Immigration Policy Update
By Emily Smith
There is a lot in the news these days about immigration, and it can be hard to follow or know exactly is happening. What has been made into law? What happens when a policy is challenged? How does this impact RILA clients? Here, I break down a few changes in immigration policies and the possible effects they have on immigrants, many of whom are seeking refuge in the United States.
A big one that has been in the news over the past year is The Migration Protection Protocols (MPP), also known as the Remain in Mexico Policy. The MPP was implemented on January 25, 2019. This is a U.S. Government action whereby certain foreign individuals entering or seeking admission at the U.S.-Mexico border without proper documentation may be returned to Mexico to wait outside the U.S. for the duration of their U.S. immigration proceedings. The group of “certain foreign individuals” that are being returned to Mexico is not strictly defined. Rather, who is “in” and who is “out” of this group is more or less decided by U.S. government officials on a case-by-case basis. Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) are not supposed to be subject to the MPP. This policy was challenged in the 9th Circuit Court, and the case is pending until the 9th Circuit Court issues a ruling. While it is pending in court, the policy remains in effect, and numerous immigrants continue to wait in Mexico.
A few RILA clients have family members who have been sent to Mexico to await their hearings. As far as we know, none of them have been able to return to the United States to attend their hearings. Since the MPP has been in place, less than 1% of immigrants in Mexico waiting for their hearings have been granted relief in immigration court. This is largely due to the significant barriers imposed by the policy such as access to legal representation (fewer than 5% of immigrants waiting in Mexico have a lawyer), and the dangerous conditions in Mexico that force people to abandon their cases. The Mexican border state of Tamaulipas has been classified by the State Department to be as dangerous as Syria.
Another policy that has been prominent in the news is the Third-Country Transit Ban. This places further restrictions or limitations on eligibility for those seeking asylum in the United States by adding a new bar to eligibility for asylum. These regulations prevent any asylum seeker who enters or attempts to enter at the U.S.-Mexico border from being eligible for asylum unless they applied for asylum in a country of transit along the way and were denied asylum in that other country. This was first implemented on July 16, 2019, and affected anyone arriving at the U.S.-Mexico Border from that day forward.
On November 19, 2019, in the case Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Wolf before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting those who arrived at the border before July 16 who were “metered” from being subjected to the third-country transit ban. “Metering” is a process that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security uses to limit the number of asylum seekers it accepts for inspection and processing at U.S. ports of entry. Asylum seekers who are “metered” are forced to wait in Mexico under the MPP.
An emergency stay was granted on December 20, 2019, related to individuals subjected to metering. This means that the Third-country Transit Ban continues to apply to those who were put on a metering list before July 16, 2019. Litigation is pending.
RILA has only seen one client who has entered the country after July 16, 2019, and he arrived without a parent and was therefore classified as a UAC. If the policy does not change, RILA’s intakes will likely drop off dramatically by summer. However, we will continue to see new clients, as about a third of our clients come to us after they’ve been in the U.S. for over a year.
One of our client’s wife and daughters were attempting to flee to the U.S. because they were in danger and afraid for their lives in their home country. They were turned back at the Mexico/Guatemala border and were told by Mexican officials that they would have to apply for asylum in Mexico. However, they knew they would not be safe in Mexico, so they were forced to return to their home country to live in hiding.
There have long been federal laws declaring that non-citizens must not pose a public charge risk to the U.S., and this is called the Public Charge Rule. Being a public charge means that a person is unable to take care of his/herself and would likely become a burden to the U.S. public. On August 12, 2019 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) proposed to expand the factors used to determine if someone may be considered a be a public charge. These new factors included: if a person relies on (or is likely to rely on) housing assistance, food assistance, Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, or other such programs.
The new rule was supposed to go into effect in October, but was blocked by lower courts. On January 27, 2020, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to let the rule go into effect while it continues to make its way through the courts.
Many RILA clients are concerned about this and have contacted us to ask if they will be ineligible for asylum if they enroll their children in Medicaid. Fortunately, this rule does not apply to asylum seekers, so our clients are excluded from the restrictions.
There are many more changes and proposed changes to immigration policy, including fee increases and changes to work permit eligibility. Some of these could have devastating effects on most RILA clients, if passed. Like other advocates and immigration legal aid non-profit organizations, RILA is paying close attention to these issues and their potential and realized consequences in the lives of our immigrant neighbors.
RILA staff is always happy to chat and answer questions about immigration policy if you are curious! Join with us in praying for justice, righteousness and compassion to be the foundation of U.S. immigration laws and policies.