Some good, some bad in this proposal

The purpose of the credible fear interviews is to screen out the asylum claims that are obviously without merit so that they don’t clog up an already overcrowded immigration court system. Sending applicants to an asylum officer before the case goes to court (which already happens when people who are inside the country apply for asylum) would serve to screen out the obviously valid claims. That would leave the court with those claims that are neither obviously without merit nor obviously worthy of a grant, i.e., the hard cases. Those are the ones that require the most preparation and time so expediting them as proposed is a bad idea. Few attorneys I know can handle cases on that short time frame. Besides, putting these new cases at the front of the queue moves everyone else back and would make the backlog even worse. The solution? Make the immigration courts independent and give them the resources needed to tackle their huge caseload.

The Biden administration?s overhaul of the asylum system went into effect for the first time on May 31, but only a limited basis.

What’s to come … maybe

“In Roe, the justices ruled the right to an abortion arose out of a right to privacy, which isn’t explicitly spelled out in the Constitution but rather assembled through the guarantees of the 14th Amendment. Over the decades, the Supreme Court has built a Jenga tower of legal reasoning around the existence of that right to privacy and how rights may be extrapolated from the Constitution. Pull out one block, like Roe, and you threaten to topple the whole thing, experts say. …

“In Roe, the justices ruled the right to an abortion arose out of a right to privacy, which isn’t explicitly spelled out in the Constitution but rather assembled through the guarantees of the 14th Amendment. Over the decades, the Supreme Court has built a Jenga tower of legal reasoning around the existence of that right to privacy and how rights may be extrapolated from the Constitution. Pull out one block, like Roe, and you threaten to topple the whole thing, experts say.”

?Any sort of civil rights or constitutional rights that people have won over the last 50 years is open for discussion. I mean, why not??

Welcome news

The question of what constitutes “a particular social group” for purposes of asylum is one of the most difficult and vexing in immigration law.

The U.S. government on Wednesday ended two Trump administration policies that made it harder for immigrants fleeing violence to qualify for asylum, especially Central Americans. Attorney General Merrick Garland issued new instructions to immigration judges to stop following the Trump-era rules that made it tough for immigrants who faced domestic or gang violence to win asylum in the United States.

Welcome news

Bristol County Jail is considered among immigration practitioners to be the worst immigration detention facility in New England. And Hodgson is the New England version of Sheriff Arpaio.

The closures in Massachusetts and Georgia are part of a broader Biden administration plan to overhaul the immigration system.

Two dysfunctional systems

Since the start of the year, much of the world?s attention was focused on two trials on opposite sides of the world. In one, a brave truth-teller was persecuted by a vengeful administration after stirring up his patriotic followers in protest against tyranny. In the other, Donald Trump was acquitted by the Senate.