Vetted Judges More Likely to Reject Asylum Bids

New York Times ^ | August 23, 2008 | Charlie Savage

[reaganaut1]

WASHINGTON — Immigrants seeking asylum in the United States have been disproportionately rejected by judges whom the Bush administration chose using a conservative political litmus test, according to an analysis of Justice Department data.

The analysis suggests that the effects of a patronage-style selection process for immigration judges — used for three years before it was abandoned as illegal — are still being felt by scores of immigrants whose fates are determined by the judges installed in that period.

The data focuses on 16 judges who were vetted for political affiliation before being hired and have since ruled on at least 100 cases each.

Comparison of their records to others in the same cities shows that as a group they ruled against asylum-seekers significantly more often than colleagues who were appointed, as the law requires, under politically neutral rules.

Critics of the politicization of the immigration bench say it is not enough that in 2007 the department stopped using illegal hiring procedures. The fact that many of the politically selected judges remain in power, they say, continues to undermine the perceived fairness of hearings for immigrants fighting deportation.

The immigration court “is now the seat of individuals who were appointed illegally, and that means that in the minds of many people the court symbolizes illegality,” said Bruce Einhorn, a Pepperdine University law professor who was an immigration judge from 1990 until he retired last year.

Peter A. Carr, a Justice Department spokesman, wrote in an e-mailed response to questions, “The fact that the process was flawed does not mean that the immigration judges selected through that process are unfit to serve.”

[reaganaut1]

I doubt the Bush administration's "politicized" hiring of judges differed from that of previous administrations, except in clumsiness. The article does not present any examples where Bush judges clearly made the wrong decision. Are they being too strict in judging asylum requests, or are the other judges being too lenient?

[kitkat]

OH, for the crying out loud! I just dragged my tired body out of bed and I’m in no mood to hear liberal lies from the NY Times. Stamping my foot! STAMP, STAMP! (OUCH)

***...who were appointed, as the law requires, under politically neutral rules.***

Sure, like almost the whole ninth circus court appointed by the liberals.

And just where does the Dem party find “politically neutral” judges? They are experts at choosing judges who make up the rules from the bench no matter WHAT the constitution says.

[ALPAPilot]

Were these judges not confirmed by the Senate?

[BobL]

Let me get this straight - Bush’s judges won’t allow America-haters and terrorists into this country...and that’s a bad thing?

[musicman]

"I just dragged my tired body out of bed and I’m in no mood to hear liberal lies from the NY Times. Stamping my foot! STAMP, STAMP! (OUCH)"

Maybe this will help you start your day in a better mood:

[Kay Ludlow]

One could easily write the opposite article:

Immigrants seeking asylum in the United States have been overwhelmingly accepted, despite criminal activity, by judges whom the Clinton administration chose using a liberal political litmus test, according to an analysis of Justice Department data.

I’m glad the ‘immigration’ President’s judges disagree with President Bush!

[Oldpuppymax]

We are certainly fortunate to have straight arrow, non-biased media sources making the public aware of the evils of agenda driven political activities.

[Publius6961]

Immigrants seeking asylum in the United States have been disproportionately rejected by judges whom the Bush administration chose using a conservative political litmus test, according to an analysis of Justice Department data.

All this does is reinforce the unsettling feeling that the other side of the coin, indiscriminately accepting asylum is a "good thing."
Obviously, the author of the article thinks so.

Asylum is the prerogative of the person granting it; not the right of political "progressives." Every terrorist accepted into this country has either been here on a "student visa", or as "asylum seekers". If the justice Department can't see that, it should be restructured.

Just another confirmation that the "Justice Department" stables need a thorough cleaning out.
For about 50 years, now...

Incidentally, has anyone seen a link to this Justice Department report?

[Publius6961]

The immigration court “is now the seat of individuals who were appointed illegally, and that means that in the minds of many people the court symbolizes illegality,” said Bruce Einhorn, a Pepperdine University law professor who was an immigration judge from 1990 until he retired last year.

Sounds like this "retired" judge is in the grips of dementia. With perhaps a touch of megalomania. Perhaps his appointment was also illegal, if all it takes is the accusation by an socialist-anarchist academic.

Not being an academic myself, I am spared the cognitive dissonance necessary to believe that 'democracy" demands that the system accept the option of democratically destroying itself.

A view, incidentally, shared by "progressives", hesbollah, hamas, the taliban, and every other ruthless repressive group on earth.

Just saying.

[TKDietz]

No. These aren't appellate level judges or anything like that. They aren't appointed for life. They're immigration judges that only work in immigration courts. This is a lowly administrative law judge position.

[TKDietz]

“Immigrants seeking asylum in the United States have been overwhelmingly accepted, despite criminal activity, by judges whom the Clinton administration chose using a liberal political litmus test, according to an analysis of Justice Department data.”

Except that that isn’t really true. Asylum is a loser. Any other strategy is preferable to filing for asylum because asylum is rarely granted by any judge regardless of their political affiliation. Most people that file for it are denied.