🚨 The June "Death to Asylum" regulation has been finalized. It is set to go into effect on Monday, January 11, just nine days before inauguration.

https://t.co/tQGwoRrjjW

Under this new rule, one of Trump's last parting body blows to the United States' system of humanitarian protection, none but the lucky few will be able to win asylum.

The regulation creates near-total bans on asylum for wide swathes of people and herculean procedural barriers.
Before I get into just how horrific this new anti-asylum regulation is, a picture of Petra I took this morning to soften the blow of what is a terrible thing to read through—even though the Biden administration will be working to end it ASAP and court challenges are certain.
Back to the new regulation, which I wrote about in June when it was first proposed.

Today, the Trump administration says that they have "generally adopt[ed] the [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] with few substantive changes." Meaning it's just as bad. https://t.co/EhWm9MwzFe
The Trump administration's anti-refugee policies show right at the start.

To them, refugee protections are first about "protecting [our] own resources and citizens" and only secondarily about protecting people from persecution.

That's what led us to turn away Jews in the 1930s.
Despite over 80,000 comments in response to this rule, the overwhelming majority of which were in opposition to the rule, the Trump administration only made FIVE substantive changes.

It's clear that they never intended to respond to comments—and that'll doom them in court.
Before I go through those five substantive changes, I encourage people to check out my thread from June analyzing the proposed regulation.

It goes over in excruciating detail just some of the terrible changes—almost all of which have now been adopted. https://t.co/Wg31fcb0uZ
Okay, the 5 changes.

First, DHS/DOJ have partially walked back their original proposal to utterly ban new Particular Social Groups in motions to reopen if not presented early on, even when it was ineffective of counsel.

Old language: New language:
Second, DHS/DOJ have also partially walked back a proposal to ban claims of persecution on the basis of death threats without an attempt (i.e. even if someone said "I'm going to kill you tomorrow" that wouldn't have been enough).

Old: New:
Third, DHS/DOJ have decided to graciously agree that illegal entry by CHILDREN shouldn't be a "significant adverse discretionary factor" in asylum... but kept in place penalties against CHILDREN for:

- not applying for asylum in a third country; or
- using fraudulent documents
Fourth, DHS/DOJ have clarified some incredibly confusing language about when a brand new (and absolutely ridiculous) definition of a "frivolous" asylum application goes into place.
And the fifth and last "substantive change"... is to make the rule even worse by eliminating a requirement that people whose applications are at risk of being deemed frivolous be given a chance to respond to concerns and argue why their case isn't frivolous.

Truly despicable.
There were over 80,000 comments in opposition to this rule. @immcouncil and tons of other orgs submitted extensive comments identifying hundreds of problems with the rules... and DHS/EOIR made just 5 substantive changes (one making things worse) and 13 non-substantive changes.
In the response to the comments, DHS/EOIR puts into footnotes that the regulation will not apply to pending applications, but at NO point in the actual text of the regulation (the part judges apply) is that written.

There will absolutely be extensive confusion over this point.
On the point of whether these rules apply to pending cases, compare the frivolousness bar—which is very explicit that it only applies to new applications—to the general language around the new definitions of asylum law.

Why should we trust DHS/EOIR's footnotes on pending cases?
DHS/EOIR are keeping in place a provision that would place every person who passes a credible fear interview at the border into "asylum-and-withholding-only proceedings."

Under a separate rule—also coming soon—they'd get just 15 days to file for asylum!

https://t.co/Ev7x0sxEUB
The entire regulation is a disaster procedurally and legally. It is blatantly unlawful in multiple locations because it flies in the face of decades of precedent on asylum.

Just on those grounds alone, a court is likely to strike down the rule as unlawful. But there's more!
The rule is also a procedural disaster. DHS/EOIR offers conclusory and insufficient responses to almost all concerns raised in the comments, despite being required to do more.

As a result, the rule will likely be blocked on Administrative Procedure Act grounds. But there's more!
The DHS part of the rule is also vulnerable because as commenters raised (and multiple federal courts have already with them), Chad Wolf is not lawfully serving as DHS Secretary.

Since Wolf doesn't have the authority to promulgate this rule, the DHS rule is totally void.
So, to sum up: this is a terrifyingly awful attack on asylum that would threaten the very foundations of the United States' promises to protect the vulnerable—but like so many Trump policies, it was done so sloppily and unlawfully that it probably won't survive in court.
One of the very first things the Biden administration should do on taking office is to declared they will not defend the rule in court, and at the same time begin the process of formally eliminating the rule and replacing it with something much better that preserves asylum.
To give an example of what I mean by "conclusory and insufficient responses" to comments, check out this one, which can only be boiled down to "nuh-uh."
Another example of total failure to engage with comments?

DHS/EOIR says people are wrong that the rules create blanket bans on certain kinds of claims because they don't "categorically rule out types of claims."

In other words, it's not a ban if 1 in 1,000 can still win. 🙄

More from Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

We finally have the U.S. Citizenship Act Bill Text! I'm going to go through some portions of the bill right now and highlight some of the major changes and improvements that it would make to our immigration system.

Thread:


First the Bill makes a series of promises changes to the way we talk about immigrants and immigration law.

Gone would be the term "alien" and in its place is "noncitizen."

Also gone would be the term "alienage," replaced with "noncitizenship."


Now we get to the "earned path to citizenship" for all undocumented immigrants present in the United States on January 1, 2021.

Under this bill, anyone who satisfies the eligibility criteria for a new "lawful prospective immigrant status" can come out of the shadows.


So, what are the eligibility criteria for becoming a "lawful prospective immigrant status"? Those are in a new INA 245G and include:

- Payment of the appropriate fees
- Continuous presence after January 1, 2021
- Not having certain criminal record (but there's a waiver)


After a person has been in "lawful prospective immigrant status" for at least 5 years, they can apply for a green card, so long as they still pass background checks and have paid back any taxes they are required to do so by law.

However! Some groups don't have to wait 5 years.
Sitting down to work for the first day of the Biden presidency is a surreal feeling.

So much happened yesterday. I'm going to collect my threads here on yesterday's big immigration news.

First, we got key details of Biden's big immigration


Once Biden had officially taken office, we got the first major action. As part of a standard transition process, the Biden White House froze all regulations which Trump had been trying to finalize at the last hour. I did a thread on what we


Last night we started getting more changes. One of the first was an order telling CBP to stop putting people into the so-called "Migrant Protection Protocols," a cruel program that's left thousands in a dangerous limbo. But there's still more to do!


After that, we began getting the text of immigration executive orders. The first one put onto the White House's website was the order ending the Muslim Ban/Africa Ban and ordering the State Department to come up with a plan for reconsidering


The next immigration executive order put on the White House's website revoked a Trump executive order from January 26, 2017 which made all undocumented immigrants a priority for deportation and directed a DHS-wide review of immigration

More from Society

You May Also Like

The UN just voted to condemn Israel 9 times, and the rest of the world 0.

View the resolutions and voting results here:

The resolution titled "The occupied Syrian Golan," which condemns Israel for "repressive measures" against Syrian citizens in the Golan Heights, was adopted by a vote of 151 - 2 - 14.

Israel and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/HoO7oz0dwr


The resolution titled "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people..." was adopted by a vote of 153 - 6 - 9.

Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No' https://t.co/1Ntpi7Vqab


The resolution titled "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan" was adopted by a vote of 153 – 5 – 10.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/REumYgyRuF


The resolution titled "Applicability of the Geneva Convention... to the
Occupied Palestinian Territory..." was adopted by a vote of 154 - 5 - 8.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/xDAeS9K1kW
THREAD: 12 Things Everyone Should Know About IQ

1. IQ is one of the most heritable psychological traits – that is, individual differences in IQ are strongly associated with individual differences in genes (at least in fairly typical modern environments). https://t.co/3XxzW9bxLE


2. The heritability of IQ *increases* from childhood to adulthood. Meanwhile, the effect of the shared environment largely fades away. In other words, when it comes to IQ, nature becomes more important as we get older, nurture less.
https://t.co/UqtS1lpw3n


3. IQ scores have been increasing for the last century or so, a phenomenon known as the Flynn effect. https://t.co/sCZvCst3hw (N ≈ 4 million)

(Note that the Flynn effect shows that IQ isn't 100% genetic; it doesn't show that it's 100% environmental.)


4. IQ predicts many important real world outcomes.

For example, though far from perfect, IQ is the single-best predictor of job performance we have – much better than Emotional Intelligence, the Big Five, Grit, etc. https://t.co/rKUgKDAAVx https://t.co/DWbVI8QSU3


5. Higher IQ is associated with a lower risk of death from most causes, including cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, most forms of cancer, homicide, suicide, and accident. https://t.co/PJjGNyeQRA (N = 728,160)
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?