{"id":21801,"date":"2019-08-05T16:39:25","date_gmt":"2019-08-05T20:39:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=21801"},"modified":"2019-08-05T16:39:26","modified_gmt":"2019-08-05T20:39:26","slug":"asylum-courts-border-security","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2019\/08\/05\/asylum-courts-border-security\/","title":{"rendered":"Asylum ‘Rocket Dockets’ Confront Some Speed Bumps"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Attempting to catch up with a growing backlog of some 900,000 cases<\/a>, immigration courts in 10 U.S. cities are giving priority to hearing asylum claims. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But what the so-called “rocket dockets” gain in speed,\nthey lack in efficiency: More than 80 percent of orders for removal involve\nindividuals who failed to appear in court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Using ‘rocket dockets’ to accelerate proceedings only heightens the breakdowns that are a recurring feature of the system on its best day,” a new Migration Policy Institute<\/a> (MPI) study concludes. “[The] system is overburdened. Court notices are often sent to incorrect addresses. Reports of clerical errors abound.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even amid the high rate of deportation orders, MPI points out\nthat rulings in absentia\nexpose “a complicated, confusing, and often faulty court process.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not said how many of the 17,000 recent “rocket docket” orders have resulted in actual removals. Whatever the number, it pales in comparison to the volume of migrants streaming across America’s southern border every month (144,000 in May<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead\nof extending a cat-and-mouse game into the U.S. interior, MPI proposes\nthat asylum processing be conducted at the border by allowing asylum\nofficers from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to fully adjudicate\ncases. Currently, these officers conduct only the preliminary \u201ccredible-fear\u201d\ninterview of arriving asylum seekers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“If asylum officers were permitted to see cases through, the final determination could be made within months, not years and in a non-adversarial, less resource-intensive setting,” MPI asserts<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That’s all well and good. But even\u00a0under the most optimistic timelines, such cases typically take more than 20 days to resolve — and 20 days is the limit that the Flores Settlement Agreement<\/a> sets for detaining asylum-seeking families (the fastest growing cohort of asylum seekers).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sen. Lindsay Graham<\/a>, R-S.C., offers four steps toward easing this conundrum. His Secure and Protect Act of 2019<\/a> would:<\/p>\n\n\n\n