policy

RECORD NUMBER OF DEPORTATIONS IN 2024

by

U.S. immigration judges issued a staggering 136,623 deportation orders during the initial six months of Fiscal Year 2024, according to an analysis by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a nonpartisan, nonprofit data research center affiliated with the Newhouse School of Public Communications and the Whitman School of Management at Syracuse University. This is a significant surge in removal orders compared to the previous peak in removals observed in FY 2019 under the Donald Trump administration and the peak in FY2011 – FY2012 under the Obama administration. The current pace of removal orders have soared by 50 percent. This surge coincides with the expansion of immigration judges during the current administration. New York City emerged as the epicenter of deportations, with just under 11,000 removal orders issued to immigrants residing there. Following closely behind was Harris County, TN, which witnessed more than 8,000 removal orders, and Los Angeles County, CA, with nearly 6,000 removal orders. Despite the prominence of those three top regions, Dallas County, TA, and Miami-Dade County, FL, also witnessed substantial deportation figures. The disparity becomes evident when looking at Miami-Dade County, which has only one-fourth of the removal orders of New York City and less than half of Los Angeles. Analysts also found that as immigration judges accelerate the issuance of removal orders, fewer immigrants ordered for removal manage to secure legal representation to advocate their cases. ATRAC examination of year-by-year trends over the past decade reveals a nuanced trajectory according to an article in the Amsterdam News. Between 2016 and 2019, the total number of removal decisions saw a modest increase, but there were notable improvements in representation rates. However, the onset of partial government COVID-19 shutdowns precipitated a sharp decline in decisions, coinciding with a surprising uptick in the likelihood of finding legal representation. This anomaly probably stemmed from the decreased demand for immigration attorneys due to the reduced number of court hearings, subsequently alleviating supply constraints, TRAC found. Since Fiscal Year (FY) 2021, the rate of legal representation for immigrants facing removal proceedings has sharply declined. Last year, representation rates dropped to just 20 percent. In FY 2024, this decline continued, with only 15 percent of immigrants ordered for removal able to secure legal representation. Interestingly, this contrasts significantly with the current representation rate of 30 percent for all immigrants in the court’s backlog. The implications are clear: Immigrants without legal representation face significantly higher odds of being ordered for removal. This underscores the urgency of addressing the challenges encountered by immigrants navigating the legal intricacies of deportation proceedings in the United States. Ranking of Places With the Most Residents Ordered Removed in Immigration Court Whether Immigrant was Represented when Removal Ordered Proceedings During FY 2024 (October 2023 – March 2024) Rank Ordered Removed Had An Attorney Percent with Attorney New York City, NY 1 10,897 1,469 13% Harris County, TX (Houston) 2 8,336 1,382 17% Los Angeles County, CA 3 5963 1247 21% Dallas County, TX 4 2815 136 5% Miami-Dade County, FL 5 2521 368 15% From TRAC Report

A TRUMP SECOND TERM

by
A Trump Second Term is bad for Immigrants

In an interview with Time Magazine on April 30, 2024, Trump discussed his agenda for a second term, which includes deporting millions of people using the military. Trump envisions a series of mass deportation camps that would require military support. “I think in terms of the National Guard. But if I thought things were getting out of control, I would have no problem using the military, per se,” Trump said. “We have to have safety in our country. We have to have law and order in our country. And whichever gets us there, but I think the National Guard will do the job.” During Trump’s first term, the Department of Homeland Security considered using National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants but the plans ultimately never came to fruition. “The Posse Comitatus Act says that you can’t deploy the U.S. military against civilians,” Cortellessa noted. “Would you override that?” “Well, these aren’t civilians,” Trump responded. “These are people that aren’t legally in our country. This is an invasion of our country — an invasion like probably no country has ever seen before. They’re coming in by the millions. I believe we have 15 million now. And I think you’ll have 20 million by the time this ends. And that’s bigger than almost every state.” Trump has made cracking down on immigration a centerpiece of his reelection campaign, repeating a strategy that worked for him when he first ran for office. He’s accused migrants of “poisoning the blood of the country” and referred to people in the U.S. illegally who are suspected of committing crimes as “animals.” Trump explained some of his plans that he wants to put in place on day one, January 20, 2025, if he wins reelection—a suite of aggressive actions on the border and on immigration—a massive deportation operation. Trump explained, “So if you look back into the 1950s, Dwight Eisenhower, he’s not known for that, you know, you don’t think of him that way. Because you see, Ike, but Dwight Eisenhower was very big on illegal immigration not coming into our country. And he did a massive deportation of people. He was doing it for a long time. He got very proficient at it. He was bringing them just to the other side of the border. And they would be back in the country within a matter of days. And then he started bringing them 3,000 miles away—” How Would He Get Local Law Enforcement Onboard? When asked about how he would get local law enforcement to participate in his massive deportation operations he stated his willingness to you use funding incentives. He was asked, “Does that mean you would create funding incentives from the federal government for state and local police departments?” Trump: “It could very well be. I want to give police immunity from prosecution because the liberal groups or the progressive groups, depending on what they want to be called, somewhat liberal, somewhat progressive, but they are—they’re very strong on the fact that they want to leave everybody in, I guess, I don’t know. You know, sanctuary cities are failing all over the place.”  PROTECTING POLICE? In a strange statement, even for Trump, he stated that he wanted to protect police from prosecution for their actions. Trump said: We want to protect police from prosecution. Trump: Police have been—their authority has been taken away. If something happens with them, even if they’re doing a very good job, they take away their house, they take away their pension, they take away their, I mean, essentially, they end up losing their families over it. They take away everything. They prosecute people. And we have to give the police back the power and respect that they deserve. Donald Trump in Times Magazine Interview https://time.com/6972022/donald-trump-transcript-2024-election/ One thing seems abundantly clear when it comes to a possible Trump second term, it is not going to be good for immigrants in the United States.

Third Gender Option Added to Form N-400, Application for Naturalization

by
USCIS adds an option for a third gender on application

The 04/01/24 edition of Form N-400 is the first USCIS form to include the “X” gender option. Today, April 1, 2024, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has made a big announcement that we hope isn’t a bad April Fool’s Day joke of some kind. USCIS’ update to their policies take effect immediately. Applicants filing the 04/01/2024 edition of Form N-400 on or after April 1, 2024, will have the option of choosing “m” (for male), “f” (for female), or “X” as a gender option on the form. USCIS issued a Policy Alert on April 1, 2024, PA-2024-08, which explains this change to the Department of Homeland Security’s policy. This is reflected in an update to the USCIS Policy Manual as well. What is “X” Gender? The X gender marking is intended for applicants who neither identify as being male nor female. This would be a blanket option covering any non-binary or gender fluid individuals who do not feel comfortable being referred to as a male or a female. Any gender that isn’t male or female would fall into this category. From the Policy Alert, “USCIS has determined that it will define “X” as “Another Gender Identity” for purposes of USCIS forms and secure identity documents. Transgender individuals have already had the option to select the gender they identify with per an earlier change to policy that allows for noncitizens to change their gender on USCIS ID documents quite easily without needing to provide any evidence. However, updating one’s gender on a certificate of naturalization that has already been issued can be a bit more tricky, so any applicant that may wish to change the gender that appears on their USCIS documents should do that before their certificate of naturalization is issued if possible. Will This Change Be Coming To All USCIS Forms? At the moment the change has only been made on the Form N-400. However, this change will be coming to other USCIS forms in the future, which they have confirmed in the Policy Alert stating: “USCIS anticipates that the additional gender option “X” will become available upon each form’s revision to incorporate the change, beginning with the Application for Naturalization (Form N-400).” USCIS Policy Alert, Availability of Additional Gender Options for Certain Benefit Requests, April 1, 2024; PA-2024-08 When Will This Option Become Available on Other USCIS Forms? According to the Policy Alert, “USCIS anticipates that the additional gender option “X” will become available upon each form’s revision to incorporate the change, beginning with the Application for Naturalization (Form N-400).” USCIS recommends that to determine what gender options are available for a particular form in the future, see the relevant USCIS form and related instructions. What if my N-400 is Already Pending? USCIS addressed this concern in the Policy Alert stating that Applicants who have a pending Form N-400 using the edition in effect before April 1, 2024, may request to update their gender on or after April 1, 2024, as well. Is there an X Gender Option if I am Requesting Residency or Another Immigration Benefit? For all other forms, individuals must wait until USCIS revises those forms to include the X gender option. USCIS explains this in the alert. The good news is that they also indicated that the change will be coming for other forms.

The Illogical Immigration Consequences of Drug Convictions

by

A conviction for a drug offense can have outsized legal consequences when it comes to obtaining employment, licensing, access to benefits and finding housing. Outside of the law it can have serious consequences In some cases minor marijuana offenses could result in eviction or the loss of employment or parental rights. These consequences can effect people for years, long after they have tried to put the conviction behind them. It is almost a right of passage for teenagers to experiment with drugs. A nationwide survey done in 2019 found that 13% of people 12+ used an illicit drug in the past month, and by age 16 that number goes up to 16.5% i. In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). IRCA required the U.S. Attorney General to deport immigrants with criminal convictions as quickly as possible. The ADAA of 1986 also authorized the use of “detainers,” under a subsection titled the “Narcotics Traffickers Deportation Act,” by which immigration authorities could request that local law enforcement agencies hold people arrested for controlled substance offenses until they could be taken into immigration custody. This sort of paved the way for political rhetoric that continues to criminalize migration and push for punitive policies towards the treatment of immigrants who cross the southern border without a visa In the 80’s and 90’s drug laws grew in their size and scope and so did their punishments, in part thanks to now President Biden. These laws often discriminated against African American and immigrant populations in the way they were written and enforced. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which set mandatory minimums for drug law violations, including exceptionally harsh penalties for crack cocaine. With this law Congress expanded the drug convictions that are grounds for deportability and exclusion of immigrants from the country. Ultimately Congress amended the laws relating to exclusion and deportability grounds to include a single conviction for violating any law involving a controlled substance as defined by the federal drug schedule. Congress also eliminated all inadmissibility waivers for drug convictions with the exception of only a conviction for possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana, however, marijuana use remains a ground of “health-related inadmissibility” that can apply to any person who admits to having used marijuana and DHS can accuse a non-citizen of “drug trafficking” if they have reason to believe that the person was ever involved in the transporting or transfer of any amount of any drugii. Two years after that the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 sought to further address “an expansive drug syndicate established and managed by illegal aliens,” in the words of Florida senator Lawton Chiles. Anti-Drug Abuse Act introduced aggravated felonies to the immigration law. Two years after that, the Immigration Act of 1990 signed into law by President H.W. Bush increased the types of offenses considered aggravated felonies. Then in 1994, the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 again increased that number.. Then only two years later, the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 increased it yet againiii. The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 gave the government the basis to completely revamp the country’s immigration laws not only on paper but by creating the Department of Homeland Security, the largest government agency that ever existed to enforce the immigration laws and to actively investigate and search for noncitizens in the US in order to apprehend, detain, and deport them . These changes to the law coupled with the creation of a second military police force dedicated to the enforcement of those laws, birthed the deportation machine of the twenty first century that is responsible for millions of arrests. Controlled substance charges continue to be the leading grounds for the deportation of non-citizens today with over 34,000 immigrants between fiscal years 2007 – 2012 being removed from the US due a drug conviction. In 2019 alone, ICE arrested more than 67,000 people for drug offenses. An arrest for a drug offense not only renders a non-citizen all but automatically deportable, but it subjects them to mandatory detention. Under U.S. law individuals convicted of certain crimes or that the government has “reason to believe” are involved in drug trafficking are not eligible to get released from immigration custody on bond and they are required to challenge their deportation from jail. Mandatory detention puts an incredible burden on the non-citizen and their family because the court proceedings move much faster on the detained docket, lawyers charge much more money, and it extremely difficult to coordinate the preparation of documents and testimony from immigration detention, especially because the government will detain noncitizens hundreds of miles away from their homes. ICE will only hold noncitizens in New York City temporarily on days they have hearings in court then busses them to New Jersey or Pennsylvanian to be jailed between hearings. ICE even has detention bed quotas—as in, a minimum number of non-citizens that must be detained at any given time. In 2018 ICE increased its detention bed quotas from 34,000 to 40,520. Between May and July 2019 55,185 non-citizens were in ICE custody and the average stay length was 46 days, which resulted in ICE exceeding the budget for immigration detention set by Congress. The government has contracts with private prisons that guarantee a certain capacity (some as high as 100%). When the taxpayers are paying the corporation regardless of whether or not they are actually holding anyone people should start questioning how these deals are being negotiated. The harsh penalties for drugs are not only a concern for immigrants that are in the country without any legal status. Immigrants that are here on a visitor visa, student or employment visa, or even permanent residents with green cards will be put in court and face deportation if convicted of a controlled substance offense, even possession of marijuana (which they would have to prove fits into the exception of being mere possession of less than 30 grams). The vast majority of green … Read more

Mayor Limits NYC Shelter Stays To 30 Days For Adult Migrants

by

New York City Mayor Eric Adams is further tightening shelter rules by limiting adult migrants to just 30 days in city-run facilities — to help ease pressures on the city’s already struggling shelter system and perhaps dissuade more migrants from coming. Many are uneasy with the policy that could send thousands of people into the streets, many with nowhere to sleep and nowhere to work. Siding aside the morality and unintended consequences, it is unclear whether limiting migrants to thirty-day stays at the city’s homeless shelters will even achieve its intended goal of discouraging immigrants crossing the southern border from coming to New York. This comes after all the controversies that came to light this week about no-bid contracts to companies providing services to the new migrants arriving in the city and the Mayor renewing the contract of a controversial company whose CEO just resigned after being caught in several lies and stories came out about him funneling tax money to a hotel owned by his brother. The Mayor elected to renew their contract at what many are saying is an outrageously inflated price, despite the comptroller of the city coming out against it. New York Governor Kathy Hochul wants to end ‘right to shelter’ law that has existed since 1980 amid the migrant crisis. Until recently, Hochul interpreted the right to shelter law as requiring the city to provide shelter to any person who was physically present within the confines of the city the minute they seek it. Mayor Eric Adams also shared that opinion at one point, though he changed his opinion once he couldn’t get any federal funding for said housing, which was months before the Governor. Now he is pounding the drum about the need to stop providing shelter to migrants in New York. The Governor seems to have changed her tune now. Hochul first came out in August saying that the State could not force cities in upstate New York to house the 60,000 immigrants that had moved to the state. Adams and Hochul were publically debating the issue for several months through public statements and letters but it looks like now both the Governor and Mayor are in agreement that New York is unable to handle the influx of South and Central American immigrants that came to the area during 2023 and they certainly can’t handle anymore. The original premise behind the right to shelter was, for starters, for homeless men on the streets, it was later extended to families. But never was it envisioned being an unlimited universal right, or obligation on the city, to house literally the entire world. New York Governor Hochul talking about the Right to Shelter law in NYC Less than a year ago WWII, Korean & Vietnam Vets lived at Island Shores assisted living facility run by @HFH_NYC. Today “migrants” live there at taxpayer expense after the seniors CITIZENS were forced to leave by @HFH_NYC who then cut a shady deal with @NYCMayor. Disgraceful! pic.twitter.com/jkLjdc5uZ6 — Nicole Malliotakis (@NMalliotakis) September 23, 2023 This is concerning not only because of the number of people who are relying on the State and City of New York for shelter and food, but because most don’t see the stream of migrants to New York stopping anytime soon. Further, papers in NYC and people on X have been vocal about how the recent influx of migrants to the city have been worrying workers in an uncertain economic climate with a very competitive labor market. Long-standing immigrant New Yorkers who have are getting pushed out of their jobs by new arrivals who will work for less since they lack employment authorization and cannot legally accept employment in the United States. Stories of veterans being kicked out of shelters to make way for migrants have also sparked a lot of backlash, though it’s not clear whether this is true. The New York Post has been flooding Twitter and their paper with stories about crime by migrant shelters and “illegal immigrants earning thousands while living for free in shelters.” These stories seem to based entirely on hearsay and are at best anecdotal if not totally fabricated. What is troubling is how quickly and loudly the tone of the conversation has changed in the past two months. We saw during COVID how easy it is for fake news and fear can fan flames of xenophobia, hate, and sometimes even violence, when there were several incidents of Asian New Yorkers being victimized after stories about lab leaks in China. Unlicensed migrants, unregistered cars turn NYC shelter neighborhood into demolition derby https://t.co/PcktsfNl20 pic.twitter.com/OylaXnfdAh — New York Post (@nypost) September 23, 2023 Let’s hope things calm down and people don’t go down that path. This is New York–it’s difficult to imagine New Yorkers turning against immigrants–immigrants do make up the majority of the city.