Subject: Re: They say they don't want open borders...
Albaby schooled us on the situation is immutable without legislation. So where is this discretion coming from?

The Administration has limited discretion in certain circumstances, mostly involved with what happens to asylees while they're waiting for their hearing.

Dope's assessment upthread was factually wrong in a few key points. Typical asylum cases get resolved after about 4.5 years, and most asylum seekers do show up for their hearings. And many of those asylees are granted asylum - about 30-40% win their cases.

The really difficult issues come up when trying to figure out how to manage the asylee population pending their cases. By law, they're entitled to their court hearing. So you have a few different options:

1) Detain them. Lock them up in camps while their hearing is pending. There are quite a few problems with doing this, though. Mostly, it's very expensive, and we just don't have the funds appropriated to feed, clothe, house, and provide medicine for all these people for several years while their cases are waiting. But it's also illegal to detain minor children for more than a month, and it's near-impossible to manage a system where they're separated from their families for years and then reunited at the end.

2) Release them into the U.S. (without more). This is the current result for a large number of asylees. The main problem here is that while the federal government no longer has to pay for their well-being if they're not detained, they're also not legally permitted to work - so they can't really support themselves, either. So the same problem exists (who pays?), but it gets shifted to state or local governments (or charities).

3) Release them into the U.S. and parole them or give them TPS. This is the scenario that Biden has pursued for some asylee classes (like Venezuelans), and which AOC is probably advocating. You end up in the same situation as #2, but now the migrants can actually work for a living while they're awaiting their hearings. There are economic impacts to that, but you don't have state or local governments being crushed.

4) Speed up the judicial system. Basically, this translates into setting up more immigration courts and hiring more immigration judges. Rather than have everyone wait for 4.5 years, get them in front of a judge in a matter of months. You could reduce the number of pending asylum cases by 90% without having to worry about either detaining them or letting them live in the U.S. for years. If they win they get their green card, if they lose they're deported. That seems like it would be a win-win, and it would be if Dope was right about migrants mostly claiming asylum as a pretext. The problem with this solution, though, is that asylees generally have a good chance to win their cases - so speeding up their cases means that you end up with lots of newly-granted green cards, which conservatives do not want. Also, this also requires massive funding, which the Administration can't do on its own.

5) Find somewhere else for them to wait. That was Trump's "Remain in Mexico" solution - basically, find another country that's willing to suffer all the adverse consequences to people stuck in limbo that we're unwilling to stomach. Hard to do....Mexico's not going to agree to that again, and there aren't really any other candidates.


The President has the ability to tinker, at the edges, with what happens to asylees during the time between apprehension and their hearings. But not the ability to change the laws that govern asylum, or to make funding magically appear for either detention centers or more courts/judges.