Migration, Asylum, and the Possibility of a Humane Path Forward: an Analysis of the Family Case Management Program

Guest post by Anna Mason. Anna is a second-year PhD candidate in Politics at Northeastern University London. Her research focuses on twenty-first century conceptions of citizenship, with a particular focus on migration. She holds an MSc in Digital Scholarship from the University of Oxford and a BA in Political Science from the University of Maryland, College Park. 

In the wake of Donald Trump’s second inauguration, and the shift in border policy towards increasingly restrictionist measures that is expected to ensue, a policy instituted during the second term of Barack Obama’s presidency for asylum seekers can provide a useful example of the efficacy of a “humane” approach to immigration. This policy, entitled the Family Case Management Program (FCMP), is perhaps lesser-known than Obama’s other immigration policies (such as, for example, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA), yet is notable for its low cost, high compliance rate, and adherence to humanitarian values. However, the FCMP must in turn be contextualized with Obama’s overall approach towards immigration policy and immigration detention, and the often-illiberal practices followed by so-called liberal states towards its noncitizens.  

Obama first took office in 2009 with the campaign promise of sustained and comprehensive immigration reform, a longstanding “third rail” of American politics. Amid Republican obstructionism (as well as scholarly claims that he did not center the issue nearly as much as he claimed to, see work by Hernández), actual reform was “fitful” and largely carried out via executive action. This was the case for DACA, a program that granted individuals who entered the United States as children without legal status protection from deportation and other legal benefits. DACA was instituted following Obama’s inability to pass the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act through Congress, a bill that would have provided a pathway to citizenship for these children – which DACA notably does not. 

However, presidencies are defined by crisis points, and Obama’s immigration policy was tested by the 2014 surge in border crossings from Central American countries. Due to factors including extreme poverty and gang violence, amongst others, 68,541 unaccompanied children, many of whom were seeking asylum, were apprehended at the Southwest border -- compared to 38,759 in 2013. The administration’s response to the crisis (later characterized as “conflicted” and “confusing” by former U.S. Department of Homeland Security advisor Dora Schriro) included expanding a pre-existing family detention center in Pennsylvania and building new centers in New Mexico and Texas as a deterrence policy, a move that quickly drew alarm from immigrants’ rights activist groups. These actions were found unlawful by the courts following a class-action lawsuit filed by the ACLU. 

Implemented in 2016, the FCMP did not emerge directly due to this backlash, but marked an important shift in federal immigration policy nonetheless. Designed as a limited pilot program intending to last five years (yet quickly terminated by Donald Trump in June 2017), it ultimately provided 952 asylum seeking families with individualized case managers and help accessing community resources, assuming that they continued to meet legal requirements (i.e., court appearances). A true “alternative to detention” (ATD) approach, it signified the first time in fifteen years that the government chose to invest in a model that follows international humanitarian norms. 

By every metric, the program was a success, albeit one with a relatively small sample size: it boasted a 99% compliance rate with court and monitoring requirements, and cost an estimated $38.47 per day per family, whereas family detention cost approximately $237.60. The program was not, however, without controversy. Advocacy groups criticized the fact that a private prison company was awarded management of the program, and pointed out certain gaps in program coverage. 

Ultimately, however, the Family Case Management Program was indicative of an effective immigration policy that did not rely upon detention. Part of this success could, perhaps, be attributed to its recognition of asylum seeking noncitizens as people with their own individualized set of needs, skills, and desires – rather than following blanket policies of detention or ankle monitors, for example. Additionally, it enabled these individuals to form and maintain relationships with both their larger communities and case workers, and the resultingly high levels of compliance speaks to the overall importance of community ties. 

It remains to be seen how successful the FCMP would have been if it had been allowed to run its five-year course in full, or the exact mechanics of scaling up what was a relatively small program. However, it signifies that there are humane solutions for fixing a backlogged asylum system that has, for example, been improved via humanitarian reform before back in the 1990s (see work by Meissner et al.). Detention is not the solution for what is not an inherently unlawful act, and compassionate solutions are both possible and effective – a message that bears repeating in the face of political rhetoric that repeatedly and willfully dehumanizes the other.  

In sum, the true measure of a liberal state lies in its treatment of those without protection. While this article specifically examined U.S. asylum policy, the findings have near-universal implications, as how we treat the noncitizen is reflective of who we are as a people. 

Any comments about this post? Get in touch with us! Send us an email, or post a comment here. You can also find us on BlueSky.