Accusations of Bias in Immigration Cases - Case Study Example

Author Note

The author notes more information about affiliation, research grants, conflict of interest, and how to contact

Accusations of Bias in Immigration Cases

The system by which Congress has authorized immigration judges to act in a “dual role” as both judge and prosecutor in immigration hearings leaves room for an inherent problem of bias in judgment (Harrington & Cater, 2009, p.236). Asylum seekers usually come to a host country due to the possibility of persecution in their nations of origin, often on the grounds of religion, politics, or race. From a broader perspective, it is the responsibility of every country to honor and protect the human rights of every person irrespective of their religion, race, or nationality. On the other hand, nations also owe a similar responsibility to their citizens and, in addition, they also have the onus to ensure their well-being.

In immigration cases, the judges consider a lot of aspects and prescribe an “excessively high standard of proof” of persecution from the asylum seekers before deciding their cases (p.236). In this context, it becomes relevant that such immigrants often may not be in a position to fulfill the demands of the host nations. From the instances of the application of inconsistent regulations as well as the lack of “objective human rights assessments,” while deciding immigration cases, it transpires that there is an element of bias prevailing among some of the judges (p.236). Due to their lack of adequate insight into the socio-political situations in the refugees’ homelands, these judges downplay their “likelihood of prosecution” (p.236). This may, perhaps, be the reason for the large volume of cases pending in various immigration courts.

On the other hand, evidence also suggests the pendency of a large number of social security adjudications in the country. On a surface level, since the government of a nation has an obligation to ensure the welfare of its citizens, it may appear that the social security of its own people deserves precedence over the rights of people from other countries. However, this issue needs to be understood and explored on a deeper level. Asylum seekers are usually people who have no alternative other than seek refuge in an alien country because of turmoil and possible persecution in their nation of origin. In this regard, it needs to be appreciated that in normal circumstances, unless there is a threat to a person’s values and belief systems, he or she may not want to abandon the homeland. Thus, it becomes evident that asylum seekers are leaving their countries due to the obvious threat to or violation of their human rights.

On the other hand, the question of social security can only be perceived as a privilege to the citizens of this country. The concept of a person’s right to live, by embracing his or her faith and political beliefs gains significance over one’s privilege to receive social security. Therefore, even if the US government has a responsibility to look after the welfare of its citizens, a more pressing need is to acknowledge the human rights of people even though they belong to another country. Thus, in the light of the covenant of universal human rights, the US should accord priority to disposing of the asylum cases which involve the rights of individuals over the issue of social security cases, which envisage privilege.