"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
But over the airwaves and online, another story is playing out: an absolute torrent of ads meant to frighten and anger voters about immigration.
A new report from the pro-immigration group America’s Voice seeks to document this ongoing phenomenon. One of its key conclusions: “Republicans have made their nativist narrative a top messaging priority.”
In the world of Republican campaign ads, very little has changed since the xenophobic Trump presidency, and some of what’s in these ads is truly repellent.
Three themes dominate these ads, the report finds, and they are all wildly inflammatory and profoundly dishonest: The Biden administration has created “open borders,” undocumented immigrants are responsible for fentanyl overdoses and a full-blown “invasion” is underway.
The borders are anything but open; the Biden administration is pursuing, arresting and deporting people seeking to come to the United States by the thousands. The vast majority of fentanyl that comes in is smuggled through ports of entry in cars, boats and planes, not carried by undocumented immigrants. And as for an “invasion,” that’s no more true now than it was when Trump warned that caravans were about to overrun the country.
But the Republican ads portray horror and chaos — usually with a non-White face. Some ads show pictures of young Black men walking through rivers on their way to “invade” America, with language suggesting this “invasion” brings “terrorists, drugs and crime.”
Other ads say the Biden administration is supposedly “importing 20 million illegals and giving them amnesty” (the image for that one is people in Haiti), which can only be stopped by “a declaration of invasion.”
In some ads it’s not just an open border but a “wide open border” — once again, illustrated with pictures of Haitians. In others we’re told that “human, sex and drug trafficking are out of control because of Democrat governance,” while Democratic candidates “refuse to oppose Biden’s open border policy.”
Of course, there is no open border policy, but why should the fact that it doesn’t exist stop Democrats from opposing it? That just shows how sinister they are, these ads say, because they “want to destroy this country.”
All of this captures something essential about this political moment. For months, Republicans were certain they could spread fears of chaos in order to ride to victory in the midterms. They’d run on crime and immigration, not just to excite the base but also to scare unsettled swing voters.
Yet the dynamic unexpectedly shifted, and now disorder and, dare we say it, crime — as in the potential crimes of Donald Trump and many Jan. 6 defendants — are not necessarily playing in the GOP’s favor. The overturning of Roe v. Wade has unleashed another form of chaos and a host of new dangers threatening women. And all of these things are energizing Democrats.
. . . .
“Republicans are indulging in the worst kind of White nationalist rhetoric,” Frank Sharry, the executive director of America’s Voice, told us. “And an issue they thought would win over swing voters is at best a base mobilizer for voters they already have.”
What makes this all really ugly, however, is that the messaging remaining under the radar — which Democrats bear some blame for, having gone quiet on the issue — allows it to continue mostly unexamined. This, even though its worst incarnations — such as “great replacement theory” — have inspired recent mass shootings.
Along these lines, it’s worth keeping an eye on Blake Masters, the GOP Senate candidate in Arizona. He has trafficked heavily in great replacement theory and has run truly vile ads on immigration, including one that features machine-gun fire at the border. Yet in a place President Biden won by a whisker that’s also a border state, Masters is trailing by a meaningful margin.
As Sharry told us, Masters’s whole “declare an invasion” line “is not working, in a state where one-third of the voters are independents and border security is a top issue.”
Yet whether it works with independents and swing voters, this foul sewage has been flowing unabated. And it will surely continue to do so.
********************
Read the complete article at the link.
The idea that individuals seeking to find a U.S. official who will listen to their asylum cases would be trucking along large amounts of fentanyl in their backpacks is facially absurd.
Ending scofflaw Trump failures to follow asylum and refugee laws at the border and beyond would not halt all illegal entries. No policy will do that, nor has there ever been one that even came close, although illegal incursions have risen and fallen over the years.
But, fair refugee and asylum programs that actually interpreted the applicable domestic and international laws correctly (instead of the “any reason to deny, no matter how wrong attitude” still widespread and tolerated at both Mayorkas’s DHS and Garland’s DOJ) and generously granted protection as was the intention behind the UN Refugee Convention in the first place would certainlyencourage large segments of those now forced to irregularly cross the border instead to apply abroad or at legal ports of entry.
It would also facilitate the USG working with NGOs, the UNHCR, states, and localities to get individuals needed assistance so that their legal claims could be processed in a fair, efficient, and timely manner. The latter objectives seem to have totally eluded both Mayorkas and particularly Garland. They continue to “blow off the experts” and flounder with mindless, “designed to fail,” “deterrence-focused” gimmicks. Talk about a lose-lose!
Also to state the obvious, if CBP were less focused on apprehending individuals who pose no real threat to the U.S., but merely want a fair shot at applying for legal protection — something our laws require that Trump annihilated, the Federal Courts have flubbed,and Biden has done a substandard job of re-instituting — they would have time to focus more resources on drug and human smugglers.
Instead, in perhaps one of the dumbest and most wasteful juxtapositions in recent American history, the CBP focus is on “apprehending” (a term I use lightly, since many individuals “want” to be “found,” so they can get access to the system otherwise improperly denied to them by CBP) thosemerely seeking to comply with the law! To do that, CBP ignores or misses many of those who actually pose threats. At the same time, both DHS and DOJ use methods, attitudes, and legal interpretations that themselves undermine fundamental fairness, the rule of law, and humanity itself.
Immigrants are America’s past, present, and future! Indeed, climate change, rising oceans, drought, starvation, transportation improvements, globalized commerce, wars, religious bigotry, pandemics, and other factors beyond the control of any one government will continue to drive worldwide migration.
Building walls, prisons, hate, resentment, and constructing bogus “invasion myths” will not change the reality of human migration and the necessity to adopt to and harness it in a smart, humane, realistic manner. Doing the opposite, will only diminish us as a nation and inhibit our own chances for future prosperity. But, in the end, it won’t stop human migration.
Isabela Dias Staff Writer, Immigration & Social Issues Mother Jones PHOTO: TwitterProfessor Andrew S. Rosenberg Assistant Professor of Political Science U of Florida PHOTO: Website
“Undesirable Immigrants: Why Racism Persists in International Migration”
. . . .
In the book, you dispute the assumption that the right to border control and to exclude foreigners is an inherent feature of sovereign states. Instead, you frame it as a “modern consequence of racism.” Why do you see it that way?
The nation-state is a relatively modern invention on the scale of human history. Today, we have this conventional wisdom floating around that it is the natural right and duty of nation-states as sovereign entities to be able to restrict foreigners and have these really hard borders—and that it’s that ability that makes a state what it is. Actually, if you go back in time and look at the international legal thought that emerged from the 15th through the 19th centuries on what it actually means to be a state, the commonly held assumption that people like the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia and others talk about, is actually an invention of the 19th century. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the great thinkers of international legal jurisprudence or of state theory either thought that states had a right or an obligation to be hospitable to foreigners and to allow them free passage into their territory or, at most, it was up for raucous debate. It was only in the 19th century, when immigrant-receiving countries like the United States began receiving a large influx of racially different outsiders like the Chinese, that this presumption that sovereign states have a right and an obligation that can be tied back to their status as sovereign states to restrict outsiders emerged.
People like Texas Governor Greg Abbott seem to invoke that supposed inherent right when they describe migrants at the border as an “invasion.”
Precisely. These types of “declarations of war” are one of the clearest examples of this ideology seeping into public debate, which leads everyday people to create this idea that migrants are undesirable outsiders who are not fit for, or are undeserving of reaping the benefits of living in the United States or participating in our society.
****************
Read the complete interview at the link.
The myth of the “undesirable immigrant” — at the heart of the anti-immigrant rabble rousing of Trump, Miller, Bannon, DeSantis, Abbott, Cotton, Hawley, etc. — has deep roots in American racial history.
I’ve said it many times: There will be neither racial justice nor equal justice for all without justice for immigrants (regardless of status). Laws like the Refugee Act of 1980, that very explicitly make arrival status irrelevant to access to a fair legal process, have been intentionally misinterpreted and misapplied by right-wing judges from the Supremes all the way down to the Immigration Courts.
Advocates for civil rights, womens’ rights, LGBTQ+ rights, voting rights, disability rights, and other fundamental rights that have been unlawfully restricted or diminished, usually, but certainly not exclusively, by the right, who continue to ignore the primacy of dealing with the intentional unfair, racially biased treatment of migrants do so at their own peril!
Between 2015 and 2020, about fifty bodies were recovered each year in Brooks County, according to an S.T.H.R.C. report. Then came Title 42, a policy enacted by the Trump Administration at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic that closed ports of entry and blocked most avenues for asylum claims, ostensibly for public-health reasons. The policy, which is still in place in a modified form, has increased business for smuggling cartels and spurred people to cross in more dangerous places. “Before Title 42, the calls we got used to be, like, eighty-per-cent apprehended, twenty-per-cent missing,” Canales said. “Now it’s flipped—it’s more like twenty-per-cent apprehended, eighty-per-cent missing.” So far this year, there have been nearly seventy recoveries of remains in Brooks County, putting 2022 on track to be the deadliest year on record.
. . . .
*****************
Read Rachel’s entire report, directly from the border, at the link.
So, before the Trump Administration’s bogus, racist “invocation” of Title 42, 80% of migrants came to the border or were easily apprehended close thereto — most probably because they turned themselves in to seek asylum through the legal system. And, lets not forget, this was with an already badly broken, fundamentally unfair, asylum legal adjudication system intentionally biased and “loaded” against legitimate refugees seeking protection!
Smart, honest public policy would have improved asylum adjudication at USCIS and at EOIR to quickly recognize and grant, with the assistance of NGOs and legal assistance groups, the many cases of legitimate refugees so that they could take their rightful, legal places in our society.
Additionally, by taking refugees seeking legal determinations “out of the equation,” enforcement against those seeking to evade legal processing — certainly a much, much smaller “universe” than is “out there now” — would have been enhanced. Business would have declined for smugglers, as those seeking protection would have been motivated to use a humane, fair, functioning legal system rather than being forced into “do it yourself” refuge!
You don’t have a genius to figure this out — just not be motivated solely by racism like Stephen Miller and his Trump regime cronies! Better qualified — non-Jim Crow righty — Federal Judges would also produce more humane, honest, and rational results.
Additionally, by running a legitimate asylum system, and complementing it with an honest, robust, legal refugee system for Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa, we would finally have sound data on how many of those seeking to enter at the Southern Border are entitled to immigrate as legal refugees and how many are non-refugees. That’s something on which we now have no reliable information— just myths and anecdotes, many provided by racist restrictionists and nativists with neither expertise in asylum law nor any real interest in the rule of law at the border.
As a result of Title 42, and the unqualified “Jim Crow” Federal Judges, GOP nativist AGs, and their apologists (including some in the media who repeat or republish, without critical examination, GOP racist lies about the border), we now have a deadlier than ever border; the legal immigration system at the border has been functionally abolished and replaced with an underground, extralegal system; the U.S. Government has ceded control of border migration policy to cartels and smugglers; and the job of the Border Patrol — forced to spend time apprehending legal refugees who seek only the protection to which they are legally entitled — has become impossible.
That’s what happens when we let GOP nativist pols, overt racists, and bad, right wing Federal Judges take over the immigration policies that were actually enacted by Congress — a key part of which are legitimate refugee and asylum systems and a fair, functioning, expert Immigration Court. Right now, we have NONE of the foregoing. And, innocent migrants at the border are too often paying the price — with their lives!
“Enforcing the law” does NOT mean unfairly, unwisely, and illegally abrogating the legal asylum system and fair adjudications in Immigration Court at the border. It means fixing the legal asylum system including USCIS Asylum Offices. Perhaps most of all, it means reforming and replacing where necessary the broken, dysfunctional, leaderless, and non-expert Immigration Courts and a BIA that continues to misinterpret asylum and protection laws on a daily basis. We need a BIA of real judges with the expertise and guts to establish fair, humane, correct, positive precedents and to rein in or remove from asylum cases those Immigration Judges who are “programmed to reject, not protect!”
I, along with many others, watched the Brittney Griner travesty unfold. I saw the irony. President Biden was rightfully blasting the outrageous “kangaroo court” show trial that passes for justice in Russia. But, at the same time, he, Harris, and Garland are basically running a farcical “Russian style” dysfunctional immigrant “justice” system at EOIR and calling it a “court!”
Perhaps, in addition to blasting the Griner farce, President Biden, VP Harris, and AG Garland need to take a closer look at the “Russian-style” justice being inflicted on migrants in their wholly-owned Immigration “Courts” — which particularly target women, children, and migrants of color seeking justice under US laws. Indeed, many are still being arbitrarily returned without ANY process at all! Others get “off the wall” denials of their valid claims. Its this REALLY any way for a self-proclaimed “nation of laws” to operate? https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Bill Russell of the Celtics guards Wilt Chamberlain of the 76ers in a 1966 game. PUBLIC DOMAIN
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Special to Courtside
August 1, 2022
The 1950s. Black and white TVs. NBA coverage more or less an afterthought on winter weekend afternoons when nothing else was on. The eight team NBA, comprised of teams representing the East and Upper Midwest only — including such major Metropoli as Syracuse, Rochester, and Ft. Wayne. Even the introduction of the “shot clock” in 1954 failed to “jazz up” the game.
Mostly, it was played by a bunch of White guys named Clyde, Bob, George, Dolph, Paul, Dick, Easy Ed, Red, Carl, Cliff, and Larry. They were talented athletes, to be sure. But, mostly what they did was dribble and shoot. Some launched two-handed “set shots” — hard to fathom in 2022! Defense and athletic moves were an afterthought, at best. Competent, but fundamentally boring. Something you watched if you were stuck at your Grandmother’s or maiden aunt’s apartment in Milwaukee after lunch.
The major problem, of course, was integration — or more accurately the lack thereof! Although Alexandria, VA native Earl Lloyd had become the first African American to play in the NBA in the 1950, and helped the Syracuse Nationals win the NBA championship in 1955, Blacks remained woefully under-represented in terms of their talent. Indeed, many of the best African-American players chose to play with the “barnstorming” Harlem Globetrotters because of the ingrained racism of the NBA.
That changed in 1956 when future Hall of Fame Coach Red Auerbach of the Boston Celtics convinced his team to draft and sign Bill Russell, who had just won two NCAA Championships with the San Francisco Dons (they reached the “Final Four” only once since, in 1957) and an Olympic Gold. Suddenly, the distinctive parquet floor of the Boston Garden took life. Blocked shots, rebounds, and passes to teammates in green, as well as some close in hook shooting by the athletic 6-10 center became the “norm.”
The Celtics quickly became my favorite NBA team. The short-lived Milwaukee Hawks had decamped to St. Louis some years earlier. The Milwaukee Bucks of Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Oscar “Big O” Robertson were many years in the future. Interestingly, 6’8” Milwaukee Braves pitcher “Big Gene” Conley was a backup for the first few years of Russell’s Celtic career.
Behind Russell, the Celtics dominated the NBA for the next 13 years, winning championships in 11 of those seasons. He was the player-coach during the last three seasons of this run, becoming the first African American coach in the NBA.
In 1960, Russell’s “Modern Big Man” rival, Wilt “The Stilt” Chamberlain moved from the Globetrotters to the Philadelphia Warriors of the NBA. This set up one of the greatest individual matchups in American sports history. Although Wilt won many of the individual “statistical” battles, Russell won the “war” hands down. A Wilt-led team bested the Celtics only once for the NBA Championship during the Russell era — in 1967 when Wilt’s Philadelphia 76ers won it all. (Wilt would go on to win another ring with the LA Lakers in 1972, after Russell’s retirement).
Great as he was on the court, Russell’s impact was even bigger off it. At a time when the White sports ownership system wanted their “carefully metered” Black stars to win games, fill seats, smile, sign autographs, and remain silent about systemic racism in American society, Russell took a big “pass” on the last three! He recognized that true greatness wasn’t measured by willingness to “go along to get along!”
For that reason, out of the countless tributes to Russell published over the past two days, I have selected this one as most representative of the greatness and impact of this American hero: “Bill Russell, Activist For The Ages,” by Martenzie Johnson in “Andscape:”
Through our reporting, we exclusively learned that U.S. Customs and Border Protection quietly changed last year how they count deaths on the border to only include deaths in custody, during arrests or when agents were nearby and there were 151 such “CBP-related” deaths in the 2021 fiscal year.
We are still reporting on this and other issues of course, so please keep in touch with tips and story ideas!
Thanks, Mica. “Tune in” to the full “multimedia report” referenced by Mica at the above link to Reuters.
No amount of statistical hocus-pocus or nativist BS can hide the stain of these deadly, yet ultimately ineffective, border enforcement policies. It’s important that the names and actions of the politicos, bureaucrats, and bad judges who promote and encourage deadly violations of human rights, and their media apologists, be preserved and documented for history!
As we can see, there are, and will continue to be, concerted efforts to “cover up,” deny, and misrepresent the deadly effects of bad border policies! “Dehumanization of the other,” actively promoted by Trumpists and other White Nationalist GOP pols and their hand picked Federal Judges is a crucial first step!
Nobody should be surprised that the Supreme Court’s conservative justices on Friday jettisoned nearly 50 years of precedent upon precedent in overturning Roe v. Wade. Heck, they didn’t even honor their own precedent articulated 24 hours earlier.
In their opinion Thursday morning forcing New York and other densely populated states to allow more handguns in public, the conservative majority, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, argued that medieval law imposing arms restrictions — specifically, the 1328 Statute of Northampton — “has little bearing on the Second Amendment” because it was “enacted … more than 450 years before the ratification of the Constitution.”
Yet in their ruling Friday morning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, setting women’s rights back half a century (and cracking the door to banning same-sex marriage and contraception), the conservative justices, led by Samuel Alito (who was also in the guns majority) and joined by Thomas, argued precisely the opposite. They justified abortion bans by citing, among others, “Henry de Bracton’s 13th-century treatise.” That was written circa 1250 and referred to monsters, duels, burning at the stake — and to women as property, “inferior” to men.
The right-wing majority’s selective application of history reveals the larger fraud in this pair of landmark rulings: Their reasoning is not legal but political, not principled but partisan.
Still, there is a commonality to the rulings. Both decisions foment maximum chaos and were delivered with flagrant disregard for the instability and disorder they will cause.
The high court was meant to be the guarantor of law and order. But the conservative justices, intoxicated by their supermajority, have abandoned their solemn duty to promote stability in the law and are actively spreading real-world disruption.
Worse, this invitation to disorder comes as the nation is trying to restore the rule of law after a coup attempt led by a president who appointed three of the five justices in the abortion majority. The spouse of a fourth — Ginni Thomas, Clarence’s wife — aggressively pushed state legislators and the White House to overthrow the election. Yet Thomas, the senior associate justice, has refused to recuse himself from related cases.
After decades of crocodile tears over imagined “judicial activism,” the conservative supermajority has shed all judicial modesty and embraced radicalism. The liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer, wrote in their Dobbs dissent that the majority’s brazen rejection of stare decisis, respect for precedent, “breaches a core rule-of-law principle, designed to promote constancy in the law.”
Even Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who joined the gun ruling, scolded fellow conservatives for blithely overturning the Roe v. Wade super-precedent. “Surely we should adhere closely to principles of judicial restraint here, where the broader path the court chooses entails repudiating a constitutional right we have not only previously recognized, but also expressly reaffirmed,” Roberts wrote. The majority’s “dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary,” he said, “a serious jolt to the legal system” that could have been avoided with a narrower decision that would have been “markedly less unsettling.”
Alito, in his (characteristically) sneering opinion in the abortion case, dismissed Roberts as unprincipled and public opinion as an “extraneous” concern. He likewise dismissed the pain the ruling would cause, writing that “this Court is ill-equipped to assess ‘generalized assertions about the national psyche.’ ” He washed his hands of answering the “empirical question” of “the effect of the abortion right … on the lives of women.”
. . . .
************************
Read the rest of Milbank’s op-ed at the link.
It would be tempting to breathe a “sigh of relief” that while off on their taxpayer-underwritten summer frolic, the “Gang of 6” can’t do any more damage to our Constitution, our nation, our institutions, or humanity. But, unfortunately, that’s not completely true. If and when their party calls on them, they can always go into “emergency session.”
So let’s hope that there will be no further “emergencies” this summer other than the disorder and divisions already caused by their disingenuous political decrees masquerading as (very thinly to tragicomically inept and inconsistent) “jurisprudence.”
Still, those who enjoy their humanity and their rights (other than gun rights)shouldn’t get too complacent. Vacation will end; the Supremes will be back at it in October — looking for more ways to turn back the clock and “Dred Scottify the other,” even though the majority of Americans actually are “some kind of other.” With a little help from their GOP friends, they will disenfranchise and dehumanize one group at a time until rights and political power look largely like they did in 1789 — when free White men of property ruled.
As for CJ Roberts, after years of trying to put a “genial spin” on the mockery of a fair, impartial, and qualified judiciary incubating at his Supremes, he has totally lost control of the far-right extremists appointed by his party and, in some cases, pushed through the process in a highly irregular manner. Hard to have much sympathy there.
Refugee and Forced Migration Studies, Grace School of Applied Diplomacy
Craig Mousin has been the University Ombudsperson at DePaul since 2001. He received a BS from Johns Hopkins University, a JD from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and an M Div from Chicago Theological Seminary. He joined the College of Law faculty in 1990, and served as the Executive Director of the Center for Church/State Studies until 2001, Acting Director until 2003, and co-director from 2004–2007. Mousin co-founded and continues to participate in the Center’s Interfaith Family Mediation Program. He has taught in DePaul’s School of Continuing and Professional Studies, the Religious Studies Department, the Grace School of Applied Diplomacy, and the Peace, Justice and Conflict Studies program. He has also taught as an adjunct faculty member at the University of Illinois College of Law and Chicago Theological Seminary .
Prior to DePaul, he began practicing labor law at Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson in 1978. In 1984, Mousin founded and directed the Midwest Immigrant Rights Center, a provider of legal assistance to refugees which has since become the National Immigrant Justice Center. He also directed legal services for Travelers & Immigrants Aid between 1986 and 1990. The United Church of Christ ordained him in 1989. At that time, Wellington Avenue U.C.C. called him as an Associate Pastor. He was a founding co-pastor of the DePaul Ecumenica l Gathering (1996-2001). Mousin serves as a Life Trustee of the Chicago Theological Seminary. In addition, he is a member of the Leadership Council of the National Immigrant Justice Center, a member of the Leadership Council of the Marjorie Kovler Center for Survivors of Torture, a former President and member of the Board of the Eco-Justice Collaborative, and a former President and Board member of the Immigration Project of downstate Illinois. Mousin is a current member of the ABA Dispute Resolution Section Ombuds Committee.
Craig writes:
Comment: Paul,
You might be interested in a short interview I did with Chicago FOX news on World Refugee Day. I tied the celebration in with the honoring of Juneteenth. See:
Also, I do not know if you subscribe to my podcast, Lawful Assembly, but my last post tied together censorship of books in public schools with anti-immigrant sentiments. You can listen at:
Today’s WashPost Outlook Section contained a highly relevant article by author Dave Eggers about how far-right zealots — many with no real stake in our public schools — have taken over at local levels and apply extreme censorship — even to books and concepts that have been successfully and routinely taught for years. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/06/24/dave-eggers-book-bans-south-dakota/
In this case, it’s driving experienced teachers who believe in truth, freedom, and individual rights to flee in droves. So, what we’re really seeing is a shocking “dumbing down” of American education, libraries, and public discourse driven by far right fear-mongers seeking to impose their lack of values and intolerance on others.
We have seen this week how far-right activist extremists, from the Supremes to local politicians and school boards, have elevated guns that kill while gutting the individual rights to free speech, equal protection,and fundamental fairness guaranteed by the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments.
Justice Clarence Thomas is certainly a horrible jurist. But, in this instance he might be the only honest GOP appointee on the Supremes.
When Thomas says that immigrants’ human rights, gay rights, right to conception, marriage rights and most other meaningful individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution are on the chopping block, progressives had better believe him. Remember how “leaving things to the states” worked out for African Americans and other minorities attempting to exercise their fundamental rights, even after the Civil War and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. And, remember all those paeons to precedent and “not to worry” about Roe statements under oath from GOP Supremes’ candidates before they actually took their seats on the Court and started scheming to undo abortion rights for political, not legal, reasons!
“Social Justice Warriors” like Craig have been fighting the good fight for decades. But, at this point, it’s going to depend on the NDPA and other young progressive groups to take on the extremist right at the ballot box and to take back their individual rights — really all of our individual rights.
Otherwise, they will find themselves as a disempowered counterculture, hiding out and trying to keep ahead of Ray Bradbury’s firemen in Fahrenheit 451!
Anti-Asylum Judges In Action! Factual distortions, ignoring evidence, and misapplications of the law are some of the “weapons” wielded by some EOIR judges to stop asylum seekers from getting the life-saving legal protections they deserve! Article III Courts can compound the problem by mis-using “deference” to avoid critical examination of the frequent abuses of humanity and the rule of law inflicted by this parody of a court system. Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
ONE TINY STEP FOR MANKIND: But It’s Going To Take Much More Than Finally Replacing A Few Stunningly Unqualified Judges To Save EOIR!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
June 25, 2022
Over the last few weeks the long overdue and essential process of weeding out poorly qualified Immigration Judges — still on “probation” at EOIR — finally got off to a very modest start.
Imagine yourself as a refugee fighting for your life in an asylum system that’s already stacked against you and where the “judges” work for the Attorney General, part of the Executive Branch’s political and law enforcement apparatus.
How would you like your life to be in the hands of (now) former Immigration Judge Matthew O’Brien. He was appointed in 2020 by former AG Bill Barr — a staunch defender of the Trump/Miller White Nationalist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant agenda.
Nativism A “Qualification?”
What made O’Brien supposedly “qualified” to be a “fair and impartial” administrative judge?
Thankfully, O’Brien will pass into history. But, the damage inflicted by the “official policy of child abuse” will adversely affect generations.
Or, perhaps it was O’Brien’s intimate connection with a leading nativist group. Immediately prior to his appointment, he was the “Research” Director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (“FAIR”) — a group renowned for sloppy to non-existent “research” and presenting racially-motivated myths and fear mongering as “facts.”
As noted by Nowrasteh, that’s not the only example of FAIR providing “bogus research papers” designed to “rev up hate” and demean the contributions of immigrants both documented and undocumented.
The Anti-Defamation League (“ADL”), one of America’s most venerable anti-hate, anti-misinformation groups, founded more than a century ago “To stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all,” had this to say about O’Brien’s former employer:
While the majority of the extreme anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S. emanates from fringe groups like white supremacists and other nativists, there are a number of well-established anti-immigrant groups such as Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA and The Remembrance Project which have secured a foothold in mainstream politics, and their members play a major role in promoting divisive, dangerous rhetoric and views that demonize immigrants. A number of these groups have attempted to position themselves as legitimate advocates against “illegal immigration” while using stereotypes, conspiracy theories and outright bigotry to disparage immigrants and hold them responsible for a number of societal ills. A decade ago, most of this bigotry was directed primarily at Latino immigrants, but today, Muslim and Haitian immigrants, among others, are also targeted.
. . . .
There is a distinct anti-immigrant movement in this country, whose roots can be traced back to the 1970s. Groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) hope to influence general audiences with somewhat sanitized versions of their anti-immigrant views. In their worldview, non-citizens do not enjoy any status or privilege, and any path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants or refugees is portrayed as a threat to current citizens. Like some other problematic movements, the anti-immigrant movement also has a more extreme wing, which includes border vigilante groups, as well as groups and individuals that seek to demonize immigrants by using racist, sometimes threatening language.
So, perhaps, you say, once actually “on the bench,” Judge O’Brien was able to overcome his biases and knowledge gaps and function as a fair and impartial judicial officer. Nope! Not in the cards!
According to TRAC, O’Brien denied almost every asylum case he heard (96.4% denials). That was, astoundingly, nearly 40% above the average of his colleagues in Arlington and nearly 30% higher than the nationwide asylum denial rate of approximately 67%.
But, to put this in perspective, we have to recognize that this denial rate had already been intentionally and artificially increased by a expanded,”packed,” politicized, “weaponized,” and intentionally “dumbed down” EOIR during the Sessions/Barr era at DOJ. For example, approximately 10 years ago, more than 50% of asylum, cases were being granted annually nationwide, and approximately 75% of the asylum cases in Arlington were granted. See, e.g., https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/judge2014/00001WAS/index.html. And, even then, most asylum experts would have said that the nationwide grant rate was too low.
Gaming The System For Denial
It’s not that conditions in “refugee/asylum sending” countries have gotten better over the past decade! Far from it! The refugee situation today is as bad as it has ever been since WWII and getting worse every day.
So, why would legal refugee admissions be plunging to record lows (despite a rather disingenuous “increase in the refugee ceiling” by the Biden Administration) and asylum denials up dramatically over the past decade?
It has little or nothing to do with asylum law or the realities of the worldwide refugee flow, particularly from Latin American and Caribbean countries. No, it has to do with an intentional move, started under Bush II, tolerated or somewhat encouraged in the Obama Administration, but greatly accelerated during the Trump-era, to “kneecap” the legal refugee and asylum processing programs. Indeed, the “near zeroing-out” of refugee and asylum admissions and the illegal replacement of Asylum Officers by totally unqualified CBP Agents by the Trump Administration are two of the most egregious examples.
Ironically, the EOIR backlog tripled. Under the “maliciously incompetent management” of the Trump group at DOJ, more judges actually meant more backlog! How is that giving taxpayers “value” for their money?
Some of the new judges, like O’Brien and some of the Immigration Judges “elevated” to the BIA, were appointed specifically because of their established records of anti-asylum bias, rude treatment of attorneys, and dehumanizing treatment of asylum seekers and other migrants.
“Ignorance And Contempt”
It’s not like O’Brien was just your “garden variety” “conservative jurist.”(I’ve actually worked with many of the latter over the years). No, he was notorious for his lack of scholarship, rudeness, and bias!
Here are a few of the comments he received on “RateYourJudge.com:”
“Rarely grants cases. No knowledge of the law, only there to deny cases. He needs to be removed.”
“Biased judge, hates immigrants and even kids of immigrants.”
“Incompetent.”
“One of the most condescending and self-righteous judges I have had the displeasure to hear. His word choice and tone left absolutely no doubt that he considered the Respondent to be beneath his notice, even to the point of referring to her as “the female Respondent” and to her domestic partner as a “paramour”. I have heard other judges’ oral opinions on very similar sets of facts, and they were accomplished in a fifth of the time with no loss of dignity to anyone.”
“This guy’s ignorance about immigration law and contempt for the people who appear before him is staggering. The way he threatens lawyers is reprehensible. EOIR is a disgrace.”
“Horrible human being with no business being on the bench. Shame on EOIR for allowing him to continue adjudicating cases.”
“Late, abusive, made up his mind before the case even started, frequently interrupted testimony, yelled at immigrants and their lawyer, and refused to listen to anything we said. Ignorant of the law and facts of the case. He should go back to directing hate groups.”
Among the stream of negative comments there were three “positive” comments about O’Brien;
Most of the comments both positive and negative were “anonymous” or apparent user “pseudonyms;”
“RateMyImmigrationJudge” is neither comprehensive nor transparent.
Flunking the “Gold Standard”
So, was O’Brien really as horrible as most experts say? Let’s do another type of “reality check.”
Among the other IJs at the Arlington Immigration Court, two stand out as widely respected expert jurists who have served for decades across Administrations of both parties. Judge John Milo Bryant was first appointed as an Immigration Judge in 1987 under the Reagan Administration. Judge Lawrence Owen Burman was appointed in 1998 under the Clinton Administration. With 66 years of judicial service between them, they would be considered more or less the “gold standard” for well-qualified, subject matter expert, fair and impartial Immigration Judges.
Significantly, according to the last TRAC report, O’Brien’s asylum grant rate of 3,6% wasapproximately 1/15th of Judge Bryant’s and approximately 1/22 of Judge Burman’s. https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/judgereports/. Case closed! O’Brien should never have been on a bench where asylum seekers lives were at stake and expertise and fairness are supposed to be job requirements!
“Worse Than O’Brien”
What about now former Arlington Immigration Judge David White who was removed at the same time as O’Brien? Apparently, during his relatively short tenure (appointed by Barr in 2020), White was unable to deny enough asylum to qualify for TRAC’s system (100 decisions minimum).
Yet, he made an indelible impression on those “sentenced” to appear before him. Here are comments from RateMyImmigrtionJudge.com:
“This judge is absolutely terrible. Unfair and biased. He is only here to deny asylum cases regardless of what the person has been through. Completely misstates the facts, doesn’t know the law so goes after credibility (using those misstated facts) as an excuse to say there’s no past persecution. Absolute disgrace.”
“Worst judge ever. The clerks at the Immigration Court told the private bar attorneys that they have NEVER seen this judge approve an asylum case. Not one. They have running bets and jokes about him, but he never grants. He writes the denial during the trial instead of listening to the person testify. He is insulting and rude and not at all compassionate about trauma.”
“This is the worst immigration judge in Arlington, hands down. He’s even worse than O’Brien, and O’Brien is an former hate-group director.”
“Terrible immigration judge. Had his mind made up well before our hearing. Came in with a prewritten denial that misstated the law. Was rude and dismissive about my client’s trauma.”
Wow! Worse than O’Brien. That’s quite an achievement.
GOP Court Packing
Fact is, the overt politicization, “weaponization,” and “dumbing down” of the Immigration Courts goes back nearly two decades to AG John Ashcroft and the Bush II Administration. Ashcroft reduced the size of the BIA as a gimmick to “purge” the supposedly “liberal” judges — those, including me, who voted to uphold the legal rights of migrants against government overreach. In other words, our “transgression” was to stand up for due process and the individual rights of immigrants — actually “our job” as properly defined.
And, the downward spiral has continued. The DOJ Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) actually confirmed some of the Bush II improper Immigration Judge hires. But, they avoided dealing with the “BIA purge” that got the ball rolling downhill at EOIR! The GOP has been much more skillful than Dems in reshaping the Immigration Courts to their liking.
During the Trump Administration, putting clearly unqualified IJs who were some of rudest highest denying in America on the BIA was certainly “packing” and “stacking” EOIR against legitimate asylum seekers. Again, however, the OIG failed to “seal the deal” regarding this outrageous conduct that has undermined our entire justice system, fed uncontrollable backlog, and cost human lives that should and could have been saved.
Trump’s “court packing scheme” was no “small potatoes” matter, even if some in the Biden Administration are willfully blind to the continuing human rights and due process disaster at EOIR.
Removing two of the most glaringly unqualified Barr appointees in Arlington is a very modest step by AG Garland in the right direction. But, it’s going to take more, much more, decisive action to clean out the unqualified and the deadwood, bring in true expertise and judicial quality, and restore even a modicum of legitimacy and integrity at EOIR.
Reactionaries’ Predictably Absurdist Reaction
Meanwhile, even this long overdue, well justified, and all too minimal change at EOIR produced totally absurdist reactions from O’Brien and fellow nativists (including some still “hiding out in plain sight” at DOJ) which were picked up by the Washington Times (of course). Don’t believe a word of it!
The removal of guys like O’Brien and White — who never had any business being placed in “quasi-judicial” positions where they exercised life or death authority over refugees of color whose humanity and legal rights they refused to recognize, is just a beginning. The ethical, competence, and judicial attitude rot at EOIR goes much deeper.
Garland has been dilatory in “cleaning house” at EOIR. Vulnerable individuals who were wrongly rejected rather than properly protected have needlessly suffered, and probably even died, as a result. Poor Immigration Judging and lack of effective, correct, courageous, positive asylum guidance by the BIA has helped fuel a human rights disaster and rule of law collapse at the border!
Perhaps, at long last, Garland has slowly started fixing the unconscionable and unnecessary dysfunction andintentionally ingrained institutional bias at EOIR. But, I’ll believe it when I see it!
Keep Up The Pressure
In the meantime, it’s critical that NDPA members: 1) keep applying for EOIR judgeships; and 2) ratchet up the pressure and demand the removal of all unqualified Immigration Judges and Appellate Immigration Judges who are undermining sound scholarship, due process, fundamental fairness, and human dignity at EOIR!
Human rights matter! Individual rights matter! Immigrants’ rights matter! Good judges matter!
Today, we are surrounded by too many bad judges, at all levels of our justice system, who reject the first three in favor of warped far-right ideologies, dangerous myths, and disregard for human dignity. The existential battle to get good judges into our system has begun. And, Immigration Courts are the primary theater of action!
“Nexus? What nexus? These “just happen to be” women facing a little “random violence!” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
With credible testimony and harm that rises to the level of persecution for a woman in El Salvador, who was the victim multiple rapes, on its face, this should have been an easy grant for a competent IJ.
Essentially, this judge argues that harm rising to the level of persecution — multiple rapes — inflicted on a woman in El Salvador, where femicide and misogyny run rampant, has nothing to do with her being a woman. Such a conclusion is unlikely — some experts would say facially absurd!
Indeed, the IJ’s apparent view that multiple rapes had nothing to do with a gender-based protected ground of being a woman would be totally “off the wall” for any experienced asylum adjudicator who truly understood the well-documented nature of violence against women as a widespread form of persecution worldwide!
According to the UN Handbook for Determining Refugee Status, adjudicators should give credible applicants “the benefit of the doubt.” “It is therefore frequently necessary to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt.” (Par. 203). That’s not what this IJ did!
Also, in the remand order, the BIA specifically rejected the IJ’s finding that this gross harm to the respondent was “individualized” and “personalized” and therefore not a basis for an asylum claim — something not mentioned by the IJ in his “certification.”
Counsel for the applicant is well aware of this “better analysis” and could have argued it.But, in his snarky haste to prejudge and deny needed protection, this Houston IJ didn’t even give the parties a chance to participate in his “return to sender” (“certification”) nonsense.
A better functioning expert BIA would have long ago provided precedential guidance granting cases like this — adopting and amplifying the rationale of the IJ in the Honduran case.
Additionally, the BIA remand instructed the IJ to inquire of the DHS as to whether this victim of multiple rapes with no apparent criminal record or other adverse factors was and “enforcement priority” under applicable DHS guidelines — something that the IJ contemptuously and improperly did not do! Indeed,he didn’t seek any input from the parties despite being instructed to do so.
Unquestionably, being an El Salvadoran woman is a) immutable or fundamental to identity; b) highly particularized, and c) socially visible, as recognized by the Salvadoran government and everyone in El Salvador, thereby clearly qualifying as a “particular social group.”
There is also plenty of reliable evidence that El Salvador, like the rest of the Northern and Triangle Governments, is basically a failed state — something publicly admitted by some Administration officials, including Special Envoy to the Northern Triangle Ricardo Zuniga. https://apple.news/A9FpzsjRAQ2OoAyQZzHZm1A (“democracy, the rule of law and the security situation continue to deteriorate”). The Salvadoran government is neither willing nor able to provide a reasonable level of protection to women like this applicant. Indeed, there is likely sufficient evidence for a better BIA to establish a “rebuttable presumption of failure of state protection” in El Salvador and the rest of the Northern Triangle.
Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge Gabe Gonzalez, author of the remand, is one of the better BIA judges. But, his remand could have been even stronger. He could have reversed this IJ and granted asylum on this record. Why “beat around the bush” on grantable cases that are being mishandled by “chronically over-denying IJs” below? At this point, removal of this particular judge from the case would be more than justified. Cases like this certainly raise the legitimate question of why IJs who sit around inventing reasons to deny relief to those in need of protection are on the Immigration Bench in the first place. There are certainly better-qualified judicial choices — many of them located in Texas — who could bring legitimacy, quality, and efficiency to Garland’s dysfunctional courts!
“Bogus lack of nexus” is one of the most overused grounds for improper denials of protection by EOIR judges at all levels. It’s part of the “any reason to deny” approach enabled by EOIR’s current “anti-asylum culture” — one that was overtly encouraged and promoted by the Trump DOJ.
Inexplicably selecting Houston as one of the “test locations” for the new asylum regulations is “built to fail.” Without expert, positive guidance from qualified IJs in Houston (and the BIA) on granting asylum — something that this “denial centered court” simply doesn’t possess — there is every reason to believe that asylum seekers will not receive professional treatment or correct decisions from either the Asylum Office or the Immigration Court in Houston. And, relying on the BIA or, worse yet the “over the top” 5th Circuit,” to guarantee fairness and justice for asylum seekers? That’s a sick joke under current conditions!
8) Poorly reasoned, legally incorrect asylum denials and frivolous actions like the IJ’s “certification” in this case are a major factor in generating a 1.8 million case EOIR backlog and enabling a lawless, non-expert, anti-immigrant “culture of denial” at EOIR. Many grantable asylum cases languish in the backlog, are subjected to “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” and then are wrongfully denied by poorly performing judges at both levels of EOIR.
9) EOIR suffers from poor leadership, a poorly performing BIA that overall lacks the expertise and courage to grant the large number of deserving asylum cases currently languishing in the EOIR backlog, and to set proper legal standards that will guide Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers in efficiently granting deserving cases at the first level of the system.
10) Garland should remove or reassign the “under-performers” and “non-performers” at EOIR and replace them with qualified experts committed to best practices and “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” (EOIR’s now long-forgotten and dishonored mission).
11) Lives and the future of democracy are at stake here! America simply can’t afford the “institutionalizednonsense” still rampant at EOIR as illustrated by this case!
12) Also, EOIR’s performance in this cases is inconsistent with almost every sentence of the recent “LA Declaration.” Issuing statements of principle that are directly contradicted by your actual practices is a bad idea!
This has been a bad week for individual rights and particularly the rights and humanity of women in America. Garland can’t fix the out of control, “fringe-right,” Supremes’ majority. But, he can fix EOIR! And, that would be a long overdue and desperately needed first step toward fixing the entire broken and foundering Federal Court system. Start “at the retail level” with what you have the power to fix and work from there!
Garland’s Dedicated Courts: Deny and deport, deny and deport, deny and deport, deny and deport . . . . .” Creative Commons License
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
5,000 Asylum-Seekers Added to the Migrant Protection Protocols 2.0, Few Are Granted Asylum
During the last six months, over 5,000 asylum seekers have been required to remain in Mexico under the current implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP)—also known as MPP 2.0—while awaiting their Immigration Court hearings. Cases in MPP are generally being completed within the 180-day time frame set by the administration, but the problem with low rates of access to attorneys and unusually low rates of asylum success that plagued the first implementation of MPP continue this year.
As a result of low representation rates and accelerated hearings, just 27 people out of the 5,100 asylum seekers in MPP 2.0 so far, have received asylum or some other form of relief. These 27 cases account for just 2.4 percent of the 1,109 MPP 2.0 cases which have been completed to date. By contrast, during the same period of FY 2022, fully half of all Immigration Court asylum decisions decided for people inside the United States resulted in a grant of asylum or other relief.
While MPP 1.0 under Trump had also been designed to attempt to expedite processing of these asylum cases, MPP 2.0 is intended to speed case completions even further. Under current guidelines, cases assigned to MPP should be completed within 180 days. The Biden administration has been largely successful in meeting this deadline. During December 2021, a total of 129 asylum seekers were assigned to MPP 2.0, which means that most of these cases are reaching their 180-day deadline now (or soon). For these initial 129 cases, over eight out of ten (81%) were completed at the end of May. Nonetheless, it may be difficult for the Court to maintain this same processing pace as the monthly total of new MPP court filings has steadily grown to over 2,000 in May 2022.
MPP 2.0 cases have not been evenly spread among hearing locations. Cases added to MPP 2.0 in December were primarily heard by the El Paso Immigration Court which received 109 cases. The El Paso MPP court currently has 923 cases assigned to it. By contrast, the MPP Brownsville Immigration Court has now been assigned 2,752 new cases—more than half (54%) of all MPP 2.0 assigned cases as of the end of May. The MPP Laredo, Texas (Port of Entry) Immigration Court has been assigned 404 MPP cases, and an additional 76 cases have been assigned to the Laredo Immigration Court. The MPP Court San Ysidro Port has received 386 cases so far.
It is still early in the implementation of MPP 2.0, and TRAC’s report on MPP 2.0 should be understood as a preliminary analysis However, these findings do raise concerns similar to MPP 1.0. Further detailed analysis will be warranted as more cases are added to the current implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols.
TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University Peck Hall
601 E. Genesee Street
Syracuse, NY 13202-3117
315-443-3563
trac@syr.edu
https://trac.syr.edu
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.
***************
Garland’s performance on EOIR is disgraceful. Question is, what will advocates do about it?
Curiously, going into difficult midterms where every vote supposedly counts, the Biden Administration appears to have decided that they don’t need the support and votes of their base. They might well be following “Miller Lite” or “Miller Genuine” policies of abusing asylum seekers. But, I doubt they will be getting any votes from the “Miller Right!”
An interesting “strategy” to be sure. We’ll see how it works out!
Biden administration defends immigration policy before Sixth Circuit
The federal government argued in defense of a policy instituted by President Biden that prioritizes the deportation of individuals deemed national security threats.
CINCINNATI (CN) — Federal courts cannot impose nationwide injunctions to counteract guidance handed down by the Department of Homeland Security regarding enforcement of federal immigration law, President Joe Biden’s administration argued Friday before an appeals court.
Prioritized deportation of illegal immigrants who “pose the greatest threats to national security, public safety, and border security” is within the scope of DHS’s authority and does not run counter to established immigration law, according to the administration, which was sued by several states after the guidance was implemented in September 2021.
Ohio, Arizona and Montana challenged the “balancing test” adopted as part the guidance, claiming the discretionary nature of the analysis of an immigrant’s mental health and criminal history exceeds the statutory authority granted to DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.
U.S. District Judge Michael Newman, a Donald Trump appointee, sided with the states and granted their motion for a preliminary injunction in March 2022, finding federal law “left no flexibility” when it comes to detainment of illegal immigrants during the removal process.
“The permanent guidance allows noncitizens to be released on removal-period and post-removal bond based on factors Congress did not intend DHS to consider and in contrast to DHS’s own regulations,” he said.
Shortly thereafter, a Sixth Circuit panel stayed the injunction pending the outcome of Biden’s appeal.
In its brief to the Cincinnati-based appeals court, the federal government criticized the outlandish nature of the lawsuit and cited Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton when he argued courts have no authority to adjudicate federal immigration policy.
“For most of our nation’s history, a lawsuit like this one would have been unheard of: states did not sue the federal government based on the indirect, downstream effects of federal policies,” the brief states. “And district judges did not purport to enter nationwide injunctions, which ‘take the judicial power beyond its traditionally understood uses,’ ‘incentivize forum shopping,’ and ‘short-circuit’ the judicial process by forcing appellate courts to resolve complex disputes on short notice and without the benefit of percolation or full briefing.”
The Biden administration argued the states lack standing to sue and said Newman’s decision would set a precedent to “allow the federal courts to be drawn into all manner of generalized grievances at the behest of states seeking to secure by court order what they were unable to obtain through the political process.”
. . .
Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a George W. Bush appointee, asked about the harm caused to the federal government if the appeals court allowed the injunction to remain in place.
“It certainly leads to confusion,” Tenny answered. “It leads to officers not being able to conduct their operations in a normal course.”
The attorney emphasized the guidance does not run counter to immigration law and requires officers to zero in on dangerous criminals because of the focus on individuals deemed threats to national security.
“It makes you start to think guidance just isn’t reviewable,” Sutton quipped.
Tenny agreed that most guidance is not. He said “there are circumstances … with guidance that requires people to do something where it could be reviewed,” but pointed out such a scenario is “worlds apart from here.”
. . . .
Sutton pushed back against the idea of states challenging the federal government in this fashion, and said in the past, “most people would have laughed at the idea … of states coming in to challenge the guidance.”
“Let’s say you’re right,” the judge said. “I’m still trying to figure out what a victory looks like for you.”
“All that we want,” Flowers answered, “is what the district court did.”
Sutton expressed skepticism of immigration enforcement statistics cited by the states’ attorney and said he was “so dubious about relying on these numbers” because of the Covid-19 pandemic and other factors.
Flowers countered with evidence that ICE officials have gone on the record and claimed the drop in enforcement is based solely on compliance with the guidance.
“Their key theory,” Sutton said, “is that elections matter. That resonates to me when it’s very unclear what the courts could do [in this situation].”
In his rebuttal, Tenny argued no administration has ever fully enforced federal immigration law because there simply aren’t enough resources.
He also disputed the statistics cited by his opposing counsel.
“There is so much going on in the world here,” Tenny said. “To say changes in numbers is because of the guidance is extraordinary.”
U.S. Circuit Judges R. Guy Cole Jr. and Karen Moore, both Bill Clinton appointees, also sat on the panel.
Sutton said the court hopes to adhere to the three-month timeframe established at the outset of the appeal, which would set release of the panel’s opinion for early July.
***********************
Read the complete report at the link.
Way too early for a “Due Process Victory Dance” 💃🏻 here. Oral argument is not always an accurate predictor of results.
But, preliminary indications were that the 6th Cir. panel might have seen through the “disingenuous smokescreen” being thrown up by GOP Nativist State AGs and Trumpster U.S. District Judge Michael Newman. The latter was overeager to inject himself into the legitimate efforts by Mayorkas to return some rationality, order, and fiscal prudence to ICE Enforcement that was reeling and discredited by the biases and uncontrolled excesses of the Trump era.
And, thankfully, Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton also was skeptical about statistics cited by the States derived from DHS Enforcement. For example, so-called “apprehension statistics” from DHS are often distorted — in part because, as the result of the Title 42 travesty, CBP apprehended some of the same individuals over and over again without any formal determinations.
Indeed, many of those “apprehended” merely soughta legal determination of their right to asylum — something that both the Trump and Biden Administration have stubbornly and illegally denied to them.
Folks who wrongfully are denied a chance to make a legal application for protection at the border and seek to turn themselves in to get some sort of review of their situation in a timely matter are not legitimate “apprehensions” nor do they pose any threat. Indeed, the threat to America here comes from lawless actions by DHS at the Southern Border, attempts by GOP-controlled States to substitute myths and nativism for legitimate policies, and overly permissive Federal Courts who have failed to put a stop to either of the foregoing abuses — indeed sometimes participating in and furthering the mocking of the rule of law and fundamental fairness!
The statements made by Bush II appointee Chief Judge Sutton are actually in line with “traditional conservative judging” that consistently treated Executive exercises of prosecutorial discretion in immigration as beyond the scope of judicial review. In my days in INS General Counsel, we were extremely effective in defending the “hands off PD” position before Federal Judges of all philosophies.
That’s why the Garland DOJ’s failure to “wipe up the floor” with these baseless suits from out of line GOP AGs seeking to turn Federal litigation into a nativist political sideshow is so shocking to those of us who recognize how the system should, and has in the past, worked.
If the 6th Circuit does uphold the “Mayorkas Memo,” we might well be heading for a Circuit conflict. I doubt that the 5th Circuit will exercise meaningful review over Judge Tipton’s power grab in Texas.
That could well leave it up to the Supremes — some time from now.
In the meantime, the ICE Enforcement system probably will continue to reel from the unwarranted interference inflicted by Trump Judges like Tipton, Newman, and some of their righty colleagues.
American Justice takes a grim turn as righty Trump judges take over immigration enforcement! Reaper Image: Hernan Fednan, Creative Commons LicenseCamilo Montoya-Galvez CBS Journalist
Judge voids Biden administration restrictions on immigration arrests and deportations
BY CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ
UPDATED ON: JUNE 11, 2022 / 10:35 AM / CBS NEWS
A federal judge in Texas on Friday granted a request by Republican-led states to throw out Biden administration rules that placed limits on whom federal immigration agents should seek to arrest and deport from the U.S., declaring the directive unlawful.
U.S. District Court Judge Drew Tipton said Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas did not have the authority to issue a September 2021 memo that directed immigration officials to focus on arresting immigrants deemed to threaten public safety or national security and migrants who recently crossed a U.S. border illegally.
Tipton, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, agreed to void Mayorkas’ memo, which was challenged by Republican officials in Texas and Louisiana. But he paused his ruling for seven days to give the Biden administration time to appeal.
Friday’s ruling is the latest setback in federal court for the Biden administration’s immigration agenda, which has faced more than a dozen lawsuits by Texas and other Republican-controlled states.
Federal judges appointed by Mr. Trump have blocked the Biden administration from ending a policy that requires asylum-seekers to wait for their court hearings in Mexico and a pandemic-era measure that allows border officials to quickly expel migrants. Tipton himself halted an 100-day moratorium on deportations during Mr. Biden’s first month in office, as well as an earlier directive that limited immigration arrests.
. . . .
***********************
Read the entire report at the link. Many thanks to Nolan Rappaport, Contributor to The Hill, for sending this my way!
So, righty U.S. District Judges and GOP State AG’s have figured out a way to take over basic immigration enforcement from the Feds. I assume that they will “waive” any claims to immunity from suits against themselves as the inevitable human rights and legal abuses caused by unbridled, uncontrolled, and often irrational and wasteful, DHS Enforcement pile up. These judges and AGs have now become part of the problem. We’ll see how they solve it.
I also find it interesting that righty U.S. District Judges, part of a court system that only just barely manages to keep its head above water because the vast, vast majority of Federal crimes and violations are never fully investigated or prosecuted, have such unbridled enthusiasm for unaccountable, unlimited immigration enforcement.
Part of this right-wing “judicial scam” is to grotesquely exaggerate the “harm” to states and to minimize or ignore the well-documented legal, human rights, and practical problems with “out of control” immigration enforcement that was intentionally used by the Trump regime to “terrorize” ethnic communities. These communities contain “mixed populations” of citizens, legal residents, those living here with legal permission to work, and the undocumented.
I also find it notable that the so-called “plenary power” over immigration appears to have passed from the AWOL Congress and the fumbling Executive, where it historically resided, to the Federal Judiciary, often those serving at the lowest levels —U.S. District Judges, the BIA, and Immigration Judges (although to be fair, the latter two groups are Executive Branch employees operating in a dysfunctional system that often appears to have no rhyme, reason, or defined mission.)
This is an unusual development in the right-wing conservative world of (bogus) “judicial restraint” to be sure. I guess the doctrine of “judicial restraint” is limited to stopping liberal judges from correcting egregious legal mistakes that ruin individual human lives. That’s sure how it looks to me!
The “Tipton Gang” might have a harder time taking over the dysfunctional, out of control, and backlogged Immigration Courts where the results of poor enforcement decisions often go to die in the 1.8 million plus backlog.
The Immigration Courts could prove more of a challenge because Republicans have stuffed the law with various jurisdiction-limiting and jurisdiction-stripping provisions intended to make it difficult or impossible to challenge individual immigration enforcement decisions outside the context of a petition to review a final order of removal in the Courts of Appeals.
Arguing “no jurisdiction/no review” in immigration cases is one thing that DOJ attorneys are very good at and, more often than not, successful.
Otherwise, Garland’s DOJ legal team has been less than stellar at defending changes meant to undo portions of the Trump regime’s misguided, often White Nationalist inspired, anti-immigrant agenda. Perhaps it’s time for the Biden Administration to “reshuffle the deck.” Maybe they should bring in some of the progressive litigation experts who succeeded in blocking some of the worst parts of the Trump-Miller assault on the rule of law and humanity to aggressively defend the job of restoring at least some modicum of due process, fundamental fairness, and rationality to the broken and reeling immigration enforcement system.
Most experts view the Biden Administration’s approach to refugees, asylum, human rights, and racial justice in America as disturbingly short-sighted! Mr. Magoo PHOTO: Gord Webster Creative Commons License
From Human Rights First, June 1, 2022:
Human Rights First yesterday submitted a public comment on the Biden administration’s Interim Final Rule that creates a new process for adjudication of some asylum claims.
Under the rule, asylum seekers who are placed in the expedited removal process and who establish a credible fear of persecution may be assessed in an initial full asylum interview with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Cases not granted by the Asylum Office will be referred to immigration court removal proceedings, as will other asylum cases that are not granted by the Asylum Office.
Courtesy Getty
Asylum seekers and U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents at the US-
Mexico border near Yuma, Arizona.
While Human Rights First welcomes some aspects of the rule, we expressed our concern about unreasonably fast deadlines that would sacrifice fairness, thwart efficiency, and exacerbate backlogs. We also oppose provisions that threaten asylum seekers’ right to a full and fair hearing on their asylum claims.
The rule guts a crucial safeguard in the credible fear process: it provides that the new asylum process will be conducted after subjecting asylum seekers to the fundamentally flawed expedited removal process, which has been shown to return refugees to persecution and death.
In our public comment on the rule and a factsheet on its concerning provisions, we have recommended changes to help asylum seekers receive timely, fair, and accurate adjudications.
********************
The full HRF comment is available at the above link!
As with most Government immigration/civil/human rights programs, a large part of the problem is WHO is making these decisions, WHO is setting precedents, and WHO is overseeing the process and enforcing accountability.
The Biden Administration is still operating EOIR and large portions of the immigration bureaucracy at DHS with Trump-era “holdovers” who were improperly “programmed to deny” asylum.
There is a dearth of positive precedents from the BIA on gender-based asylum and othertypes of common asylum applications at the border that are routinely and wrongfully mishandled and denied.
There are cosmic problems resulting from failure to provide qualified representation of asylum seekers at the border.
Detention continues to be misused as a “deterrent” to legal claims and “punishment” forassertingthem.
Despite “touting” a much larger refugee admissions program beyond the border, the Administration has failed to deliver a robust, realistic, refugee admissions program for Latin America and the Caribbean which would take pressure off the border.
Racism and White Nationalism continue to drivethe Administration’s dramatically inconsistent approach to White refugeesfrom Ukraine compared with refugees of color at the Southern Border.
In plain terms, because of what the Biden Administration hasn’t done over the past 17 months, the new asylum regulations are “programmed for failure.”
“Tough noogies, ladies, suck it up and accept your fate,” say Federal Judges Southwick, Jones, and Oldham of the 5th Cir! Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia CommonsNo “particular social group” here says 5th Circuit Judge Southwick and his buddies Jones and Oldham. Just a little “good old fashioned trial by ordeal.” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Toxic Trio of “America’s Worst & Most Cowardly Judges” sticks it to Salvadoran refugee woman who survived domestic violence in country where femicide is rampant and uncontrolled by corrupt and inept government.
Lopez Perez v. Garland, 5th Cir., 06-02-22, published
BEFORE:Edith Jones (Reagan), Andrew Oldham (Trump), and Leslie H. Southwick (Bush II) Circuit Judges
OPINION: Judge Southwick
Lopez-Perez argues here that the IJ erred under Matter of A-R-C-G- by concluding that she had not established a nexus between her persecution and her social group. Further, she argues that the IJ incorrectly decided that the government of El Salvador was willing and able to protect her.2 These issues were identified in her Notice of Appeal and are preserved for our review here.
It is true that the IJ concluded that Lopez-Perez had not demonstrated the requisite nexus and further that she had not shown that the government was unable or unwilling to help her. Although the IJ’s analysis was cursory, we nonetheless conclude that his decision must be upheld because remand would be futile. Jaco, 24 F.4th at 406. The IJ intimated that Lopez-Perez’s proffered social groups — “Salvadoran women in domestic relationships who are unable to leave; or Salvadoran women who are viewed as property by virtue of their position in a domestic relationship” — were cognizable.
2 Lopez-Perez also argues for the first time that we should remand to the IJ for consideration in light of intervening decisions in Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (Att’y Gen. 2018) and Grace v. Whitaker, 344 F. Supp. 3d 96 (D.D.C. 2018), aff’d in part, rev’d in part sub nom. Grace v. Barr, 965 F.3d 883 (D.C. Cir. 2020). We decline this invitation. In addition to the fact that this argument was not raised in her Notice of Appeal, Matter of A- B- has been overruled, see A-B- III, 28 I. &. N Dec. 307 (Att’y Gen. 2021), and this court specifically rejected Grace in Gonzales-Veliz, 938 F.3d at 233–34. See also Meza Benitez v. Garland, No. 19-60819, 2021 WL 4998678, at *4 (5th Cir. Oct. 27, 2021) (explaining this Circuit’s rejection of Grace).
7
Case: 20-60131 Document: 00516340524 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/01/2022
No. 20-60131
We have disagreed, holding that circularly defined social groups are not cognizable. See id. at 405; accord Gonzales-Veliz, 938 F.3d at 226. Indeed, the social groups identified in Jaco are nearly identical to those claimed by Lopez- Perez: “Honduran women who are unable to leave their domestic relationships . . . and Honduran women viewed as property because of their position in a familial relationship.” Jaco, 24 F.4th at 399. Because the IJ is bound to follow the law of this circuit on remand, he would be forced to conclude that Lopez-Perez’s social groups were not cognizable, thus ending the analysis. See In re Ramos, 23 I. & N. Dec. 336, 341 (BIA 2002) (noting that the BIA is “unquestionably bound” to follow circuit court rulings).
We DENY the petition for review.
********************************
It’s worthy of note that neither party challenged the propriety of the “particular social group!” So, this panel actually went beyond the issues before them to “stick it to” this abused refugee woman by gratuitously rejecting a well-established formulation of a “particular group” that has been the basis for granting protection in literally thousands of cases going back over two decades. (I note that even before A-R-C-G-, in Arlington the DHS Counsel routinely accepted this formulation of a “PSG” based on the so-called “Martin Memo” from DHS.)
Perhaps, that’s because even this panel acknowledged that the IJ’s “nexus analysis,” the actual ground of denial was “cursory.” In other words, this vulnerable women sought legal protection only to be shafted by poorly qualified Federal Judges at every level — the Immigration Court, the BIA, and the Fifth Circuit!
Here’s what Wade Henderson, then President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights had to say about Judge Leslie H. Southwick in opposition to his confirmation:
Given the tremendous impact that federal judges have on civil rights and liberties, and because of the lifetime nature of federal judgeships, no judge should be confirmed unless he or she demonstrates a solid commitment to protecting the rights of all Americans. Because Judge Southwick has failed to meet this burden, we must oppose his confirmation.
Here’s what the progressive group “Suit Up Maine” had to say about Judge Andrew Oldham at the time of his confirmation:
ANDREW OLDHAM: Confirmed by the Senate on July 18, 2018. Collins voted YES; King voted NO. Nominated to be federal judge for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Oldham is young, aggressively conservative, and has been involved in controversial litigation that emphasized ideology over the law. Oldham has worked on cases aimed at limiting reproductive rights, challenging the Affordable Care Act, challenging California’s law requiring good cause for concealed carry of firearms, and challenging habeas rights, all of which were ultimately unsuccessful. He defended Texas laws that limited women’s access to abortions that were ultimately determined by the Supreme Court to put “undue burden” on women’s right to choose. His challenge to the Affordable Care Act based on the “Origination Clause” of the Constitution was dismissed by the 5th Circuit for lack of standing. He attempted to barr the use of habeas corpus claims by two plaintiffs, but appeals courts allowed the claims. He also filed an amicus brief on behalf of multiple states (including Maine) using the Second Amendment to challenge a California law requiring good cause for concealed carry of firearms. The 9th Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to concealed carry of firearms. Additionally, Oldham was involved in challenging the EPA’s greenhouse gas rules under the Clean Air Act, and he defended Texas campaign finance laws that were being challenged by multiple nonprofits and political committees under the First Amendment. His record of unsuccessful attempts to shape the law according to his own conservative ideology suggests that this bias is likely to accompany him to the federal bench.
All these fears, criticisms, and predictions of bias have proved to be all too well-founded in the mal-performance of this “Toxic Trio” of far right ideologues.
“Heard (not Amber) on the street:
“So the one BIA precedent in the past 20 years that actually recognized a PSG as valid isn’t worthy of Chevron deference, but A-B- was?!!”
“No more judicial restraint? Why is DOJ not changing position and or dropping these cases?”
“The 5th Circuit decision claims to direct all IJs in the 5th NOT to apply ARCG. And, most 5th Circuit IJs are high deniers anyway, so they don’t exactly need encouragement.”
“Perhaps better IJs could think of creative ways to work around the 5th’s decision. But, they don’t exist in the 5th Circuit in Garland’s EOIR.”
“It also shows the problems caused by Garland’s failure to “redo” the BIA and the IJ corps on “Day 1.” By now, it’s too late.”
Unqualified, far-right Federal Judges, egged on and supported by Stephen Miller and GOP State AGs, have basically usurped the power of Congress and the Executive to set immigration policies. There is lots of contempt for humanity, racism, misogyny, religious intolerance, and disrespect for true individual liberty driving their vile and illegal agenda.
The Constitutional rights of all Americans and the future of our democracy is at stake here. Will enough folks wake up and resist this takeover before it ‘s too late? TBD!
After two years of advocacy by Human Rights First and our allies, President Biden announced that his administration would end Title 42 this Monday, May 23. Instead, a suit by attorneys general mirroring the talking points of the Trump administration blocked the end of this inhumane policy.
We will continue to push for the end of the misuse of Title 42 and advocate for fair and just asylum system until we succeed and refugees are welcomed with dignity to the United States.
Taking action on Title 42
The Biden administration had announced a plan to end on May 23 the misuse of Title 42 public health regulations that have barred asylum seekers at the border for the past two years. On Friday a federal court in Louisiana forced the continuation of this egregiously inhumane policy.
Anwen Hughes, Director of Legal Strategy for Refugee Programs responded, “The court’s ruling requires the continuation of a public health policy that public health experts have concluded is not needed, and allows the continued evasion of U.S. immigration and refugee laws.”
Human Rights First joined 57 partner organizations in an amicus brief in this case detailing the human costs of using this policy at the border. Our most recent report, authored with allies Al Otro Lado and Haitian Bridge Alliance, underscored how extending Title 42 escalates dangers to asylum seekers, exacerbates disorder at the border, and magnifies discrimination in the system.
Courtesy Reuters
Migrants expelled from the U.S. are sent back to Mexico over the Paso del Norte International border bridge.
“Every day that the Title 42 order remains in place is a day when the United States is turning away people seeking refuge to places where their lives are in danger.”
Eleanor Acer appeared on Al Jazeera Friday night to discuss the continuation of Title 42.
Human Rights First President and CEO Michael Breen joined Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Mary Kay Henry, International President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and Marielena Hincapié, Executive Director of the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), in a press call on Monday, the day that should have marked the end of the use of Title 42.
Speakers called for the end of this cruel policy and reiterated the need for a fair and humane asylum system that centers the dignity of all people.
“It is encouraging that the Justice Department quickly filed an appeal to the Louisiana court’s ruling, which extends the use of a policy, ostensibly based on public health, that public health experts have concluded is not needed. Now it is critical that the administration take all necessary steps to defend the CDC’s decision to end the use of Title 42,” said Breen.
Finally, two key members of our refugee protection research team, Kennji Kizuka and Associate Attorney for Refugee Protection Julia Neusner are at the border this week, reporting on the impact of Title 42 and Remain in Mexico on asylum seekers. Please follow their up-to-the-moment reports on Twitter — @JuliaNeusner and @KennjiKizuka.
Introducing new members of our team
Yesterday, Human Rights First was pleased to announce the addition of two critical new members of our program addressing extremism, Erin E. Wilson as the Senior Director for Extremism and Human Rights and Elizabeth Yates, Ph.D. as Senior Researcher on Antisemitism.
Over her 20-year career, Wilson established herself as an expert on domestic extremism, serving as a senior policy strategist and analyst in the U.S. Government’s executive and legislative branches. She has extensive experience with stakeholders in communities around the world as well as federal, state, local agencies and law enforcement partners to address extremism using a rights-centered approach.
Erin E. Wilson
Senior Director of
Extremism & Human Rights
Elizabeth Yates, Ph.D.
Senior Researcher
on Antisemitism.
Yates served at the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) at the University of Maryland, contributing to their work on domestic extremism and hate crimes. She co-authored numerous reports and articles on topics including extremism in the U.S. military, the growth of anti-Muslim terrorism, mass casualty hate crimes, and disengagement from right-wing extremism. Her analysis and commentary have regularly been featured on local and national news.
“Domestic extremism and antisemitism are two sides of the same coin, and Human Rights First is working to take that currency out of circulation,” said Michael Breen. “We are certain that as Human Rights First works to counter white supremacist extremism and the existential threat it poses to American democracy, the experience and tenacity Erin Wilson and Elizabeth Yates have long shown on these issues will be great resources.”
Join our Spring Social
We are thrilled to welcome Segun Oduolowu as emcee at our Spring Social!
Oduolowu joined PEOPLE (The TV Show!) as a correspondent this year after hosted the nationally syndicated television show, The List. With Bounce TV network, Segun executive produced Protect or Neglect, a documentary focused on police brutality in underserved communities.
He was co-host of See It/Skip It, a weekly Facebook Live show produced by Rotten Tomatoes and he has appeared on Access Hollywood, The Wendy Williams Show and contributed to international programs for CNN, the BBC and Deutsche Welle.
The emcee for our June 8
Spring Social, Segun Oduolowu
Please join us and Segun Oduolowu for cocktails on the roof of the Bryant Park Grill in New York City on June 8 from 5:30 to 8pm EDT to honor the work of human rights defenders & highlight our work responding to the crises in Ukraine and Afghanistan.
Get your tickets now for what promises to be a great evening!
Returning to Afghanistan
If you missed our live webinar “Tenets and Terrors: The Ideology and Violence of the Taliban in Afghanistan,” an in-depth look at the key factors, background, and worldview that motivates the Taliban, you can still participate in this important event by watching our recording or reading the transcript here.
Human Rights First is hiring
Human Rights First seeks passionate team members who are interested in changing lives, impacting policy, and moving public opinion.
Please check out our careers page and apply to join us today.
Watch for more news as our work for human rights continues. And please stay in touch on social media:
Not surprisingly, things have gone downhill for the Biden Administration on multiple fronts since their initial failure to hit the ground running with a strong condemnation and revocation of the Title 42 travesty!
Here’s a chance for the “new generation” of theNDPA to “sign on” with HRF and fight nativist racism on all levels! There is no end in sight for the need for actions to force the Biden Administration, the U.S. Government, Federal Courts, and state and local governments to comply with the law and our (not yet completely and equally implemented) Constitutional guarantees. Fight the “good fight” to end “dehumanization of the other” which, shockingly, has become SOP for the GOP right and their enablers!
Check out the link to the HRF Careers Page above!😎👍🏼⚖️🗽
