The Haitians versus the United States: The Courts as Last Resort

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The decision to deny asylum to arriving Haitians was made soon after they began arriving in this country. Asylum has been denied the Haitians because they flee the dictatorship of an ally, because they are poor and unskilled, and because their admission encourages others like them. All government practice since the initial decision was made—the requirement of bond, detention, refusal of work authorizations, denial of due process, illicit deportation, and interdiction—has been implemented in support of the original decision not to admit Haitians. In reaction to the government's policy and practice, successive lawsuits have been brought on behalf of the Haitians. In nearly every case, the courts have found for the plaintiffs, but shortly the government has resumed the enjoined practice, convinced that this is the only way to deal with the problem. Finally, perceiving the courts as an impediment to its ends, the Reagan administration introduced legislation that would effectively bar judicial review. It is not the rulings of the courts, however, that have obstructed the immigration system, but the persistence of the government in relying on illegal practices. In the end, only fairness will enable us to recover the control we have lost.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: