Mediaboss Marketing

There is growing concern over the large number of foreign nationals without legal status in Japan who are locked up in detention facilities for years as their cases play out. Former immigration official Kinoshita Yichi argues that Japans ambiguous immigration laws allow officials to arbitrarily decide who is incarcerated and who gets permission to stay.

After an early career that included probing into the Aum Shinriky terrorist attack for the Public Security Intelligence Agency, Kinoshita Yichi moved to the Immigration Bureau (now the Immigration Services Agency) in the spring of 2001. Later that year, the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States set alarm bells ringing in agencies around the world.

Suddenly, we were forced to confront the threat of terrorism on a daily basis, Kinoshita recounts. I think everyone in the Immigration Bureau felt a genuine sense of alarm, myself included. Although he says he did not feel particularly passionate about his job, he admits he recognized the danger and took his duties seriously. I could see that letting just anyone into the country risked inadvertently allowing a terrorist to slip in too, potentially exposing the country to an attack.

Kinoshita initially worked in the Verification Department of the bureau. Basically, I was responsible for making sure that the details in a persons application checked out. If an applicant claimed to be married, to work at a certain location, or to have their own business, Kinoshita would go out to the addresses provided and check if this was really the case. After a stint at Haneda Airport, Kinoshita from 2006 spent three years in the Adjudication Department as an immigration inspector. It was this experience that made him feel increasingly uncomfortable with the way the immigration system worked.

I dont have any problem with carrying out strict checks on foreign nationals for the sake of maintaining peace and public order, he declares. But the fact is that most of the people who overstay their visas are living quiet lives and minding their own business in a little corner of society somewhere. In many cases, they have been in Japan for so many years that they no longer have a strong connection to their home countries. I found it difficult to watch dispassionately when children born and raised in Japan were forcefully deported to countries they might never have seen before, simply because their parents were in the country illegally.

Kinoshita joined the Adjudication Department while it was in the second year of a plan to halve the number of people in the country illegally within five years. He notes that there was more transparency in the bureau then than at any other time. If a person was married to a Japanese citizen, they were almost certain to be granted special permission to stay in Japan [officially issued at the discretion of the minister of justice]. As for minors, children up to elementary school age were deported, even if theyd been born in Japan, while permission to remain was normally granted for children in junior high and above. The idea was that children in elementary school were still young enough to adapt to life in their parents countries, and thats where the line in making decisions was drawn. Even if an officer had doubts about the policy, at least it was clear and made some kind of sense.

Kinoshita was startled to find that the situation had drastically changed when he returned to the section in 2016 after several years in other departments. For example, some people married to Japanese citizens would be granted special permission to remain, while others would be denied. It was impossible to know what standards were being used to make these decisions. It was like a black box.

In 2006, the Ministry of Justice published its Guidelines on Special Permission to Stay in Japan, establishing a number of positive factors to be taken into consideration in applications. These included marriage to a Japanese citizen or permanent resident and a family relationship with children based on long-term settlement in Japan. However, Kinoshita argues that immigration agents do not set much store by them. They view them merely as guidelines and not legally binding, he says. I think the main priority of these officials is to steadfastly preserve their prerogative to decide everything with a free hand. He insists that they willfully refuse to acknowledge the guidelines as formal standards, even though it was their own bureau that drew them up in the first place. Theyre afraid that if the guidelines become legally binding, they will lose their discretion to decide things as they see fit.

In 2017, Kinoshita decided to go to graduate school to study law in an attempt to get to the bottom of the uneasiness he was feeling about his job. Focusing his research on administrative discretionary powers, he looked at the decisions in cases that had gone to trial, comparing those that the state had won against those where rulings went in favor of plaintiffs. He wanted to understand how decisions were made and find legal evidence that would back up the authority of the immigration bureau. Instead, his doubts only grew. After completing his masters, he decided to resign from the bureau. Today, he continues to campaign for reform, organizing study groups and seminars with the aim of highlighting problems with the countrys immigration system and encouraging change.

What normally happens when a person staying in the country illegally is apprehended, and how is a decision reached on whether the person should be given special permission to stay in Japan?

Kinoshita says there are several stages, the first of which is for an immigration control officer to investigate whether there has been a violation of immigration law. After this initial step, the case then goes to an immigration inspector. If the foreign national agrees to leave Japan, a deportation order is issued. If the individual applies for special permission to remain in the country, however, there is another hearing, this time carried out by a special inquiry officer. At the end of the process, the minister of justice makes a formal decision to either deport the individual or grant him or her special permission to stay.

The law, though, does not establish strict criteria for immigration officials to follow in processing a case. In practice, officials interview an applicant and compile a report detailing the reasons why the person wishes to continue to reside in Japan. But Kinoshita points out that the way reports are written varies depending on the official, and that the final decision, although theoretically made by the minister of justice, is in practice left to the prerogative of the head of the regional immigration bureau handling the case. In other words, whether a person is granted special permission to stay in Japan or not depends entirely on the personal feelings and whims of the official who happens to be heading up the local agency.

The government recently shelved an immigration reform bill that it had argued would have made these decisions more transparent. Kinoshita, however, says the proposed legislation fails to address the issues adequately.

The current process aims to establish that a person is in the country illegally. In that sense, you could say its a positive step that the government wants to shift to a system based on the idea of applying for special permission to stay from the outset. But its impossible to know how decisions will be made. Will it be a cautious, several-step process? How would a person apply? Who gets to carry out the hearings? The bill left all these details up in the air. Or more precisely, they would be determined according to the regulations of the Ministry of Justice. In other words, everything would still be left to the internal rules of the Immigration Services Agency. In the end, the proposals would have done nothing to address the fundamental problem of a basic lack of transparency in the decision-making process.

He says a more straightforward approach would be to make the guidelines that already exist legally binding, but emphasizes that immigration authorities would never support such a move. The bill contains provisions relating to special permission to stay, and at a glance appear to resolve the issue. In fact, though, the provisions are more or less meaningless. They identify various factors like family circumstances, the applicants conduct, and details of entry into Japan to be considered when deciding whether to grant permission to stay, but its just a list. Determining the standards to be applied based on these factors is the most important component of the decision-making process and the provisions do not address this point. One section of the proposed revision (to the immigration law) stipulates that consideration will be given to situations in Japan and abroad and to the potential impact on the unauthorized immigrant, but this in effect gives immigration officials a free hand to decide things as they like.

Kinoshita recognizes that not all foreign nationals who resist deportation orders have valid reasons preventing them from returning to their home countries, and that the Japanese public would disapprove of any move to allow such individuals to remain unconditionally, anyway. However, he insists that when talking about the tragedy of endless deportation battles and long-term detention, it is wrong to place all the blame on the side of the foreign national who refuses to accept a deportation order. Given the lack of clarity about standards for determining the immigration status of a foreign national who has overstayed a visa and the general lack of transparency in the system, it should come as no surprise that many individuals refuse to meekly accept the decision of the authorities. If they ask why their application to remain in Japan has been refused, they just get the pat answer that the decision was based on a comprehensive appraisal. If they push for more details, theyre then told that no further response can be given. I know what its like because Ive had to make similar statements myself.

Detainees mill around the detention center at the Tokyo Regional Immigration Bureau in a photo from 2016. ( Reuters)

The proposed revisions to the immigration law make it easier to deport people by changing the regulations on applications for asylum. At the moment, a deportation order is effectively suspended if the person in question applies for refugee status. The proposed amendments to the law would limit the number of appeals that can be made and make applicants subject to deportation after applying for refugee status a third time. Applicants from some countries would face the additional requirement of going to the embassy of their home country to obtain a passport, a condition meant to apply pressure on the foreign national and speed up the deportation process.

Its certainly true that the present system makes it extremely difficult to deport an individual. Theres no limit to the number of times a person can apply for refugee status, so cases can drag on almost indefinitely. Certainly, people in some cases simply apply for refugee status as a way of avoiding deportation. Its a complicated problem and its easy to understand why the government wants to address the situation by placing limits on the number of times a person can apply. But this would have a catastrophic effect on some individuals. Kinoshita points to the many Kurds and Rohingya who have repeatedly applied for asylum in Japan only to have their applications denied each time. Clearly, not every person who submits multiple applications is looking to exploit the system.

The draft revisions are based on recommendations submitted in June 2020 by a government panel of experts on detention and deportation issues. The panel suggested that third-party checks should be required if the authorities wanted to start the deportation process after the third application for refugee status, but the proposed revisions omit this. In a criminal case, the police, prosecutor, and court each handle different stages of the case. With immigration, the same bureau handles all three roles, a fundamental problem that the draft revisions failed to address.

Aside from the proposed reforms, Kinoshita says that existing procedures for recognizing refugee status are at least somewhat better than those for dealing with individuals who have overstayed their visa. There is a system for appeals through a refugee examination counselor. So even if the primary adjudication doesnt grant refugee status, an applicant can move onto a secondary consideration of their case. But immigration authorities are still in charge of selecting and appointing the examination counselor and they are the ones who oversee cases. From the applicants perspective, the decision ultimately remains within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice.

Kinoshita says that as there is no institution in place to check the decisions of the immigration agency, even foreign nationals working legally in Japan have no recourse except to bring a legal case if immigration authorities decline to renew their visa for any reason. However, Japanese law grants broad discretionary powers to government ministries and agencies, and rulings are made in favor of the state in around 98% of cases that go to court.

Several recent high-profile cases involving the long-term detention of foreign nationals facing deportation have made national headlines and led to widespread outrage. One detainee starved to death after going on hunger strike to protest his conditions, and there have been allegations of violence and maltreatment by immigration officials. In March this year, a Sri Lankan woman died in the immigration detention center in Nagoya. The government came in for harsh criticism from opposition parties over its handling of immigration and asylum issues, prompting it to abandon plans to get its proposed revisions to immigration law passed in the current session of the Diet.

I think a lot of immigration officials are well aware that the current situation is far from ideal. When I was still at the agency, my colleagues and I often talked about things that struck us as strange. But as the law doesnt provide any clear guidance, even if officials feel uncertain about the screenings and the decisions they make, they have no alternative but to get on with their work the best they can in spite of any reservations about the way the system is being run.

Kinoshita says that this leads to physical and mental exhaustion. Most officials arent in favor of indefinite detention. Even the report by the governments advisory panel noted the high numbers of officials who quit their jobs because of the heavy physical and mental stress of working with detainees and the deportation process. The current situation involves suffering for everyone, officials included. At the risk of sounding overly negative, I think the proposed revisions would do nothing to improve the situation, at least as far as the burden on immigration officials is concerned, and could even wind up making matters worse.

Asked what he thinks should be done, Kinoshita declares: There needs to be more transparency. As long as the bureau has sole authority over immigration cases, appeals, and detention decisions, without any involvement by courts or third parties, the black-box situation will remain unchanged. The same is true of provisional release. It is absurd that there are actually people with no legal residential status who have remained on provisional release for long stretches, a decade or more in some cases. If people are going to be granted provisional release, the government should at least legalize their status rather than letting them languish in limbo year after year. Once their status is regularized, people can work to support themselves and pay taxes. The standards for regularizing legal status should be made clear in law.

(Originally published in Japanese, based on an interview by Itakura Kimie of Nippon.com. Banner photo: Kinoshita Yichi, campaigner for immigration law reform. Courtesy of Kinoshita Yichi.)

Read more from the original source:
Japan Needs to Reform its Black Box Approach to Immigration Law - Nippon.com

Last year, a Senate version of the bill was reported favorably by the Joint Committee on Transportation on a party-line vote. But it was never taken up on the floor of either chamber.

In this two-year session, which began in January, proponents of the measure hope the early hearing held Wednesday afternoon will be a first step towards passage.

Advocates say allowing undocumented people to obtain a license will improve roadway safety and help immigrants by providing them an official ID along with the ability to drive legally.

But the bills opponents argue that those who entered the US illegally shouldnt be granted an official state license, and warn the measures passage could lead to fraud.

Identical House and Senate bills filed in January would strike language barring undocumented immigrants from obtaining a license. The bills would prevent the Registry of Motor Vehicles from asking a license applicant about their immigration status.

Under the bill, in order to obtain a license, immigrants would need to meet all other existing licensure requirements and show proof of identity, date of birth, and Massachusetts residency.

Unlike previous versions of the proposal, the bill introduced this session includes language specifying what documents are needed in order to obtain a license, rather than leaving it to the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles. Immigrants without legal status in the US would be able to provide proof of identity and date of birth with a foreign passport or consular identification document that is no more than five years expired or a combination of other documents.

Representative Tricia Farley-Bouvier, another lead sponsor of the House legislation, testified Wednesday that the changes came following a great deal of work with the Massachusetts Major City Chiefs of Police Association, which has backed the bill.

An estimated 43,000 to 78,000 undocumented people would get licensed within the first three years of the laws enactment, according to a 2020 report by the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. Estimates from the Migration Policy Institute say the state is home to more than 200,000 undocumented people.

Lawmakers have been trying to pass similar legislation since at least 2003.

I definitely feel like this is the year for the bill, said Dlida Rocha, the political director at 32BJ SEIU and the co-chair of the Driving Families Forward Coalition, which has been advocating for the drivers license proposal for several sessions.

Democratic leaders in both chambers, who control what bills are brought to the floor, have expressed openness to the measure. In a statement to the Globe, Senate President Karen E. Spilka wrote that she supports the idea behind the Work and Family Mobility Act.

. . .Individuals and families deserve to feel safe, and drivers licenses for all qualified state residents is good for our economy and public safety, she said.

A spokesperson for House Speaker Ronald Mariano, who assumed the gavel in December, pointed to a March statement in which the Quincy Democrat said he recognized the value in bringing all drivers under the same public safety, licensing and insurance structures, but stopped short of endorsing the measure.

Farley-Bouvier said at a press conference before the hearing Wednesday that Mariano requested that the Transportation Committee co-chairs schedule an early hearing on the legislation.

But the Legislature may need a veto-proof majority to make the proposal law. Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker has opposed similar proposals in the past.

Governor Baker supports existing laws in Massachusetts, enacted on a bipartisan basis, that ensure Massachusetts compliance with federal REAL ID requirements and enable those who demonstrate lawful presence in the United States to obtain a license, Bakers press secretary, Terry MacCormack, said in a statement on Monday.

State Senator Joseph A. Boncore, the co-chair of the Transportation Committee and a cosponsor of the Senate bill, said he hopes the Legislature will take up the proposal early in the session in order to provide enough time to override a potential veto.

I am going to advocate strongly to move [it] . . . onto the floor of the Senate, Boncore said.

I think theres an overwhelming amount of support for this, he added.

Supporters say the measure will help immigrants while improving roadway safety overall, pointing to data showing a reduction in hit-and-run crashes in states that have passed similar measures. Sixteen other states and the District of Columbia have passed laws allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain licenses, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

One of the things that COVID raised from all of this was that a drivers license really is necessary in a lot of parts of the state to just get basic health care that we know is all necessary for all of our public health, said Barber.

Many GOP lawmakers oppose the bill.

I dont think it helps public safety at all, said state Representative David F. DeCoste, a Norwell Republican who sits on the Transportation Committee. And just philosophically, I disagree with accommodating people who have chosen to break our laws with providing them drivers licenses.

State Senator Patrick M. OConnor, the lone Senate Republican on the Transportation Committee, stopped short of saying he opposed the measure, but said he has a lot of concerns about the proposal. OConnor said we need to continue to provide more for those who are here undocumented, including a pathway to citizenship, but he contended that states acting on their own could take a tool out of the toolbox of negotiations at the federal level.

I believe that this bill might weaken the ability for our federal government to achieve true immigration reform, which is exactly what we need right now, OConnor said.

Many Democrats concur that immigration reform is necessary at the federal level. But in the meantime, Farley-Bouvier said in an interview earlier this week, theres no reason for us in Massachusetts to wait for that, and to have our public safety at risk.

Drivers licenses are squarely in the purview of states, she said.

Jasper Goodman can be reached at jasper.goodman@globe.com.

See the original post here:
Lawmakers have long considered drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants. Will this be the year the bill passes? - The Boston Globe

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

A large caravan of protesters were sent off to Madison to the roaring sounds of Colombian drums and chants of si se puede (yes we can)in front of Voces de la Fronteras Milwaukee office Sunday.

Over the course of ninedays, a core group of eight to 10 marchers affiliated with Voces de la Frontera ismarching from Milwaukee to Madison to pressure the Biden administration to add a pathway to citizenship in the American Jobs Plan, a $1.9 trillion infrastructure proposal, and the state legislature to allow undocumented immigrants to get drivers licenses.

The group departed for their first stop, Waukesha, Sunday morning shortly after a rally that included speeches, music performances, face painting, and free COVID-19 vaccines.

Voces de la Frontera is not pegging its support for citizenship to any one particular proposal, though advocateswant to see it apply to broad swaths of the immigrant population besides just recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program or those with Temporary Protected Status.

A march led by Voces de la Frontera began a nine-day journey from Milwaukee to Madison. Immigrant workers and their children are expected to speak at the Capitol about the need to pass a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.(Photo: Julia Martins de Sa / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)

On the last day of the march, June 28, marchers and other protesters plan tohold a rally at Olbrich Park in Madison before marching to the Capitol.

Voces de la Frontera is encouraging essential immigrant workers to take timeoffworkand take one of their buses to Madison to show the economic value and humanity of immigrants.

One of the marchers in the core group is Guadalupe Romero, an immigrantfrom Mexico whoworks in fast food andhas been in the United States for 31 years 10 years in Chicago and 21 in Milwaukee.

I have felt fearful being here without documentation ... I have the honor to march, to stand before the government so that they concentrate on the things that deny us immigration reform, Romero said. She spoke in Spanish; her words weretranslated by the Journal Sentinel.

She added that she is constantly fearful of a day where she will get stopped by the police and told she can no longer drive. Under 2005's federal REAL ID, states cannot grant driver licenses to people without Social Security numbers, effectively barring undocumented immigrants from obtaining them. The law took effect in Wisconsin in 2007.

Nevertheless, Romero said that she is bringing hope with her to Madison and is optimistic that government officials will listen to her calls for reform.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 16 states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws that allow undocumented immigrants to obtain driver's licenses anyways. Voces de la Frontera aims to pass a similar law through either the state budget or standalone legislation and have been fighting for it since at least the 2019 legislature session.

The core group of marchers includes not only essential workers like Romero, but also their children.

Eduardo Perea-Hernandez, the son of two Mexican undocumented immigrants, brought a large water bottle, gorditas, and a backpack full of clothes in preparation for the nine-day march.

He said he was marching for his parents, cousins, and friends who are undocumented. He added that the march was also about holding the Biden administration accountable for promises Biden made while campaigningto pass a pathway to citizenship.

He also noted that the marchs kickoff was intentionally chosen for Fathers Day to commemorate the sacrifice of immigrant fathers.

March organizers plan to make stops in other Wisconsin cities such as Wales and Sullivan onthe way to Madison.

Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, hands out bandanas at the nine-day march kickoff on Sunday.(Photo: Julia Martins de Sa / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)

The American Jobs Plan would likely have to pass using a fast-track procedure known as budget reconciliation, which allows senators to bypass the typical 60-vote threshold that most bills need to be considered. This process would mean that Senate Democrats could pass immigration reform without any Republican support.

We have no belief that we are going to get anything bipartisan, whether thats on voting rights or immigration. Elections wont matter if Democrats dont deliver on their promises for major reforms, Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, said of the need to use budget reconciliation for immigration measures.

The White House suggested in April that Biden did not favor using budget reconciliation to pass immigration reform measures, instead backing a bipartisan path forward. Top Congressional Democrats such as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer are open to the idea of using budget reconciliation to pass immigration reform.

Whether a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants can be included in budget reconciliation is a controversial subject. Critics say that the Byrd rule would cut extraneous, non-budgetary measures such as a pathway to citizenship from a budget reconciliation bill. Proponents say there is precedent for immigration measures to be included in such bills.

Allison Vasquez-Lovell, right, speaks to Ashanti Wilson, the Racine organizer for Voces de la Frontera, at the nine-day march kickoff on Sunday.(Photo: Julia Martins de Sa / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)

Neumann-Ortiz said that they expect to know if a pathway to citizenship can be included in the American Jobs Plan in July. If it is able to be included in the infrastructure plan, then Neumann-Ortiz said that Voces de la Frontera will continue to sustain and grow the pressure. If not, then Neumann-Ortiz said that the next logical step would be to end the filibuster, which would also allow Democrats to pass immigration reform with just 50 votes.

The point is Democrats were elected, the majority of Latinos voted for them, not just as an anti-Trump, but to give the Biden administration a second chance to pass immigration reform that they didnt do under the Obama administration, Neumann-Ortiz said.

Our subscribers make this reporting possible. Please consider supporting local journalism by subscribing to the Journal Sentinel at jsonline.com/deal.

Read or Share this story: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2021/06/20/immigrant-workers-march-madison-pathway-citizenship-voces-de-la-frontera/7764017002/

Original post:
Immigrant workers, allies embark on nine-day march to Madison to call for immigration reform in Wisconsin and nationally - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

HOLLAND Immigration reform in the U.S. is a hotly contested topic, one that often leads to polarization within the two major political parties.

The LIBRE Initiative is a nonprofit organization that aims to promote "small government" immigration solutions to benefit Latino immigrants. The group hosted an event in Holland, Tuesday, June 15, discussing how Americans and Latin Americansinterested in immigration reform can push their elected officials for compromise.

Daniel Garza, president and founder of LIBRE, spoke to a small group at Beechwood Grill in Holland about his support for the Bipartisan Border Solutions Act of 2021 legislation backed by Reps. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, and Tony Gonzalez, R-Texas, in the House and Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Krysten Sinema, D-Arizona, in the Senate.

The Act would bolster the amount of judges, case workers and enforcement staff at the border, while also creating four new permanent processing centers to address surges in migrants attempting to enter the U.S. at its southern border with Mexico. Both versions of the bills remain in their respective committees in each chamber.

Garza, a Republican who worked in the administration of former President George W. Bush, said by advancing common ground reforms, the U.S. can achieve progress toward re the current immigration system.

"Two extreme positions on immigration reform are untenable," Garza said. "We need to advance to a position where bipartisan reform can happen.

"... (Extreme positions) only represent a small portion of Americans. The majority of Americans support a common ground solution."

Garza said opening legal channels for those in Latin America looking to emigrate to the U.S. would create opportunities for immigrants to prosper in America. He noted migrant workers, like many in his family before they fully settled in the U.S. Garza said it's these types of people who work hard and contribute to the American economy, often creating opportunities for future generations of family members.

"A lot of my family moved on and up," he said. "Who replaces the folks who went on and up? Immigrants. We need legal channels."

Garza said he hopes Latinos feel empowered to use their voices to lobby their elected officials, no matter which party they belong to.

"These discussions are direct ways to bring the community to the elected official," he said. "Engaging the Latino community so they feel included. When they feel engaged, they feel encouraged to participate.

Contact reporter Arpan Lobo at alobo@hollandsentinel.com. Follow him on Twitter @arpanlobo.

Read more:
Holland event aims at mobilizing bipartisan approaches to immigration reform - HollandSentinel.com

WASHINGTONAttempted migration at the U.S.-Mexico border is typically higher in the spring than other times of the year. But border apprehensions in the last three months have gone beyond the seasonal crush, reaching a 15-year high that has placed stress on the system and tested the Biden administration. In March, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents encountered 171,000 migrants, a number that ticked up to 180,000 by May, according to Department of Homeland Security data. A record 18,960 unaccompanied minors attempted to cross the border in March, and while the number has decreased slightly since, shelters are overcrowded and ill-equipped to meet childrens needs.

The Biden administration has called the border situation a challenge, while critics have called it a crisis. Either way, the chances of an immigration reform package clearing both chambers of Congress this summer seem to be waning despite ongoing bipartisan talks on the Hill and efforts from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to craft consensus bills.

The biggest impediment to immigration reform, some lawmakers say, is the border. The numbers of asylum-seekers ticked up steadily when the Biden administration took office, perhaps unsurprising after his numerous campaign pledges to carve out a fair and humane approach to immigration by ending practices such as forcing asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico and holding kids in detention facilities.

On his first day in office, President Joe Biden announced a pause on construction of the border wall, something Republicans have pointed to as exacerbating the flow of migrants.

During the last three months of 2020, the number of people apprehended by Border Patrol hovered around 72,000 each month. In January, it increased to more than 78,000 and has risen steadily since. David Bier, a research fellow with a focus on immigration at the Cato Institute, told The Dispatch that the number of apprehensions are likely inflated due to repeat crossers.

At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, Trump invoked an emergency health declaration, Section 256 of Title 42, that allowed Border Patrol to return migrants to Mexico without considering asylum requests.

When Biden took office, many thought he would reverse course.

Lots of people showed up when Biden was inaugurated thinking that the policy would change, Bier said.

Biden did suspend new construction on the border wall (though some already paid-for construction has continued), revoke Trumps travel bans, and establish a Family Reunification Task Force to seek to reunite children who remain separated from their families, among other measures. But he did not back away from all the immigration measures implemented by his predecessor. Notably, he kept Title 42 in place and the policy of still expelling migrants due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Biden has proposed the U.S. Citizenship Act, a sweeping plan to set approximately 11 million illegal immigrants on the path to citizenship. The proposal also calls for addressing the backlogs facing the legal immigration system. There are currently more than 1.3 million people awaiting decisions from immigration judges over whether they can remain in the United States, according to Syracuse Universitys Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a database focused on immigration.

But immigration advocates say something comprehensive is unlikely to pass.

A change in dynamic this year is [that there is] a growing understanding that incremental reform is probably the way to go, Danilo Zak, a senior policy advisor for National Immigration Reform told The Dispatch. Zak said he believes there is more political willpower to start with smaller pieces that can garner bipartisanship.

A smaller bipartisan group, led by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, has met weekly in hopes of reaching consensus.

Theyve been very constructive, Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a member of the group, told The Dispatch.

So far, the senators are focusing their efforts on something smaller than Bidens plan.

The group is considering three main bills. Two have already passed the House: One would offer a path to citizenship for as many as 2.3 million people brought to the United States illegally as children and another population of immigrants that have temporary protected status to stay in the United States. The other House-passed bill would create a path to citizenship for farmworkers. The group is also considering a border security proposal from Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, an Arizona Democrat, and Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn that would, among other provisions, send more resources to the border.

The dynamic favors a piece-by-piece approach, Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal said. And I think that path offers some real promise.

Lawmakers are trying to build support for other bipartisan proposals related to immigration as well: One would recapture unused visas to bring more nurses and physicians to the United States, one would make it easier for family members of legal immigrants to visit their relatives, and another would allocate more visas to Afghan nationals who aided the U.S. military during the war in Afghanistan.

Adding pressure to the talks is a legal challenge to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that former President Barack Obama created in 2012 via an executive memorandum. A federal judge in Texas is currently considering a court challenge that would strike down the program over questions about its constitutionality. The decision could mean DACA recipients would be deported back to their countries of origin. Legal challenges to the DACA program are nothing newin response to one challenge, the Supreme Court a year ago chose to leave the program in place. The justices urged Congress to carve out a more permanent legislative solution, but lawmakers have been unable to find common ground.

To mark the ninth anniversary of DACAs creation, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing Tuesday where members heard from DACA recipients, as well as former Trump and Obama officials. The hearing revealed the daylight that remains between Republicans and Democrats on the issue. GOP members of the committee largely focused on the dysfunction at the southern border while Democrats argued it is long past time for Congress to resolve Dreamers legal limbo.

But time is just what Congress is short on. Immigration reform is competing with a host of other policy priorities such as infrastructure and voting reform. June is rapidly drawing to an end, and both chambers will be in session only for a couple weeks of July. Then comes the August recess. So far, other priorities seem to be taking precedence on Capitol Hill and in the White House.

Fall is more likely, much as I would prefer doing something before the August recess, Blumenthal, told The Dispatch Monday. Once we get beyond infrastructurethe immediate demands of infrastructure and perhaps voting rightssometime this year theres going to be a moment of opportunity.

Elizabeth Neumann, a former Department of Homeland Security counterterrorism official, expressed concerns that if lawmakers wait until later in the year, primary season will swamp any chance of passing legislation: It almost becomes impossible to do anything, she said.

Republicans are emphasizing their priorities, with some pointing to the influx of migrants at the border as something that will stymie immigration legislation.

Until theres something done at the border, I dont think youll have any immigration [reform,] Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley told The Dispatch.

The house is on fire and we're discussing new tires for the firetruck, Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, said of border security. Now, it's important that firetrucks have good tires. But in the meantime, we're not going to make any progress on designing a sensible, rational immigration system until we solve the crisis at the border. And only President Biden can do that.

If bipartisan talks dont lead to a breakthrough, Democrats may shift gears to another strategy: Trying to pass something on a party-line basis using the budget reconciliation process.

Reconciliation would allow Democrats to advance legislation without winning support from Republicans in the Senate. Democrats used the process to approve their massive coronavirus relief package earlier this year, and they are laying the groundwork now to build another reconciliation vehicle that could advance some of Bidens sweeping social investments, including child care provisions and free community college.

Lawmakers and activists have called for Democratic leaders to incorporate immigration measures in such a package, noting that making a pathway to citizenship for millions of people would have effects on the federal budget as is required of reconciliation measures. Still, whether all of the immigration priorities Democrats hope to pass would survive the Senate parliamentarians scrutiny is unclear.

"Anytime there's been a CBO examination on immigration reform, it produces a significant increase in the GDP without really costing much money," Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, told Insider on Wednesday, referring to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. He suggested immigration measures could boost the economy and federal tax revenue, offsetting the cost of some of the other provisions in the larger package.

That may not be a traditional pay-for, but if we feel like there's something we could do within a reconciliation vehicle that could produce significant economic growth... that could be a very legitimate way to look at trying to find a balanced package, Kaine said.

Durbin, who is leading the bipartisan talks, said leaders are keeping their options open.

Were working on two approaches. One approach is direct negotiation with Republicans. That's underway, it's been going on for weeks...I hope it will lead to a bipartisan bill, Durbin told The Dispatch. Whether it does or doesn't, there's still reconciliation as an option until the parliamentarian rules in one way or the other. We're entertaining the possibility.

Read more here:
Immigration Reform Hopes Wane Amid Influx of Migrants at the Border - The Dispatch