In the interest of processing the millions of assylum claims from the recent immigration crisis, my proposal is to empower US citizens to adjudicate the open backlog. This would be similar to how election judges are appointed for a day to adjudicate election issues at the precinct.
Qualified US citizens would be required to complete a training program on the specifics of asylum law in the US, again similar to the training required to be an election judge. Once this training has been completed, the trained citizen will be qualified to hear asylum claims from non-citizens and render a decision.
Here is the proposed decision tree:
Temporary immigration judge finds the claim has merit. This would put the asylum seeker into a path to be seen by a permanent immigration judge to determine next steps.
Temporary immigration judge finds the claim does not have merit. This would put the asylum seeker on the list to be deported. The asylum seeker can re-apply under the normal process after deportation.
Temporary immigration judge finds the claim needs more information. This would require the asylum seeker to re-appear before the temporary immigration judge, at which time the judge would place the asylum seeker on the paths above.
This process would allow the millions of asylum seekers to have their day in court, while relieving the pressure on the current immigration system.
If the party is deported, then can re-apply to come back. If the party is not deported, they will still need to appear in front of a “normal” immigration judge in order to remain in the US.
This is a “ween out” step that will take stress off the system and make lead times for adjudication much shorter.
Seems really unfair in once scenario in particular:
Hypothetically, I’m an honest hard working man who brought my wife and 3 children to the US to escape the cartels and accomodating violence and sexual abuse running rampant in my own country. I’ve established my family in the US for 5 years now, and have a job, my kids are in school, and we’ve all worked hard to get where we are.
Along comes a conplete stranger, who motivated by a sense of political power unjustly decides my entire family should be uprooted, and sent back to a life of violence.
My only recourse is a lengthly appeal process, that takes place only after I’ve been deported, and my life ruined.
Remember, in your scenario, the first act as a potential US citizen was to break the law of illegal entry into the US.
Yes, the only process available to this hypothetical person would be the lengthy appeal process, which would likely match the time required to acquire US citizenship in the legal manner.
Ask those who legally gained US citizenship how long it took. You will hear many years as the response.
Agreed, but I can’t morally judge those who broke a non-enforced law to spare their family violence, and seek a better life. I would do the same.
Illegal immigrants who are not breaking laws currently, have no criminal record in their home countries, and who aren’t on government subsidies, pose no threat to this nation, and should be given the opportunity to legitimize their citizenship.
There is already a process at the port of entry that an asylum seeker has to go through to determine if they meet the criteria to be an asylum seeker. It is conducted by border patrol and immigration. Most who seek asylum do not make it through the initial screening process which has multiple steps and stages. This process that is already in place can use some updating as well as an increase in people who conduct and decide if the criteria is met to be considered for asylum status. Once someone has met the criteria then they are given a case number which provides to them temporary immigration legal status to be in the USA until their case is adjudicated in the asylum court.
The reality is that we are a signer to the Geneva Convention so we are bound by that treaty. Banning immigration for 10 years still requires Congress so your two step process doesn’t make sense practically if it violates the Geneva Convention treaty and Immigration has not been updated since the 1980’s. Congress updating immigration laws is possible to get done. What they decide to do may not match what you think should be done.
We know based on data from the Border Patrol that most asylum seekers are not vetted or are loosely vetted. American citizens go through more vetting when they fly on a commercial airplane.
My suggestion is to take those court cases and place them through an initial process to ween out the false asylum claims.
Banning immigration is not feasible. America is a melting pot of people from varied backgrounds, which is what makes our country the greatest in the world.
We need to get back to vetting immigration candidates with vigor.