New Border Program Puts Asylum Seekers on Fast Track to Deportation. Trump administration policy dramatically limits time migrants have to prove they should be granted asylum; critics say it circumvents due process

Wall Street Journal ^ | February 28, 2020 | Michelle Hackman

[karpov]

When Juliana Garcia crossed the U.S.-Mexico border with her 8-year-old daughter, Glendy, in December, she hoped to find safety and build a new life with her father living in Tennessee.

But Ms. Garcia and her daughter remained in the U.S. just 25 days before being returned to Guatemala. Based on where they crossed the border, near El Paso, Texas, the two were placed in an experimental Trump administration program designed to give asylum seekers brief and rapid access to the U.S. legal system—and deport them quickly if the government finds they don’t qualify for protection.

A review of the Garcias’ case provides a rare look at the program’s structure, which has processed several thousand people to date, and the hurdles it presents for asylum seekers and their lawyers.

The program, known as the Prompt Asylum Claim Review, or PACR, streamlines the process of applying for asylum so that applicants receive a decision in a matter of days, rather than the months or years it typically takes for a case to work its way through the backlogged immigration-court system.

The U.S. government quietly launched the PACR program in El Paso in October and is expanding it across the southern border this month.

Testifying before a House panel on Wednesday, acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said PACR allows asylum seekers to “have their day in court quickly, so we can know whether they have that right to be in the U.S. legally or not.”

But lawyers and advocates who have worked with clients in the program say the fast timeline and restrictions on communications with lawyers undercut due process and make it very difficult for them to win their cases.

Several organizations, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, are suing the government, alleging PACR violates immigration laws.

[Buckeye McFrog]

They HAD due process.

They made their case before a judge, who rejected it.

What they did not have is months and years to disappear into the woodwork while the bureaucracy kicked their paperwork around.

[Leep]

“critics say it circumvents due process”

That’s a good one..Don’t they know after the attempted impeachment of President Trump, who didn’t get due process, that due process is optional?

[sheehan]

all illegals should be on the fast track for deportation (including DACA parasites)

[uranium penguin]

but...

It’s not over until the Illegals wins!!

[aquila48]

“If your life was truly in danger and you made it to Mexico - you are safe enough. Trying to upgrade from Mexico to the US is just for economic reasons, not asylum reasons.”

And she should have applied in Mexico, if you want to go with due process.

[eyeamok]

If you Originally Enter the Country Illegally, you will NEVER get asylum or a Green Card, My Wife came here Legally on a Tourist Visa, then we got married and filed the Paperwork, but she came here LEGALLY Originally.

[Pollster1]

Good. Deport all illegals - no exceptions. Deport all illegals who claim asylum unless they can prove their claims - again, no exceptions. Deport all foreigners who are a public charge - coming here and demanding that productive Americans support them on welfare - no exceptions.

[4Runner]

...an experimental Trump administration program designed to give asylum seekers brief and rapid access to the U.S. legal system...

Why are foreign nationsla all over the globe being given access to the U.S."legal system"? If I want access to our "legal system" as a U.S. citizen I have to be able to afford an attorney. And since when are foreign nationals entitled to "due process"? That's a Constitutional protection and they are NOT citizens.

[RasterMaster]

Wouldn’t Natzi Pelosi’s district be a contributing factor in the spread of the virus in California?

https://fortune.com/2020/02/20/coronavirus-fecal-transmission/

[pfflier]

Duh, do you think sneaking across the border also violates “due process”?

[TADSLOS]

Due Process = GTFO!!

[Liz]

Amen.

[Sequoyah101]

Sure they are. And God has a place for them. It isn’t here.

[Lurker]

Now go find her old man in Tennessee and deport his ass too. That way the family will be reunited.

L

[Svartalfiar]

I cannot come up with a single legitimate asylum situation when arriving via land from Mexico. If your life was truly in danger and you made it to Mexico - you are safe enough. Trying to upgrade from Mexico to the US is just for economic reasons, not asylum reasons.

Not just that, but asylum claims are supposed to be limited to very specific claims -
- You are unable or unwilling to return to your home country because you have been persecuted there in the past or have a well-founded fear that you will be persecuted if you go back.
- The reason you have been (or will be) persecuted is connected to one of five things: your race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or your political opinion.

What country south of our border actually qualifies here? Venezuela, but what else? None of theose countries have organized oppression. Sure, there tons of corruption, but that's it. On the NGO side there are the drug cartels, but that's pretty iffy on if they would qualify under the above restrictions. Drug cartels go against anyone going against them, they don't care about nationality or creed or skin color. This is a law enforcement issue in those countries, not a grounds for asylum claim. At "best", Congress could pass a temporary refugee status for drug cartel ridden areas, similar to the temporary Haitian one. (And actually end this one in the future!) But otherwise, none of these people should qualify for asylum.