Immigration Politics Georgia

looking for a better life • news and pro-enforcement opinion

D.A. King

Opinion: IERB dismissed my complaints without allowing presentation of any evidence – Plyler v Doe does not apply to public benefits for parents of illegal aliens

By

Image: Bensbiltong.com

 

IERB complaints: responses to responses

 

1) The 1982 SCOTUS Plyler v Doe decision made us do it:

 

Plyler v. Doe has essentially guaranteed a right to pursue a high school diploma to all students (children) regardless of immigration status. It applies to K-12 education.

 

An easy to read and accurate synopsis: Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down both a state statute denying funding for education to undocumented immigrant children and a municipal school district’s attempt to charge undocumented immigrants an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each undocumented student to compensate for the lost state funding.[1] The Court found that any state restriction imposed on the rights afforded to children based on their status as immigrants must be examined under an intermediate scrutiny standard to determine whether it furthers a “substantial” government interest.

 

The application of Plyler v. Doe has been limited to K-12 schooling. Other court cases and legislation such as Toll v. Moreno 441 U.S. 458 (1979) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996[2] have allowed some states to pass statutes that deny undocumented immigrants students eligibility for in-state tuition, scholarships, or even bar them from enrollment at public colleges and universities.

 

Plyler v Doe applies to admittance, enrollment and education of illegal alien students in K-12 . It does not provide for any education of parents of students. Neither does it mean that school systems can or should provide any public benefit to parents (adults) in the name of furthering the education of the child/student. The argument that parents of illegal aliens are somehow exempt from proving eligibility for public benefits because of Plyler v Doe is absurd. Do we also exempt parents from proving work eligibility under Georgia’s E-Verify laws? Are parents of illegal aliens excluded for the affidavit process in 50-36-1 and 13-10-91 because they have children in Georgia K-12 schools? (No).

 

The USDOE has distributed guidance letters which are linked below. Although many of the responses from Georgia school districts cite Plyler v Doe and these letters as evidence of the legality of adult education for already enrolled K-12 students, the letters all clearly address enrollmentof K-12 students, not adult education.

 

The (English) guidance documents:
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201405.pdf
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201405.pdf
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-factsheet-201405.pdf

 

Lastly, the argument that verifying the eligibility/immigration status of parents for public benefits or not providing illegal aliens parents (adults) of K-12 students language classes hinders the education of the child can be expanded to say that we cannot verify the legal status of the parents for a teaching or contractor job in the school system and that use of the E-Verify or SAVE system aimed at a parent is a “civil rights violation” or somehow damages the child’s education. Taken to extremes, use of the E-Verify system for parents of any or all Georgia K-12 students could be said to hinder the education of an illegal alien’s child because the parent cannot lawfully be employed. Shorter: The Plyer v Doe argument is intended for people who do not know the law.

 

2) Title lll made us do it and authorizes English classes for illegal alien parents of K-12 students already enrolled in Georgia’s school system.

 

I do not dispute that there is language in Title lll concerning parents and English language assistance. But partial quoting of Title lll without noting the federal requirement that all programs be in compliance with individual state law is incomplete and deceptive.

 

I insert a link to Title III text here

 

Title III — Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students

 

Please note Section 3116 Local Plans “(a) PLAN REQUIRED – Each eligible entity desiring a subgrant from the State educational agency under section 3114 shall submit a plan to the State educational agency at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the State educational agency may require.

(b) CONTENTS – Each plan submitted under subsection (a) shall —

…(1) each local educational agency that is included in the eligible entity is complying with section 3302 prior to, and throughout, each school year;

(2) the eligible entity annually will assess the English prof iciency of all children with limited English proficiency participating in programs funded under this part;

(3) the eligible entity has based its proposed plan on scientifically based research on teaching limited English proficient children;

(4) the eligible entity will ensure that the programs will enable children to speak, read, write, and comprehend the English language and meet challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards; and

à(5) the eligible entity is not in violation of any State law, including State constitutional law, regarding the education of limited English proficient children, consistent with sections 3126 and 3127.

 

 

And Section 3126 LEGAL AUTHORITY UNDER STATE LAW.

à“Nothing in this part shall be construed to negate or supersede State law, or the legal authority under State law of any State agency, State entity, or State public official, over programs that are under the jurisdiction of the State agency, entity, or official.

 

 

SEC. 3127. CIVIL RIGHTS.

Nothing in this part shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with any Federal law guaranteeing a civil right. Use of Funds Requirements in OMB Circular A – 87

 

3) Title lll and Title l made us do it:

 

“Translation and Interpretation for English Learners – Requirements under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Related to National Origin Discrimination and Use of Funds Under Title III, Part A andTitle I, Part A of the ESEA.” See linked info ( for some reason, the link must be pasted into your browser to open the fed document).https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/titleititleiii421.pdf

 

“Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A – 87 requires that the use of funds for a specific purpose be: necessary and reasonable for the proper and efficient performance and administration of the program; and authorized and not prohibited under State and local laws or regulations.

—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opinion: Kangaroo Court? Georgia’s Immigration Enforcement Review Board (IERB) calls a special meeting with agenda to be determined : It’s via telephone and if you want to hear it, you must go to downtown Atlanta and through security

By

Image:Bensbiltong.com

__

Email received from Audits and Accounts, December 31, 2018 at 3:38 PM:

Good Afternoon,

The Immigration Enforcement Review Board has scheduled a Special Called Meeting for Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 10:00.  The members will be holding this meeting via conference call.  A conference call line will be set up in Room 1-151 at the Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts if you wish to hear the meeting in person.  The address for the Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts is listed on the agenda.  The building is located at the corner of Trinity Avenue and Washington Street.  Please enter the building on the Trinity Avenue side.  You will need to go through security and show a valid ID to enter the building.  I have attached a tentative agenda, but will resend.

Thank you,

Carol Schwinne

Carol G. Schwinne| DirectorAdministrative Division

Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts

270 Washington Street, S.W., Suite 1-156

Atlanta, GA 30334

Office: 404.463-2670 | schwinne@audits.ga. gov
  audits.ga.gov  

 

 

mail.audits.ga.gov made the following annotations on 12/31/18:

NOTICE: This e-mail (including attachments) may contain information that is confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately and delete the message.

Thank you for your cooperation.

__

***Note: More on the IERB here and here.

U.S. Central American Immigrant Population Increased Nearly 28-Fold since 1970

By

Center for Immigration Studies

Central American Immigrant Population In U.S. Increased Nearly 28-Fold since 1970

Poverty and welfare use double that of native-born Americans

By Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler on November 1, 2018

Recent news coverage of a caravan from Central America hoping to enter the United States illegally has raised interest in the number and characteristics of Central Americans in the country. A new analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies of the latest Census Bureau data, which includes legal and illegal immigrants, shows that the size of the Central American immigrant population (from Guatemala, El Salvador, Belize, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama) has grown enormously in recent decades. It also shows immigrants from the region often struggle with high rates of poverty and welfare use and low average incomes. The reason this is the case is not due to an unwillingness to work. In fact, Central Americans (ages 18 to 64) are slightly more likely to hold a job than native-born Americans. Rather their high rates of poverty and welfare use are due to their low levels of education, which, as their numbers have soared, have declined dramatically relative to natives.

Among the findings:

  • The number of immigrants from Central America (legal and illegal) has grown 28-fold since 1970, from 118,000 to nearly 3.3 million in 2018 — six times faster than the overall immigrant population.
  • In 2018, 87 percent of Central American immigrants came from three countries — El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
  • El Salvador is the largest sending country from the region, with 1.4 million immigrants in the United States, a 112-fold increase since 1970. Guatemala is second with 815,000, followed by Honduras with 623,000.
  • Based on prior estimates by the Department of Homeland Security, slightly more than half of El Salvadorans are in the country illegally, as are about two-thirds of Guatemalans and Hondurans.1
  • A large share of Central Americans struggle in the United States, but it is not because they are unwilling to work. In fact, 76 percent of working-age immigrants from the region had a job in the first part of 2018, compared to 73 percent of the native-born.
  • The primary reason so many Central Americans are poor and access welfare is that, as their population has grown in the United States, their education level relative to natives has declined dramatically:
    • In 1970, 49 percent of Central Americans had not completed high school, compared to 42 percent of natives — a seven percentage-point gap. In 2018, 47 percent of Central Americans had not completed high school, compared to 6 percent of natives — a 41 percentage-point gap.
    • In 1970, 4 percent of Central Americans had at least a bachelor’s degree, compared to 5 percent of natives — a one percentage-point gap. In 2018, 10 percent of Central Americans had at least a bachelor’s degree, compared to 38 percent of natives — a 28 percentage-point gap.
  • Because such a large share of Central Americans have modest levels of education, the share of immigrants and their young children from the region who live in poverty is twice that of natives — 22 percent vs. 11 percent.
  • Perhaps most troubling, 31 percent of the children (under age 18) of Central Americans live in poverty, roughly double the 16 percent rate for the children of natives. Also, 66 percent of the young children of Central Americans live in or near poverty.
  • On average, Central Americans make only 61 percent as much as the average native-born American. Even Central Americans who have lived in the country for more than 10 years still only have 65 percent of the average income of the native-born.
  • Given the large share of Central Americans with low incomes, it is not surprising that so many access the welfare system. In 2018, 56 percent of households headed by Central American immigrants used one or more major welfare programs, more than double the 26 percent of native households.
  • The welfare figures for 2018 come from the Current Population Survey (CPS), which understates welfare use, particularly among immigrants. So the actual welfare use rates are even higher than those reported here.2
  • Although illegal immigrants and new legal immigrants are barred from most welfare programs, the restrictions do not apply to all programs. Moreover, some states allow otherwise ineligible immigrants to access programs at state expense; and most important, immigrants, including illegal immigrants, can receive benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children, who are awarded citizenship at birth.
  • The high welfare use of Central Americans reflects the fact that, while most work, their education levels mean they often earn low wages in the modern American economy and are unable to support themselves or their own children in many cases and turn to American taxpayers by using the welfare system.
  • Welfare use is common among both recently arrived and more established Central Americans. Among households headed by Central Americans in the country for 10 years or less, 55 percent used one or more welfare programs, while the figure is 56 percent for households headed by a Central American in the country for more than 10 years.
  • Welfare use is very high for all three top-sending countries from the region. Of households headed by El Salvadoran immigrants, 60 percent use at least one major welfare program; the figure is 59 percent for Guatemalans and 52 percent for Hondurans.
  • Overall, Central American households’ use of cash welfare is similar to that of native households, but the share of Central American households receiving some type of food assistance is 2.5 times that of natives — 36 percent vs. 14 percent. The share of Central American households with at least one person on Medicaid is more than double that of native households — 45 percent vs. 20 percent. Read the rest here.
Image: CIS.org

 

Cato Institute: Forget the Wall Already, It’s Time for the U.S. to Have Open Borders

By

 

Jeffery Miron, image: CATO INSITUTE.

Jeffrey Miron is director of economic studies at the Cato Institute and the director of undergraduate studies in the Department of Economics at Harvard University.

Cato Institute

Forget the Wall Already, It’s Time for the U.S. to Have Open Borders

This article appeared on USA Today on July 31, 2018.

“President Donald Trump’s recent tweets against open borders come as no surprise. Indeed, even fervent immigration advocates worry that open borders would lower the wages of low-skilled natives, erode national security, and overburden the social safety net. Trump doubled down, tweeting that he would be “willing to ‘shut down’ government” unless Congress approves funding for a border wall with Mexico.

Trump, however, has it exactly backwards: The solution to America’s immigration problems is open borders, under which the United States imposes no immigration restrictions at all. If the U.S. adopts this policy, the benefits will far outweigh the costs.

Legalize ALL immigration

Illegal immigration will disappear, by definition. Much commentary on immigration — Trump and fellow travelers aside — suggests that legal immigration is good and that illegal immigration is bad. So, legalize all immigration.

America has nothing to fear, and much to gain, from open borders.

Government will then have no need to define or interpret rules about asylum, economic hardship, family reunification, family separation, DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and so on. When all immigration is legal, these issues are irrelevant.

The question of fairness about who enters first — those who waited in line or those who entered illegally — disappears. Amnesty for existing illegal immigrants also becomes a non-issue. Or an open borders policy could require anyone who entered illegally to exit the country — for exactly five minutes — and then re-enter legally.

Think about the money we could save and make

Expenditure on immigration enforcement would shrink to nothing, because open borders means no walls, fences, screening at airports, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), deportations, detention centers or immigration courts. A 2013 report estimated that immigration enforcement cost more than $18 billion annually, and standard indicators suggest costs have grown further since then.

Last year, U.S. employers filed over 336,000 petitions for H1-B visas for highly skilled foreign workers, but only 197,129 were approved. Complicated visa rules – for tourists versus job-seekers, STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) workers versus agricultural laborers, and students versus non-students – would all vanish. This would save resources and give employers new access to talented human capital.

The time people waste re-entering the country will evaporate. How often do you face long delays when entering Oklahoma from Texas? Never. But how often do you experience delays when you leave other countries for the United States? Almost always. One study pegs the cost of wait times at the U.S.-Mexico border alone to be more than $12 billion a year.

Economic efficiency will increase both in the USA and in immigrant-sending countries, because different kinds of labor will be better matched around the world to their most productive activity. This benefits the immigrants who earn higher incomes, but also U.S. consumers who face lower prices for imported goods and services. One academic study predicts that if borders were open everywhere, world gross domestic product could be twice its current value.

They will send their best…” Read the rest here. 

Terrorist Infiltration Threat at the Southwest Border – CIS.org

By

Image: Nick Miroff Twitter

Center for Immigration Studies

Terrorist Infiltration Threat at the Southwest Border

The national security gap in America’s immigration enforcement debate

By Todd Bensman on August 13, 2018

Todd Bensman is a senior national security fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.

Introduction

“On June 24, 2016 — during the waning days of President Barack Obama’s administration — Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson sent a three-page memorandum To 10 top law enforcement chiefs responsible for border security.1 The subject line referenced a terrorism threat at the nation’s land borders that had been scarcely acknowledged by the Obama administration during its previous seven years. So far, it also has evaded much mention in national debate over Trump administration immigration policy.

The subject line read: “Cross-Border Movement of Special Interest Aliens”.

What followed were orders, unusual in the sense that they demanded the “immediate attention” of the nation’s most senior immigration and border security leaders to counter such an obscure terrorism threat.

Secretary Johnson ordered that they form a “multi-DHS Component SIA Joint Action Group” and produce a “consolidated action plan” to take on this newly important threat. He was referring to the smuggling of migrants from Muslim-majority countries, often across the southern land border — a category of smuggled persons likely already known to memo recipients as special interest aliens, or SIAs. Secretary Johnson provided few clues for the apparent urgency, except to state: “As we all appreciate, SIAs may consist of those who are potential national security threats to our homeland. Thus, the need for continued vigilance in this particular area.” Elsewhere, the secretary cited “the increased global movement of SIAs.”

The unpublicized copy of the memo, obtained by CIS, outlined plan objectives. Intelligence collection and analysis, Secretary Johnson wrote, would drive efforts to “counter the threats posed by the smuggling of SIAs.” Coordinated investigations would “bring down organizations involved in the smuggling of SIAs into and within the United States.” Border and port of entry operations capacities would “help us identify and interdict SIAs of national security concern who attempt to enter the United States” and “evaluate our border and port of entry security posture to ensure our resources are appropriately aligned to address trends in the migration of SIAs.”

Secretary Johnson saw a need to educate the general public about what was about to happen. Public affairs staffs would craft messaging that the new program would “protect the United States and our partners against this potential threat.”

However, no known Public Affairs Office education about SIA immigration materialized as Secretary Johnson and most of his agency heads were swept out of office some months later by the election of Republican President Donald Trump. Whatever reputed threat about which the Obama administration wanted to inform the public near its end remains narrowly known. So, too, are whatever operations developed from the secretary’s 2016 directive.

Perhaps notably, the cross-border migration of people from Muslim-majority nations, as a trending terror threat, has gone missing during contentious national debates over President Trump’s border security policies and wall. Most discourse has been confined to Spanish-speaking border entrants rather than on those who speak Arabic, Pashtun, and Urdu.

So what is an SIA and why, in 2016, did this “potential national security threat” require the urgent coordinated attention of agencies, with not much word about it since? This Backgrounder provides a factual basis necessary for anyone inclined to add the prospect of terrorism border infiltration, via SIA smuggling, to the nation’s ongoing discourse about securing borders.

It provides a definition of SIAs and a history of how homeland security authorities have addressed the issue since 9/11. Since SIA immigration traffic is the only kind with a distinct and recognized terrorism threat nexus, its apparent sidelining from the national debate presents a particular puzzlement.

No illegal border crosser has committed a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, to date. A Somali asylum-seeker who crossed the Mexican border to California in 2011 did allegedly commit an ISIS-inspired attack in Canada, wounding five people in 2017, and numerous SIAs with terrorism connections reportedly have been apprehended at the southern border, to include individuals said to be linked to designated terrorist organizations in Somalia, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, and Bangladesh.2 But while most SIAs likely have no terrorism connectivity, the purpose of this Backgrounder is not to assess the perceived degree of any actual terrorist infiltration threat. The purpose, rather, is to establish a less disputable basis for discourse and action by either Republicans or Democrats through a homeland security lens: That SIA smuggling networks provide the capability for terrorist travelers to reach the border, and also that legislation-driven strategy requires U.S. agencies to tend to the issue regardless.3

The rest of the report can be read here.

 

Border Patrol Snags More MS-13 Members, Convicted Sex Offenders Trying To Jump Border – Daily Wire

By

Image: John Moore/Getty Images – via Daily Wire.

Daily Wire

December 23, 2018

By Emily Zanoti

Border Patrol Snags More MS-13 Members, Convicted Sex Offenders Trying To Jump Border

United States Customs and Border Protection say they have arrested at least two more members of the notorious MS-13 gang, and two convicted — and previously deported — sex offenders trying to cross the United States-Mexico border.

The Daily Mail reports that CBP apprehended the four men in four separate incidents ranging across the southern border from Arizona to Texas. All four had had previous run-ins with border patrol.

“On Wednesday, agents arrested a 46-year-old Mexican national, after he illegally entered the U.S. near Lukeville,” the Mail reported. “During processing, agents discovered he was convicted in 2002 of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor in Mesa, Arizona.”

“Then on Thursday evening, Nogales Station agents arrested a 24-year-old national of El Salvador,” the report continued. “During processing, agents conducting records checks learned that he is a member of MS-13, a violent trans-national criminal organization operating in many parts of the U.S.”

Specific details weren’t available on the other two men, but CBP did report that one was a member of MS-13 and the other had been previously convicted of a sexual crime and deported back to his home country. All four appear to have been booted from the United States between 2012 and 2013 and returned, recently, with the influx of asylum-seeking migrants.

This isn’t the first time that MS-13 has been caught hiding among asylum seekers. Back in November, border patrol agents intercepted a member of MS-13 who had been hiding himself in the so-called “migrant caravan.”

“Jose Villalobos-Jobel, 29, was arrested Saturday evening near the Calexico Port of Entry by agents who suspected he’d made it into California illegally, US Customs and Border Protection said in a statement,” the New York Post reported in late November… Read more here.

Opinion: Georgia Budget and Policy Institute: ‘Immigration enforcement not worth expense’ – from IAG

By

Image: GBPI.org

I originally wrote this for Insider Advantage Georgia – it contains a pie chart from the anti-enforcement GBPI showing that Georgia is home to more illegal aliens than LPRs (green card holders). Posted here December 22, 2018

Insider Advantage Georgia

August 1, 2018

GA Budget and Policy Institute: ‘Immigration enforcement not worth expense’

D.A. King

“The concept that I should stop a program that deports illegal aliens who have committed crimes in our community defies logic.” – Gwinnett Sheriff Butch Conway responding to critics who say local immigration enforcement is too expensive.

The most recently released Georgia Budget and Policy Institute “study” aimed at an end to voluntary local government cooperation with federal immigration authorities should move GBPI from a “left-leaning on immigration” description to solidly “anti-enforcement.” And it should be long remembered.

Wesley Tharpe, author of the GBPI’s ‘Voluntary Immigration Enforcement a Costly Choice for Georgia Communities’  presents a rather bizarre and anti-American argument that locating, holding and turning over illegal aliens to ICE – after they have already been captured for suspicion of other crimes – is too costly. And is bad for children. And that removing illegal aliens from Georgia communities has a negative effect on public safety.

We can’t help but note that the GBPI opposition to honoring ICE detainers and to 287(g) agreements is based on the usual mindless talking points that are endlessly put forth by the usual anti-borders suspects on the far left, including GALEO, the Democratic Socialists of America and the discredited Alinsky-ites at the SPLC.

While the report acknowledges in a graphic that estimates show Georgia is home to more illegal aliens than Lawful Permanent Residents (“green card” holders) – GBPI overlooked informing readers that according to DHS, we also have more illegal aliens than border-state Arizona. Read the rest here.

 

D.H.S. Media release Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen Announces Historic Action to Confront Illegal Immigration

By

 

 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Office of Public Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 20, 2018

Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen Announces Historic Action to Confront Illegal Immigration

Announces Migration Protection Protocols

WASHINGTON – Today, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen M. Nielsen announced historic action to confront the illegal immigration crisis facing the United States.  Effective immediately, the United States will begin the process of invoking Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.  Under the Migration Protection Protocols (MPP), individuals arriving in or entering the United States from Mexico—illegally or without proper documentation—may be returned to Mexico for the duration of their immigration proceedings.

“Today we are announcing historic measures to bring the illegal immigration crisis under control,” said Secretary Nielsen.  “We will confront this crisis head on, uphold the rule of law, and strengthen our humanitarian commitments.  Aliens trying to game the system to get into our country illegally will no longer be able to disappear into the United States, where many skip their court dates.  Instead, they will wait for an immigration court decision while they are in Mexico.  ‘Catch and release’ will be replaced with ‘catch and return.’  In doing so, we will reduce illegal migration by removing one of the key incentives that encourages people from taking the dangerous journey to the United States in the first place.  This will also allow us to focus more attention on those who are actually fleeing persecution.

“Let me be clear:  we will undertake these steps consistent with all domestic and international legal obligations, including our humanitarian commitments.  We have notified the Mexican government of our intended actions.  In response, Mexico has made an independent determination that they will commit to implement essential measures on their side of the border.  We expect affected migrants will receive humanitarian visas to stay on Mexican soil, the ability to apply for work, and other protections while they await a U.S. legal determination.”

Background

Illegal aliens have exploited asylum loopholes at an alarming rate.  Over the last five years, DHS has seen a 2000 percent increase in aliens claiming credible fear (the first step to asylum), as many know it will give them an opportunity to stay in our country, even if they do not actually have a valid claim to asylum.  As a result, the United States has an overwhelming asylum backlog of more than 786,000 pending cases.  Last year alone the number of asylum claims soared 67 percent compared to the previous year.  Most of these claims are not meritorious—in fact nine out of ten asylum claims are not granted by a federal immigration judge.  However, by the time a judge has ordered them removed from the United States, many have vanished.

Process

  • Aliens trying to enter the U.S. to claim asylum will no longer be released into our country, where they often disappear before a court can determine their claim’s merits.
  • Instead, those aliens will be processed by DHS and given a “Notice to Appear” for their immigration court hearing.
  • While they wait in Mexico, the Mexican government has made its own determination to provide such individuals humanitarian visas, work authorization, and other protections. Aliens will have access to immigration attorneys and to the U.S. for their court hearings.
  • Aliens whose claims are upheld by U.S. judges will be allowed in. Those without valid claims will be deported to their home countries.Anticipated Benefits
  • As we implement, illegal immigration and false asylum claims are expected to decline.
  • Aliens will not be able to disappear into U.S. before court decision.
  • More attention can be focused on more quickly assisting legitimate asylum-seekers, as fraudsters are disincentivized from making the journey.
  • Precious border security personnel and resources will be freed up to focus on protecting our territory and clearing the massive asylum backlog.
  • Vulnerable populations will get the protection they need while they await a determination in Mexico.