Overcoming misconceptions is just one of the many hurdles in U.S Immigration

By Mia Grant and Monika Tomica

Misconceptions within the immigration system are further discussed by J.C. Salyer in Court of Injustice: Law Without Recognition in U.S. Immigration. In the book, Salyer demonstrates that “immigration law, in its current form, is the product of social assumptions that have often been rooted in erroneous beliefs about migrants and prejudicial attitudes” (Sayler, 2020, p. 50). He establishes that throughout the history of the United States, how immigrants were viewed played an essential part in shaping US immigration law. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was a starting point for how this was carried out. While Chinese immigrants were crucial in helping the labor force in the US through the building of the railroad and mining, they were seen as a “threat to white working-class jobs” (Salyer, 2020, p. 52). Cases were brought to the Supreme Court challenging the Chinese Exclusion Act, such as Chae Chan Ping v. the United States, but the Court ruled that Congress had total power over excluding immigrants from the country. This historical precedent has created three patterns regarding immigrants in the United States: the scapegoating of certain immigrants for social and economic problems, the Supreme Court yielding to the other branches on immigration issues, and the reduction of avenues of relief for people in these categories (Salyer, 2020, p. 52-53). 

This pattern found in US immigration law has been repeated until now. This can be seen with the Quota Law of 1921 and 1924. During this time, a report commissioned by Congress divided immigrants into categories: “old immigrants” and “new immigrants” (Salyer, 2020, p. 57). Old immigrants came from countries such as Germany and the UK and assimilated quickly to life in the United States. On the other hand, new immigrants came from less “desirable” countries and may have been illiterate. It was these immigrants that the report blamed social problems on, including unemployment and poverty. These quota laws created a racial hierarchy, prioritizing whiteness over any other race. The Supreme Court reinforced this racist framework introduced by Congress by ruling that both Japanese and Asian Indians were not white in Ozawa v. the United States and the United States v. Thind, meaning that there were fewer ways of relief in the immigration system for members of these groups (Salyer, 2020, p. 58). These patterns have continued in current policy, as seen with the Trump administration's Muslim ban. Such exclusionary measures indicate the majority of the general public’s misconception of immigration, especially for those who are not white, because we continue to vote for such leaders who are supposed to represent our beliefs. Ultimately, these consistencies that Salyer illustrates about immigration law in the United States have persisted throughout history. In particular, the social assumptions of the public that shape immigration law in the United States were revealed to us throughout the research process. Our perspective on the inequity embedded in the immigration system shifted throughout the project.

From January to March 2022, we took the Qualitative Research Methods course taught by Dr. Rebecca Galemba available at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver, where we worked with our community partner Colorado Asylum Center to learn more about the expedited review which the Biden Administration has reinstated. With its headquarters in Denver, Colorado, the Colorado Asylum Center is a non-profit organization that advocates for and provides legal representation and legal assistance to those seeking asylum in the United States, with a specific focus on those who are on the dedicated docket (“About Colorado Aslyum Center,” n.d.). Our work with the center was initially focused on Courtwatch, which is a process that involves observers going to court to monitor hearings to provide transparency on immigration proceedings. However, due to COVID-19 restrictions, Denver closed their immigration court for the Master calendar hearings during our project timeline. We interviewed seven attorneys and legal advocates across the United States while volunteering at a clinic put on by the center to supplement our time. Our goal for this project was to understand better how the dedicated docket has led to due process violations. Throughout the project, we identified a key aspect to understanding due process violations is that misconceptions of migrants and asylum seekers that the general public holds influence immigration judges as well.

At the end of their interview, we asked each of our participants, “what are some of the misconceptions of immigration court? - of the process? -of your clients?” Although similar themes did show up in their responses, each individual provided their unique perspective on the misconceptions they have had to overcome to help those asylum seekers enter the United States. Four central misconceptions were recurring themes in our participant's responses. These misconceptions discussed by participants are similar to the misunderstandings discussed by Salyer and further highlight how “[t]he intersection of social, economic, and political factors in various historical periods influenced how immigrants were viewed and treated in society at large and in law” (Salyer, 2020, p. 51). The first misconception that respondents discussed was that those applying for asylum are getting due process in the immigration system. Next, participants talked about the misconception that individuals should ‘wait their turn.’ Participants also discussed that the general public held misconceptions because of the belief in stereotypes and embedded racism. Lastly, respondents discussed that the general public held misconceptions about the immigration system due to issues with access to information. 

One example of a perceived misconception about the United States immigration that the general public holds is that immigrants receive due process in court. From the standpoint of many of the professionals we interviewed, many Americans consider due process to be a part of the immigration system. The public frequently believes that it is easy for people seeking citizenship to navigate the US immigration system. One person we interviewed noted that the general public in the United States is not aware of how difficult it is to get an immigration attorney, making it even more challenging to navigate the immigration system. For instance, it is not widely known that in the US immigration system, people seeking residency are not guaranteed a lawyer, unlike in the criminal law system. Furthermore, one respondent noted extreme biases within media in the United States, and people tend to seek out media sources that confirm their own perceptions. Inaccurate and negative media portrayals of immigrants mean the general public does not fully understand how the immigration system works and is shielded from the realities of what asylum seekers go through.

Another common public misconception is that migrants need to “get in line” and wait their turn to become legal citizens. This is also often a talking point in mainstream media that the American public consumes, further reinforcing this belief. However, as stated by many of the people we interviewed, what is not typically understood is that under our current immigration system, there is not necessarily a ‘line’ for everyone. The United States has previously implemented mechanisms to help people seeking relief in the immigration system, but its focus was entirely on those from Europe (Ngai, 2006). Related to this, one professional we interviewed stated that some believe that people seeking asylum and crossing the border are somehow jumping the line; because there is no streamlining in the immigration system, there is no line to step into. However, a massive misunderstanding of the immigration system fails to recognize that those in the US immigration system have a right to seek asylum. The right to seek asylum includes both affirmative asylum, which can be done by those physically present in the United States, and the right to apply for defensive asylum, which occurs when someone applies for asylum as a defense against deportation from the United States (USCIS, 2022).

Source: Cold Stone Immigrants by Khalil Bendib of OtherWords 
https://otherwords.org/latest-crack-in-our-broken-immigration-system/

The idea that migrants need to ‘get in line’ is echoed in discussions about the need to use the ‘legal’ pathway for immigration. However, writing in the LA Times, Ngai counters this idea and argues that setting legal immigration quotas created a mass of undocumented immigrants. Ngai further argues that the quota system has a racist history, exemplified by the Chinese Exclusion Act, and believes quotas should be raised or eliminated (Ngai, 2006).

This country was built on racist structures since its conception. Much of the United States’ policies are racially and politically motivated, including the design of its immigration system. From the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (Sayler, 2020, p. 52) to the “Muslim Ban” 2017 (Sayler, 2020, p. 58), the United States has demonstrated time after time how racist, xenophobic, and exclusionary its immigration system has been and will continue to be. As I mentioned previously, my father, a white European, never experienced any issues entering the United States and received his Green Card in a year. In racist remarks from the previous administration, Trump referred to undocumented immigrants as “criminals” and “rapists” (Perea, 2020). These racist, xenophobic comments are not the first of their kind; they have permanently been embedded in our immigration structures, but Trump’s Administration was blunt and upfront, making Americans “feel more comfortable” for having such misconceptions. This has impacted the general public, but immigration judges, who are to be apolitical in their work, have been seen as biased due to the nature of being politically appointed. “In recent years, the Justice Department has exercised its power to the maximal extent, stripping judges of fundamental authorities and rapidly appointing judges to bend the courts toward political ends” (Chen, 2021). Because of this, political biases are represented within the court, which allows misconceptions to shine through in decision-making. 

What is not helping with these racist misconceptions of migrants, specifically asylum seekers, is the lack of access to correct information and the American population's pure ignorance of the situation. Most Americans get their “general knowledge” about immigration from various forms of news coverage. However, especially with the rise of social media, what is happening in the spread of disinformation and misinformation impacts the public’s perspective of migrants and asylum seekers coming to the United States. For example, the previous Trump Administration tweeted at four nonwhite congresswomen stating to “go back to the crime infested places where they came from” (Blake, 2019). Social media has played a significant role in spreading misconceptions, but various news stations across the United States have as well because this type of coverage shapes people’s opinions (Farris & Mohamed, 2018).  From the politicization of news stations to the overgeneralizations anchors and journalists have made, these all impact how the American public perceives migrants and asylum seekers.

Misconceptions about the United States immigration system abound and have various origins, from mass media to previous personal experiences that differ from the complex realities of the system today. These misunderstandings include that asylum seekers are receiving due process, that they should ‘wait their turn,’ and a public belief in racial stereotypes. The lack of access to information about the immigration system further entrenches these misconceptions within the American public. More education about these issues would help combat these ideas, and revealing the inequity of the US immigration system will help to make people aware of what asylum seekers face under current immigration policies.

References

About. (n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2022, from Colorado Asylum Center website: https://www.coasylum.org/about/.

Blake, J. (2019, July 15). There's a sobering truth to Trump's racist tweets that we don't like to admit. CNN. Retrieved May 21, 2022, from https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/us/trump-tweets-two-americas-blake/index.html 

Chen, G. (2021, February 26). The urgent need to restore independence to America's politicized immigration courts. Just Security. Retrieved May 21, 2022, from https://www.justsecurity.org/73337/the-urgent-need-to-restore-independence-to-americas-politicized-immigration-courts/ 

Farris, E. (2018). Picturing immigration: how the media criminalizes immigrants. Berkeley Media Studies Group, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2018.1484375 

Ngai, M. (2006, May 16). How grandma got legal. Retrieved March 15, 2022, from Los Angeles Times website: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-may-16-oe-ngai16-story.html.

Perea, J. F. (2020). Immigration Policy as a Defense of White Nationhood. Geo. J. L. & MOD. Critical Race Perspective, 12(1). Retrieved from https://lawecommons.luc.edu/facpubs/667/

Sayler, J. C. (2020). Court of Injustice: Law Without Recognition in U.S. Immigration. Stanford University Press.

Torres-Valverde, D. A. (2014, July 16). The Latest Crack in Our Broken Immigration System. Retrieved March 15, 2022, from OtherWords website: https://otherwords.org/latest-crack-in-our-broken-immigration-system/

USCIS. (2022, March 15). Obtaining asylum in the United States. USCIS. Retrieved May 21, 2022, from https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-in-the-united-states