women who occupy those states will have a lot to say about freedman's view of the society in which we live today and his solutions for the ills of our time. >> saturdays at 7:00 p.m. eastern, american history tv will air the 10-part series free to choose featuring milton friedman. it limited government intervention and social policy. other topics include welfare, education, equality, consumer and worker protection and inflation. watch free to choose saturdays at 7:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv for c-span 2. >> funded by these television

companies and more, including comcast. host: this is austin cokier with the access clearing-house known as track and serves as a research assistant professor to talk about immigration, courts and the backlog there. thanks for your time. funded, cu explain a little bit about that? guest: sure.

guest: sure. guest: track has been around for 30 years. we free freedom of information act request to get data from the american government and make it available to the public. as a researcher myself, track is one of our main areas is immigration and we get probably more immigration data than anyone else in the country and make it available to the public online and through reports and analysis. host: when it comes to how the clearing-house is funded, can you explain a little bit of that for the audience? guest: we're funded by grants. host: something your clearing-house looks at is backlog of cases. can you explain how it fits into the larger discussion? guest: there's 3.2 pending cases in the immigration court system. the immigration court system is just one part of the larger

immigration system. courts and immigration judges. host: we saw pretty much the same amount of cases according to your analysis in the charts that were provided. it starts rising in 2021 when it comes to the backlog in court. it flatlined again, and then you see the increase in 2023. can you explain why these ebbs and flows happen? guest: certainly. historically, the immigration court has processed cases for people who have been in the country for a long time. country for a long time. when i got in this work 15 years ago, asylum was relatively rare in immigration courts. currentlt

a third of them in the 3 million cases, more than one million of those cases currently have those cases currently have one million cases have pending activity. a 1/3 of all people facing deportation are under the age of 18 and a lot of young people and also children and also families. so the immigration court system is really the venue where people have a chance to request safety if they're fleeing instability.

host: when you talk about the immigration courts, how does it work and someone appears before the courts and requests asylum, what's the process? guest: they work like the court you've seen in a criminal court. the judge is dressed in traditional robes and there's opposing counsel which is from customs enforcement, i.c.e., known for local immigration enforcement and also run the detention system, unlike border patrol which primarily does border enforcement and typically transfers people they arrest into the detention system and oftentimes those individuals end up in court. when those individuals get to court there's typically a series of hearings. if the person is requesting asylum and if they have adequate the legal support they'll lodge an asylum application. asylum applications are very complex and demanding in terms of resources and time and

research to file and ad quit one. many individuals who would like to request asylum aren't able to because they may not have the resources but for those who do, they file them with the court and there's what's known as a merits hearing or individual hearing where the individual will have a chance to make their case in front of the judge. and the opposing counsel, the i.c.e. attorney may more or less agree with the asylum seeker that their claim is meritorious, most obvious they'll -- most often they'll make some sort of opposing case and try to verify the case presented and the judge will essentially make a decision. currently, about half l asylum cases that are decided on their merit are approved and about half are denied. that is a number that fluctuates over time. host: does the judge in these cases have to have a specific background in immigration related issues? related issues? half are approved and half are

not. and the judge doesn't have independence we associate with the federal court system and exist under the department of justice and there's issues with independents that have been a long-standing concern. historically they haven't been required to even have any immigration law background and even today there are judges on the bench who before they became an immigration judge were maybe a municipal judge or practiced law in another area of law because they're hired or appointed to the department of justice. the vast majority of people appointed to the bench these days have immigration experience. host: for someone who makes this request for asylum, what does the judge have to sift through in order to ultimately decide? guest: sure. typically with the judge will be looking for is credibility of a whether they feel like the story at east the individual -- story and the cased individual is presenting is reliable, if it

meets the threshold of possibility and is supported by facts. individual present a detailed -- does the individual present a detailed and factual claim that is backed by news reports? there are common claims of persecution, whether it is being targeted by a targeted figure, targeted by gangs, targeted by religion, those are all claims. the immigration attorney and the individual will present not just the narrative of the individual but ultimately provide typically quite a thick packet of recent research on what is actually going on in the country the person is coming from. if someone is from a particular country and they are claiming let's say gender violence for being a woman or a nonconforming gender, they will also provide evidence of persecution of other people in that situation as well

as first-hand narrative to present the overall case, and the judge will ultimately decide whether or not that case get approved or not. host: this is austin kocher of syracuse university. if you want to ask him questions about the immigration related cases, particularly when it comes to asylum and other matters, you can call and ask. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. perhaps you have had experience with the immigration process, particularly on the legal front, and he want to ask a question. (202) 748-8003. you have probably heard on the senate side there was release of the text when it comes to the senate bill on border security. a couple of these things could apply directly to asylum. first of all, $20 billion would particularly go for immigration enforcement, including the hiring of thousands of new officers to evaluate asylum claims. i don't know if that means judges per say but how would the

money and new officers influence the current system? guest: certainly. so the number of pieces coming into the court far exceed the number of cases that judges are able to complete in any given month or year. even though the judges have been working harder than ever. they completed more cases in the first few months than they ever have so they are doing good work but there is a lot of cases. the bill provides funding not only for hiring many more immigration judges, as you said, but other officers within the immigration services will help adjudicate these claims. increased capacity could increase the responsiveness to people seeking asylum. the bill includes restrictive measures on asylum that increase the hurdle migrants would have to face to be able to apply for asylum. there are some immigrant rights advocates that have concerns about that. the state of cases also affect

outcome so insofar as the bill is attempting to speed up cases, that could be good from a processing perspective because it keeps people from waiting for years and years. but it also could disadvantage migrants seeking asylum. how people determine the bill is how they view border rights versus security. host: you talked about the standard applied to asylum. if there is an increased hurdle, what could that look like compared to what is being asked now of a person applying for asylum? guest: sure. fear -- currently, we have a credible fear standard. before someone is allowed in the country to make a full asylum claim, whether that is the uscis or the immigration courts, they have to reach a threshold of having a credible fear. there is an asylum officer who has to make a determination the person has a credible claim, and

if someone cannot meet that threshold they have to leave the country. increasing that hurdle would basically reduce the number of people or the percent of people let's say who would end up going on and being able to make a full asylum claim. host: again, our guest with us. we have calls lined up for you. the first one is from john. caller: yes. what a coincidence. the only thing that i agree with the republicans on his immigration -- is immigration. i want all of these people deported, and i am a democrat. if you are invading this country illegally, i want you deported. now let's get onto the assignment. why? what a joke this is, the asylum thing has turned into. asylum is if you held us in vietnam and afghanistan and you were going to stay there and he would be killed, you deserve

asylum. if you are gay in venezuela, you are being picked on, discriminated against, that can happen in america. the asylum lie -- everyone will claim asylum. it is a big show. i would do it too if i was coming for a better life. all of these people are coming for a better life and claiming asylum. and then you say they are in unsafe situations. join the crowd. try walking through chicago in the middle of the night. they should be thrown out. host: ok, thank you. guest: yeah, so the asylum laws the united states has was created in 1980. it is part of the international refugee system created after world war ii. a crucial legislation that helped us deal with the fact that there are so many geopolitical and political

events that happened in the world that produce massive display meant -- displacement. most do not come to the u.s. most go to other countries. those in syria go to jordan. but it allows people to request asylum for safety. and i just want to point out that in recent years, about half of people who present a full asylum claim in immigration court are approved for asylum. it is an indication that not only there are many meritorious claim asylum -- claims for asylum, but let's remember there are trump appointed judges who are approving asylum because people meet that standard. that is a crucial thing to understand. whether or not there should be additional restrictions on asylum, whether the asylum system needs to change because

of the number of people arriving at the u.s.-mexico border, that is a point of political debate. i think across the aisle, left, right, and center, i think people see value in providing options for safety and protection for people who are fleeing instability. i would point out venezuela is not a country the u.s. typically has strong relations with. it is also a country that faces tremendous instability. in fact, there are more of it is wayland seeking asylum now and facing deportation than people from mexico and central america at this point. the largest number in the immigration court backlog has been from venezuela. it is individual cases feeling uncomfortable about where they are. these numbers reflect systemwide, societywide instability. something we should take very seriously, although of course there are lots of ideas on how to reform and improve the

system. host: in tampa, florida, from greg, independent line. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. i have a couple comments basically. number one, the hypocrisy of the republicans regarding immigration where they won't allow biden to issue executive orders because they say it should be legislated. but legislation they won't agree to even when they are given everything they ask. that is just one comment. the second comment i have is over 40 years ago i had the unfortunate pleasure of spending some time in denver county jail, and i met a person who was a russian who had overstayed his visa and was awaiting deportation. well, he had been in there for two years waiting for deportation. that was 40 years ago. our system was broken in that

matter, and nothing has changed since. it is just a political issue for politicians. they don't want to fix it because they want to be able to gripe about it. host: ok. thanks, caller. guest: immigration is what we call a wedge issue in american politics, the kind of political issue that has more political capital when it remains a problem than opposed when it is solved. i am inclined to agree with part of that color's observation, caller -- caller;s observation -- caller's observation. it is important for everyone to understand that is difficult as that may be at as polarizing as it is, it is important to have serious adult conversations about how we can improve the system. for instance, the bill that came out last night, the legislation that came out last night, there are lots of parts of it that are

interesting and positive for migrants. there are lots of parts that are positive people concerned about border enforcement. my hope would be that legislation and series debate is possible and people take an interest and really read and try to understand it. my fear is serious legislation and discussions and debates about how to reform get so polarized that people don't even bother to understand anymore, which is leading with reacting. i really hope and encourage people would adopt an open mindset. host: we have a viewer that asked a follow-up question about the fear threshold. is it the impression of the interviewer or a list of answers to standardized questions? guest: sure.