{"id":25361,"date":"2022-01-24T13:57:01","date_gmt":"2022-01-24T18:57:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=25361"},"modified":"2022-01-24T15:27:19","modified_gmt":"2022-01-24T20:27:19","slug":"democrat-plan-wont-ease-asylum-backlog-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2022\/01\/24\/democrat-plan-wont-ease-asylum-backlog-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"House Democrats Take Aim at the Nation\u2019s Immigration Courts"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

House Democrats are taking aim at the Executive Office of Immigration Review<\/a> (EOIR), which is the immigration court system of the United States. EOIR is an agency within the Department of Justice, making it unique in that it is not an \u201cindependent\u201d Article III court, but instead a court system within the executive branch in Article II of the Constitution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship held a hearing<\/a> on proposals to change the immigration courts to Article III courts independent of the Justice Department. The subcommittee held the hearing in light of the continued growing backlog of court cases<\/a>, which only grew worse as the Border Patrol apprehended more than 2 million illegal aliens<\/a> in President Biden\u2019s first year in office, many of whom petitioned for asylum protections. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The subcommittee\u2019s chairwoman Rep. Zoe Lofgren<\/a> (D-Calif.) supports moving the courts out of the Justice Department. Reporting<\/a> indicates that Rep. Lofgren plans to introduce legislation doing just that, with support from the National Association of Immigration Judge\u2019s president, Mimi Tsankov. Tsankov was a panelist at the subcommittee\u2019s hearing and argued in favor of moving EOIR out of the Justice Department. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tsankov said in her opening statement<\/a> that \u201cto fix the backlog and other problems, Congress should remove the immigration courts from the DOJ and create an independent immigration court.\u201d Tsankov also noted that \u201cthe DOJ’s control over the courts has yielded extreme pendulum swings, and our apolitical judges are reeling as they navigate their judicial responsibilities on the one hand and heavy political scrutiny.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, moving immigration courts out of the Justice Department would not shield them from political interference. Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge and current visiting fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, appeared on the panel. Arthur\u2019s 57-page opening statement<\/a> noted a number of issues with the proposals to make EOIR an \u201cindependent\u201d court. In his conclusion, Arthur wrote that: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Restructuring the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration\nAppeals (BIA) will almost certainly fail to address the core problems that are\nfacing those tribunals. Moreover, not only would such restructuring be\ncomplicated and costly (and likely ultimately ineffective), but any proposal\nthat would move either the immigration courts or the BIA out of the executive\nbranch would implicate serious constitutional concerns.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arthur noted in his testimony that Congress\ncould withhold funding to the independent immigration courts if the ruling\nparty did not approve of the courts\u2019 decision making in immigration cases.\nArthur wrote: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the significant passions surrounding immigration, I have no doubt\nthat a future Congress would attempt to limit resources to an independent court\nif one or another (or both) chamber\u2019s members did not agree with the decisions\nof that court. One look no further than the restrictions placed over the past\nfew years on the funding of ICE detention to understand this fact. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At least under the aegis of DOJ, EOIR is somewhat protected from these\npassing political passions when it comes to funding. On its own, an independent\nimmigration court and\/or BIA would have to fight for funding with little\nleverage. If members are concerned about political interference from within the\nexecutive branch as it relates to EOIR, they should be more concerned about\npolitical interference in an independent tribunal from the branch that holds\nthe power of the purse.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is spot on, and Congress has and does\nplay political games with the funding of agencies with which the ruling party\ndislikes. For this same reason, FAIR opposes appropriating money for U.S.\n<\/ins>Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moving EOIR out of the DOJ will not increase case completion or make significant progress on addressing the backlog. These are symptoms of a greater problem: the loopholes in asylum law that give so many illegal aliens access to the immigration courts in the first place. Since fiscal year 2001, immigration judges denied asylum relief<\/a> to more than 58 percent of applicants. To be frank, the majority of asylum-seeking aliens do not qualify for asylum in the first place. But they all have their day in immigration court, increasing the backlog and stressing the resources of EOIR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, the best way to address issues\nwithin the immigration court system is to address the longstanding structural\nissues within America\u2019s immigration policy itself, not toying with the\nconstruction of the immigration courts. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

House Democrats are taking aim at the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), which is the immigration court system of the United States. EOIR is an agency within the Department of Justice, making it unique in that it is not an \u201cindependent\u201d Article III court, but instead a court system within the executive branch in<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":78,"featured_media":25362,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[6],"tags":[6239,12867,1524,1064],"yst_prominent_words":[12862,2577,2249,2723,2582,12866,11989,2576,2008,2573,12865,2571,12863,12861,12860,2713,12858,12859,2045,12856],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25361"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/78"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25361"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25361\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25365,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25361\/revisions\/25365"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/25362"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25361"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25361"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25361"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=25361"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}