Rushing Immigration Court Cases Through ‘Rocket Dockets’ Deprives Families Of Due Process

In an attempt to rush through immigrant families’ court cases, the government began implementing “rocket dockets” in September 2018 for parents and children who had recently entered the United States together without authorization. The program is intended to discourage Central American families from coming to the United States by quickly deporting those already here. But by drastically shortening the timeline of the court process, the dockets prevent many asylum-seeking families from accessing a meaningful day in court. 

As of June 2019, over 56,000 cases were on these dockets in 10 cities around the country. 

Some immigrant families are only given a matter of weeks to find a lawyer and prepare their cases, and many attorneys report that expedited cases are scheduled too quickly to prepare well. This compressed timeline increases the chances that a family will have to navigate our complex immigration detention and removal system without an attorney. Those who go into court with no representation are much more likely to lose their cases .

Additionally, judges are under increasing pressure to close cases due to strict completion quotas . This adds more incentive to rush through cases at the expense of due process. 

While testifying before Congress in June, acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan claimed that the majority of families did not show up for court. But in fact, 86% of families released from detention attended their hearings from 2001 to 2016. 

Rocket dockets are unnecessary to ensure that people attend their immigration hearings. Immigrant families are generally eager to attend their hearings. These hearings are the only way for them to obtain permanent protections in the United States. The consequences of missing a hearing are also exceptionally high. Immigration judges are generally required to issue in absentiaremoval orders when someone fails to appear. 

Most families who miss court do so by accident. Often, the government has failed to notify them properly. In 2018, judges overturned 44 of 46 in absentia removal orders. The families in those cases had not received notice of their hearing or presented “extraordinary circumstances” for missing court. Thousands of hearing notices arrived after the hearing or to the incorrect address. Others included a date that doesn’t exist , a date on which the court was closed, or no date at all. 

There are meaningful and more effective alternatives available to these rocket dockets. 

To increase court appearances, the Trump administration could restart the Family Case Management Program (FCMP). This program provided individualized comprehensive help to families in five cities at a cost of only $38 per day for a family of two, compared to $592 for family detention . FCMP had a 99% success rate for compliance with court hearings and ICE appointments, but the government nevertheless ended it in June 2017. 

Other simple methods like text or email reminders about hearing dates have proven effective. 

The administration said it aims to discourage parents from traveling with children. To do this, they could reinstate the Central American Minors Program . This program allowed certain children with parents with legal status in the United States to apply as refugees. Hope of a legal path to the United States later may prevent parents from bringing them on the dangerous initial journey.

Instead of fast-tracking the court process, immigration courts should give these families the chance to prepare their cases. The opportunity to seek asylum is an American value—these programs would help restore that value. 

Source: immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4386-Rushing-Immigration-Court-Cases-Through.html

The Trump Administration’s Proposed “Mixed Status” Housing Rule Is Another Form of Family Separation

The world has watched in horror as migrant families have been forcibly separated, placed into camps, and subjected to the cruel conditions of detention, as part of the Trump administration’s sustained assault on immigrant rights. The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) proposed “mixed status” rule is yet another form of family separation, with clear negative implications for survivors of domestic violence. That’s why today the ACLU, ACLU of California and other state affiliates filed public comments condemning the proposed rule, joining the ranks of the National Housing Law Project,, National Low Income Housing Coalition, and countless other advocates.

On May 10, 2019, HUD proposed a rule that will effectively evict tens of thousands of immigrant families, and jeopardize housing subsidies for millions of U.S. citizens. HUD’s new rule will ban “mixed-status” families — comprised of household members who are both eligible and ineligible for federal housing assistance — from living in public housing and Section 8 programs, even though assistance is already prorated, or decreased, to exclude ineligible members. Based on HUD’s own analysis, the new rule will threaten housing for 25,000 mixed-status families — including over 55,000 children who are U.S. citizens or green card holders. The proposed rule will also impose burdensome documentation requirements on over 9 million residents who receive housing subsidies, which will disproportionately impact low-income residents, >people of color, >Black individuals, >people with disabilities, and elderly Americans. 

Importantly, being “ineligible” for federal housing assistance does not always mean that a resident is undocumented. For example, domestic violence survivors who have U-Visas — which provide victims of abuse and other crimes with temporary immigration status — are not eligible for such assistance and will face eviction if HUD’s proposed rule is finalized. This new rule will be particularly devastating for survivors like Margarita, who are the sole providers for “eligible” children. After fleeing abuse in Mexico and the U.S. and battling homelessness for nearly a decade, Margarita was overjoyed when she and her children were finally able to move into a public housing apartment last year. Now Margarita fears that HUD’s proposed rule will force her family into homelessness yet again. As recognized by Congress in its enactment of the Violence Against Women Act, access to stable housing is critical to the wellbeing of domestic violence survivors and their families. HUD’s new rule would erect greater obstacles to such access, destabilizing families as they attempt to escape violence. 

If finalized, HUD’s new rule will force affected families to make an agonizing choice: either break up to allow eligible members to keep their benefits — a decision that the agency itself characterizes as “ruthless” — or forgo assistance to allow the family to stay together. Recognizing the impossibility of this choice, HUD’s own analysis predicts that the very “fear of the family being separated would lead to prompt evacuation by most mixed households.” 

No matter the decisions of “mixed-status” families, the consequences are grave. Forcing family members to live separately inflicts significant harm, promotes distrust of government actors, and discourages those in need from seeking assistance. For the majority of families that choose instead to forgo benefits, the housing instability prompted by the proposed rule will be costlyand may even result in temporary homelessness. Involuntary displacement frequently leads to employment loss, loss of material possessions, and lasting health issues, including substance abuse. Moreover, evicted families, often headed by women of color, will struggle to find stable housing as they are rooted out by landlord screening policies that force these individuals to seek substandard housing elsewhere or risk homelessness. 

Moreover, HUD’s proposed rule is administratively unwise. By HUD’s own analysis, the implementation of the new rule will cost between $193 to $227 million every year. This increased cost is associated with providing non-prorated housing subsidies to fully eligible families that take the place of mixed-status families. HUD also predicts that the proposed rule will diminish both quantity andquality of public housing. At a time when the Trump administration is threatening to slash the HUD budget, the move to inflate housing assistance resources is nonsensical, and suggests ulterior motives. 

Perhaps the most damning feature of HUD’s proposed rule is that it simply isn’t justified. HUD claims that the new rule is necessary to prevent undocumented residents from receiving federal aid and assistance, in accordance with Section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980. But the law already prevents ineligible immigrants from receiving HUD funds. Indeed, Section 214 explicitly authorizes a family’s housing subsidy to be prorated to account for ineligible household members. The true motivation behind this rule was clarified by HUD Secretary Ben Carson on May 21, who noted that this proposal would allow Congress “to engage in comprehensive immigration reform.” The proposed rule has never been about conforming with Section 214 — this is about engendering fear into immigrant communities. 

As the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant agenda encroaches on the home, we cannot sit idly as our government attempts to make the most intimate arena of life as inhospitable to immigrants as the rest of our country. Today, we speak out against family separation in the home, just as we have in the case of family separation on the border. We urge HUD to immediately withdraw the proposed rule and advance housing policies that strengthen—not undermine—the ability of families to access stable, affordable housing.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4321-Mixed-Status-other-Form-of-Family-Separation.html

UnidosUS Supports New DACA/TPS Holder Relief Legislation

On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee began the markup process on H.R. 2820 (“Dream Act of 2019”), H.R. 2821 (“American Promise Act of 2019”), and H.R. 549 (“Venezuelan TPS Act of 2019”).

The first two bills would provide people who currently have DACA or TPS a pathway to citizenship if they meet certain requirements. The third would provide temporary protected status to Venezuelans, who have been forced to flee their homes due to political instability. 

The House Judiciary Committee will be marking several bills, including: H.R. 2820, also known as the “Dream Act of 2019”; H.R. 2821, also known as the “American Promise Act of 2019”; and H.R. 549, also known as the ‘‘Venezuela TPS Act of 2019.’’ The measures, originally introduced by Congresswomen Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) and Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), respectively, provide a path for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and individuals who are in the country under temporary protected status (TPS) to earn citizenship status by meeting certain requirements. 

“Today as the House begins the process of marking up these bills, we urge members to support the measures that would offer relief to so many immigrant families currently living in limbo. Families whose lives have been put on hold because they are unsure if they will lose their legal status from one day to the next. They’ve been placed in a position to wonder if they can pursue their dreams to further their education, or invest in getting a home for their families, not knowing if they or a loved one would be forced to leave the country at any given moment. We should be putting families in a position to succeed and flourish, not creating an atmosphere of fear and insecurity,” said UnidosUS President and CEO Janet Murguía. 

As noted in a UnidosUS statement submitted for the Congressional record, nearly 500,000 American children are at risk of being separated from a parent if Congress fails to address the status of DACA and TPS recipients. This type of family separation causes irreparable harm to children’s development in the areas of health, education, and financial stability, according to a recently released UnidosUS report. 

In addition, providing relief for these populations has wide support. The vast majority of Americans (83%) across the political spectrum support a permanent solution for DREAMers. DREAMers alone contribute $42 billion in annual GDP, and recent data estimate that TPS holders from El Salvador, Honduras and Haiti contribute $4.5 billion in pre-tax wages to our country’s GDP. 

“We are incredibly grateful to Congresswoman Roybal-Allard for her leadership and tenacity in authoring and shepherding this measure forward, and we urge the Congress to vote in favor of the bill that will allow thousands of families to pursue their American dream without a cloud of fear and uncertainty hanging over them,” Murguía said. 

 

Source: www.unidosus.org 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4184-New-DACA-TPS-Holder-Relief-Legislation.html