Imagine — if You Can — the Desperate Plight of Refugees at Our Southern Border, Part 2

Jessica R. Clark • October 12, 2021

Dispelling the Myths of “Illegals” at the U.S. Border

Asylum seekers arriving at the southern border. Photo: Daniel Arauz via Flickr, CC

The United States has long guaranteed the right to seek asylum for individuals arriving at the nation’s southern border to seek protection from political violence, government corruption, or drug cartel-funded police or gangs. Since March 2020, that fundamental right has been largely suspended. The Trump administration’s hardline policies, the covid-19 pandemic, and now the virus’ delta variant, continue to produce many myths about asylum seekers.

Myth #1: Asylum seekers are ‘illegals.’

Evidenced by media broadcasts of protesters carrying signs stating “Illegals go Home,” many people in the U.S. have misconceptions and/or do not understand the asylum process.

The terms “refugees” and “migrants” are similar; the term “asylum seeker” is applied to those who have experienced certain events or actions which qualify them to seek asylum in the U.S. For the purposes of this article, I will use “asylum seekers”.

The term “illegals” applies to anyone entering the United States with a criminal record; they are deported.

The United Nations’ 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol define a refugee as a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country and cannot obtain protection in that country due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of being persecuted in the future on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

The legal basis for the humanitarian admission of asylum seekers was incorporated by Congress into the United States’ immigration law in the Refugee Act of 1980, which established two paths to obtain refugee status: either from abroad as a resettled refugee or in the U.S. as an asylum seeker. The American Immigration Council states: “Those granted asylum can apply to live in the U.S. permanently, gain a path to citizenship, and can also apply for their spouse and children to join them in the United States. Asylum is a protection granted to foreign nationals already in the U.S. or arriving at the border who meet the international law definition of a ‘refugee.’”

Thus, the U.S. — because of its immigration law — has legal obligations to provide protection to those who qualify as asylum seekers.

Myth #2: Asylum seekers are rapists and criminals.

The asylum process is lengthy; it can take as little six months, but more often takes several years.

The United States shares approximately 1,900 border miles with Mexico and there are several ports of entry.

First, asylum seekers apply at a port of entry and the Border Patrol issues a paper stating they can pass the checkpoint. Then, they must pass a screening — called the Credible Fear interview — before an asylum officer, a supervisory officer, and an immigration judge. This interview will determine if the applicant has a well-founded and credible fear of persecution or torture if returned to their home country.

If applicants are found to be unlikely to flee and do not pose a safety threat, they must post bail — which they often cannot afford. They are usually released to a family member or sponsor with a permit called “parole” or under supervision with an ankle bracelet to await an immigration court hearing. Data show that 96% of asylum applicants show up to all immigration court hearings even if they have to travel great distances.

If officials determine an applicants’ claim is not credible, they are ordered for “expedited removal” and do not receive an immigration court hearing. Anyone entering the U.S. with a criminal record is deported.

Once granted asylum, a person is protected from being returned to their home country, is authorized to work in the United States, may apply for a Social Security card, may request permission to travel overseas, and can petition to bring family members to the United States. After one year, that person may apply for lawful permanent resident status, i.e., a green card. Once the individual becomes a permanent resident, they must wait for four years to apply for citizenship.

Myth #3: Asylum Seekers from South America bring covid-19 into the United States.

As outlined above, the asylum process requires passing the Credible Fear interview, having a designated family or sponsor to stay with until a court cases is available, and passing a covid-19 screening test.

U.S. health law, Title 42, permits the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to “prohibit … the introduction into the United States of individuals when the director believes there is serious danger of the introduction of a communicable disease, into the United States.”

Customs officers — which include officers of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) — can implement any such order issued by the CDC. This includes individuals who would normally be detained by CBP after arriving at the border, including asylum seekers, unaccompanied children, and people attempting to enter the U.S. without inspection.

CBP personnel conduct initial inspections for covid-19 symptoms or risk factors and consult with medical personnel, the CDC, or local health systems. Suspected covid-19 cases are referred to local health systems for appropriate testing, diagnosis, and treatment.

The city of Brownsville, Tex., near the International Bridge with Matamoros, Mexico, administers rapid covid-19 tests at the bus station after families are released by the Border Patrol. For anyone testing positive, the asylum process is halted until they are covid-free.

Since beginning these tests, from Jan. 25 to Mar. 2, 2021, 108 migrants have tested positive, which is 6.3% of those who took the test. Brownsville does not have the authority to detain these asylum seekers who will travel to dozens of cities throughout the country. Those who test positive are instructed to quarantine at nonprofits, hotels, or shelters in the border area with areas set aside for those who test positive. Everyone is routinely tested until negative results occur and then released.

Myth #4 Unaccompanied Children are Illegals.

On Feb. 17, 2017, another Trump administration policy separating children from their parents was instituted for “entering the U.S. illegally” and to “deter further migration,” although many children arrived with their parents to request asylum.

The parents were placed in the criminal justice system. The children were placed in the Department of Justice’s Office of Immigration Review (OIR).

Children were housed unsupervised in hotels and Border Patrol holding cells. The whereabouts of many children or their parents remain to hamper the present administration’s attempts to reunite those families.

Unaccompanied children are not “illegals” — they have the same rights as other asylum seekers escaping their country in search of a better life.

The risks at home outweigh the potential dangers of the road. Most are teenage boys, though girls and younger children also attempt the trip. For one teen interviewed by the New York Times in 2019, the decision to leave came when a gang in his hometown told him that if he didn’t join their ranks, they would kill him and his family. There was no doubt they were serious, he said; gang members had already murdered his older brother.

In Part 3, we will look at the current situation at the border and efforts by the Biden/Harris administration to confront it constructively. Read Part 1 here.

Sources:

“Backlog at U.S. immigration courts getting worse, new research finds,” Sandra Sanchez, June 15, 2021, Border Report.

https://www.borderreport.com/hot-topics/immigration/backlog-at-u-s-immigration-courts-getting-worse-new-research-finds/

“Migrant encounters at U.S.-Mexico border are at a 21-year high,” John Gramlich, Aug. 13, 2021, Pew Research Center.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/13/migrant-encounters-at-u-s-mexico-border-are-at-a-21-year-high/

“Detentions of Child Migrants at the U.S. Border Surges to Record Levels,” Paulina Villegas, Oct. 29, 2019, The New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/world/americas/unaccompanied-minors-border-crossing.html

“Disabled migrant girl whose father carried her most of the journey from Honduras allowed to seek care in U.S.,” Sandra Sanchez, May 10, 2021, Border Report.

https://www.borderreport.com/hot-topics/immigration/disabled-migrant-girl-whose-father-carried-her-most-of-the-journey-from-honduras-allowed-to-seek-care-in-u-s/

“Photo of Drowned Migrants Captures Pathos of Those Who Risk It All,” Azam Ahmed and Kirk Semple, June 25, 2019, The New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/25/us/father-daughter-border-drowning-picture-mexico.html

Jessica R. Clark is a graduate of the University of Maryland School of Journalism. After a 30-year career as a Public Information Specialist and photojournalist for several federal government agencies in Washington, D.C., she retired to Georgetown, Delaware. She restored former Governor John Collins’ 1790s home on Collins Pond, volunteers for and promotes several nonprofits in local newspapers, teaches English as a Second Language in James H. Groves Adult High School, and is a Sussex County Master Gardener.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Mail

Common Sense for the Eastern Shore

Speak up for Eastern Neck and NWR System

By Friends of Eastern Neck Board of Directors • April 16, 2025

Let your elected representatives and business and cultural leaders know that our Refuge and others like it all over the country deserve to be protected. They deserve our stewardship for the natural wonders they shelter, and because they provide refuge for people, too.

Letter: These Republicans Are Right — Hogan is Responsible for Maryland’s Budget Deficit

By Elaine McNeil • April 9, 2025

The Budget Deficit In a recent debate on closing Maryland’s budget deficit, Minority Leader Jason Buckel, a Republican delegate from Allegany County, made an important point: “The man upstairs has only been there for two, three years. I don’t blame him for our economic failures of the last 10,” referring to Democratic Gov. Wes Moore, who was elected in 2022. Ahead of the 2026 gubernatorial elections, Buckel’s comments highlight a key reality that many of his Republican colleagues seldom admit: It isn’t right to blame Gov. Moore for a budget deficit that has been brewing for years. Now projected at $3.3 billion, Maryland’s structural deficit is a problem that started long before Moore took office. In fact, it was first projected in 2017, during the tenure of former GOP Gov. Larry Hogan. This isn’t an opinion — it’s a fact that Buckel and other lawmakers, including Republican Del. Jefferson Ghrist, have bravely acknowledged. During that same debate, Ghrist remarked that the Department of Legislative Services had warned about this deficit throughout Hogan’s administration, yet he did little to address it. Ghrist pointed out that during Maryland’s “good years,” when the state received a flood of federal covid-19 relief dollars, spending spiraled without regard for long-term fiscal health. Hogan used these one-time federal funds to support ongoing programs, which masked the true state of Maryland’s finances and created an illusion of fiscal stability. Hogan continues to take credit for the “surplus” Maryland had in 2022 — even though experts repeatedly note it was caused by the influx of federal dollars during the pandemic. As Ghrist correctly observed, the lack of fiscal restraint and slow growth during the Hogan years laid the groundwork for the $3.3 billion structural deficit the state faces today. Indeed, Maryland’s economy has been stagnant since 2017, especially in comparison to its neighboring states, well before Moore took office. Compounding these challenges are President Donald Trump’s reckless layoffs and trade wars with our allies. Thousands of federal workers who live in Maryland are losing their jobs, which will cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. Trump’s tariffs will also put an enormous strain on local businesses, including Eastern Shore farmers, who are now subject to up to 15% retaliatory tariffs on chicken, wheat, soybeans, corn, fruits, and vegetables. FY2026 Budget Considering this grim reality, Maryland’s lawmakers are making difficult, but necessary, decisions to shore up the state’s finances. Gov. Moore and state legislative leaders recently agreed to a budget that prioritizes expanding Maryland’s economy without raising taxes on most residents. In fact, 94% of Marylanders should see either a tax cut or no change at all to their income tax bill under the proposed agreement. Lawmakers also plan to cut government spending by the largest amount in 16 years, while at the same time making targeted investments in emerging industries, such as quantum computing and aerospace defense, so the state is less dependent on federal jobs. While the richest Marylanders might see their income taxes go up, it’s reasonable to ask someone making over $750,000 a year to pay $1,800 more to support law enforcement, strengthen our schools, and grow our economy. As for the proposed tax on data and IT services, these products aren’t subject to Maryland’s sales tax under current law. Maryland leaders want to modernize our tax code by levying a 3% sales tax on these products. Because they don’t raise income taxes on the majority of Marylanders and because state leaders are also cutting spending by billions, these ideas are fair. They’re also necessary after Gov. Hogan chose to kick the can down the road instead of addressing Maryland’s long-predicted deficit and now that Trump’s policies will lay off thousands of Marylanders and his tariffs will hurt our state. By making responsible choices now, Maryland leaders are putting the state on a path to long-term economic stability. Their decisions will help Maryland thrive, create jobs, and invest in the vital services that every resident relies on — without burdening hardworking families. I’m confident Maryland will emerge stronger, more resilient, and ready to lead in the industries of tomorrow. Elaine McNeil is chair of the Queen Anne’s Democratic Central Committee.

Fighting the President’s Executive Orders

By John Christie • April 2, 2025

Among Donald Trump’s most recent targets is what he calls “rogue law firms.” At 6pm last Thursday, March 27, he issued an Executive Order (EO) aimed at my old law firm, WilmerHale, as one of those “rogue” firms. Approximately 15 hours later, the firm filed a 63-page complaint challenging the EO on multiple constitutional grounds. The EO is an “unprecedented assault on the bedrock principle that one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit” and constitutes an “undisguised form of retaliation for representing clients and causes Trump disfavors.” And by 8pm on Friday, March 28, a little over 24 hours after the EO was first issued, a federal district court judge in Washington granted a request for a temporary restraining order, blocking key provisions of the EO from taking effect for now. In doing so, the Court found that “the retaliatory nature of the EO is clear from its face. There is no doubt that it chills speech and legal advocacy and qualifies as a constitutional harm.” The Executive Order The EO and a so-called “Fact Sheet” that went with it recites that the Administration is committed to addressing the significant risks associated with law firms, particularly so-called “Big Law” firms that engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale) is yet another law firm said to have abandoned the legal profession’s highest ideals and abused its pro bono practice by engaging in activities that “undermine justice and the interests of the United States.” The specific examples offered in support of this conclusion: The EO asserts that WilmerHale “engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends,” an apparent reference to the firm’s representation of Trump’s political opponents — namely the Democratic National Committee and the presidential campaigns of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The EO cites WilmerHale’s “egregious conduct” in “supporting efforts to discriminate on the basis of race,” an apparent reference to the firm’s representation of Harvard in the Students for Fair Admissions litigation. The EO accuses WilmerHale of “backing the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes,” an apparent reference to the firm’s litigation related pro bono practice and successful challenges to immigration related policies. The EO accuses WilmerHale of “furthering the degradation of the quality of American elections,” an apparent reference to the film’s involvement in challenges to restrictive state voter-identification and voter-registration laws. The EO singles out certain current and former WilmerHale partners, including Robert Mueller, for special criticism by describing Mr. Mueller’s investigation as “one of the most partisan investigations in American history” and having “weaponized the prosecutorial power to suspend the democratic process and distort justice.” The EO then Revokes security clearances held by WilmerHale attorneys; Prohibits the federal government from hiring WilmerHale employees absent a special waiver; Orders a review and the possible termination of federal contracts with entities that do business with the firm; Calls for the withdrawal of government goods or services from the firm; and Calls for restrictions on the ability of WilmerHale employees to enter federal buildings (presumably including federal courthouses) and on their “engaging” with government employees. WilmerHale’s Complaint WilmerHale engaged Paul Clement, a former Solicitor General during the George W. Bush administration and a well-known advocate frequently representing conservative causes, to represent the firm in this matter. Assisted by some 15 WilmerHale litigators, the complaint names the Executive Office of the President and 48 other Departments, Commissions, and individual Officers in their official capacity as defendants. A variety of constitutional violations are alleged: The First Amendment protects the rights of WilmerHale and its clients to speak freely, and petition the courts and other government institutions without facing retaliation and discrimination by federal officials. The separation of powers limits the President’s role to enforcing the law and no statute or constitutional provision empowers him to unilaterally sanction WilmerHale in this manner. The EO flagrantly violates due process by imposing severe consequences without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The EO violates the right to counsel protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and imposes unconstitutional conditions on federal contracts and expenditures. The complaint alleges that WilmerHale has already suffered irreparable damage in the 16 hours since the EO issued. The firm has been vilified by the most powerful person in the country as a “rogue law firm” that has “engaged in conduct detrimental to critical American interests. The EO will inevitable cause extensive, lasting damage to WilmerHale’s current and future business prospects. The harm to the firm’s reputation will negatively affect its ability to recruit and retain employees. Further Proceedings Temporary restraining orders constitute emergency relief upon a showing of likely success on the merits and irreparable harm were the temporary relief not entered. A later hearing will be held in order for the judge to determine whether a preliminary injunction should be issued preventing the government from executing the EO during the continued length of the litigation. Editorial Note: In light of the recent capitulation of several “Big Law” firms to the unreasonable and unconstitutional attacks by the Trump administration, WilmerHale is providing a blueprint for resistance as it fights back. More law firms need to be inspired by WilmerHale’s response to Trump’s demand for revenge on his so-called political enemies. John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.

Remembering Tom Timberman

By Bill Flook & CSES Staff • April 2, 2025

Tom Timberman was one of the founders of Common Sense for the Eastern Shore. Sadly, he died last month. He will be missed. Common Sense exists because of his leadership and inspiration. His vision was to provide factual and timely commentary and analysis on topics that concern people who live and work on Maryland's Eastern Shore, and to provide factual reporting to help readers shape their own lives. It was important to Tom, as it is today to the editorial board, for Common Sense to help voters to be aware of the effects — personal and local — of decisions made at the federal and state levels. Especially relevant now is this from our Mission Statement: “We seek an America responsive to its citizens and its constitution.” We reprint this tribute from Bill Flook, President of the Democratic Club of Kent County : Many of us were deeply saddened to learn of TomTimberman’s passing last week. It’s hard to believe that such a strong Democratic voice is gone. I worked with Tom for much of the past decade on many good projects promoting our values and activities, including helping on his campaign for County Commissioner, and I’ll particularly miss following his lead as Captain of the Dawn Patrol. Our group met most Saturday mornings for coffee and some good chat, before heading up to Dems HQ to set up the booth there. We’ll miss you, Tom!

The Truth About the FY2026 Md. Budget HB350

By Jared Schablein • April 2, 2025

After over 12 hours of debate over two days (and a whole circus from the other side), the Maryland House of Delegates has passed HB 350, this year's state budget, and sent it to the State Senate. This budget is a deal between House Democrats, Senate Democrats, and Governor Wes Moore. It faces our state's $3 billion deficit head-on not with fantasy math, but with real choices: smart cuts and fair new revenue. This is what grown-up governing looks like. How We Got Here: Maryland’s budget problems didn’t start overnight. Leaders began warning about a shortfall in 2017 when Governor Larry Hogan was in office. Hogan made our state budget bigger every year, but the legislature wasn’t allowed to move money around or make common-sense changes. By law, they could only make cuts. In 2020, Maryland voters changed that. Starting in 2023, lawmakers finally got full power to shape the budget, not just cut from it. Instead of fixing the problem, Governor Hogan used federal COVID relief to hide our fiscal instability. Then, before leaving office, he drained our state’s savings from $5.5 billion to $2.3 billion to boost his image. Today, we are facing a new fiscal arsonist. Donald Trump’s trade wars and cuts to federal programs hit Maryland hard. We have more federal jobs and agencies than any other state, so we felt it worse than most. A University of Maryland study says Trump’s tariffs alone could cost us $2 billion. Trump/Musk's policies caused over 30,000 people in Maryland to lose their jobs, offices to shut down, and promised investments to disappear. These federal cuts added another $300 million to our budget deficit. COVID relief gave us a short break and even created a fake surplus under Hogan, but that money is gone now. Meanwhile, housing, healthcare, and college prices have gone way up. The Trump–Musk White House is making it worse by cutting even more funding, eliminating research, and gutting the services we rely on. That’s why Maryland had to act. We needed a real plan to protect working people, fund our schools and hospitals, and keep our state strong. Why Cuts Were Needed Trump’s trade wars and cuts to federal agencies hit Maryland harder than any other state. A University of Maryland study says those tariffs alone could cost us $2 billion. That hurts real people: A chicken farmer on the Eastern Shore is paying 25% more for fertilizer. A dock worker in Baltimore has fewer ships to unload. A restaurant owner in Western Maryland can’t afford eggs and tomatoes. We’ve lost over 30,000 jobs. Offices have shut down. Promised investments disappeared. The decisions of the Trump/Musk administration added $300 million to our state deficit.

No, Mr. Trump, You Have No “Mandate”

By Jan Plotczyk • November 19, 2024

The 2024 presidential election was over swiftly. The Associated Press called it at 5:34 am on Nov. 6, and by 8 am, President-elect Donald Trump was crowing about the “ historic mandate ” given to him by the American people. A “mandate”? Turns out not. Trump jumped to an early lead on election night, but in the following days, his lead diminished as mail-in and provisional ballots were counted. A Baltimore Banner article on Nov. 6 highlighted the “Trump shift” that had occurred in every political subdivision in Maryland, even in counties where Democrat Kamala Harris won. This shift described the increase in Trump support since his loss to President Joe Biden in 2020 . As of Nov. 6, the biggest Trump shift was an 8.1% increase in his support in red Cecil County, but there were also shifts in the central Maryland counties that are the state’s Democratic strongholds — 4.3% in Montgomery and lesser amounts in other blue counties. Fourteen counties recorded shifts of 4% or more. On the Eastern Shore, every county had a shift over 4.5% except Talbot (2.7%), and the five largest shifts were Shore counties. For the state’s Democrats, it did not look encouraging. But as mail-in and provisional ballots were counted across the state, the Trump shift was reduced everywhere, and as of Nov. 16, disappeared altogether in Garrett (-1.2%) and Charles (-0.1%) counties. The shift dropped below 3% in all Maryland counties. Cecil’s shift became 2.1%. Montgomery’s shift dropped to 2.9%. Talbot’s shift declined to 0.2%, lowest of the Eastern Shore counties. Now, instead of five, only two of the highest five shifts were in Eastern Shore counties. The red bars in the chart below represent the Trump shift percentage values as of Nov. 16, in ascending order. The grey bars represent the misleading (and ephemeral) Trump shift percentage values as of Nov. 6. Please note the degree to which the Trump shift lessened and disappeared in the 10 days after the election. Another red mirage. But if you had only read the Nov. 6 article and not looked at the updated data, you would have been fooled into thinking Trump support is stronger than it is.