OK, let’s get straight to the point: If you are in the United States without permission, you need to carry proof that you have resided in the United States for at least the most recent two years. Here’s why.
What is “expedited removal”?
On June 25, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that if you are a noncitizen in “expedited removal” proceedings, you don’t have a right to ask a federal judge to review your case.
If you are placed in expedited removal, you could ask for certain forms of relief, including asylum. But you will need to convince an immigration official that you have a valid asylum claim. If the official decides that you don’t have a valid asylum claim, then you can ask for an Immigration Judge to review that decision. If the Immigration Judge agrees that you don’t have a valid claim, then you could be removed from the United States.
“Expedited removal” proceedings are usually very quick – a matter of days.
Which persons may be placed in “expedited removal” proceedings?
Until very recently, the only persons who could be placed in “expedited removal” proceedings were those persons who were encountered within 14 days of entry to the United States and within 100 miles of the U.S. border.
The Trump Administration has decided to apply expedited removal to all undocumented persons encountered anywhere in the United States who have resided in the United States for less than two years. A federal district court had temporarily blocked that expanded use of expedited removal procedures. But on June 23, 2020, a federal appeals court ended that temporary ban. The decision of the appeals court means that, for now at least, any persons who are not able to show that they are permitted to be in the United States, and who are not able to show that they have been physically present in the United States for at least the most recent two years, could be subject to expedited removal.
Why should I carry proof of two years of U.S. residence at all times?
If you are encountered by immigration officials and you are able to show that you have been in the United States for at least the most recent two years, then you should not be placed in “expedited removal” proceedings. At the very least, you would have some more options moving forward in the immigration system.
Which documents will help me?
Documents that show your identity, such as a valid passport or other valid ID, will help to show who you are. Documents to show your time in the United States could include pay receipts, bills, leases, monthly bank statements, monthly mortgage statements, or any other documents that contain three important things:
- your name
- an address in the United States
- a date
By carrying these documents at all times, you should have an opportunity to avoid the “expedited removal” process.
On October 22, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would amend regulations to require DNA sampling from hundreds of thousands of noncitizens. Specifically, this rule would require DNA collection from “individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted, and from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States.”
Legal permanent residents and other immigrants entering the country legally will not be subject to this rule. Attorney General William Barr issued the rule “with the expectation that federal authorities will gather DNA information on about 748,000 immigrants annually, including asylum-seekers presenting themselves at legal ports of entries.”
Immigrant advocates fear that this rule will have implications for U.S. family members of individuals whose fingerprints are taken. Naureen Shah, senior advocacy and policy counsel at the ACLU, said that DNA collection is “the most intimate information that you can take from someone. It is information you can use to find their family members, to know their histories. And we’re going to be taking it from people against their will.”
The Justice Department hopes to send the DNA collected from noncitizens to an FBI database that contains the DNA of individuals who have been convicted of crimes in an attempt to lead to more crimes being solved. This goal has been denounced by immigrant advocates who point to studies demonstrating that the increased flow of undocumented immigrants to the United States does not lead to a spike in crime.
This rule is subject to a 20-day comment period that is likely to see rebuke from immigrant advocates. The Trump Administration’s efforts to harm immigrants is as active as ever, and this rule is just one of the many examples of this onslaught.
The Trump Administration recently announced a new policy regarding “expedited removal,” effective immediately, that allows U.S. immigration officials to remove people from the United States, without any hearing and without any review, unless they can prove that they have been physically present in the United States for at least two years.
It is virtually certain that lawsuits will be filed by noncitizens attempting to block this new policy, but the outcome of those lawsuits is unknown.
It is crucially important that all persons in the United States without authorization carry with them proof that they have been in the United States for at least two years. Some examples of documents to prove physical presence include tax returns, paystubs, medical bills, utility bills, leases, or any other documents that have your name, a date, and an address in the United States.
It is also crucially important to carry, at all times, a valid form of identification, such as a valid passport, driver license, state ID card, or some other form of valid identification issued by a government office.
Please remember that if you are encountered by U.S. immigration officials, you have the right to remain silent. Immigration officials, however, using this new policy, could conclude that you have not established your identity and that you have not established that you have been physically present in the United States.
If you choose to speak to U.S. immigration officials, you should tell the truth. If you are able to establish your identity, and if you are able to establish by documentation that you have been physically present in the United States for at least two years, then you should not be subject to expedited removal. You still could be subject to arrest, but you would have the right to have a hearing in Immigration Court.
The New York Times has posted a lengthy article, to be published in this Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, by Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist who states in the article that he was brought to the United States from the Philippines at age 12 and that he is undocumented.
The New York Times has published a profile of John Tanton, a Petoskey, Michigan native who founded three influential groups that oppose immigration. As the article describes, Mr. Tanton and his groups have made some statements that others label as blatantly racist, bigoted, and culturally insensitive.
Please read the article for some insights into the man behind much of the current anti-immigrant sentiment.
In the Detroit Free Press, Gus West, board chair and president of the Hispanic Institute, calls on Latino leaders to respond forcefully against assaults on immigrants’ rights. Referring to a proposal recently introduced in the Michigan legislature, HB 4305, which seeks to follow in the footsteps of Arizona’s anti-immigrant legislation, Mr. West urges leaders to “lead the way” against such measures.
Mr. West connects the current anti-immigrant sentiment to past eras in American history, as he writes: “The tactic isn’t new. The archives of newspapers from the 1920s are filled with similar stories — not about Hispanics, but about Italians, Germans, Eastern European Jews and others who came to America to make better lives. Those groups overcame the prejudices of the day, often with help from leaders from their respective ethnic groups, and so will Hispanics. But, it won’t happen as quickly or as effectively for Hispanics without support from the Latino leadership.”
Click here to go to the commentary at the Detroit Free Press.
The New York Times published the following editorial:
No Exit from a Bad Program
“I’m totally confused now,” wrote a government official in one of thousands of internal e-mails released last week on the subject of Secure Communities, the federal program enlisting state and local police in the crackdown on illegal immigrants.
The confusion was over a simple question: Could a state or city choose not to participate in Secure Communities? That is, could it decide to preserve that bright line separating local policing from federal immigration enforcement, so as not to discourage immigrants from reporting crimes?
The e-mails show that the Department of Homeland Security didn’t know how to answer the question — even two years into the program, which sends the fingerprints of everyone arrested by participating state and local agencies to federal databases for an immigration check.
The answer was important, because while the Obama administration has made Secure Communities a centerpiece of its immigration-enforcement strategy, many state and local agencies have wanted nothing to do with it. They know it has been used to deport tens of thousands of people with no criminal records, even though it was supposed to focus strictly on dangerous criminals.
They have seen how some politicized and unscrupulous police departments have used it as an excuse for racial profiling. They worry that participation will strain their resources and make community policing harder.
Though the e-mails, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by immigrant-rights advocates, show the agency at its most confused, top administration officials had no doubt: Secure Communities doesn’t allow states and localities to opt out. As The Times reported, the administration even “developed a plan to isolate and pressure communities that did not want to participate.”
There is a place for local law enforcement in immigration matters, but it must be strictly limited and cautiously drawn. It must place the highest priority on catching and removing dangerous criminals, while letting alone those without criminal records — the vast proportion of the undocumented population.
President Obama has repeatedly promised that he will work to change the immigration laws so undocumented immigrants who work hard can earn legal status. The Secure Communities program goes against that vow. It is also bad for public safety. States, cities and towns should be able to opt out.
Here is a link to the editorial.
The New York Times published an editorial titled “Angry Arizona, Again.” Here is the editorial in its entirety:
Many states are doing urgent business: jobs, the economy, broken budgets. Arizona’s legislators are trying to give government new powers to strip away individual rights, to extend immigration enforcement into schools, public housing, hospitals and doctor’s offices.
Arizona made itself ground zero for a new nativism last year with a radical policing law that encouraged racial profiling and declared the mass expulsion of undocumented immigrants to be official state policy. This led to boycotts, slumping tourism and convention business, and lawsuits, including one by the Obama administration. Yet Arizona’s current legislative session is overstuffed with nativist bills, several of which passed through committee on Tuesday in an “omnibus” measure.
A bill to chop up the 14th Amendment to deny citizenship to children born in Arizona to undocumented mothers. A bill requiring hospitals to check every patient’s citizenship status, turning doctors and nurses into the immigration police. A bill to deny education to undocumented children by requiring proof of citizenship to enroll in any public or private school. A bill to criminalize driving by illegal immigrants, and to evict them from public housing. This will fix nothing, and do real harm.
The birthright citizenship bill interprets the 14th Amendment in a way no federal court or Congress ever has. The state would issue a different type of birth certificate to babies whose parents lack papers. It’s a nonexistent problem; women are not sneaking over the border to have babies who — when they turn 21 — may be able to sponsor them for green cards. The plan will not drive away illegal immigrants, but it would turn generations of young Americans into deportable criminals.
The Supreme Court has ruled that undocumented children have a right to primary education, because the country is not served by perpetuating an illiterate underclass. And yet Arizona’s elected leaders persist in their assault on that principle. The bills’ sponsors don’t seem to care about the damage they do. They are bent on inflaming the anxieties in a changing country, even when crime is down in border cities and immigration has tapered off. New Census data shows America’s population growing more slowly than it has since the 1930s — another era of rampant bigotry and racial scapegoating.
We hope the angry Arizonans, and the rest of the country, will soon return to their values. Citizenship by birth and assimilation of newcomers are central to the American experiment. All that separates our newest immigrants from previous waves is the lack of a working system to assimilate them.
Here is a link to the editorial.
The El Paso Times reports that Texas police chiefs and sheriffs have declared their opposition to state legislators’ attempts to make them act in the role of immigration officials, saying that law enforcement officials, not politicians, know how to maintain safety in communities.
Police chiefs from many parts of Texas, including El Paso, Dallas, McAllen, San Antonio, and Austin, recently traveled to the state Capitol to denounce the Arizona-style legislation, which they say would take their deputies and officers out of neighborhoods and require more spending, at a time when legislators are already reducing funding to deal with budget deficits.
The officers said that the proposed legislation could cost taxpayers millions of dollars to detain undocumented immigrants in state jails, pay for officer training and defend any lawsuits that might arise. The officers also said that the proposed legislation would destroy the trust that police officers have established with their local communities, making people less willing to cooperate with police.
Educators for Fair Consideration (E4FC) is a group based in California that works to, in their words, “help immigrant students realize the American dream of college and citizenship.”
The group recently published a 22-page document, titled “How to Support College-Bound Undocumented Students: Advice for Parents.” You can download the document here (pdf).