In an effort to deal with the excess of 600,000 pending Immigration Court cases, the Trump administration/DoJ announced a plan to set up quotas for judges that would factor into end-of-year examinations requiring said judges to clear at least 700 cases annually if they want to get a "satisfactory" rating. The national average is about 678 cases cleared per judge per year, but some judges are reportedly able to clear up to 1,000; that's approximately 3 cases cleared every day for the whole year. This proposal has come under attack due to its intention of cutting down on time spent evaluating cases, meaning the likelihood that judges would have to rush what can end up as life-or-death cases would most certainly increase, with judges missing key facts or details when hearing cases just to make sure they meet the required caseload. Along with less deliberation time judges would also be penalized for referring cases to a higher court, which when put together is seen as a sharp blow to judicial independence in a court system already under the control of the Executive branch of government (Immigration Courts are run by the Executive Office of Immigration Review, an executive agency). Because of the massive buildup of cases, getting a court date can take up to half a decade for illegal immigrants, during which time they are allowed to work to support themselves; this somewhat stable working life paired with the real, oft overlooked physical dangers of deportation means that for many immigrants, a rushed court hearing can make the difference between life and death (as covered by John Oliver in the most recent Last Week Tonight segment). If Trump's plan is put in place, that could make for a compromised immigration situation able to be challenged in the real courts of the Judicial branch by the families of deported immigrants who rightfully feel they didn't get the full ear and attention of an overclocked judge.
This compares to FDR's vast increase of government regulation of the economy during WWII in that he set quotas for production whereas we today may see quotas set for court cases; one of the big differences here being that WWII/Great Depression economic reform was a recovery and/or wartime measure while this is simply an attempt at increased efficiency (at the cost of legal integrity) during a time in which the immigration debate is raging at home and any perceived physical threats are being hotly discussed by newsroom pundits on prime-time TV; not exactly the dire straits necessitating such extreme policy if you ask me. But perhaps the most important difference is that FDR set quotas on airplane parts. Trump is putting quotas on human lives and livelihoods. Is that a morally and legally defensible program?
P.S. I know this seems like a pretty biased piece once you get to that end, but I just feel quite strongly that no matter where you stand on immigration, trying to undermine the integrity of the courts and choosing to cut time at the risk of cutting corners is the wrong way to go about this. What if the DoJ tried to limit how long the Supreme Court could spend deliberating each case it saw?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-seeking-to-speed-deportations-to-impose-quotas-on-immigration-judges/2018/04/02/a282d650-36bb-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.121d63229a07
No comments:
Post a Comment