Adaptive Solutions in Immigration Law

With all of the headlines surrounding the immigration policies of the US the past couple of weeks, it’s been a really insightful time to be working with people whose lives are deeply impacted by the decisions this administration continues to make. In general, most people can agree that the state of the US immigration system is disheartening. The rhetoric surrounding it, mainly “a problem to which no one seems to have a solution,” struck me as being very similar to a Type III problem as discussed by Heifetz. In a Type III situation, the problem is not clearly defined, and there is not a solution readily available. The “problem” will vary depending on who you ask- to some, it is Judge Sessions issuing case law stating that victims of domestic violence are no longer a protected social group and should not be granted asylum, to others, it is the “catch and release” system of allowing illegal immigrants into the county on their own recognizance to await trial, and to most, it includes separating families at the border while the parents undergo criminal proceedings and the children are detained.  A situation such as this requires adaptive work, and the inability of the government to form coalitions to do this kind of work has resulted in a system that fails those who come to the US desperately trying to escape institutional violence, corruption, and poverty. (This is not to criticize only the Trump administration; the Obama administration was in power when rates of immigration from Central/South American countries began to rapidly climb, and failed to implement a strong, bipartisan immigration policy.)

When a Type III problem arises, it must be solved by leadership. At the moment, elected leaders have been unable to solve this problem, and so it has fallen to immigration attorneys to attempt to piece together adaptive solutions for those already in the country affected by the current political client. At my firm specifically, this has consequences for our clients which include failing their expectations at a rate they can stand. Sometimes, it means proceeding with a clients case, even though deportation is likely the end result. Other times, it is filing inquiry after inquiry into cases that likely won’t be adjudicated for years. The constant unknown of what executive order or case law will be issued next makes the jobs of immigration attorneys that much more uncertain, and requires them to rely on adaptive solutions even more heavily.