Attorney General Barr Rolls Back Asylum Protections For Families

By Aaron Reichlin-Melnick 

Attorney General William Barr issued a decision that significantly restricts the ability of many current asylum seekers to win their cases on Monday. In Matter of L-E-A-, Barr issued a new immigration court decision that says people should generally not be granted asylum if they face persecution because of who their family is.

Many individuals currently qualify for asylum because they have been targeted for persecution based on who is in their family. For example, cartels often kill a target’s relatives to send a message or governments may go after a political dissident’s family as a means of leverage. 

Despite the courts granting such “family-based” asylum claims for years, in Matter of L-E-A-, Barr declared that membership in a family would generally not qualify as “membership in a particular social group” for the purposes of asylum law. This essentially means that families are not “social groups” under the law. Under Barr’s decision, “family-based” asylum could largely be eliminated. Barr left in place only a few exceptions. This includes individuals who come from families of “greater societal import” and people from clan-based societies where family groups are significantly larger than in most Western societies. 

Although Barr did not give an exact definition for families that are of “greater societal important,” it suggests that he believes only some families matter enough to qualify for asylum. For example, the child of a rich and powerful family might qualify for asylum while the child of a poor family might not, even if the motive of the persecutor—and potential for harm or death—is the same. 

Barr’s decision comes slightly more than a year after former Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a similarly sweeping decision restricting asylum for victims of domestic violence. That decision was decried by former immigration judges as “an affront to the rule of law.” Not surprisingly, asylum grant rates this year have fallen. 

Monday’s decision may also cause the asylum grant rate to go down. Absurdly, the Trump administration is making it harder to win asylum, yet using the very fact that fewer people are winning asylum to argue that Congress should further restrict asylum. Through these artificially created barriers to asylum, the Trump administration is building its own evidence that the asylum process should be reformed—even though individuals’ reasons for fleeing their home countries is unchanged. 

Before Barr issued his decision, an individual in Honduras who was targeted for death because a family member chose to speak out against the gangs would have been able to argue that he was eligible for asylum. After Barr’s decision, such cases will be far harder to win. 

Barr’s decision also flies in the face of years of legal precedent. In a 2015 case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that “the family provides a prototypical example of a particular social group.” Indeed, every single federal court to consider whether families qualified for asylum that way agreed that they did. The Ninth Circuit has also declared that “the family remains the quintessential particular social group.” 

Despite this long legacy of historical precedent, Barr declared that his interpretation of the law was binding and that each federal circuit court had come to the wrong conclusion. This declaration of authority will likely be tested as cases affected by his new decision go through the appeals process. 

Many individuals won’t be able to wait for appeals, however. Barr’s decision goes into effect immediately in immigration courts across the country and will be applied at border asylum screenings as well. Regardless of whether a court eventually find that the decision is wrong, asylum seekers today face an even higher bar to winning their cases than ever before. 

As more asylum seekers arrive at the border in 2019 than any previous year, we should be working on ensuring that our system provides full protections to anyone fleeing harm—not working to undermine the basic humanitarian protections that we have offered for decades. Barr’s decision takes us in the wrong direction. 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4358-Rolls-Back-Asylum-Protections-for-Families.html

Certain Detained Asylum Seekers Must Receive a Bond Hearing Within 7 Days

Written by Kristin Macleod-Ball 

Attorney General William Barr announced in April 2019 plans to eliminate bond hearings for immigrants who pass an asylum screening interview after entering the United States. This would have forced many people to remain incarcerated for months or years during their asylum proceedings. However, on Tuesday, a federal court recognized that this fundamental attack on due process is unconstitutional. 

A U.S. district court judge found that the government cannot lock up certain detained asylum seekers without giving a bond hearing before an immigration judge. The Seattle judge ordered that those hearings must take place within seven days of requesting one and that immigration courts must provide new legal protections at the hearings. 

This ruling comes after the Attorney General said, in a case called Matter of M-S-, that he would bar immigration courts from deciding whether to release certain asylum seekers held in immigration detention during their often-lengthy asylum proceedings. 

The district court’s recent decision in the Padilla v. ICE case protects these immigrants’ right to a bond hearing. It is set to go into effect on July 16. It applies nationwide to people who enter the United States between ports of entry, are put into a fast-tracked deportation process called expedited removal, and then pass an initial screening interview about their requests for asylum. The government is likely to ask a higher court to overturn the decision. 

In response to Tuesday’s decision, the White House issued a statement. The statement claims that the decision in Padilla would somehow “lead to the further overwhelming of our immigration system” and that amounted to the judge “[imposing] his or her open borders views on the country.” 

Unfortunately, this is merely more of the same from the Trump administration. The White House regularly sends out harmful, anti-immigrant rhetoric with no basis in fact and attacks the courts when judges uphold the Constitution. In reality, Tuesday’s decision simply protects against the Attorney General’s unlawful efforts to upend a half century of standard immigration court procedure by indefinitely and unnecessarily incarcerating asylum seekers. 

No one should be subject to arbitrary imprisonment while seeking asylum. This decision could protect many immigrants who would otherwise spend months or years locked up by the Department of Homeland Security simply because they are seeking protection in the United States.

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com  

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4294-Asylum-Seekers-Must-Receive-a-Bond-Hearing-Within-7-Days.html

The Government Ended An Effective And Less Costly Alternative To Immigration Detention

Written by Tory Johnson

Case management isn’t necessarily something you would think of in relation to the U.S. immigration system, but a few years ago—for the first time in more than a decade—officials chose to invest in a model of individualized case management to support families seeking protection in the United States – and it worked. 

A recent study from the Women’s Refugee Commission looked closely at the Family Case Management Program (FCMP) , highlighting crucial successes and limitations of the pilot program. Understanding the advantages of these options is all the more important now, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has grown its detention capacity —without congressional approval—in the last two years. 

ICE, the agency which oversaw the program, described FCMP as “first tend[ing] to the basic necessities when these families arrived, ensuring they had appropriate access to food, shelter, and medical care, so that they may be more ready and able to comply with immigration requirements.” 

Unfortunately, the Trump administration abruptly ended the program in June 2017—just one-and-a-half years after it began, and well short of its five-year contract. 

Despite its premature closure, the program provides important lessons about meaningful and viable alternatives to detention. 

WRC’s analysis, based on program documentation from the government and contractors, as well as interviews, provides several insights. Notably, the program was considered a “resounding success” by both ICE and Geo Cares, the company contracted to run the program. 

Here are five key points to know about the FCMP: 

1. In its short lifespan between January 2016-June 2017, FCMP served 952 families in five metropolitan areas. The program provided individualized case management services, assisting released families with access to medical, social, and legal services. This, in turn, also helped compliance with immigration requirements.

2. The estimated daily cost was $38 per family. This is a fraction of the cost of ICE detention—detaining a family of two in Dilley, Texas, costs taxpayers nearly $600 per day .

3. Families enrolled in FCMP had nearly perfect compliance. The program had compliance rates over 99% with both ICE check-ins and immigration court appearances. 

4. Final evaluations of the program by ICE and Geo Cares determined the program successfully supported stabilization in the community and compliance with immigration requirements—including removal. 

5. The FCMP provides a successful model for a program that can and should be scaled up, if done right. WRC found limitations with the program’s contracting model and would benefit in the future from working directly with experienced community-based organizations with the ties and connections needed to serve immigrant and refugee populations. 

According to the WRC, “with critical improvements and expansion, a program like the FCMP could serve many thousands more, save millions of dollars, and increase efficiency in an immigration system that desperately needs it.” 

In just over a year of the program, it proved to be a viable and successful option for helping asylum-seeking families navigate and comply with the immigration system. It can work again—hopefully our political leaders will see the benefits and reinvest in smart solutions. 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com  

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4280-Family-Case-Management-Program-FCMP.html

More Immigrants Requesting To Return To Their Countries Of Origin Under Threat Of Deportation

Written by Kristin Macleod-Ball

More immigrants facing deportation are requesting “voluntary departure” from the United States instead of fighting their cases in court. 

Voluntary departure is a process though which certain immigrants who the government is trying to deport in immigration court leave the United States without receiving a removal order. The number of applications for voluntary departure in fiscal year 2018 doubled from the previous year, according to new U.S. Department of Justice data. The increase in immigrants applying for voluntary departure began shortly after President Trump’s inauguration. 

Immigrants who receive voluntary departure orders are required to leave the United States, just like those ordered deported. However, they do not face all the same legal consequences—like bars to returning to the United States and the risk of lengthy criminal sentences if they come back without government authorization. If someone with a voluntary departure order does not leave the United States in a set time, they automatically receive a removal order. 

While the data doesn’t explain why more people are asking for voluntary departure, the increase comes at a time the Trump administration is making it harder to get a fair hearing in immigration court. For example, Department of Justice officials want more people to stay locked up during their immigration court proceedings and have made it more difficult for people to show they are entitled to asylum. 

Faced with more and more obstacles, some immigrants may give up on strong claims to stay in the United States to avoid spending months or years incarcerated in immigration detention while fighting deportation. 

Notably, not all immigrants facing deportation are eligible for voluntary departure. Many people who have criminal convictions are barred from receiving voluntary departure orders. For others, it is unaffordable: voluntary departure generally requires individuals to post a bond and pay for their own travel to their countries of origin. Individuals in these situations face an even harsher choice: whether to accept a removal order to get out of immigration detention or stay incarcerated. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4160-Immigrants-Requesting-to-Return-to-Their-Countries-of-Origin.html

Certain Detained Asylum Seekers Must Receive a Bond Hearing Within 7 Days, Judge Orders

Written by Kristin Macleod-Ball

Asylum seekers are often imprisoned in immigration detention for weeks or months before they can ask a judge to release them, even though they’re entitled to bond hearings. But this injustice may soon be corrected for some asylum seekers. 

On Friday, a U.S. district court judge ruled that certain detained asylum seekers must receive a bond hearing within seven days of requesting one. The Seattle judge also ordered that immigration courts must provide legal protections at the hearings. 

The ruling in the Padilla v. ICE case is a defeat for the Trump administration. It strikes a blow against the ongoing campaign to punish and deter migrants from seeking asylum. 

Judge Marsha J. Peckman ordered the immigration courts to: 

• Provide certain detained asylum seekers with a bond hearing within 7 days of requesting one.
• Put the burden of proof on the Department of Homeland Security—not the asylum seekers—to justify continued detention.
• Record or provide a transcript of the hearings.
• Issue a written decision that explains why an immigration judge decides to grant or deny bond at the time the decision is made.

The case is a nationwide class action brought by detained asylum seekers. The decision, which grants their motion for a preliminary injunction, applies to all detained asylum seekers who entered the United States between ports of entry and then passed an initial screening on their asylum claims called a credible fear interview. The American Immigration Council and Northwest Immigrant Rights Project represent the asylum seekers. 

This order could drastically change the situation of thousands of detained asylum seekers. Many would no longer need to wait for weeks or months to get a bond hearing. 

The order would also put in place important legal protections. Currently, even once they receive bond hearings, asylum seekers are at a disadvantage. They are often unable to gather evidence or obtain legal representation to help with their bond requests while behind bars. Yet, the courts still require they bear the burden of proof to show why they should be released. 

Under this system, asylum seekers also are often left in the dark about why their bond requests are denied. Bond hearings are not generally recorded. Judges also don’t have to explain in writing why they denied bond until after an immigrant has already appealed the decision. This creates serious problem for asylum seekers trying to appeal bond denials. 

These unfair practices leave many immigrants incarcerated during the entire, lengthy asylum process. Immigrants forced to stay in detention are less likely to succeed in their asylum cases. Some may even give up valid claims to remain in the United States to get out of unsafe detention conditions . 

The ruling is set to take effect within 30 days. However, the government could appeal the decision to a higher court or take other steps to prevent it from going into effect in those 30 days. 

This decision is still a first step towards ensuring asylum seekers have access to prompt, fair bond hearings.

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4103-Asylum-Seekers-Must-Receive-a-Bond-Hearing-Within-7-Days.html

Making Sense of the Rising Number of Families Arriving at the Border

Written by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

Over the past few months, a new trend has emerged at the U.S.-Mexico border: more families are crossing and presenting themselves to U.S. officials to ask for asylum. But even though the number of people crossing the border are still at historically low levels, the Trump administration alleges it is overwhelmed by the arrival of families. These changes in migration patterns have exposed Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) inability to respond in a humane and effective way. 

In February 2019, the Border Patrol apprehended 66,450 individuals after crossing the border. This number represented the largest number of arrests at the border in years. However, it was only 5,000 higher than a similar spike in overall arrivals in spring 2014. During that last spike, only 38 percent of people arriving at the border were families and unaccompanied children. Last month, that percent rose to nearly 65 percent—42,999 in total. 

This is the largest number of families apprehended at the border in one month since the government began keeping records in 2012. 

CBP border stations were originally created to receive, hold, and process single Mexican adults who were more quickly returned to their home country. In the past, many families were detained in these stations for days at a time, where they suffered freezing temperatures, lack of hygiene, and inadequate medical care. Many would then be transferred to family detention centers, where they were locked up with their children for weeks or months. 

But now that more than half of all border crossers are asylum-seeking families, in recent weeks the government has started to release families along the border, citing a lack of capacity. 

Government officials are not legally required to detain asylum-seeking families. Officials have always had the discretion to release or parole into the country those who come to the border with instructions to appear at an immigration court for a removal hearing at a later date. Yet CBP has presented its inability to hold everyone in detention as a crisis. 

Days after President Trump took office, he issued an executive order which required CBP to reduce the use of humanitarian parole. Following this executive order, CBP increased the use of detention at the border even for individuals who were not flight risks, partly to deter other families from coming. This inhumane practice caused concrete harm to those forced to remain in immigration custody for long periods of time. 

Although the agency claims to be overwhelmed, it has had to deal with large numbers of children and families in the past, including in 2014 and 2016. Instead of coming up with solutions to care for children its custody, CBP doubled down on detention and deterrence. By shifting to more readily releasing families now, the government is recognizing that it can’t detain its way out of the current situation and that release is a viable option. 

Most of the recently released families will end up appearing in immigration court and seeking protection, as is their right. By avoiding the use of detention, CBP is saving taxpayer money and choosing not to subject asylum seekers to harmful detention which deprives them of access to counsel and limits their ability to obtain relief. 

The rise in family apprehensions masks the reality that the border is more secure than ever. With Central Americans making up more than 90 percent of individuals apprehended crossing the border, the days of large numbers of Mexican immigrants coming across the border for work is almost gone. New studies show that with improving economic conditions and a resurgence in national pride, few Mexicans are interested in traveling to the United States.

Faced with these new migration patterns, the Trump administration must recognize that rising border apprehensions do not present the same challenges as in the past. To address the changes, the administration should invest in better infrastructure, including ensuring that families and children are not subjected to deplorable conditions while in CBP custody. 

Fuente: www.immigrationimpact.com/

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4086-Rising-Number-of-Families-Arriving-at-the-Border.html

Appeals Court Says Asylum Seekers May Now Challenge Their Deportation in Federal Court

Written by Emma Winger

Many asylum seekers who travel to the United States seeking protection often receive something much less—they are arrested by immigration officials and provided no meaningful way to challenge their deportation in federal court. 

Last week, in Thuraissigiam v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals became the first federal appeals court to say that depriving these asylum seekers of federal court review violated the U.S. Constitution. This decision adds a key level of protection for a vulnerable population currently under attack by the Trump administration. 

Because of their circumstances, asylum seekers are often unable to meet the legal requirements to enter the United States. If they lack proper documentation, they are forced into an expedited removal process. A single asylum officer decides whether their fear is credible and there is only a cursory review by an immigration judge. In Fiscal Year 2016, 41 percent of all deportations were through this expedited removal process. 

The process is deeply flawed. Immigration officers routinely violate even the minimal protections in place for asylum seekers in expedited removal proceedings. Immigration officers fail to inform migrants that they may seek asylum in the United States, do not inquire about their fear of persecution, provide inadequate interpretation, and fail to correctly record the results of the interview or explain the reasons for denying a claim. When an asylum seeker asks for review by an immigration judge, they often do not have an immigration attorney. 

Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, an asylum seeker from Sri Lanka, faced this flawed expedited removal process. In his case, the asylum officer and immigration judge failed to follow the required procedures and failed to apply the correct legal standards when they evaluated his fear claim. He tried to challenge it in federal court, but the district court held that it could not consider Mr. Thuraissigiam’s claims under the immigration laws. 

When he appealed that decision, the Ninth Circuit reversed it, concluding that the laws limiting federal court review violated the Suspension Clause. The court explained that the Suspension Clause—part of the original Constitution and therefore pre-dating even the Bill of Rights—was designed to protect access to the courts. This vital protection, available through habeas corpus proceedings, has been accessible to non-citizens as well as citizens in the United States since its founding. 

The court concluded that Mr. Thuraissigiam and other asylum seekers who raise similar procedural challenges to the expedited removal process have the right to challenge their expedited removal process in federal court. 

Though the government could ask for an additional review from a larger group of Ninth Circuit judges or take the case to the Supreme Court, the decision in this case is significant. For now, more asylum seekers may have their day in court, securing a vital protection and giving them an opportunity to challenge a rushed deportation process. 

Fuente: http://immigrationimpact.com/

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4062-Asylum-Seekers-May-Now-Challenge-Their-Deportation-in-Federal-Court.html

Number Of Undocumented Immigrants In US At A 25-Year Low

Written by Walter Ewing

Contrary to President Trump’s claim that “large-scale unlawful migration” across the southern border constitutes a “national emergency” that requires building a wall, research suggests that undocumented immigration across the U.S.-Mexico border is actually the lowest it’s ever been in the past 25 years. The Center for Migration Studies (CMS) has issued a report with this conclusion, which reinforces the findings of a similar report released by the Pew Research Center in November 2018. 

According to CMS, the total number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has decreased by one million since 2010 and now stands at about 10.7 million. At the same time, apprehensions at the border have dropped dramatically, falling from 1.6 million in 2000 to about 300,000 in 2017—a decline of more than 80 percent. These numbers would not seem to signal an “emergency” at the border. 

CMS also reports that from 2010 to 2016, about two thirds of new undocumented immigrants became undocumented by overstaying temporary visas, while only one third entered across the southern border without authorization. A wall is clearly not going to have an impact on visa overstays. 

According to the report, the undocumented population is shrinking mostly because there are more undocumented immigrants leaving the country than coming. Undocumented arrivals fell from 1.4 million in 2000 to about 550,000 in 2007 and have continued near that level. But the number of undocumented immigrants who left the country—either of their own volition or because they were deported—kept increasing and grew from 370,000 in 2000 to 770,000 in 2016. 

This is occurring despite the fact that the U.S. labor market is in reasonably good shape, meaning that the economic “pull” factors which have traditionally drawn undocumented immigrants to the United States are not exerting nearly as much force as they once did. CMS points to heightened immigration enforcement in the United States and improved economic conditions in Mexico as likely causes of this new pattern. 

CMS points out that the official statistics they use to estimate new undocumented arrivals are likely inflated to some degree by the erroneous inclusion of Central American asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are exercising a right recognized under international and domestic law to request safe haven in another country—meaning that they are not undocumented immigrants. But in official statistics, asylum seekers and the undocumented are frequently conflated with each other. 

The declaration of a “national emergency” at our southern border may be politically expedient for the Trump administration, but it has no basis in fact. Migratory pressures along the border are at all-time lows. 

Nevertheless, the situation of asylum seekers who are being stymied by the Trump administration in their quest to seek protection in the United States is a serious problem that must be addressed. But it is a problem that a wall is not going to fix.

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4039-number-of-undocumented-immigrants-in-United-States-decreases.html

2018 Closes On a Week Filled With Immigration Victories and New Challenges

Written by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

2018 proved that the only thing you can predict about the Trump administration’s immigration policy is it’s unpredictable. On Wednesday, two separate court decisions dealt blows to the Trump administration’s efforts to deter asylum seekers. On Thursday, the administration announced an unprecedented new plan to force asylum seekers to remain in Mexico, overturning current practices in use for decades And on Friday, the president held Congress hostage as he continued to threaten to shut down the government over $5 billion in border wall funding

The most recent rollercoaster began on Wednesday morning when a federal court in Washington, DC struck down part of former Attorney General Jeff Session’s efforts to prevent victims of domestic violence or gangs from receiving asylum. The ruling prevents the administration from applying the new limits at the credible fear interview stage, the initial screening for many asylum seekers apprehended at the border. However, the ruling did not prevent Sessions’ limits on asylum from being applied in affirmative asylum interviews or immigration court proceedings. 

Later on Wednesday, a federal judge in San Francisco issued a preliminary injunction in a case challenging the Trump administration’s asylum ban for individuals who entered the United States between ports of entry. The injunction extends a previous order which had halted the plan only days after it went into effect. On Friday afternoon, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to reject the Trump administration’s request to put the decision on hold, a further blow to the asylum ban. 

On Thursday morning, the Trump administration announced that it had taken yet another major action to halt asylum seekers from coming to the United States. It rolled out a new plan to return to Mexico those asylum seekers who arrive at U.S-Mexico border for the duration of immigration court proceedings in the United States. Details of the plan, including who it will apply to, how it will work, and where it will be used in Mexico, remain vague. 

Mexican officials expressed total surprise at the announcement, and many were wary about the effects the plan might have on border cities. One official in Tijuana told Buzzfeed News that “We don’t want that. It will create a huge problem for us.” However, the government of Mexico responded by announcing they would issue humanitarian visas and work permits to asylum seekers waiting for U.S. immigration court hearings. 

Finally, by the end of the week, the President made yet another surprising move to shut down the government over a bipartisan plan that would have funded the government into February without providing any additional money for a border wall. Despite declaring last week that he would take proud ownership of a government shutdown, on Friday morning the President instead tried to shift the blame to Democrats for voting against a bill that would provide an additional $5 billion to build a wall along the southern border. It is possible that a shutdown would continue through January 3rd, when Democrats take control of the House of Representatives. 

Rather than offering well-reasoned plans that can both survive court challenges and advance American prosperity, the administration remains relentlessly focused on obstructing asylum seekers and attacking the immigrant community. As we move into 2019, we should expect more of the same. But the time and energy spent on these efforts should instead be directed toward working with Congress to build legislative compromise to achieve what is best for the nation.

 

 

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/ 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3976-2018-a-year-of-immigration-victories-and-new-challenges.html

President Trump's Asylum Ban Is Illegal And Solves Nothing

Written by Royce Murray

In response to a much over-hyped caravan of migrants slowly trekking north through Mexico, the Trump administration announced new rules to block people from applying for asylum if they cross between the ports of entry along the Southern border. The rules take effect immediately, setting the stage for an utterly avoidable crisis that will put people’s lives at risk. 

The asylum ban was made through two bureaucratic steps. First, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice jointly published an interim regulation that creates a new bar to asylum. 

President Trump then issued an accompanying proclamation that applies to anyone who has entered the United States along the Southern border between the ports of entry. Those who defy the proclamation will be denied the opportunity to seek asylum. The change does not apply to individuals who enter between ports of entry on the Northern border or to unaccompanied children who enter without a parent. 

This asylum ban is illegal. 

U.S. law clearly states that any person who arrives in the United States—whether or not at a port of entry—can apply for asylum. 

Many individuals who enter between the ports of entry and seek asylum do so because their alternatives are limited. Some at imminent risk of grave harm are desperate to get protection from the closest possible place along the U.S. border—which may not be a port of entry. 

Although the proclamation directs asylum seekers to ports of entry, many who have tried to approach an official port of entry have been turned away or told that the port is full. This generates weeks-long waits in precarious conditions on the Mexico side of the border. Those who cannot afford the risk of waiting often cross between the ports and immediately present themselves to a DHS official to ask for asylum. 

Within hours of the proclamation’s announcement, advocates challenged the government’s issuance of the rules without providing the public advanced notice and an opportunity to comment on it, as well as the ways in which the asylum ban violates the clear letter of the law. 

It is legal to seek asylum. Congress clearly established that it is legal to do so between the ports of entry. No stroke of the presidential pen can change that. 

Instead of restricting asylum and placing people’s lives at risk, we have to strengthen pathways that allow for orderly migration and protection. Robust refugee processing will allow those fearing for their lives to apply from abroad and improved capacity of the Mexican asylum system will expand the availability of options. 

Until root causes of violence and instability that make people flee are fully addressed, we should expect that deterrence measures like these will not prevent people at risk from seeking safe haven. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3943-Asylum-Ban-Is-Illegal-And-Solves-Nothing.html