Trump ‘far too willing to fast-track deportation cases even when people have credible claims to asylum…’
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) Presidential hopeful Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, proposed legislation last week to provide all illegal immigrants with attorneys to assist them through the asylum process.
As it stands, immigrants have the right to hire lawyers themselves, but representation is not guaranteed and can often be expensive without the help of activist left-wing litigation firms who tend to work at little or no cost.
Gillibrand wants to change this. Under her bill, the Funding Attorneys for Indigent Removal Proceedings Act, legal counsel would be required for any immigrant facing removal—including children, disabled migrants, impoverished individuals, and those who face persecution or torture in their home countries.
This bill “would ensure that some of the most vulnerable individuals in this process can be represented by an attorney,” Gillibrand said in a statement Friday, according to CNN.
“This would not only guarantee a more humane way to process asylum claims and other legal protections, but it would improve the efficiency of our immigration courts and help our country do a much better job of managing our immigration system,” Gillibrand continued.
Gillibrand went on to blame President Donald Trump and his immigration policy for making it harder for Central American migrants to gain asylum in the U.S.
She also blasted him for being “far too willing to fast-track deportation cases even when people have credible claims to asylum”—despite the fact that former President Barack Obama had a significantly higher deportation rate than Trump.
The Trump administration has worked to expedite the asylum process, which is severely backlogged due to a shortage of immigration judges and an overwhelming number of migrants hoping to gain access to the country.
One of its latest efforts, a rule that would prohibit immigrants who traveled through Mexico to apply for asylum, was recently blocked by a federal judge, who said the rule was “likely invalid because it is inconsistent with the existing asylum laws.”