Thread: Asylum laws?

Where are these laws? Where is the law that says people that illegally immigrate across our border and ask for asylum must be allowed to stay? Can any of you locate and display them for us?

We have been fighting illegal immigration for 14 years and never before Trump came along has anyone pointed the finger at Congress to say they are the reason illegal aliens can freely enter the US in unlimited quantities claiming "asylum"

ALIPAC has always claimed that Catch and Release is an Executive Branch policy that acts againt the spirit of existing laws.

Refugee Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other short titles	Refugee Act of 1980
Long title	An Act to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to revise the procedures for the admission of refugees, to amend the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 to establish a more uniform basis for the provision of assistance to refugees, and for other purposes.
Nicknames	Refugee Act of 1979
Enacted by	the 96th United States Congress
Effective	March 17, 1980
Citations
Public law	96-212
Statutes at Large	94 Stat. 102
Codification
Acts amended	Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 Migration and Refugee Assistance Act
Titles amended	8 U.S.C.: Aliens and Nationality
U.S.C. sections amended	8 U.S.C. ch. 12, subch. I § 1101 et seq. 8 U.S.C. ch. 12, subch. II §§ 1157-1159 8 U.S.C. ch. 12, subch. IV § 1521 et seq.
Legislative history
Introduced in the Senate as S. 643 by Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) on March 13, 1979 Committee consideration by Senate Judiciary, House Judiciary Passed the Senate on September 6, 1979 (85-0) Passed the House on December 20, 1979 (328-47, in lieu of H.R. 2816) Reported by the joint conference committee onFebruary 22, 1980; agreed to by the Senate onFebruary 26, 1980 (agreed) and by the House on March 4, 1980 (211-195) Signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on March 17, 1980

The

United States Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212) is an amendment to the earlier Immigration and Nationality Act and the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, and was created to provide a permanent and systematic procedure for the admission to the United States of refugees of special humanitarian concern to the U.S., and to provide comprehensive and uniform provisions for the effective resettlement and absorption of those refugees who are admitted.^[1] The act was completed on March 3, 1980, was signed by President Jimmy Carter on March 17, 1980 and became effective on April 1, 1980. This was the first comprehensive amendment of U.S. general immigration laws designed to face up to the realities of modern refugee situations by stating a clear-cut national policy and providing a flexible mechanism to meet the rapidly shifting developments of today's world policy.^[2] The main objectives of the act were to create a new definition of refugee based on the one created at the UN Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees, raise the limitation from 17,400 to 50,000 refugees admitted each fiscal year, provide emergency procedures for when that number exceeds 50,000, and to establish the Office of U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Most importantly, it established explicit procedures on how to deal with refugees in the U.S. by creating a uniform and effective resettlement and absorption policy.^[3]

Contents

[hide]

• 1Purpose
  
  • 1.1Admission of refugees
  
  
• 2Summary
• 3History
• 4External links
• 5Notes
• 6References

Purpose[edit]

The Act recognizes that it has been the historic policy of the United States to respond to the urgent needs of persons subject to persecution in their homelands and to provide assistance, asylum, and resettlement opportunities to admitted refugees. The goal of the Refugee Act was to create a uniform procedure with which to provide these opportunities to refugees.^[4]
Admission of refugees[edit]

The Act amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 by defining a refugee as any person who is outside his or her country of residence or nationality, or without nationality, and is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.^[5]
The annual admission of refugees is set to a 50,000 cap per fiscal year, but in an emergency situation, the President may change the number for a period of twelve months. The Attorney General is also granted power to admit additional refugees and grant asylum to current aliens, but all admissions must be reported to Congress and be limited to 5,000 people.^[6]
Summary[edit]

The Act created the position of U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs who was now responsible to the president for the development of overall US refugee admission and resettlement policy.
Title IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act was amended here when the Act created the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is responsible for funding and administering federal programs for domestic resettlement and assistance to refugees. The office must make available resources for employment training and placement for refugees to be economically self-sufficient, provide opportunities for English language training, ensure cash assistance, and guarantee gender equality in all training and instruction. The Office must also create grants for these projects, consult with state and local governments about sponsorship and distribution of refugees, and develop a system to monitor the use of government funds using evaluations, auditing and data collection. To receive assistance for programs, the States must first explain how they plan to accomplish the goals of these programs, meet the director's standards, and submit a report at the end of each fiscal year.^[7]
The Secretary of State was authorized to take on the role from 1980 to 1981, and the new director worked with them to develop and implement programs for existing refugees and eventually took up the position from 1982 onward. The director must submit a congressional report at the end of each fiscal year to committees on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. The reports should contain information on the geographic location, employment status, and problems of the refugees and also contain suggestions for alternative resettlement strategies. The Office was authorized $200,000,000 during 1980 and 1981, and that number is now decided at the beginning of each fiscal year based on the results received at the end of each year.^[8]
History[edit]

It was only after World War II that the United States began to differentiate the term "refugee" from "immigrant" and began creating policy that dealt specifically with refugees while working outside of immigration policy.^[9] Early action came in the form of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, and the Refugee-Escapee Act of 1957.^[10] The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which was later amended in 1965 to include policy for refugees on a case by case basis, was the first Act that consolidated U.S. immigration policy into one body of text.
The creation of the Refugee Act began with hearings by the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security from 1965 to 1968, which recommended for Congress create a uniform system for refugees, but received little support. Edward Kennedy began writing to propose a bill to reform refugee policy in 1978 and first introduced the idea to the United States Senate in 1979. With his proposal, he hoped to address the need for a reformed policy that was not specifically designed for people from communist regimes in Eastern Europe or repressive governments in the Middle East, as it was in the past. At the time, there was an average of 200,000 refugees coming to the United States, most of which were Indochinese and Soviet Jews.^[11] The cost of resettlement was close to $4000, but most refugees eventually paid that amount in federal income taxes.
Many Americans feared a floodgate scenario with a large and sudden increase of the refugee population, but the 50,000 cap would account for only 10% of immigration flow to the U.S. and would allow one refugee for every 4000 Americans,^[12] small numbers compared to those of countries like Canada, France, and Australia. The bill was adopted by the Senate by a unanimous vote on September 6, 1979, and it remained essentially intact until it was signed in 1980.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_Act

Migration and Refugee Assistance Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Migration and Refugee Assistance Act was passed in 1962 to deal with unexpected and urgent needs of refugees, displaced persons, conflict victims, and other persons at risk around the globe.
The Act was brought into force during the Clinton administration in 2001 to deal with the crises in the Balkans and Nepal.
The Act was cited by President Barack Obama in 2009 to authorize money up to $20.3 million related to needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.

External links[edit]

• MEMORANDUM: Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrat...Assistance_Act

wikipedia...
Obtaining Asylum: Asylum is granted to aliens who are in the United States and are unable or unwilling to return to their homeland because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a certain social group, or political opinion.


Article from 2013 noting the changes obama made by executive fiat via The Morton Memo (catch & release and "credible fear" w/o the reasons stated in asylum laws). Would seem a memo could be undone by trump if he wanted to. Not a congress law but a big change implemented by obama admin to flood US with cheap labor.
Congressman Reveals Obama Policy That Opened Asylum Floodgates

by Lee Stranahan25 Aug 2013307

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) has sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano that reveals the Obama administration policy of asylum overwhelms the ability to enforce laws. This comes in the wake of a Breitbart News story about the sudden surge of “credible fear” requests at Mexico/U.S. border crossings.

The letter begins by referencing the story that Breitbart News brought to national prominence:

Dear Secretary Napolitano,
I write regarding the recent surge in foreign nationals, largely from Mexico, claiming asylum at U.S. ports of entry. This surge has been overwhelming Border Patrol agents in San Diego, California. Border Patrol agents reported that in one day 200 aliens came through the Otay Mesa, San Diego port of entry while as many as 550 overflowed the processing center there and in nearby San Ysidro claiming a “credible fear” of the drug cartels in Mexico.

Rep. Goodlatte then lays out the concern that another Breitbart News story pointed out–that the asylum process is being exploited by Mexican nationals–and highlights the surge in such claims since 2009:

Such claims have increased from 5,222 in 2009 to 23,408 in just the first three quarters of 2013. According to the most recent data available, DHS is permitting 92% of these claimants to move forward to further proceedings, despite the fact that press reports indicate that up to 91% of these claimants from Mexico are ultimately denied. In addition, most are likely being released into the U.S. pending further proceedings before Immigration Judges as opposed to being detained as required by law.

At the end of the letter, Goodlatte reveals the smoking gun: the change in immigration policy implemented by Obama officials that appears to have created the loophole that has led to the increase in asylum claims.

…this process has been changed by the current Administration via executive fiat. On December 9, 2010, Director Morton issued an ICE policy directive that is contrary to the statute and the regulations. Under this policy directive, any arriving alien who has been found to have a credible fear and can establish identity, that they are not a flight risk, or a danger to the community, should be released by ICE. The memo required ICE field offices to document the parole decisions in a “Record of Determination /Parole Determination worksheet.” This is inconsistent with the Congressional mandate in statute that requires detention.

Rep. Goodlatte is saying something very significant here; the Obama administration made a significant shift in 2009 about the way the United States deals with people asking for asylum and changed the burden of proof for detention. Prior to 2009, the policy for those requesting asylum was that they were detained unless. In the Obama era, the default is that those seeking asylum are released on their own recognizance. Just as significant, the Obama ICE did this without approval from congress.

Breitbart News is waiting for the Department of Justice to respond to a request for more details in the rates of no-shows at the immigration trials for Mexican nationals.

Below is the complete text of Rep. Goodlatte’s letter:

I write regarding the recent surge in foreign nationals, largely from Mexico, claiming asylum at U.S. ports of entry. This surge has been overwhelming Border Patrol agents in San Diego, California. Border Patrol agents reported that in one day 200 aliens came through the Otay Mesa, San Diego port of entry while as many as 550 overflowed the processing center there and in nearby San Ysidro claiming a “credible fear” of the drug cartels in Mexico.
According to testimony prepared by Joseph Langlois, Associate Director of the Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations Directorate, at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which was to be provided before the Subcommittee on National Security of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on June 27, 2013:
“USCIS has experienced an unprecedented surge in the credible fear workload, as credible fear requests have increased from 5,369 in fiscal year 2009 to 19,119 referrals through May of Fiscal Year 2013. If present trends continue, USCIS estimates that we will receive a total of 28,679 credible fear requests in FY 2013, a 434% increase over the last five years.”

Additionally, the House Judiciary Committee received disturbing statistics from USCIS indicating that the number of illegal immigrants intercepted at ports-of-entry and along the border claiming asylum is increasing exponentially. Such claims have increased from 5,222 in 2009 to 23,408 in just the first three quarters of 2013. According to the most recent data available, DHS is permitting 92% of these claimants to move forward to further proceedings, despite the fact that press reports indicate that up to 91% of these claimants from Mexico are ultimately denied. In addition, most are likely being released into the U.S. pending further proceedings before Immigration Judges as opposed to being detained as required by law.

I am concerned that credible fear claims are being exploited by illegal immigrants in order to enter and remain in the United States. As you know, after an alien is encountered by the Border Patrol, USCIS conducts a screening interview to determine whether the alien has a fear of returning to their home country. The finding of “credible fear” is the start of the process for certain aliens to raise an asylum claim. After such a finding, the alien is issued a notice to appear in immigration court where they must prove that their fear of return to their home country is based on persecution under a statutorily protected ground and is in fact a legitimate asylum case.

However, once these aliens receive court dates, they often fail to appear for immigration court proceedings and end up disappearing into the United States.
As reported by the press, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sources indicate that addresses provided to authorities by aliens who claim credible fear are often fake. Those who fail to appear in court are ordered removed by an Immigration Judge in absentia. To make matters worse, according to information provided to me by ICE, there are approximately 500,000 aliens who remain in the U.S. despite final orders of removal.

The recent press accounts indicate that aliens are being coached in the asylum process and are being taught to use certain terms to ensure that they are found to have a credible fear as a threshold for an asylum case. The aliens allegedly claim that they have a credible fear of return to Mexico based on drug cartel and gang violence. According to critics, asylum claims from Mexico are highly unusual and often are an orchestrated sham. Indeed, as mentioned before, reports indicate that as many as 91 percent of asylum claims from Mexico are ultimately denied. Critics allege that the purpose is not to obtain asylum, but rather to game the system by getting a free pass into the U.S. and a court date that they do not plan to show up for.
Not only is the rise in credible fear claims concerning, but I am concerned with the inability of the Administration to follow the current law that pertains to the asylum process. Pursuant to §235(b)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), arriving aliens are subject to mandatory detention whether they are found to have credible fear or not. An “arriving alien” is a person who was stopped by U.S. officers at a port of entry while attempting to enter the U.S. Under the statute and corresponding regulations at 8 C.F.R §235.3, under limited circumstances “parole” from detention is available for arriving aliens where the applicant can show parole is required to meet a medical emergency or is necessary for a legitimate law enforcement objective. Additionally, an applicant can be paroled where there are urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit consistent with §212(d)(5) of the INA. Any such alien should also be detained pending a credible fear interview.

However, this process has been changed by the current Administration via executive fiat. On December 9, 2010, Director Morton issued an ICE policy directive that is contrary to the statute and the regulations. Under this policy directive, any arriving alien who has been found to have a credible fear and can establish identity, that they are not a flight risk, or a danger to the community, should be released by ICE. The memo required ICE field offices to document the parole decisions in a “Record of Determination/Parole Determination worksheet.” This is inconsistent with the Congressional mandate in statute that requires detention.

And not surprisingly, the timing of this memo appears to correlate with the uptick of credible fear claims in recent years. Additionally, while ICE is not detaining these aliens, Fiscal Year 2012 Executive Office of Immigration Review statistics demonstrate that 29% of released aliens failed to appear for their immigration court proceedings.

Once again the Administration has chosen to turn the
immigration enforcement switch off in a manner contrary to the intent of Congress, by simply enforcing the immigration laws when, where, and as it is deemed fit. Such actions are the primary reason why our immigration system is broken today. We plan to conduct oversight of this issue and address concerns via the House’s step-by-step approach to reforming our immigration system. Hence, we request a briefing with the relevant Department of Homeland Security components. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...um-floodgates/

Asylum Law and Procedure

Asylum

To be granted asylum, a person must demonstrate that he or she is a “refugee,” that he or she is not barred from asylum for any of the reasons listed in our immigration laws, and that the decision-maker should grant asylum as a matter of discretion.

A “refugee” is any person who is outside his or her country of nationality (or, if stateless, outside the country of last habitual residence) and is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of persecution or well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.


This definition is based on international law, specifically the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The U.S. is not a signatory to this Convention, but did sign on to its 1967 Protocol, which incorporates the Convention by reference. The Refugee Convention requires state parties to protect people living within their borders and prohibits them from sending people to other countries where they would be harmed based on their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. With the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.S. brought the refugee definition into our domestic law. The refugee definition is found at section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
A person who meets the refugee definition may be granted asylum in the United States if he or she is not barred from asylum for any of the reasons listed in section 208 of that Act and if the adjudicator decides that he or she should be granted asylum as a matter of discretion.

The bars to asylum include the one-year filing deadline, which states that a person who needs asylum should file the application within one year of the last arrival in the United States.

Otherwise, the asylum-seeker must show that he or she qualifies for an exception to the filing deadline and that he or she filed within a reasonable time given that exception. Human Rights First advocates for the elimination of the filing deadline from our asylum law. For background reading on this advocacy, see our 2010 report.

The bars to asylum also include the so-called “material support bar.” Human Rights First advocates for a more reasonable version of this bar to asylum. For background reading, see our report.

Some people who need asylum will have their cases decided at the Asylum Office and others will have their cases decided at the Immigration Court. The standard for asylum is the same in both places, and Human Rights First works on cases at all levels of the system.

People apply for asylum with Form I-589. That application for asylum can also include a request for two related alternative forms of relief, which offer fewer benefits: withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA and protection under the UN Convention Against Torture.

Withholding of Removal

To be granted withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA, a person must demonstrate that if returned to the country of origin he or she is more likely than not to be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Some of the bars to asylum, including the one-year filing deadline, do not apply to claims for withholding of removal. There is no discretionary element. This means that if a person is more likely than not to be harmed for one of the reasons listed above, he or she must be granted withholding of removal.

U.N. Convention Against Torture

To be granted withholding of removal under the U.N. Convention Against Torture, a person must demonstrate that if returned to the country of origin he or she is more likely than not to be tortured. There is no discretionary element.

Most of the bars to asylum do not apply to requests for protection under the U.N. Convention Against Torture. The government of the United States has promised that it will not send anyone back to a country where he or she is likely to be tortured and so an immigration judge will consider eligibility for protection under the Torture Convention even if the asylum-seeker does not specifically request it.

Procedural Steps for Asylum

The asylum system has two parts: the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (which includes the Asylum Office) and the U.S. Department of Justice (which includes the Immigration Courts). Cases that are not granted at either of those levels might go to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the U.S. Courts of Appeal, or even to the U.S. Supreme Court. Human Rights First works with asylum-seekers at all levels of the system. A person who meets the definition of a refugee can apply for asylum in various ways, depending on that person’s immigration status at the time they decide to apply.

Asylum Office – When a person has entered the United States, whether or not they were inspected at the border, and our government is not taking any active steps to remove them from the U.S., they can make what is known as an “affirmative” application for asylum. This means that the person will file an I-589 application by mail with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Later they will be interviewed by an officer at the local Asylum Office. If the officer grants the application, then the person has asylum. He or she can then petition for their spouse and children to join them in the United States. They are also then on the path toward a green card and eventual U.S. citizenship. If the officer denies the asylum application, and the person has no other immigration status, then they are “referred” to the Immigration Court, where a judge will consider the asylum case.

Immigration Court – When a person has been placed in Immigration Court proceedings before they apply for asylum, the I-589 application should be filed directly with the immigration judge. This is known as a “defensive” application for asylum because the person is requesting asylum as a defense to the government’s charge that they should be removed from the United States. Whether the case starts in the Asylum Office or in the Immigration Court, the judge considers the case from the beginning. If the immigration judge grants the application, then the person has asylum. He or she is then eligible for the same family-reunification and other benefits that a person would be eligible for if granted at the Asylum Office level. If the immigration judge grants only withholding of removal or protection under the U.N. Convention Against Torture, then the person may not petition for relatives but will be permitted to remain in the U.S. and to work to support himself or herself.

Asylum applications filed by unaccompanied children (those who are under age 18) are heard at the Asylum Office, even if the child is otherwise in proceedings in the Immigration Court. This is the result of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) that went into effect March 23, 2009 and it applies to asylum applications filed on or after that date.

Cases which are denied in the Immigration Court may be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. If the case is not granted at that level, the asylum-seeker may file a petition for review which brings it to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the circuit where the immigration judge denied the case. When asylum cases of genuine refugees are granted at the lower levels, the system works most effectively. Judges at the appellate courts are then available to spend their time on the many other types of cases that they have to decide.

Pro bono representation of asylum-seekers can help to ensure that cases are well-prepared and properly decided in the first instance.

How to Seek Asylum While in Immigration Detention

The process for seeking asylum is the same for people who are in the Immigration Court whether or not they are detained. The I-589 (asylum application) will be filed with the immigration judge and there will be an opportunity to testify and present evidence in support of the asylum case. However, it is much more difficult to prepare an asylum case from inside an immigration detention center because of limited access to supporting witnesses and documentation, and because detained cases move more quickly. Pro bono legal assistance can make a tremendous difference in these cases. In addition to helping with the asylum case, a pro bono lawyer can help a detained asylum-seeker to request release from detention on bond or parole.

Please see here for an infographic: The “Ins” & “Outs” of Immigration Detention.

Biometrics

For cases at the Asylum Office level, the filing of the I-589 will prompt the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to send a biometrics appointment notice to the asylum-seeker, who will then go to have his or her fingerprints and photograph taken. This will make it possible for DHS to run a background check. The asylum-seeker will be fingerprinted again on the morning of the interview at the Asylum Office.

For cases at the Immigration Court level, the asylum-seeker must send a copy of the first three pages of the completed I-589 (asylum application) with a copy of the instruction sheet to the Nebraska Service Center. This will prompt DHS to send a biometrics appointment notice to the asylum-seeker, who will then go to have his or her fingerprints and photograph taken. These steps must be completed before the immigration judge can grant asylum. See 70 FR 19, 4743-4754. Once the biometrics have been processed, they remain valid for 15 months. Asylum-seekers in proceedings with merits hearings that are scheduled more than 15 months from the biometrics appointment may need to ask DHS to run the fingerprints through their system again to make sure that the biometrics are up-to-date at the time of the merits hearing. This is the responsibility of the asylum-seeker and his or her attorney. Please contact someone in the Refugee Representation program at Human Rights First if you need further guidance on how to ensure that the biometrics are updated before the merits hearing in your case or in the case of an asylum-seeker who you represent.

Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS)

Children who are in the United States without the support and care of their parents may be eligible for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS). This provides them with a green card, authorization to work legally in the U.S., eligibility for financial aid that makes it possible to seek a college education, and it puts them on a path toward eventual U.S. citizenship.

According to 8 CFR § 204.11(c) and INA § 101(a)(27)(J), a child is eligible for SIJS if he or she:

1. Is under twenty-one years of age;
2. Is unmarried;
3. Has been declared dependent upon a juvenile court located in the United States… while the alien was in the United States and under the jurisdiction of the court;
4. Has been deemed eligible by the juvenile court for long-term foster care;
5. Continues to be dependent upon the juvenile court and eligible for long-term foster care…; and
6. Has been the subject of judicial proceedings or administrative proceedings authorized or recognized by the juvenile court in which it has been determined that it would not be in the alien’s best interest to be returned to the country of nationality or last habitual residence of the beneficiary or his or her parent or parents.

These cases are complicated and many children who are eligible will never be granted because they do not know how to navigate the system alone. Pro bono counsel makes a tremendous difference in SIJS cases, as in asylum cases, making it possible for a vulnerable person who cannot safely return to his or her country of origin to find safety in the United States.

The first step in a SIJS case is to go to the Family Court or Surrogate’s Court to request an “order of special findings.” This is a decision by the family court judge that the child meets the definition above and that it is not in the child’s best interest to return to his or her home country. Proceedings in the Family Court or Surrogate’s Court may involve multiple hearings, fingerprinting and background checks on adults in the household, the service of papers on biological parents who may be living outside the country, testimony from the child or others, and a visit by someone sent by the judge to inspect the home and ensure that it’s a safe place for the child to live.

The second step in a SIJS case is to request that the immigration authorities grant a green card based on those “special findings.” For children who are in Immigration Court proceedings, this requires that an I-360 petition be filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the immigration judge may or may not retain jurisdiction over the application that is filed last, which is the I-485 application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence. For children who are not in Immigration Court proceedings when the order of “special findings” is issued, the rest of the steps in the case all happen with USCIS.

The immigration case will require fingerprinting and background checks. It may also require the child to be interviewed by an officer from USCIS and it may require the child to testify in Immigration Court.

When a SIJS case is granted, the child becomes a lawful permanent resident and will receive a “green card.” This will make him eligible for work authorization and will put him on a path toward eventual U.S. citizenship.

Temporary Protected Status (TPS)

The U.S. government may designate a foreign country for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) due to conditions in that country which temporarily prevent its citizens from returning safely, or when the country is unable to handle the return of its citizens. A person from a TPS-designated country who is in the United States may apply for this temporary form of protection by filing a Form I-821. Countries may be designated for TPS due to various short-term conditions, including ongoing armed conflict (civil war), environmental disaster (such as earthquake or hurricane), or an epidemic. A person who is granted TPS may not be detained or removed from the United States, can work legally in this country, and may be granted a travel document to leave the U.S. and return. TPS is a temporary benefit and does not lead to lawful permanent residence or any kind of permanent immigration status. However, a person who is granted TPS may also apply for asylum or any other form of more lasting immigration status if eligible for those forms of relief. The list of TPS-designated countries is available on this part of the USCIS website.

https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/asy...-and-procedure

The other part of this is the act that pertains to the non-mexican, central americans, which says we have to take them in when they present themselves at US border.

The Wilberforce Act is tied in with the Trafficking Act TPVA that gets reauthorized believe every year as trump did in Sept 17. Why didn't he straighten it out before he signed for the monies to be spent or at least change it appropo to the current overload due to obama's decrees of catch & release and "credible fear" not based on religious or political beliefs with the Morton Memo executive fiat. trump is not being advised smartly or maybe so on purpose to continue this deluge and $$ burden for cheap labor.

Done very sneakily with the cover of trafficking victims protection as a way to open the border wide along with catch & release for all. gw re-authorized it before leaving office then of course obama made things even easier for them to migrate and be paid to live, have jobs and anchor baby for free. It is a fiasco now & we will never get them out.

U.S. Laws on Trafficking in Persons

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, as amended provides the tools to combat trafficking in persons both worldwide and domestically. The Act authorized the establishment of the State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons and the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons to assist in the coordination of anti-trafficking efforts.
05/28/15 Survivors of Human Trafficking Empowerment Act (Section 115 of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015)
03/07/13 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Title XII of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013)
01/01/08 William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008
01/10/06 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 [ PDF version ]
01/07/03 Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools To End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act) [ PDF version ]
01/07/03 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 [ PDF version ]
01/07/03 U.S. Leadership on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003
10/28/00 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 [ PDF version ]

https://www.state.gov/j/tip/laws/

8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum

US Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)

prev | next

(a) Authority to apply for asylum

(1) In general

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.
(2) Exceptions

(A) Safe third country

Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.

(B) Time limit

Subject to subparagraph (D), paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien unless the alien demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States.

(C) Previous asylum applications

Subject to subparagraph (D), paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the alien has previously applied for asylum and had such application denied.

(D) Changed circumstances

An application for asylum of an alien may be considered, notwithstanding subparagraphs (B) and (C), if the alien demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Attorney General either the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an application within the period specified in subparagraph (B).

(E) Applicability

Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not apply to an unaccompanied alienchild (as defined in section 279(g) of title 6).

(3) Limitation on judicial review

No court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2).

(b) Conditions for granting asylum

(1) In general

(A) Eligibility

The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who has applied for asylum in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General under this section if the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title.

(B) Burden of proof

(i) In general

The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the applicant is a refugee, within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title. To establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

(ii) Sustaining burden

The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee. In determining whether the applicant has met the applicant’s burden, the trier of fact may weigh the credible testimony along with other evidence of record. Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.

(iii) Credibility determination

Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record (including the reports of the Department of State on country conditions), and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor. There is no presumption of credibility, however, if no adverse credibility determination is explicitly made, the applicant or witness shall have a rebuttable presumption of credibility on appeal.

(2) Exceptions

(A) In generalParagraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that—

(i) the alien ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion;

(ii) the alien, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of the United States;

(iii) there are serious reasons for believing that the alien has committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States prior to the arrival of the alien in the United States;

(iv) there are reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States;

(v) the alien is described in subclause (I), (II), (III), (IV), or (VI) of section 1182(a)(3)(B)(i) of this title or section 1227(a)(4)(B) of this title (relating to terrorist activity), unless, in the case only of an alien described in subclause (IV) of section 1182(a)(3)(B)(i) of this title, the Attorney General determines, in the Attorney General’s discretion, that there are not reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States; or

(vi) the alien was firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States.

(B) Special rules

(i) Conviction of aggravated felony

For purposes of clause (ii) of subparagraph (A), an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony shall be considered to have been convicted of a particularly serious crime.

(ii) Offenses

The Attorney General may designate by regulation offenses that will be considered to be a crime described in clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A).

(C) Additional limitations

The Attorney General may by regulation establish additional limitations and conditions, consistent with this section, under which an alien shall be ineligible for asylum under paragraph (1).

(D) No judicial review

There shall be no judicial review of a determination of the Attorney General under subparagraph (A)(v).

(3) Treatment of spouse and children

(A) In general

A spouse or child (as defined in section 1101(b)(1)(A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of this title) of an alien who is granted asylum under this subsection may, if not otherwise eligible for asylum under this section, be granted the same status as the alien if accompanying, or following to join, such alien.

(B) Continued classification of certain aliens as children

An unmarried alien who seeks to accompany, or follow to join, a parent granted asylum under this subsection, and who was under 21 years of age on the date on which such parent applied for asylum under this section, shall continue to be classified as a child for purposes of this paragraph and section 1159(b)(3) of this title, if the alien attained 21 years of age after such application was filed but while it was pending.

(C) Initial jurisdiction

An asylum officer (as defined in section 1225(b)(1)(E) of this title) shall have initial jurisdiction over any asylum application filed by an unaccompanied alien child (as defined in section 279(g) of title 6), regardless of whether filed in accordance with this section or section 1225(b) of this title.

(c) Asylum status

(1) In generalIn the case of an alien granted asylum under subsection (b), the Attorney General—

(A) shall not remove or return the alien to the alien’s country of nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence;

(B) shall authorize the alien to engage in employment in the United States and provide the alien with appropriate endorsement of that authorization; and

(C) may allow the alien to travel abroad with the prior consent of the Attorney General.

(2) Termination of asylumAsylum granted under subsection (b) does not convey a right to remain permanently in the United States, and may be terminated if the Attorney General determines that—

(A) the alien no longer meets the conditions described in subsection (b)(1) owing to a fundamental change in circumstances;

(B) the alien meets a condition described in subsection (b)(2);

(C) the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien is eligible to receive asylum or equivalent temporary protection;

(D) the alien has voluntarily availed himself or herself of the protection of the alien’s country of nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the alien’s country of last habitual residence, by returning to such country with permanent resident status or the reasonable possibility of obtaining such status with the same rights and obligations pertaining to other permanent residents of that country; or

(E) the alien has acquired a new nationality and enjoys the protection of the country of his or her new nationality.

(3) Removal when asylum is terminated

An alien described in paragraph (2) is subject to any applicable grounds of inadmissibility or deportability under section [1] 1182(a) and 1227(a) of this title, and the alien’s removal or return shall be directed by the Attorney General in accordance with sections 1229a and 1231 of this title.

(d) Asylum procedure

(1) Applications

The Attorney General shall establish a procedure for the consideration of asylum applications filed under subsection (a). The Attorney General may require applicants to submit fingerprints and a photograph at such time and in such manner to be determined by regulation by the Attorney General.

(2) Employment

An applicant for asylum is not entitled to employment authorization, but such authorization may be provided under regulation by the Attorney General. An applicant who is not otherwise eligible for employment authorization shall not be granted such authorization prior to 180 days after the date of filing of the application for asylum.

(3) Fees

The Attorney General may impose fees for the consideration of an application for asylum, for employment authorization under this section, and for adjustment of status under section 1159(b) of this title. Such fees shall not exceed the Attorney General’s costs in adjudicating the applications. The Attorney General may provide for the assessment and payment of such fees over a period of time or by installments. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require the Attorney General to charge fees for adjudication services provided to asylum applicants, or to limit the authority of the Attorney General to set adjudication and naturalization fees in accordance with section 1356(m) of this title.

(4) Notice of privilege of counsel and consequences of frivolous applicationAt the time of filing an application for asylum, the Attorney General shall—

(A) advise the alien of the privilege of being represented by counsel and of the consequences, under paragraph (6), of knowingly filing a frivolous application for asylum; and

(B) provide the alien a list of persons (updated not less often than quarterly) who have indicated their availability to represent aliens in asylum proceedings on a pro bono basis.

(5) Consideration of asylum applications

(A) ProceduresThe procedure established under paragraph (1) shall provide that—

(i) asylum cannot be granted until the identity of the applicant has been checked against all appropriate records or databases maintained by the Attorney General and by the Secretary of State, including the Automated Visa Lookout System, to determine any grounds on which the alien may be inadmissible to or deportable from the United States, or ineligible to apply for or be granted asylum;

(ii) in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the initial interview or hearing on the asylum application shall commence not later than 45 days after the date an application is filed;

(iii) in the absence of exceptional circumstances, final administrative adjudication of the asylum application, not including administrative appeal, shall be completed within 180 days after the date an application is filed;

(iv) any administrative appeal shall be filed within 30 days of a decision granting or denying asylum, or within 30 days of the completion of removal proceedings before an immigration judge under section 1229a of this title, whichever is later; and

(v) in the case of an applicant for asylum who fails without prior authorization or in the absence of exceptional circumstances to appear for an interview or hearing, including a hearing under section 1229a of this title, the application may be dismissed or the applicant may be otherwise sanctioned for such failure.

(B) Additional regulatory conditions

The Attorney General may provide by regulation for any other conditions or limitations on the consideration of an application for asylum not inconsistent with this chapter.

(6) Frivolous applications

If the Attorney General determines that an alien has knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum and the alien has received the notice under paragraph (4)(A), the alien shall be permanently ineligible for any benefits under this chapter, effective as of the date of a final determination on such application.

(7) No private right of action

Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to create any substantive or procedural right or benefit that is legally enforceable by any party against the United States or its agencies or officers or any other person.
(e) Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

The provisions of this section and section 1159(b) of this title shall apply to persons physically present in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands or arriving in the Commonwealth (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including persons who are brought to the Commonwealth after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) only on or after January 1, 2014.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 1, § 208, as added Pub. L. 96–212, title II, § 201(b), Mar. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 105; amended Pub. L. 101–649, title V, § 515(a)(1), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 5053; Pub. L. 103–322, title XIII, § 130005(b), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2028; Pub. L. 104–132, title IV, § 421(a), Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1270; Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title VI, § 604(a), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–690; Pub. L. 107–56, title IV, § 411(b)(2), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 348; Pub. L. 107–208, § 4, Aug. 6, 2002, 116 Stat. 928; Pub. L. 109–13, div. B, title I, § 101(a), (b), May 11, 2005, 119 Stat. 302, 303; Pub. L. 110–229, title VII, § 702(j)(4), May 8, 2008, 122 Stat. 866; Pub. L. 110–457, title II, § 235(d)(7), Dec. 23, 2008, 122 Stat. 5080.)

[1]

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

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

Where are these laws? Where is the law that says people that illegally immigrate across our border and ask for asylum must be allowed to stay? Can any of you locate and display them for us?

We have been fighting illegal immigration for 14 years and never before Trump came along has anyone pointed the finger at Congress to say they are the reason illegal aliens can freely enter the US in unlimited quantities claiming "asylum"

ALIPAC has always claimed that Catch and Release is an Executive Branch policy that acts againt the spirit of existing laws.

There are multiple types of Catch and Release. There are the illegal alien releases that could be blamed on the Executive Branch, the ones where they are detained, assigned a court hearing, but due to no space in detention and no knowledge of prior records that pose a threat to human safety, ICE releases them. Even then, if there's no detention space, is that Executive Branch liability or Congress for failure to fund adequate detention space?

Then there's the ones who can't get a hearing in 6 months, and courts have ruled holding people longer than that waiting for a hearing is wrong and they should be released. Not clear on all the details. Then there's the the ones who are women and children and there's some 20 day court ruling for them and they're released. Then there's the BP releases where they know when they catch them there's no detention space so they get a hearing date with a release order and just release them. Then there's the asylum seekers, refugees and unaccompanied children who are detained but hearing dates so far into the future that they are also released. Then there's the ones who are Mexicans that BP can release back into Mexico without hearings, but they often just come back in another day. Then there's the OTM, other than Mexicans, BP can't release back into Mexico, can't get a speedy hearing, so get a hearing date and a release order, and release them.

Catch and Release isn't a legal term, it's a phrase to describe the releases that occur for a variety of reasons because of laws, court rulings, lack of detention space and the total failure of the US Department of Justice to provide a speedy deportation hearing.

All hearings need to be moved out of DOJ back to DHS where they used to be. INS/DHS used to issue deportation orders, then the laws were changed and deportation hearings were moved to DOJ. That's when this huge back-log started to develop. DOJ is not the suitable agency to handle this type of logistics processing to issue deportation orders, DHS should be the one to do that. You don't need lawyers or judges to do this, any experienced senior BP or ICE agent or knowledgeable DHS employee can do this. Even local people can be hired to do this.

Congress also needs to repeal the TPS status and work permits. No one here without formal legal status should have the right to work in the United States.

. . . Q: Do I have the right to a hearing before an immigration judge to defend myself against deportation charges?


A: Yes. In most cases only an immigration judge can order you deported.


But if you waive (give up) your rights or take "voluntary departure" (agree to leave) you could be deported without a hearing.


If you have criminal convictions, were arrested at the border, or have been ordered deported in the past, you could be deported without a hearing . . .


http://www.weareoneamerica.org/homeland-security


http://www.alipac.us/f12/illegal-ali...1990-a-305859/

Catch and release (U.S. immigration policy)

Catch and release is the unofficial name of a protocol that has been followed by immigration enforcement agencies in the United States^[when?] (specifically, by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection), under which people caught in unlawful immigration status are released while they wait for a hearing with an immigration judge. The "catch and release" nickname came into use during the George W. Bush administration, with alternative advocated approaches described as "catch and return" or "catch and detain".^{[citation needed]}

Due to the lack of resources available to immigration enforcement officials to detain larger numbers of people, as well as the lengthy time period between apprehension and being ordered deported, catch-and-release has been a de facto policy followed by ICE and its predecessor agencies – those believed to be in violation of immigration status have been released and given a date when they are ordered to appear before an immigration judge for a deportation hearing. Knowing that coming to a hearing could lead to them being deported, many of these people fail to turn up to their hearings.

Contents

[hide]

• 1History
  
  • 1.1Under George W. Bush
  • 1.2Under Barack Obama
  • 1.3Under Donald Trump
  
  
• 2References

History[edit]

Under George W. Bush[edit]

The need to release detainees that could otherwise be deported is primarily a practical matter – U.S. immigration officials simply do not have sufficient facilities (and the funding to operate them) to detain all the people they discover in apparent violation of immigration laws and process them for deportation.

The authority of the U.S. to detain immigrants indefinitely is also limited, even if the facilities are available. In June 2001, in the Zadvydas v. Davis decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling prohibiting exceptionally lengthy detentions in the absence of strong justification. In that case, other countries had refused to accept some individuals that the U.S. wanted to deport. The court ruled that such people could not be detained for longer than six months unless the government could show that the deportation was expected to be completed in the foreseeable future or that some special circumstances applied, such as a danger to the public or a substantial flight risk.

In October 2005, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff told a hearing of the United States Senate that he intended to end the catch-and-release policy soon, so as to reduce illegal immigration to the United States and the security threat posed by it.^[1] In late July 2006, Chertoff announced that the United States had ended the catch-and-release policy a few months earlier, and the recent infusion of funding for border security had been helpful with implementing the policy. In response, many lawmakers expressed skepticism.^[2] In August 2006, Chertoff provided more details, saying that the change had led to a drop of 20,000 in the number of border-crossers. According to the new policy, those caught in immigration violation would generally be detained until their hearing, with the possible exception of Mexicans who had recently arrived, who could be subject to expedited removal. While not everybody would be detained, detention would become the default option.^[3][4] In a February 2007 statement before the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, Chertoff confirmed that the policy had ended completely starting August 2006, and reported the changes observed to the number of apprehensions as a result.^[5]

David Mulhausen of the Heritage Foundation said that the end of the policy was a positive development but still did not address the problem of the large number of border-crossers from Mexico who were immediately turned back but could keep re-attempting entry.^[4]

Under Barack Obama[edit]

In January 2015, Brandon Darby, writing for Breitbart.com, published leaked internal training documents of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection that provided guidelines advising catch-and-release practices. The leaked documents were a result of the November 2014 executive action on immigration undertaken by Barack Obama's administration (and would also form the basis for the Priority Enforcement Program, revealed in mid-2015):^[6] The documents identified three priority categories for those believed to be in violation of authorized status:

1. Aliens who "pose a threat to national security, border security, or public safety"
2. Aliens who are "misdemeanants and new immigration violators"
3. All other immigration violators

The instructions to CBP noted that those in category 3 would not be detained and deported, and therefore CBP agents were advised to not waste resources arresting them but rather focus on priority one and priority two offenders.^[6] The Associated Press reported on a similar set of guidelines.^[7]

Reporting about the guidelines for Vox.com, Dara Lind noted that, while Breitbart.com was claiming that this policy was "catch and release 2.0", ICE agents said that the guidance they received had always been similar, suggesting that, as far as internal guidance went, the original catch-and-release policies had never actually ended. However, because ICE and CBP officials often rounded up low-priority offenders despite them being low-priority, the Obama administration had to provide more explicit guidance and also introduce the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans programs to explicitly protect people in low-priority categories from deportation.^[8]
On a similar note, in a backgrounder for the Center for Immigration Studies, Jessica Vaughan used ICE memos from 2013 as well as deportation numbers to argue that catch and release was the de facto immigration enforcement policy for a sizable fraction of people caught for being in violation of immigration law.^[9]

In 2014, Chuck Grassley and other Republican senators introduced legislation to close what they called a "catch-and-release loophole", namely the judicial ban on detaining certain aliens that was established by the Zadvydas v. Davis decision (described above). ^[10]

Under Donald Trump[edit]

Immigration being one of the biggest issues of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, candidate Trump spoke of catch and release in a major speech on immigration policy some months before the election, stating that then-President Obama and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton supported it and that he (Trump) would end it.^[11]

In February 2017, DHS Secretary John Kelly, pursuant to executive orders by President Trump, ordered an end to catch-and-release.^[12] But Reuters reported the following June that "immigration attorneys, government statistics and even some officials from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ... suggest that ... there has been no clear change to the catch-and-release policy."

The article indicated that ending catch and release was impracticable due to a shortage of detention facilities and a court ruling limiting the stay of women and children to 21 days in custody.^[13]

In April 2018, Trump signed another executive memorandum calling for an end to the practice.^[14][15]

The memo ordered government officials to produce reports on progress to end the practice and ordering the preparation of a list of facilities, including military facilities, where additional detainees could be held.

However, it did not provide a way to fund additional detentions, and the practice was continuing with no discernible effect, since mandating detention without release would greatly expand the number of people being held and would be costly.^[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_...ration_policy)

References[edit]

• Jump up^ "Chertoff: End 'Catch and Release' at Borders". Associated Press via Fox News. October 18, 2005. Retrieved July 18, 2015.
• Jump up^ "Chertoff hails end of let-go policy". Washington Times. July 28, 2006. Retrieved July 18,2015.
• Jump up^ Jordan, Lara Jakes (August 23, 2006). "U.S. Ends 'Catch-And-Release' at Border". Retrieved June 17, 2015.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "U.S. announces end of 'catch and release'. Chertoff says new 'detain' policy means". WorldNetDaily. August 23, 2006. Retrieved June 17, 2015.
• Jump up^ "Testimony of The Honorable Michael Chertoff" (PDF). February 28, 2007. Retrieved July 18, 2015.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Darby, Brandon (January 11, 2015). "Catch and Release 2.0 — Leaks Highlight Teardown of Immigration Enforcement". Breitbart.com. Retrieved July 18, 2015.
• Jump up^ Caldwell, Alicia (January 28, 2015). "Obama Administration Tells Agents to ID Which Immigrants Not to Deport". Associated Press via realclearpolitics.com. Retrieved April 2,2018.
• Jump up^ Lind, Dara (January 29, 2015). "Obama just picked a fight with border agents". Vox.com. Retrieved July 18, 2015.
• Jump up^ Vaughan, Jessica (March 1, 2014). "Catch and Release. Interior immigration enforcement in 2013". Center for Immigration Studies. Retrieved July 18, 2015.
• Jump up^ "Senators Introduce Bill to Close Catch-and-Release Loophole". Senator Chuck Grassley's Senate website. June 11, 2014. Retrieved July 18, 2015.
• Jump up^ Bump, Philip (August 31, 2016). "Here's what Donald Trump said in his big immigration speech, annotated". www.washingtonpost.com. Retrieved April 2, 2018.
• Jump up^ Berger, Judson (February 21, 2017). "DHS secretary orders immigration agent hiring surge, end to 'catch-and-release'". www.foxnews.com. Retrieved April 1, 2018.
• Jump up^ Julia Edwards Ainsley (June 6, 2017). "Despite Trump vow to end catch and release, he is still freeing thousands of migrants". www.reuters.com. Retrieved April 2, 2018.
• Jump up^ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/u...on-policy.html
• Jump up^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1HD31Q
• Jump up^ http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...206-story.html