Shady immigration attorneys laughed off the law — now they’ll have to pay for their asylum games
US News Metro Long Island Politics
Sports NFL MLB Olympics NBA NHL College Football College Basketball WNBA
Entertainment TV Movies Music Celebrities Awards Theater
Lifestyle Weird But True Sex & Relationships Viral Trends Human Interest Parenting Fashion & Beauty Food & Drink Travel
Health Wellness Fitness Health Care Medicine Men’s Health Women’s Health Mental Health Nutrition
Science Space Environment Wildlife Archaeology
Today’s Paper Covers Columnists Horoscopes Crosswords & Games Sports Odds Podcasts Careers
Email Newsletters Official Store Home Delivery Tips
Switch between CA and NY editions here.
Shady immigration attorneys laughed off the law — now they’ll have to pay for their asylum games
See more of our coverage in your search results.
This week, the Department of Homeland Security announced a new effort to crack down on asylum fraud — by going after the lawyers who enable it.
DHS will be imposing civil fines on attorneys who file bogus and frivolous protection applications on behalf of their alien clients.
About time: For decades, various administrations have turned a blind eye to those who exploit Americans’ humanitarian instincts for pecuniary gain.
By its nature, fraud generally is one of the hardest crimes to prove — it’s axiomatic in law enforcement that the greatest con artists are the ones who never got caught.
Our generous asylum laws, however, almost encourage fraud.
To ensure immigrants aren’t returned to persecution or torture back home, the US asylum statute is intentionally lax on the evidence applicants must present to support their claims.
Gavin Newsom unveils feeble plan to combat anarchy heading for California airports
Dramatic moment masked ICE officers drag suspected illegal migrant from his car at gunpoint in San Francisco
Anti-ICE goons chant ‘Grab your guns and kill yourself’ at feds during violent Delaney Hall clash
Applicants’ testimony alone “may be sufficient to sustain” their burden of proof “without corroboration,” but only if the court finds it credible and concludes........
