Last week’s Los Angeles riots against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was the expected consequence of prolonged inaction in Washington regarding immigration law enforcement. The scenes of masked individuals setting ablaze government properties and attacking law enforcement officers clarified one thing: the crisis is not confined to the border. President Trump promised to bring back normality by implementing a large-scale deportation operation. To do this, however, Congress’s cooperation is imperative. Specifically, Congress needs to acknowledge a crucial yet frequently overlooked issue: without a properly functioning immigration court system, deportations are impossible.
Presently, more than 4 million migrant cases are caught in a state of uncertainty, thus incentivizing fresh waves of illegal immigration. The situation essentially encourages individuals to cross the border and enjoy employment for up to a decade while awaiting a hearing date, after which deportation becomes a social issue. Congress is slowly acknowledging this problem. My calculations suggest that in order to clear up the case backlog by the end of Trump’s term, we would need an additional 1,000 immigration judges.
Despite allocating over $100 billion for border security, the bill largely overlooks the biggest roadblock to deportations: our inadequately financed immigration court system. Hiring approximately 250 judges each year would cost around $4.7 billion over five years, or about three dollars per US citizen. This cost would ensure every immigrant a fair judicial process and aid in the orderly repatriation of millions who are legally deportable.
Compared to the overall federal budget, these sums might seem negligible, but they represent the thin line between upholding the law and capitulating to disorder. However, the complexities of immigration courts only represent part of the picture. There are also concerns with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) handling over 1.4 million affirmative asylum applications.
These cases are filed by individuals who originally come to the US on a visa. Migrants seeking asylum do not pay filing fees, as a result, the cost of managing the application backlog largely falls on skilled immigrants. Each time their employers submit the necessary paperwork, they incur a $600 surcharge. This is both inadequate and unfair.
In this case, Congress is proposing a sensible solution: a $1,000 filing fee for asylum seekers. According to current conditions, such fees would generate around $400 million every year. These funds would be enough to hire hundreds of additional asylum officers, thereby improving the processing times for these cases.
The costs for legitimate asylum seekers, who are already spending large amounts on legal assistance, will not be dramatically impacted. Rather, this fee structure ensures that the burden of processing applications is placed on those who directly benefit from asylum, not on other legal immigrants.
The USCIS and the Executive Office for Immigration Review under President Trump should consider reintroducing the last-in, first-out rule that was active during his first term to discourage fraudulent asylum. The implementation of this strategy would prioritize processing the most recent asylum claims over older ones. This policy deters opportunistic border invaders and visa overstays from submitting false asylum applications, as they would be denied promptly.
When coupled with the hiring of additional judges and asylum officers, the reintroduction of last-in, first-out could significantly curb future illegal immigration while also addressing the current case backlog. Until enough resources are mobilised to handle the influx and backlog of migration cases adequately, riots like the recent anti-ICE protest will persist.
Detractors may argue that the nearly $5 billion price tag is excessive and advocate for eliminating the deportation court process in favour of expanding executive authority. However, evidence from successive court decisions suggests that any changes to asylum law would still require a minimum of 60 Senate votes.
The most efficient and realistic solution is boosting the number of immigration judges and enforcing deportation orders for those who are required to depart. Despite the seeming magnitude of this cost, this initiative is surprisingly affordable, especially when the ultimate impact on the legal and immigration system is taken into account.
For this plan to be successfully implemented, however, it is paramount for legislators to agree on an enhanced budget in the bill currently under discussion. Although the expenditure may seem high, the benefits it reaps in managing immigration stress on our legal and social structures are undoubtedly valuable.