Expedited Removal Hurts the Most Vulnerable In an Already Complicated Immigration System

The government often relies on “fast track” deportation methods to bypass due process protections in an effort to more rapidly process asylum seekers who come to the United States seeking humanitarian protection. One such deportation method, expedited removal, disadvantages the most vulnerable non-citizens currently in the United States: women and their children held in detention centers in rural, isolated locations in Texas and Pennsylvania.

A recent report, The Perils of Expedited Removal: How Fast-Track Deportations Jeopardize Asylum Seekers, demonstrates the many obstacles asylum-seeking mothers held in the country’s largest family detention center in Dilley, Texas must overcome in order to obtain a meaningful day in court.

For example, many of the asylum-seeking women and their children in Dilley experience significant psychological trauma as a result of their past persecution or fear of the potential harms they may face if forced to return. This trauma may be compounded by their treacherous journey to the United States, which may be plagued with dangers such as kidnapping, rape, and extortion, in addition to the experience of detention itself and limited access to psychological services.

Many of the mothers and children who are transferred to the detention center in Dilley suffer from medical conditions ranging from flu, cancer, or seizure disorders. The prevalence of medical conditions may affect a worried mother’s ability to tell her story during her credible fear interview if her child is ill, or the sickness itself could affect a child or woman’s ability to articulate her story.

Further, current government policy mandates that women must be separated from their spouses, their adult children, parents, siblings, and other family members before they are transferred to the detention center in Dilley.  The emotional impact of family separation—and the possibility that a separated family member with the same claim for relief may be deported back to a dangerous environment—may affect a woman or child’s ability to testify during their fear interview with the asylum office or before the immigration court.

Historically, the majority of women and children transferred to Dilley speak Spanish. However, many do not. The languages spoken within the walls of the detention center in Dilley—as with many other detention centers around the country—are diverse, and may include indigenous languages spoken in Guatemala and Mexico, Middle Eastern languages, African languages, and Caribbean languages.  Not only is the experience of speaking an uncommon language extremely isolating, but limited access to interpretation services may impede a family member’s ability to ask questions about her legal case, access medical or psychological services, or undergo their credible fear interview with the asylum office.

The immigration system is notoriously complicated, and the credible fear screening process is no exception. The legal standards to which asylum seekers are held are nuanced and complex, even for well-trained attorneys, let alone lay persons. Many of the factors outlined in the paper, including the prevalence of trauma and medical conditions, may further impede a person’s ability to understand the legal process and articulate a claim for protection.

Without legal counsel, asylum seekers may be unable to navigate these pitfalls and risk falling through the cracks of the system. The protection needs of asylum seekers, and asylum-seeking mothers and their children in particular, must be met with robust legal services and legal assistance from the start to ensure that no one is sent back to their deaths.

Tags: , , ,


If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS Feed
  • Sue Kamlet

    I would appreciate it if you or your readers could offer any advice or guidance with regard to my desire to enter into pro bono immigration practice.

    I am recently- retired California attorney. I have experience practicing immigration law on both sides of the aisle — I was an accredited rep with a non-profit before law school, a DOJ/OIL attorney after, and a Special Assistant US Attorney for INS for several years during my early career — but I haven’t done anything involving immigration law since around 2001. After I bring my knowledge of immigration law and procedure up to date, I would love to do pro bono work on behalf of asylum applicants, refugees, folks subject to DACA, or whatever underrepresented group (s) might find my skills most useful.
    I know that Spanish-speaking attorneys are needed and have considered taking an immersion Spanish course to improve my rusty and marginal Spanish. I would prefer to work with a non-profit/NGO if possible. I am available to travel if my travel is paid for.

    Where should I go to offer my services? How might I find the right agency? Although I still know a few people in the SF Bay Area immigration law community, I am unfamiliar with most of the immigrants’ rights groups and agencies that have started up since the dawn of the millennium.

    Thanks in advance for any guidance you can offer!

    Sue Kamlet