The Hill (Op-Ed)
By Eleanor Acer
May 29, 2015
A
massive backlog in our immigration courts is undermining both justice
and enforcement. The number of pending cases hit a new all-time high in
April, with 445,607 cases.
People often wait years for a court date, let alone the resolution of
their cases.
The
cause is obvious: a huge increase in funding for enforcement without a
proportional increase for our courts. As the Bipartisan Policy Center
(BPC) points out, “The
backlog of pending cases in immigration courts has grown 160 percent
since 2006, but the number of immigration judges has grown by just 15
percent.” According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the
immigration courts receive only one-sixtieth of the
funding of enforcement agencies.
House
appropriators sought to address the problem, coming out in favor of
adding 55 immigration judge teams. Chair of the Commerce-Justice-Science
Appropriations Subcommittee
Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas), whose state has the second highest
number of pending cases, said it’s “holding up our courts and
compromising the rule of law.”
But
the Senate appropriations committee has not yet released its version of
the bill, and Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee
Chairman Richard C. Shelby
(R-Ala.) expressed reservations about increasing funding for
immigration judges at a hearing on May 7. As Senators consider the
bill, they should note that increasing funding for immigration judge
teams enjoys strong support among faith communities, experts,
and the general public.
On
May 20 the BPC advised that reducing the immigration court backlogs
would help “address important concerns for both sides of the aisle,” by
allowing “the enforcement
system to function more efficiently and help[ing] migrants receive a
fairer hearing.”
In
an op-ed for the Houston Chronicle, Julie Myers Wood—who was assistant
secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement under President George
W. Bush—noted that the
backlog undermines the integrity of the entire system. “People who have
no legitimate claim for relief languish in the system—and in the
country—at taxpayer expense,” she wrote. “At the same time, people with
strong claims—including those fleeing persecution—now
often wait years for their day in court.” In a recent interview, she
said, “You can't have a secure border if you don't have a functioning
immigration court system."
The
public supports this position as well. A recent poll conducted for
Human Rights First by Public Opinion Strategies found that more than
three-quarters of voters in
25 of the most closely watched congressional districts believe that
Congress should increase the number of judges to help ensure fair and
timely immigration hearings. Editorials in the Houston Chronicle, the
Dallas Morning News, and the New York Times have
all called on Congress to address the backlog.
A
group of faith-based and refugee assistance groups as well as the
Association of Pro bono Counsel (the pro bono leaders at many of the
nation’s leading law firms) have
called for significant increases in immigration court judges and
support staff. The court delays make it difficult to recruit pro bono
lawyers, prolong the separation of refugee families, and leave refugee
children stranded in dangerous and difficult locations
abroad.
To
handle the incoming removal caseload and reduce the backlog, Human
Rights First recommends adding an additional 275 to 300 immigration
judge teams. Besides the 55 teams
requested by the Department of Justice for Fiscal Year 2016 that House
appropriators support, another 75 immigration judge teams should be
added each year for three fiscal years, for a total of 225 additional
teams.
If
Chairman Shelby and his fellow appropriators come out in favor of
increasing funding for immigration judge teams, they’ll be in good
company. And by doing so, they
would begin to eliminate the backlog and make the immigration system
more fair and efficient.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment