RSN Fundraising Banner
In Immigration Courts, It Is Judges vs. Justice Department
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=49088"><span class="small">Liz Robbins, The New York Times</span></a>   
Sunday, 09 September 2018 08:35

Robbins writes: "As the Trump administration pursues a hard-line policy on immigration, it is facing resistance from an unexpected quarter - judges who rule on whether immigrants will be deported or be allowed to stay in the country."

George Chew, left, and Peggy McManus are part of an unusually large group of New York immigration judges who have retired over the last 15 months. (photo: Kholood Eid/NYT)
George Chew, left, and Peggy McManus are part of an unusually large group of New York immigration judges who have retired over the last 15 months. (photo: Kholood Eid/NYT)


In Immigration Courts, It Is Judges vs. Justice Department

By Liz Robbins, The New York Times

09 September 18

 

s the Trump administration pursues a hard-line policy on immigration, it is facing resistance from an unexpected quarter — judges who rule on whether immigrants will be deported or be allowed to stay in the country.

Immigration judges are objecting to a series of policy and personnel changes that their bosses at the Justice Department say are aimed at speeding up the immigration courts, which as of the end of June had a backlog of 732,730 cases, 94,871 of them in New York, according to the department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review.

Some judges, including those in the New York courts, interpret the new policies, which include quotas on how many cases they must hear, as an attempt to control their decision-making.

READ MORE

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+1 # Texas Aggie 2018-09-09 16:09
So in the absence of any evidence provided by the government that the applicant doesn't deserve asylum, the obvious solution is to grant asylum and go onto the next case.