illegal immigrant population and allow [DHS] to better focus its resources on keeping America secure and safe"). However laudable the effort to establish a "provisional waiver" rule that avoids family separation, its scope, regrettably, is limited. It ignores the pain of family separation where the qualifying relative is a permanent resident who suffers hardship no less extreme than a citizen's, and only covers unlawful-presence waivers, even though the immigration laws provide several other inadmissibility grounds that permit an extreme-hardship waiver.

The overly narrow scope of the proposed in-country waiver rules is understandable, however, in light of other reports this week which received far less notice but still caused immigration insiders to howl, this time in fear, along with alternating yelps of outrage. 

Three articles from The Daily, "a national multimedia iPad publication" subsidized by the Rupert Murdoch empire, reported the leaked contents of a draft DHS Inspector General report commissioned at the behest of Republican Senator Charles Grassley. The Daily articles carry breathless headlines conveying the sense that dastardly deeds are about to be uncovered ("RUBBER STAMP[:] Probe reveals feds pressuring agents to rush immigrant visas – even if fraud is feared," "PUSHING THE ENVELOPE[:]Immigration counsel in conflict-of-interest probe over visa approval," and "IMMIGRATION SCANDAL PROBE[:] Congressional panel to investigate claims officers were pushed to OK visa requests"). 

The first article is based on a "40-page report, drafted by the Office of Inspector General in September but not publicly released, [which] details the immense pressure immigration service officers are under to approve visa applications quickly, sometimes while overlooking concerns about fraud, eligibility or security." The article, citing the IG's draft report, notes that out of 254 immigration adjudicators interviewed 25% reported that "they have been pressured to approve questionable cases, sometimes 'against their will.'”  The IG does not identify any wrong-doers by name.  Yet The Daily article, illustrated by a mocked-up photo of immigration applications bearing multiple red "APPROVED" rubber stamps, proceeds to pin the wrap on USCIS Director, Alejandro Mayorkas, as the alleged perpetrator-in-chief who, it would seem, countenances fraud as a volitional byproduct of his supposed "get to yes" campaign. 

The Daily's initial article quotes unidentified adjudicators who claim they were demoted for declining to approve legally undeserving cases or replaced by officers willing to "get to yes". None of the 75% of adjudicators who disputed the claims of pressure to say "yes" is quoted in the article, only private lawyers who nonetheless believed that "officers are just looking for reasons to deny a case".  The accompanying photo and the "RUBBER STAMP" headline suggest the accuracy and thoroughness of the reporting. The immigration forms depicted are immigrant visa applications which applicants submit to the State Department, not to USCIS.  The reporter, moreover, presumes that the griping adjudicators actually know the immigration law  -- even though precious few adjudicators are lawyers. 

I wrote this email to the reporter with a caption, "Much more to the story than you've published," offering reasons why the initial article was incomplete, and asked for a copy of the unpublished IG's draft report.  Her answer: "We are not distributing the draft report as of yet, but I’ll reach out to you when I do a followup."  Despite two later, equally sensational articles, the reporter has not reached out, suggesting that getting to the facts about the USCIS California Service Center (CSC) -- the source of the original complaint to Senator Grassley -- is not a high priority. 

The Daily's second article is essentially a vindictive hit job on Roxana Bacon. A former USCIS Chief Counsel (who after her departure rebuked the USCIS for a host of failings), ex-Prez of the Arizona State Bar and past General Counsel of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, she apparently jousted internally over the question whether the University of Arizona knew better than a CSC adjudicator if "a visiting scholar of geography from Mongolia," petitioned as an O-1 (Extraordinary Ability Alien), should be allowed to fill an assistant-professor post. 

Although the second article notes the IG's reported belief that her "efforts were not based on reasonable interpretations of the law,” I have my sincere doubts, especially without seeing the underlying case file.  Roxie Bacon and I were partners for eight years at a prominent international law firm (Bryan Cave LLP) where we co-managed a group of ten immigration lawyers and 20 paralegals. She practiced immigration law for over 30 years and is razor-sharp in intelligence and first-rate in her understanding of the legal requirements for extraordinary ability.  On the other hand, I, like the immigration lawyers quoted in the article who criticized USCIS adjudicators' decisions, have often seen CSC opinions laden with failures of logic, misreadings of the facts, and plainly erroneous legal analyses, slathered over with large dollops of syllogistic and disingenuous pseudo-reasoning.  In other words, until all the facts are revealed, my experience with Roxie and with the CSC, cause me to give her the benefit of the doubt.

The final article in this trilogy, "IMMIGRATION SCANDAL PROBE[:] Congressional panel to investigate claims officers were pushed to OK visa requests," shows how politics is played in an election year.  Rather than waiting till the Inspector General completes his report, House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Republican Lamar Smith, is eager to investigate alleged abuses that "threaten 'the integrity of our immigration system.'”

Indignant at the charges, Rep. Smith told The Daily:

“It’s outrageous that administration officials would compromise national security for their own political agenda and gain,” Smith said, pointing out that visa applications often lead to U.S. citizenship. “The president’s most important job is to protect the American people, but it seems this administration is more interested in ignoring immigration regulations than making sure those who come here will not cause us harm.”

(This is the same Rep. Smith who -- in most un-Republican fashion -- has cozied up to the ICE officer's labor union, which "so far [has] not allowed its members to participate in the training" required to exercise prosecutorial discretion properly when enforcing the immigration laws.)

What The Daily's reporting fails to recognize, however, is that the conjured controversy within USCIS is merely an internal employment dispute magnified by a small group of power-mad, disgruntled and insubordinate adjudicators masquerading as whistleblowers who -- like Peter and the Wolf, imagine or fabricate broad-based threats to the immigration system and the nation's security.  In reality, these adjudicators are "mutineers" who use Washingtonian gamesmanship to fight Director Mayorkas "tooth and nail over every innovation and improvement he [has] proposed." 

Imagine what DHS might have done and yet do to improve the workings of the legal immigration system were it not for the spine-chilling howls of riled adjudicators who trump up controversies merely to play out the clock (they hope) till a different administration comes to power -- one that might be pleased to return to the "culture of no." Consider also another type of "Howling" -- one from the 1981 film of the same name, in which a reporter "is sent to a . . . center whose inhabitants may not be what they seem."

Many dysfunctions within the immigration ecospace are disturbing, but some make my blood boil.  The conniption that brought me to this Howard Beale moment erupted after I belatedly read a Forbes online article, published last April, by Osha Gray Davis ("A Death in Juarez: How U.S. Immigration Policy Is Tearing American Families Apart"). The Forbes piece reported on two people murdered in the Mexican border town of Ciudad Juarez and countless others living there in fear (just across from El Paso, ironically, one of America's safest cities) while waiting for the completion of snails-pace immigrant visa procedures at the U.S. consulate.    

Sadly, Americans by now may be inured to the everyday nature of the drug cartels' killing fields in Mexico, particularly in Juarez.  Last year, 15,000 people were slaughtered in Mexico -- the direct or collateral damage from the drug wars. Juarez, with over 3,000 killings a year, has earned a macabre distinction as Mexico's Murder Capital.  Just this month, two U.S. citizens, a mother and son from Kansas, died there when assault-rifle fire sprayed their SUV.

The situation has become so dire that even the Department of Homeland Security recognizes the importance of returning deportees to the interior of Mexico, far from Juarez, in order to "safeguard" the "the health, dignity, and well-being of undocumented migrants during the repatriation process."

DHS solicitude for the safety of the deported is commendable.  But why does it not also extend to more deserving Mexican citizens who, as the parents and spouses of U.S. citizens, may be eligible to receive green cards?  Why is it official U.S. policy that these immigrant visa applicants are permitted to appear for their mandatory visa interview only at the U.S. consulate in this city of blood lust? 

The problem is not a small one.  The consulate in Juarez is "the largest issuer of [U.S.] immigrant visas in the world," according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.  Neither is the waiting time trivial.  The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman reports that half of the Mexican citizens seeking U.S. immigrant visas who require a waiver of inadmissibility, usually on a showing of extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen spouse or parent, must wait up to 12 months for a decision in their case.  Since a wait of even one day in Juarez may make the applicant a sitting duck for cartel violence, a year-long wait is simply unconscionable.  Worse yet, as explained below, if a waiver application is denied, the family separation may be for ten years or more.

This deadly form of Juarez red rover arises primarily from a failed experiment in 1996 at the instigation of Representative Lamar Smith -- now Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee -- who championed the "unlawful presence" bar to reentry that became part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA).  The bar in most cases involves a decade-long ban on readmission to the U.S. (unless an extreme-hardship waiver is granted) for persons who entered illegally or overstayed the time period granted by the government.  The ten-year bar (like IIRAIRA's three-year and permanent bans on returning) is triggered only after the overstayer or EWI (one who "enters without inspection") has left the United States.  Thus, what might otherwise be a one- or two-day game of consular Russian Roulette in Juarez (as immigrant visa and waiver processing are completed) becomes a one- or ten-year-long exposure to cartel carnage for the 50% of extreme-hardship waiver applicants who are not granted expedited review or are denied a waiver.

As a 2011 law review article ("The American Dream Deferred: Family Separation and Immigrant Visa Adjudications at U.S. Consulates Abroad") argues persuasively, the "choice" facing U.S.-citizen spouses, parents and children of either separation from a loved one for up to ten years (if the waiver is refused) or relocation of the family to a narco-state (my wording) is a Morton's fork on which no one should ever be forcibly skewered:

This form of collective punishment is anti-family and can send ripple effects throughout American communities, from home foreclosures to an increase in single parent households. It is a drastic penalty to impose considering unlawful presence in the U.S. is a civil violation that has gone largely unenforced for many years. It also discourages families from participating in the legal immigration process due to the risk of a potentially devastating separation. After more than ten years since the passage of the unlawful presence bars, it is now appropriate to look closely at their impact and examine whether they constitute sound public policy.

Although IIRAIRA and the administrative time required in the waiver adjudication process might seem to mandate this result, existing executive authority to administer the immigration laws readily allows for a suitable fix (until Congress can be persuaded to repeal the unlawful presence bars).  Here are various actions the Obama Administration could take to solve the problem:

• Grant "parole in place" and expand the "technical-reasons" or no-fault-of-the-applicant forgiveness provision of Immigration and Nationality Act § 245(c) to allow persons otherwise required to attend an immigrant visa interview in Juarez to apply for their green cards through the adjustment of status process. This is the best option for non-willful overstays and Dream Act kids who EWI'd because the unlawful-presence bar would not be triggered and extreme-hardship waiver adjudication would be unnecessary since the applicant would not leave the United States; or
• Adopt a policy to confer extreme-hardship waivers within the U.S. before the consular interview to all non-criminal Mexican applicants based on the dangerous conditions in Mexico and the overriding equity of the family relationship to a U.S. citizen relative.  This is similar to an old Immigration and Naturalization Service Operations Instruction and a precedent decision, Matter of Cavazos, which allowed comparable applicants to obtain green cards through adjustment of status despite inadmissibility; or
• Shut down the U.S. consulate in Juarez until conditions in the city are safe.  (The State Department did close the Juarez post for a few days after two consular employees were killed last year.) State should instead designate alternative consular posts after negotiating with one or more friendly and safer countries to allow Mexican applicants eligible to apply for a hardship waiver to enter for the purpose of attending the consular interview.  This approach would be modeled after the "stateside criteria" and "third-country processing" arrangements with Canada and other nations in the 1980s for Iranians and other foreign nationals who could not travel to their country of citizenship or last residence because of the unavailability of consular facilities there.  It would require an agreement with the host countries to assure the readmission of any denied applicants through the grant of advance parole to reenter.  Denied visa applicants given advance parole and readmitted to the U.S. would then be eligible under current law for adjustment of status, if USCIS granted an extreme hardship waiver, or for prosecutorial discretion, if the waiver were denied.

As these options show, seemingly mandatory legislative procedures that lead to immigration deaths only appear necessary if the Administration is unwilling to look under the hood of the immigration laws to find more compassionate and life-saving alternatives. End the immigration deaths in Juarez NOW.