Trump’s Amnesty For Illegal Workers Punishes Employers Who Follow The Law
If the cost of maintaining a sovereign nation is paying, in the short term, slightly more for food grown and harvested by American hands, then it's a price worth paying.If the cost of maintaining a sovereign nation is paying, in the short term, slightly more for food grown and harvested by American hands, then it's a price worth paying.Six years to removal? Inside America’s broken immigration courts
In drab, windowless rooms strung along a tight corridor, migrants who have flooded into the United States in recent years trickle before immigration judges each weekday morning.
These makeshift courtrooms are a far cry from the scorched border with Mexico and busy ports and airports through which these millions of immigrants have entered the United States, almost all illegally. But despite the differences in miles, atmosphere, and often language, the people appearing in U.S. immigration court (“alien respondents,” in legal terms) know what is afoot.
Migrants displayed a savvy understanding of immigration law that allows the adjudication of the proceedings to stretch for years.
In many cases, they are making their first appearance after being in the U.S. for years, and with careful pleadings and use of appeals, many know they can stay here for years to come. While Trump administration immigration tactics — such as arrests and deportations — dominate the headlines, the situation in court, where most of the final decisions will be made, is another thing the administration is trying to change.
“A surprising number of the aliens know how to work the system in an attempt to run out the clock on the Trump administration, by requesting serial continuances and filing frivolous or otherwise questionable appeals and by motions to reopen,” said Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge now with the Center for Immigration Studies, which opposes wide-open immigration. “Some will be successful, but as the recent immigration court arrests indicate, the administration is attempting to limit those efforts.”
Recently, RealClearInvestigations observed days of immigration court proceedings to gain insight into the current state of a system with a backlog of more than 3.6 million people, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which tracks immigration court figures through monthly Freedom of Information Act requests. New Orleans is but one thread in a sprawling web of often obscure courts, stretching from Massachusetts to Washington and from Saipan to Puerto Rico.
From a first appearance to an asylum hearing, the New Orleans courts seemed busy. This reflects the fact that historically, most immigrants to the U.S. follow their legal schedule, which begins with a “Notice to Appear” being issued to them either when they are apprehended at the border or subsequently after they have been paroled into the 48 contiguous states.
RELATED: Mass deportation or bust: Trump’s one shot to get it right
“It’s never been the case that people aren’t showing up en masse,” said Kevin A. Gregg, an immigration attorney in California who hosts the weekly “Immigration Review” podcast. “The number of those who show up has always been very high, especially among people who have been in the U.S. a very long time.”
Paradoxically, however, the Trump administration’s recent vow to push arrests of illegal immigrants to 3,000 a day, along with some changes it has made to how it handles court cases, could serve to make attendance less regular, according to Gregg and others critical of Trump’s push. As attorneys and court officials told RealClearInvestigations, “Never underestimate the community,” meaning arrivals know the system from those who have gone through it before them. Now, if conventional wisdom says court appearances could lead to an earlier expulsion from the U.S., those here illegally will shy away.
“With immigration court specifically, ICE has been dismissing court proceedings in order to then immediately detain noncitizens and place them in expedited removal proceedings where they have far less rights and no eligibility for bond,” Gregg said. “Whether correct or not, many noncitizens will likely begin to view this as a trap and may not show up to immigration court out of fear. I don’t condone not showing up, of course, but I believe it’s a possible foreseeable consequence of what ICE is doing right now.”
Already, the Trump administration’s aggressive approach has sparked litigation and civil disturbances, from a Milwaukee judge allegedly helping “alien respondents” escape criminal proceedings to the recent riots in Los Angeles.
A long process
One late May morning, there were four New Orleans immigration courts operating, with a total of nearly 140 people on the docket, most of them first appearances. On this day, no-shows composed a very small percentage of those on the “master calendars,” as the morning dockets are known. In Judge Joseph La Rocca’s courtroom, for instance, only five of the more than 30 respondents listed on the master calendar did not appear; they were quickly handled “in absentia” and deemed removable.
That same day, in Judge Alberto A. De Puy’s courtroom, as many as six languages were used. The court has a Spanish translator present at all times, but for other languages, interpreters on the East Coast join by phone. In the hearings RealClearInvestigations witnessed, these involved Arabic, Hindi, Hassaniya, Turkish, and Konkani, reflecting a large percentage of Middle Eastern or Asian immigrants. Paperwork in the court’s small waiting room is available in seven languages, including Creole and Wolof, an African tongue.
De Puy’s master calendar hearing was a Zoom session with migrants at the federal detention center in Jena, Louisiana. There, men in dull gray scrubs sat in rows, while De Puy scrambled to find translators. This proceeding was further complicated by a protest outside the Jena facility, which has gained notoriety by holding the Columbia University graduate and Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil and other foreign nationals arrested by federal authorities since President Trump took office.
No one knows exactly how many people appear in U.S. immigration court each day. “That would be a great statistic, wouldn’t it?” said Susan Long, director of Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. But there are more than 700 U.S. immigration judges, whom the attorney general appoints to the administrative posts under the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. If somehow the New Orleans morning sessions RealClearInvestigations followed could be extended daily to each judge’s courtroom, perhaps a dent could be made in the backlog, which includes more than 2 million pending asylum cases, according to TRAC.
That’s a fanciful assumption, of course, and at first glance, the looming numbers seem daunting to the Trump administration’s goal of sharply reducing or clearing the dockets. Still, some experts see promising signs as the figures for illegal crossings plummet.
If conventional wisdom says court appearances could lead to an earlier expulsion from the US, those here illegally will shy away.
“The situation is improving,” Arthur said. “It’s as if Trump patched a hole in the side of a boat, and now he’s bailing out the water the boat took in.”
For all the hue and cry about due process protections that have captivated activists and the federal bench over the past four months, the migrants appearing in New Orleans displayed a savvy understanding of immigration law that allows the adjudication of the proceedings to stretch for years.
The respondents sat quietly on wooden benches, in some cases accompanied by children. Most were neatly dressed and with their hair carefully braided or combed. The children appeared to be something of a prop, as each time they appeared, the judge asked that they attend school instead of court. Even on a first appearance, many of the respondents seemed to have a good idea of what would happen.
Most master calendar cases involved a “notice to appear,” and few of those were recent. For example, most of the people RCI observed in court the morning of May 22 had received their notice to appear a year and a half ago, in 2023, although a handful had received them as recently as last December.
Few of the immigrants had lawyers, which court observers called a wise move. If it was a first appearance, the judge asked if they wanted representation, noting that while the Sixth Amendment does not entitle them to an attorney, the court maintains a list of immigration attorneys who may offer their services at affordable rates or pro bono. Invariably, the person requested time to find a lawyer and thus received another court date — on these May days, that was set for seven months later in December.
For the others not requesting more time to find a lawyer, the judge rapidly read boilerplate language and determined that the person had entered the U.S. illegally and was subject to removal. At that point, the judge asked the respondents if they wanted to “designate a country for removal should removal become necessary.” Here, the respondents or their attorneys invariably declined.
This is a well-understood delay tactic that often fails. Despite the lack of response, the judge quickly set a country for removal and moved to do the same for a removal hearing. The judges perused their computer screens, presumably for scheduling purposes, and in some cases then scheduled that hearing for 2029.
In other words, almost all the “alien respondents” were given a lot more time. It was not unusual to see people having six years or more in the U.S. between the day of their arrival and a removal proceeding.
‘A lot more detention’
The legal process is different for those in detention, and attorneys and court officials told RCI that “there is a lot more detention” now under the Trump administration. Judge De Puy’s master calendar involved the detained men in Jena on one screen, with the occasional immigration lawyer cutting in from a separate office and a government lawyer from Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor appearing on yet another video screen.
De Puy gave those making a first appearance months to try to obtain counsel, but he was less forgiving of those who were making a second appearance and asked for more time after failing to obtain representation. Several men — all those appearing were men — requested more time, but De Puy did not grant it in the cases RCI observed.
Some men requested “voluntary departure.” Arthur said this is a ploy that, in the past, allowed immigrants to melt into the interior, thereby delaying their cases, and the government lawyer seemed to have that in mind as he agreed to “voluntary departure” only “with safeguards,” which meant the men would remain in detention until their travel arrangements were made. Just how that might happen and when, given that the migrant is responsible for them, was unclear.
RELATED: Katy Perry drops weird post in support of ICE rioters and gets nailed with a history lesson
There were other oddities. For example, De Puy twice asked a man from India, who entered the U.S. in December 2023, if he would like to “designate a country of removal.” After not answering the first time, the man then replied, “I can’t go back to India.”
“The court is going to designate India as the country of removal,” De Puy said immediately, at which point the man said he would “like to go back to India” and requested “voluntary departure.”
Of those migrants held at Jena who appeared that morning, only those seeking voluntary departure seemed destined to leave the U.S. soon.
The emphasis on detention is not the only major change the proceedings appeared to have under Trump, compared to when RealClearInvestigations first visited immigration court in 2022. Then, the government attorney would often offer what was dubbed “prosecutorial discretion.”
This amounted to a “get out of court free” pass. The judge told the person receiving prosecutorial discretion, “You are free to go and live your life, and the government has no interest in removing you from the country.”
Biden-era prosecutorial discretion
It’s not clear how many illegal immigrants benefited from the Biden-era prosecutorial discretion, as the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to questions about it in 2022 or now. Those who received it were in addition to the more than 2.8 million the Biden administration simply paroled into the country immediately, a novel twist to immigration law subsequently ruled illegal by federal judges.
Under Trump, a similar step is taken with a different tone. In some instances, the Department of Homeland Security’s lawyer announced the government was “dropping charges” as the person is “no longer an enforcement priority.” Doing so does not change the fact that these people have previously been ruled “removable,” and by dropping the charges, the Department of Homeland Security can arrest and deport the illegal immigrant.
Of those migrants who appeared in court that morning, only those seeking voluntary departure seemed destined to leave the US soon.
That has led to arrests right outside immigration courts from Boston to New Orleans and elsewhere. While Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents can’t be outside every courtroom every day, this emphatic new move is precisely the one that could lead immigrants to eschew court as word spreads in the community about what is happening.
Judge La Rocca seemed concerned about this development, which, like some of the novel twists to immigration law under the Biden administration, has sparked federal litigation. At one point, when the government suddenly moved to drop the charges, La Rocca asked the immigrant if he wanted to accept that arrangement, which would leave him “without status” and still eligible for removal, or if he wished to continue to a removal proceeding. The overarching message was that the U.S. may move to deport the person.
La Rocca warned the government to be up front about what this might mean for the respondent, saying he “had heard of cases where he walked out the door and was arrested.”
Although the administration has endured criticism over the lack of due process for migrants deported on planes to El Salvador, judges in New Orleans unfailingly made clear to those in court the options available to them. In nearly every case, when the judge asked a person if he wanted to request asylum, the answer was “yes.”
Seeking asylum
That requires another future court date, usually years down the road. Asylum proceedings are not open to the public absent approval from the judge and the seeker, but RCI obtained such permission to witness two hearings.
In the first, a couple from Honduras who came to the United States in April 2022 had requested asylum on the grounds that they were afraid to return. The woman testified that her brother had been murdered and that when they tried to bring information about the case to Honduran police, in a town hours away from their hometown, a masked man brandished a gun at them. Suspicious cars then began to lurk around their home.
The government attorney asked why they could not move somewhere else in Honduras, or if they had tried to go anywhere other than the U.S. They had not, they testified. The husband said his sister is associated with drug gangs, and consequently, the couple did not feel safe anywhere in Honduras. The woman testified she never planned to immigrate, but for their family’s welfare, they fled here.
La Rocca considered the case privately for some 90 minutes, then denied the asylum application. He told the couple he believed their testimony, but that their case did not meet the asylum requirements, which specify credible evidence that the applicant fears discrimination at home because of race, sex, religion, membership in social groups, or fear of torture.
RELATED: Majority of Americans support deportation of all illegal immigrants
But that does not end the couple’s immigration court odyssey. La Rocca asked if they wished to appeal his decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. When they said they did, La Rocca told them they must file that appeal in the next 30 days, which would lead to yet another court appearance.
The second hearing RCI witnessed was before Judge Eric Marsteller. That case involved a 2022 application from an El Salvador woman and her two sons, who have each also filed separate asylum claims.
For unclear reasons, the woman’s attorneys withdrew in February, and she told Marsteller that she had been unable to find a replacement since then. Although she has family in the U.S. — a sister who has been granted asylum, a brother, and her mother — all of the supporting evidence for her claim of horrific abuse from her father came from a letter sent by a former partner in El Salvador.
Marsteller accepted the letter but told her it couldn’t be entered into the record because it was in Spanish. A man in court, identified as her stepfather, stated that the woman and her sons live with him in Louisiana, and he informed the judge that he would be responsible for them.
After more than an hour of the hearing, during which the sons departed the courtroom when the woman described her allegations of abuse, Marsteller asked the government for its position. The government attorney informed the court that the notice the woman had received was for a master calendar appearance, not an asylum hearing. Startled, Marsteller was forced to schedule another hearing. It will be in December 2026.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.
Mass deportations are the Christian thing to do
Right now, leftists are using the power of the pulpit, twisting Scripture, and blasting Christians for supporting President Donald Trump’s immigration raids.
President Trump, of course, promised to deport millions of illegal aliens who have entered the country. Most Americans support these endeavors.
As part of an effort to stop Trump, leftists say that mass deportations and the restriction of immigration violate core Christian principles of caring for the poor and needy. Even certain Catholic bishops are claiming we cannot deport illegal aliens.
That assertion is entirely false.
Don't let leftists twist Scripture to make you feel bad for wanting violent freaks out of your country and for being concerned with America's common good.
What does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say? Well, it is clear about Christians' duty of care to migrants.
In paragraph 2241 of the Catechism, it says, “The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.”
The key phrase here is “to the extent they are able.” The United States is a very prosperous nation. Yes, we are. But are we really able to welcome everyone in the world? No, of course not.
We are trillions of dollars in debt. Thousands upon thousands of Americans die from drug overdoses every year. We have rampant poverty in many parts of the U.S., broken families in rural and inner cities, and social degradation across the board.
The U.S. government has a duty first and foremost to protect its own citizens. Allowing mass migration exacerbates all those issues and harms U.S. citizens.
So what should political authorities do regarding immigration? They are called to consider the “common good” in all that they do.
To get more content like this direct to your inbox, sign up for the Liz Wheeler Newsletter. Click here to sign up.
The Catechism goes on to say, “Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption.”
So what does this mean? Countries have a right to secure their borders. We have a right to self-definition. We have a right to enforce our laws. We have a right to enforce our immigration laws.
And we have a right to condition immigration laws upon immigrants assimilating into our American values. This is Christian teaching.
Christians are not called to implement an open-borders policy. We are not morally obligated to redistribute wealth. We are not morally obligated to allow our daughters to be assaulted and raped by illegal aliens who reside in our communities or to allow members of gangs like MS-13 to infiltrate our cities and cause crime to skyrocket.
So what does the Catholic Church teach regarding immigrants?
It says that immigrants “are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”
That means the Church says that immigrants should not violate the law by coming across the border illegally. It means all immigrants are called to respect America’s Christian and capitalist heritage.
We are not called to allow immigration to run wild without concern for our common good.
Just last week, President Trump arrested at least 538 violent criminals of the worst kind. You’re telling me it’s the Christian thing to let them stay in your town? Would you want them as your neighbor?
No, you’re not a bad person for wanting to keep yourself and your family safe. You’re not a bad person for wanting to preserve America’s sovereignty and national identity and to improve our immigration system so that it truly benefits U.S. citizens.
Don't let leftists twist Scripture to make you feel bad for wanting violent freaks out of your country and for being concerned with America's common good.
Horowitz: Texas should secure its own border. Here’s how.
"Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive's refusal to enforce the Nation's immigration laws?"
That was the question Justice Antonin Scalia posed in his partial concurrence in Arizona v. U.S. in 2012, when there were 357,000 apprehensions at our southern border. With four months left in this fiscal year, there have already been 900,000 apprehensions, with the numbers from the past three months nearly tying the all-time record.
But the situation at the border is even worse than those numbers suggest. The number of gotaways, which are usually the worst criminals, is higher than ever. Also, this comes at a time when Border Patrol and border infrastructure are much larger and more robust than they were during the greatest previous waves of illegal immigration 20 years ago, which makes the lack of deterrent behind those numbers all the more remarkable.
The reason why things are worse than ever despite more agents on the ground is because our Border Patrol is now being used to actively work with the cartel smugglers. Todd Bensman of the Center for Immigration Studies reports that CBP has prohibited agents from catching the smuggler who steers the rafts across the Rio Grande River.
"So established is this non-belligerence arrangement that cops and smugglers often banter with one another across the water or at the Texas shore about the weather, or how long the boats might be running tonight," reports Bensman. "Scenes play out where Border Patrol agents simply watch from five or six feet away as smugglers stand on the Texas riverbank or in shallow Rio Grande waters helping their illegal-alien customers out of boats."
From his conversations with high-ranking officials at the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), Bensman, who worked at the Texas DPS for 10 years, reports that CBP is warning Texas officials that they should also refrain from nabbing the smugglers as well.
Taken together, this strategy ensures that all the assets of Border Patrol are actually being harnessed to facilitate a more efficient invasion, which is why the numbers are sky high.
Which brings us back to the original question posed by Scalia in 2012: Are states really at the mercy of DHS' criminal behavior in not only leaving the border wide open but downright facilitating human smuggling into the states?
In 2006, then-Sen. Joe Biden and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer voted for the Secure Fence Act. It required the secretary of homeland security to "take all actions" necessary within 18 months of passage to "achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States" (emphasis added). Section 2(b) of the bill defined "operational control" as "the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband."
What has ever come of this requirement? Why should a state be constrained by "federal powers," if they are suffering from the results of the feds violating those very federal powers?
Article I, § 10, cl. 3 (the Compact Clause) states:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
The Constitution is clear that, all things equal, states shouldn't engage in warfare with other countries. But all things are not equal in this case, and the Constitution made an exception for those times when states are invaded and in imminent danger.
John Marshall, during the Virginia Ratifying Convention, made it clear that this section affirms that the power given to the states by the people to repel an invasion "is not taken away" by the federal war powers. "When invaded, they [can] engage in war, as also when in imminent danger," asserted the future chief justice during the debate over the Compact Clause on Monday, June 16, 1788. "This clearly proves that the states can use the militia when they find it necessary."
Joseph Story in his commentary on the Compact Clause writes that while the prohibition on states making war is obviously necessary, it was "wisely guarded by exceptions sufficient for the safety of the states, and not justly open to the objection of being dangerous to the Union."
Still, a state may be so situated, that it may become indispensable to possess military forces, to resist an expected invasion, or insurrection. The danger may be too imminent for delay; and under such circumstances, a state will have a right to raise troops for its own safety, even without the consent of Congress.
Haven't the border states (the ones that still care) waited long enough, with too much delay, to act unilaterally?
Some might suggest that caravans and groups of illegal aliens coming north are obviously not part of a declared war. But if you look at the original language of Article IV's guarantee clause protecting states from invasion, Madison originally drafted its language to be read as protecting against "foreign violence." It's clear that this was not necessarily referring to formal warfare with a nation-state, but repelling violent incursions from Indian tribes. If a state can't protect against foreign violence, then what can a state do?
Remember, in addition to telling CBP to stand down at the border, the Biden administration is handcuffing ICE from removing even the most violent foreign criminals. Does that mean a state is forced to allow illegal alien rapists to remain within its borders with no recourse? There has been a 900% increase in apprehension of criminal aliens just in the Laredo Sector alone. Is Texas without any right to stop the untold numbers who are likely getting away and cutting through the ranches of its citizens?
As always, the Lone Star State needs to go it alone and lead the way. Governor Greg Abbott should call a special session to bolster the resources and legal authority of state and local law enforcement to deter and punish illegal aliens. The following issues should be addressed:
- A surge in funding for an entire division of the Texas DPS to focus solely on deterring illegal immigration.
- A surge in resources to build or repurpose jail space to hold illegal aliens who are charged on state crimes.
- Severe mandatory minimum sentences for human smuggling, criminal trespassing, child endangerment, and other existing state crimes that can be used to hit those coming over the border. Also, make them ineligible for bail because they are, by definition, the ultimate flight risk.
- Pass Rep. Bryan Slaton's bill to have Texas build the border wall. This can be done with a public crowdsourcing campaign as well.
- In addition, it's time to make illegal immigration a state crime. Many federal crimes are doubled up as state crimes, and there's no reason why illegal immigration should be any different. With a new Supreme Court, it's time to challenge some of the premises behind the erroneous legal theory of the 2012 Arizona v. U.S. decision.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com