I found former immigration judge Andrew R. Arthur’s observations about immigrations court no-shows and the Biden Administration at the Center for Immigration Studies interesting:
The latest disclosures from the Department of Justice (DOJ) reveal that the number of alien respondents who failed to appear for removal proceedings is soaring — on track to exceed 170,000 in FY 2024, which would best last year’s record of nearly 160,000. Those aliens may be under orders of removal, but the Biden administration has no inclination — let alone plans — to remove them. Which is why so many aliens likely didn’t bother to appear.
In Absentia Orders of Removal. Section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), governs removal proceedings in immigration court.
Removal cases are heard by immigration judges (IJs), a position I held for more than eight years. Those IJs determine whether alien respondents are removable, consider bond requests, adjudicate applications for “relief” from removal (asylum, adjustment of status, cancellation of removal, etc.), and when appropriate, issue orders of removal.
That entire process is generally dependent, of course, on respondents actually appearing in court. While the Biden administration detains a tiny fraction of the three million-plus aliens currently in proceedings, the vast majority are free to live here while their cases are proceeding.
It’s not as though enforcement is impossible:
In its most recent report, current through the end of December, OHSS reveals that DHS removed just over 179,400 aliens in FY 2023. That may sound like a lot, but it’s important to keep in mind that CBP alone encountered more than 3.2 million aliens at the borders and the ports last fiscal year.
Those 179,400-plus removals in FY 2023 are even less impressive when you place them into historical context. In FY 2014, under the Obama administration, DHS removed just fewer than 405,000 aliens, and as recently as FY 2019, removals exceeded 347,000.
Were I to assign the most benign possible explanation to the Biden Administration’s unwillingness to enforce the law it would be that a) they think their engaging in an act of virtue by rescuing Central and South Americans and others from their countries of origin and b) they have a lot on their plate.
The problem is that it’s not an act of virtue. The mass immigration we’re presently experiencing is pushing and will push wages down for people with whom those migrants do or will compete, mostly young black men and previous migrants. They’re being kind to one group by being cruel to another. That’s not virtuous.
The author concludes:
I can’t tell you dispositively why the number of aliens who failed to appear at their removal hearings has soared under President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas, but I do have an educated guess.
In all of its policies — from its announcement the day of the 2021 inauguration that it would pause alien removals for 100 days, to its “overarching non-detention” regime for illegal migrants, to the Mayorkas guidelines themselves — the administration has signaled to aliens with no legal right to be here that it has no interest in enforcing Congress’ dictates in the INA. If the White House doesn’t care, why would the aliens?
In much the same way, Secretary Mayorkas has concluded he has the discretion to determine which immigration laws he’ll enforce — few, if any, as it turns out — and so alien respondents in removal proceedings have concluded that they, too, had the right to decide which court orders they’ll comply with.
What happens if 725 IJs held removal proceedings in three months and 42,714 respondents failed to appear? For the time being, not much. Immigration enforcement has become kabuki theater. Enjoy the show — you’re paying for the enforcement the administration refuses to provide.
That the enforcement mechanisms are overwhelmed is not a credible explanation: there were four times as many removals under the Obama Administration as at present.
a is laughable, if not for the death, child prostitution, drugs etc that accompany the issue
b is incompetence.
This is policy, pure and simple. They can address it right now. They won’t.
A pox on Biden and his evil henchman.
This is a bit like asking Michael Moore to write a piece on the pros and cons of Republicans. You would get a horribly biased piece with only selected numbers used and select quotes. He says the law says people must be deported but according to the law he actually cites it says…”the alien or the alien’s counsel of record, does not attend a proceeding under this section, shall be ordered removed in absentia if the Service establishes by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the written notice was so provided and that the alien is removable. [Emphasis added.]”
I am sure it was just an oversight that he forgot everything written after “removed in absentia”. Anyway, a lot more numbers and overview of how things work at link. Note that the percentages of returns and the percentages of denials of asylum remain about the same under the current and prior admins, we just have more people showing up now. There were many reasons more people began arriving, but based upon the numbers, it doesnt look like it was because they were less likely to be returned.
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/breaking-down-the-immigration-figures/
Steve
The same rumor has been going on for months, but . . .
“President Biden used an interview with Spanish-language broadcaster Univision that aired Tuesday to send a massive signal that he plans to issue an executive order to dramatically limit the number of asylum-seekers who can cross the southern border.”
https://www.axios.com/2024/04/10/biden-border-executive-order-immigrants-asylum-limit?utm_campaign=editorial&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
Interesting. What’s the old Wall Street adage? “Buy on the rumor, sell on the fact”. I think I’ll wait until it’s confirmed.
The great majority of immigrants is young, fit men who no real education or skills. But they are a resource for someone will bad intentions, like Obama’s infamous Civilian National Security Force:
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
Assume that we continue to accept large numbers of young workers without education or skills. They won’t be young forever. How will we need to adjust the Social Security System? The actuary’s reports become effectively meaningless.