They could also let asylum seekers go, and allow them to live in the United States pending a hearing. That's what we've been doing until this administration. These aren't random people off the street, these are people with valid claims of asylum who have passed the credible fear interview administered by CBP. Almost all of them will stay in contact with the courts and go to all their appointments.

The editorial also neglects to mention that our facilities are greatly over capacity, that this change will make that much much worse, and that thanks to the backlog of immigration cases these families would have to be in these facilities for 5 years or more. To say nothing of the abuses and poor conditions.

And, once again, these families seeking asylum have not committed any crime, they have done nothing illegal.

75% or more of asylum claims from central americans are ultimately denied.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/03/world/us-asylum-denial-rates-...

Doesn't matter though, they are still not breaking the law.

There are a lot of factors involved in those numbers. For starters, immigration court does not provide public defenders. If you can't afford a lawyer, and can't find a lawyer willing to work pro bono, you have to represent yourself. Yes, even if you are a minor. And having an attorney, according to your article, makes it 5x more likely for your claim to be accepted.

There's also the fact that standards for being granted asylum can be arbitrary and not subject to proper review. Immigration judges work for the DOJ, not the judicial system, and are appointed by the Attorney General. The Attorney General also has fairly broad powers to increase the burden of proof for asylum cases, and limiting the circumstances in which an asylum claim is valid. The AG can also directly override the decisions of judges and deny asylum. For example: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/ag-barr-using-u...

>they are still not breaking the law.

Yes they are, illegally entering the United States is breaking the law.

Not according to Title 8 Section 1158, in the first sentence: "Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158

That allows the alien to apply for asylum, but does not say anything about whether their act of entering the US was or not breaking the law.

We could entertain either or both of:

A. Entering the US is not breaking any laws, no matter the manner in which it is accomplished.

B. Applying for asylum grants an amnesty for the laws broken while entering the US.

It's (B), in that when applying for asylum things like illegal entry, including using fake documents or false testimony to gain entry, will not be held against you if your reason for doing so was to escape your persecution. See cases like Akinmade v. INS, Turcios v. INS, and Mamouzian v. Ashcroft

Assuming B, the intersection of set I = {people that entered the country illegally} and D = {people who made an asylum claim that was denied} consists of people that broke the law by entering the US illegally. Using fake documents / false testimony to make an invalid asylum request is extra damning. For the central american migrants at the border, this may well be more than 75% of them.

You're assuming people know in advance whether or not they have a valid asylum claim, and that the court case will determine perfectly whether or not a claim was valid. Regardless, the result of either illegal entry and having an asylum claim rejected is deportation, so the distinction is academic.

> They could also let asylum seekers go, and allow them to live in the United States pending a hearing. That's what we've been doing until this administration.

Granted, there have been a large increase in the number of people who skip their asylum hearings. From 2013 to 2017 this figure was lower, averaging ~44%. More recent samples put this figure in the 70% range and by some estimates even into the 90% range.

We could have ICE deport people who miss their hearings but ICE raids generate even more negative PR than detaining people at the border.

On top of that detention is the maximally cruel way to do things. IIRC something like 80-90% of people returned for their court dates under the old system where they were not detained anyways and even if you did think that number is too high there are other options like ankle monitors to ensure they could be tracked down.

> IIRC something like 80-90% of people returned for their court dates under the old system where they were not detained anyways and even if you did think that number is too high there are other options like ankle monitors to ensure they could be tracked down.

That is not correct. Even sites seeking to argue against the high rates of skipping asylum hearings put their no-show figures at 40-50%: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/26/how-many-...

>> they have done nothing illegal

Crossing into the US illegally is by definition illegal. Misdemeanor, to be exact.

I'll point you to Title 8 Section 1158, 1(a), as mentioned in other places in this thread. Asylum seekers may be excused for illegal entry into the US. An asylum seeker can even use a fake passport to get through customs to apply for asylum: see Akinmade v. INS as an example.

>They could also let asylum seekers go, and allow them to live in the United States pending a hearing

There are many issues, yes. Why can't you give the administration credit for fixing one of them? Why point to another problem and say, "but this isn't fixed yet!"