66) Analysis of the big government policy of "Independent Immigration Courts“

 SPOTM Analysis of “Independent Immigration Courts” in the US

Verdict: Misaligned

The proposal to create fully “independent” immigration courts — removing immigration adjudication from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (under the Department of Justice) and establishing a separate, autonomous judicial body — is misaligned with SPOTM principles. While the current system has serious flaws (massive backlogs, inconsistency, and politicization), making immigration courts truly independent would likely make the problems worse, not better.

Why This Policy Is Misaligned

1. Immigration Is a Sovereign Policy Matter, Not Purely Judicial Deciding who may enter and remain in the country is fundamentally an exercise of national sovereignty and executive/legislative power. Treating every immigration case as a full judicial proceeding turns border control into an endless legal battleground. SPOTM believes sovereignty and border enforcement should not be subordinated to an unaccountable judicial bureaucracy.
2. Creates Even Less Accountability “Independent” courts would be insulated from direct executive oversight and political accountability. In practice, many current immigration judges already have high asylum grant rates. Greater independence would likely tilt the system further toward leniency, making deportations harder and encouraging more illegal immigration and asylum abuse.
3. Worsens Backlogs and Inefficiency The immigration court system already has a backlog of over 3 million cases. Further judicializing the process with more formal procedures, appeals, and independence would slow things down dramatically, creating even longer delays and de facto amnesty through backlog.
4. Undermines the Rule of Law Effective immigration enforcement requires swift removal of those who violate the law. Turning the system into a slow, hyper-judicial process rewards lawbreakers and penalizes those who follow legal immigration channels. This erodes respect for the rule of law.
5. Often Ideologically Motivated The push for “independent” immigration courts is frequently supported by open-borders advocates as a way to limit executive enforcement and make it much harder to deport illegal aliens. SPOTM rejects using institutional design to achieve partisan or ideological immigration goals.

SPOTM’s Recommended Approach

SPOTM supports efficient, fair, but firm immigration adjudication under clear executive accountability:

• Keep immigration courts within the executive branch for proper oversight and policy coordination.
• Dramatically increase judges, staff, and technology to clear the massive backlog.
• Implement expedited removal for recent illegal entrants and criminals.
• Tighten asylum standards to prevent abuse while maintaining legitimate protections.
• Prioritize national sovereignty and the enforcement of immigration law over procedural expansion.

SPOTM Summary Statement:

“Creating fully ‘independent’ immigration courts is misaligned because it further removes immigration enforcement from democratic accountability, worsens backlogs, encourages law-breaking, and weakens national sovereignty. SPOTM supports an efficient, accountable adjudication system under executive oversight that prioritizes swift enforcement of immigration laws, border security, and the rule of law.”

This position flows directly from SPOTM’s commitment to national sovereignty, the rule of law, effective government when performing its core functions, and realism in immigration policy.

In addition:

here’s more detailed information on the proposal for “independent immigration courts” in the United States, from a SPOTM perspective.

Current System vs. Proposed “Independent” Courts

Current System (Executive Office for Immigration Review - EOIR):

• Immigration courts are part of the Department of Justice (executive branch).
• Judges are appointed by the Attorney General.
• The system is already heavily backlogged (over 3.5 million cases as of 2026).
• There is some political influence from the executive branch.

Proposed “Independent” Immigration Courts:

• Would create a new Article I court (like bankruptcy or tax courts) or a fully separate judicial body.
• Judges would have greater independence from the Attorney General and executive policy priorities.
• Supporters (mostly open-borders advocates and some immigration bar groups) argue this would reduce politicization and increase fairness.

SPOTM’s Deeper Critique

1. Sovereignty Issue Immigration is fundamentally an exercise of national sovereignty, not a pure judicial function. Deciding who can enter and remain in the country is a core executive and legislative power. Making courts “independent” would further judicialize what should be a policy and enforcement matter, making it much harder for elected officials to carry out the will of the people on border security.
2. Likely Outcome: More Leniency and Backlogs Many current immigration judges already grant asylum at very high rates (sometimes 30-80% depending on the judge and circuit). Greater independence would likely lead to even higher grant rates, slower proceedings, and more de facto amnesty through delay. The backlog would probably worsen significantly.
3. Accountability Problem Independent courts are deliberately insulated from democratic accountability. This removes an important check: the executive branch’s ability to set enforcement priorities. In practice, it often tilts the system toward the interests of immigration lawyers and advocacy groups rather than American citizens.
4. Constitutional and Practical Concerns The Constitution grants Congress and the President broad authority over immigration. Creating a powerful independent immigration judiciary would further erode separation of powers and make meaningful border control nearly impossible.

Real-World Context

• The current system is already criticized from both sides: enforcement advocates say it is too lenient and slow; open-borders advocates say it is too harsh and politicized.
• The massive backlog is largely caused by catch-and-release policies, weak asylum standards, and deliberate lawfare by advocacy groups — not by the courts being insufficiently independent.

SPOTM’s Preferred Reforms

Instead of making courts more independent, SPOTM recommends:

• Streamline the Process: More judges, expedited removal for recent illegal entrants and criminals, and clearer standards for asylum claims.
• Maintain Executive Oversight: Immigration enforcement priorities should ultimately reflect the elected President and Congress.
• Legislative Fixes: Congress should pass laws narrowing asylum abuse, limiting frivolous appeals, and clarifying that illegal presence does not create due process rights equivalent to citizens.
• Focus on Deterrence: Swift consequences for illegal entry are more important than perfect judicial independence.

SPOTM Summary:

Creating fully “independent” immigration courts would likely worsen backlogs, reduce accountability, and further weaken America’s ability to control its borders. SPOTM supports an efficient, accountable adjudication system under proper executive and congressional oversight that prioritizes national sovereignty, the rule of law, and effective enforcement — not greater judicial independence that serves as a backdoor for open-border policies.