JACOB HAMBURGER AND STEPHEN YALE-LOEHR, June 3, 2023
"With the end of the COVID-19 emergency on May 11, the Title 42 border restrictions have been officially lifted. Although the situation at the...
Jorge Cancino, Univision, June 2, 2023
"The positions taken by lawyers from the Department of Justice (DOJ) show that, contrary to the campaign discourse and the one defended during the first months...
Weill Cornell Medicine, June 2, 2023
"Recent uncertainties regarding the legal status of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program underscore the urgency for policymakers to reassess...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 06/05/2023
"BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
America is more than a place; it is an idea...
Tim Balk, NY Daily News, June 2, 2023
"A Texas judge who ruled two years ago against the legality of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program heard oral arguments on Thursday in a high...
Comments on the Proposed Rule by DHS and EOIR on Circumvention of Lawful Pathways, CIS No. 2736-22; Docket No: USCIS 2022-0016; A.G. Order No. 5605-2023
Here is the comment by the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges. Key takeaway: "[T]he proposed rule exceeds the agencies’ authority by seeking to create a ban on asylum that contradicts Congressional intent and international law. As former Immigration Judges, we can confidently predict that the rule would result in individuals being erroneously deported even where they face a genuine threat of persecution or torture. We urge that the rule be withdrawn in its entirety."
Here is the comment by AILA and the AIC. Key takeaway: "The proposed rule amounts to an asylum transit ban—relying on transit countries that can neither ensure asylum seekers' safety nor meaningful access to a system that protects the human rights guaranteed under U.S. law. It further conditions access to asylum based on how asylum seekers enter the country. Furthermore, the proposed “core protections” and safeguards will not sufficiently protect access to asylum and other forms of humanitarian relief, particularly in light of our significant concerns surrounding its implementation and access to counsel. ... AILA and the Council urge the administration not to move forward with this proposed rule and to rescind the proposed rule."
Here is the comment by NIPNLG. Key takeaway: "NIPNLG is appalled that the agencies are seeking to reissue some of the worst regulations that were proposed under the Trump administration. The NPRM is designed to curtail the rights of asylum seekers in order to reduce the number of individuals who seek safety at the Southern Border. The administration should not abridge statutory rights and rights under international law in an effort to score political points. This rule resurrects Trump-era policies that have been found unlawful. Moreover, it represents a stark departure from President Biden’s commitment to restoring faith in our immigration system and in addressing historic problems of racial equity."
Here is the comment by CGRS. Key takeaway: "[W]e recommend that the Rule be withdrawn and fully reconsidered in light of U.S. and international law, in the collaborative process called for in Executive Order 14010.1 But to ensure that our response is noted in relation to the specific prompt, our answer to the question of whether the Rule appropriately provides migrants a meaningful and realistic opportunity to seek protection is: No."
Here is the comment by SPLC. Key takeaway: "SPLC urges EOIR and DHS to withdraw the Proposed Rule in its entirety and ensure that a full and fair asylum system is made accessible to all those who seek refuge in the United States."