"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.
🗽DISSENTING OPINION: TRADING AWAY REFUGEE RIGHTS & DUE PROCESS FOR LONG OVERDUE DREAMER PROTECTIONS IS “NOT OK!”
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
Dec. 6, 2022
I dissent.
I was outraged when I read in this morning’s Washington Post about the horrible “Sinema/Tillis misnamed immigration compromise” (actually a “sellout”) being negotiated during the lame duck session of Congress. In short, that proposal apparently would trade long overdue protection for “Dreamers” for the rights and lives of refugees and asylum seekers.
Incredibly, in the face of U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan’s findings that the intentional illegal use of Title 42 had resulted in countless clear violations of the legal rights of asylum seekers, subjecting them to a litany of horrors and abuses that he described as “dire harm,” these legislators would extend those abuses for an indefinite period! That’s notwithstanding evidence not only of the irreparable harm that Title 42 has caused, but also the rather obvious fact that once we “normalize” those abuses, they will never end.
There will always be another fabricated reason for extending the Title 42 charade. Indeed, once we start mischaracterizing abuse as “law,” we can’t even call it “abuse” and hold the abusers accountable! That’s all part of the dehumanizing or “Dred Scottification” process!
Additionally, in the place of a functioning working asylum and refugee system, the proposal would eventually substitute so called “processing centers” and “expedited procedures” to railroad asylum seekers out of the country without due process. And, it wouldn’t address the total dysfunction and denial of due process in our Immigration “Courts” by enacting another long overdue provision: the “Lofgren Article I Immigration court bill!” What a farce!
Let’s be clear about what’s happening here! The legal and human rights of refugees and asylum seekers are not “ours” to trade away for relief for another deserving group that has long been irrationally denied! “Processing centers” are a euphemism for “immigration prisons” — part of the “New American Gulag.” “Expedited processing” is a euphemism for “railroading.” Both detention and artificially expediting dockets have been proven to be ineffective and unjust, over and over. Yet, here we go again!
My outrage turned to shock and dismay when I learned that some erstwhile defenders of due process, human rights, and racial justice for asylum seekers (incredibly) thought that this type of immoral compromise was a “good idea!” Not me!
Restrictionist/nativist Dems masquerading as “moderates” are a huge problem. They play right into the GOP’s hands.
When committing crimes against humanity or giving away refugees’ rights becomes a “strategy,” “option,” or “bargaining chip,” we’re lost as a nation. And, that’s exactly where we’re heading with horrible, immoral proposals like this.
Human rights and due process are non-negotiable! And, I guarantee that extending Title 42, building additional Gulag (rather than making the existing legal asylum and refugee systems work), and railroading asylum seekers will empower smugglers and lead to further growth of our underground population.
Human migration won’t be stopped by ineffective and immoral “deterrence.” And, although many hate the idea, refugees basically “self-select” and are driven by forces beyond our immediate control.
Refugees are, by definition, folks who can’t return! So, there is no reason to believe that true refugees (of which there are many) are going to be “deterred.” They might be “incentivized” to seek refuge in particular, relatively safe, places; but, nobody seems interested in a “carrot” approach — even though the “stick approach” has failed and continues to do so!
Look at the folks who continue to die in vessels in the Mediterranean even though they are fully aware that they are unwanted and that the EU will stop at no cruelty to keep them out.
And, examine the wealth of documentation that folks forced to “remain in Mexico” — and apply under what we know to be a corrupt and inadequate system — are systematically abused and exploited.
This time, we’re not just “pushing the St. Louis out to sea.” We’re torpedoing her and watching the passengers drown. And Dems are a huge part of the problem!
Other (soon to be former) progressive Democrats might choose to “go along to get along” with heaping additional abuses on largely defenseless refugees and asylum seekers. But, not me! I dissent!
It’s been over 30 years since Congress enacted the most recent set of comprehensive immigration reforms: the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the Immigration Act of 1990. These bipartisan yet hotly contested bills passed only after a debate spanning five presidential administrations, eight congressional sessions, and painful compromises by all parties. Even then, both bills died on the House floor before being resurrected at the 11th hour.
Can lessons learned during the last round of reform be applied to future debates? Charles Kamasaki, author of “Immigration Reform: The Corpse That Will Not Die” (Mandel Vilar Press, 2019), thinks so. The book provides a history of how the 1980s-era reforms were enacted, along with a summary of developments since then. It concludes with seven lessons that advocates and lawmakers should consider in advancing future immigration reform.
Join us for a discussion with Mr. Kamasaki, Cornell Law School professor Steve Yale-Loehr, and Wall Street Journal immigration reporter Michelle Hackman about the prospects for immigration reform legislation in 2023.
This webinar is cosponsored by the Cornell Migrations Initiative, the Cornell Law School Immigration Law and Policy Research Program, and Catholic Charities of Tompkins and Tioga Counties.
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
Forbes: Evidently, USCBP is eliminating the passport entry stamp to streamline the entry process. So now, foreign nationals will only have access to the Form I-94 website as proof of their lawful immigration status.
CBS: The department confirmed the review when asked to respond to accounts from migrants who told “60 Minutes” that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials along the U.S.-Mexico border kept their documents, despite agency policy instructing agents to return migrants’ personal property unless they are fraudulent.
NIJC: More than 130 immigration, criminal justice, and civil rights organizations released a letter today urging the Biden administration to include immigrants in the pardon process.
Law360: More than 100 immigrant rights organizations are urging the Biden administration to fully reinstate visitation at immigration detention facilities, saying in a Thursday letter that visitation is crucial for detainees’ mental health and monitoring human rights violations.
SA Current: The ACLU is condemning the actions of U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents allegedly caught on video firing pepper balls at a group of Venezuelan migrants protesting along the banks of the Rio Grande River near El Paso.
Law360: The Second Circuit on Wednesday declined to review a decision denying an asylum application from a Honduran man and his son who claim they will be killed by gang members if they return home, finding the Board of Immigration Appeals properly reviewed the immigration judge’s decision.
Law360: The Second Circuit on Tuesday backed the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeal’s decision to apply a persecution motive standard used in asylum requests to an Ecuadorian’s withholding of removal request, saying it was reasonable for the agency to do so.
Law360: The Third Circuit on Tuesday knocked down a Guatemalan man’s asylum bid after concluding he failed to back up his fears of violence in the Central American nation based on gang recruitment efforts and his rejection of gangs due to his evangelical Christian faith.
Law360: The Eighth Circuit has upheld a Board of Immigration Appeals ruling that denied a family asylum based on alleged gang threats for lack of evidence that the government of El Salvador could not or would not protect them.
Law360: A Mexican citizen who said police and criminal gangs would torture him for being bisexual and suffering from mental illness if he is deported a third time
Law360: The Ninth Circuit on Thursday backed an order requiring U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to adjudicate Special Immigrant Juvenile petitions within 180 days, rejecting the government’s argument that a lower court relied on “stale evidence” and disregarded hardship considerations.
Law360: Republican state attorneys general accused the Biden administration of violating an injunction requiring it to repel migrants from the border under pandemic-era restrictions, saying a sharp drop in Haitian expulsions indicated the administration was selectively lifting the so-called Title 42 border block.
AILA: On 10/31/22, DHS began limited implementation of the DACA final rule. USCIS will continue to accept and process applications for deferred action, work authorization, and advance parole for current DACA recipients. Due to litigation, USCIS will accept but cannot process initial DACA requests.
AILA: EOIR 30-day notice and request for comments on proposed revisions to Form EOIR-42A and Form EOIR-42B. Comments are due 12/5/22. (87 FR 66326, 11/3/22)
AILA: EOIR 30-day notice-and-comment period for proposed revisions to Form EOIR-31A, which allows an organization to seek accreditation or renewal of accreditation of a non-attorney representative to appear before EOIR and/or DHS. Comments are due by 12/5/22.
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added. If you receive an error, make sure you click request access.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
Supposedly, the main political issues right now are the economy and inflation. But, the economy and inflation are largely determined by the Fed, markets, global conditions, weather, and a certain amount of pure luck — all things beyond the direct control of the political branches of the USG.
As mentioned by Chuck Todd on last Sunday’s NBC “Meet the Press,” many experts say that the most effective tool that the Administration and Congress have to improve the economy without triggering a recession is to increase legal immigration — sooner rather than later. But, neither party is interested. The GOP sees an anti-immigrant stance as a key to political success. And, the Dems are “actively disinterested” in the issue. So, the opportunity passes.
But, the reality is that, in the long run, no amount of shipping containers, walls, prisons, family separations, deportations, exclusions to death or despair, hate rhetoric, or restrictive legal roadblocks will halt the future flow of human migration, and not incidentally, the internal relocation in America as certain areas become “unlivable.”
According to a government report published in today’s Washington Post:
The U.S. can expect more forced migration and displacement
Already, the authors of Monday’s report said, major storms such as Hurricane Maria, as well as extended droughts that strained lives and livelihoods, have led people to leave their homes in search of more-stable places.
In the hotter world that lies ahead, they write, additional climate impacts — along with other factors such as the housing market, job trends and pandemics — are expected to increasingly influence migration patterns.
“More severe wildfires in California, sea level rise in Florida, and more frequent flooding in Texas are expected to displace millions of people, while climate-driven economic changes abroad continue to increase the rate of emigration to the United States,” the report finds.
Such shifts are inherently complicated and fraught.
Several Indigenous tribes in coastal regions, facing fast-rising seas, have already sought government help to relocate, but have struggled to do so without significant hurdles.
“Forced migrations and displacements disrupt social networks, decrease housing security, and exacerbate grief, anxiety and mental health outcomes,” the authors write.
Neither political party appears serious about addressing these migration realities — already underway. The ideas that we can wall ourselves off, invest in “sending countries,” detain, and deport our way out of migration are not “solutions.”
Failure to act boldly and expansively on legal immigration will create a huge class of exploitable, disenfranchised, extralegal residents and plenty of work for border agents, internal police, righty judges, and jailers. It will also be a huge boon to smugglers and cartels who basically will “own” the American migration franchise. But, in the long run, building a large “underground humanity” won’t be enough to offset the “downside” of lacking a robust, realistic, orderly, legal immigration process.
Eventually, those nation-states that figure out how to harness, welcome, and distribute the power of human migration will rule the future. Right now, America’s leaders, of both parties, seem wedded to a “sure to fail” approach of either opposing or ignoring the realities and unlimited potential of human migration. Too bad — for all of us!
Hon.Romano L. Mazoli (1932-2022) U.S Congressman (D-KY; 1971-95) PHOTO: therecord.com
I personally knew Congressman Mazzoli (D-KY), and worked with him and his staff on the Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”), as I did with Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) and his staff on the Senate side. At that time I was the Deputy General Counsel and later Acting General Counsel of the “Legacy INS.”
Shortly before I left INS for private practice, in 1987, Congressman Mazzoli invited me to his hometown of Louisville to speak on immigration reform. I was presented with a ceramic “Big Balloon,” representing the City of Louisville, to memorialize that occasion.
We kept up for a time after I went into private practice. He was friendly with Harris Miller who worked with me at Fragomen during my stint as DC Managing Partner. Harris, who recently, sadly, died at 71, had worked for Ron and the Democrats on the House Judiciary staff. I remember Harris, his wife Deborah, Ron, his wife Helen, my wife Cathy, and me having dinner at the Occidental Restaurant in DC shortly after he left Congress and just before I left Fragomen to become the BIA Chair in 1995. Ron supported my application.
At that time, Ron was putting together plans to teach at his alma mater U. of Louisville Law. I believe Harris and I might have offered him some “syllabus pointers,” although, in actuality, he hardly needed any help from us given his decades of experience in Congress.
Eventually, we lost touch. But I still have fond memories of Ron, Harris, and a time when the immigration debate, although always spirited and contentious, was more civilized and empirically based.
Here’s a lengthy obit on Ron from The NY Times, forwarded by my friend Nolan Rappaport.
Ron was a gentleman and a dedicated public servant who did everything he could to make the system work for the common good — part of the “lost art of governing effectively.” A life well lived. Rest In Peace, Ron.
Given our familiarity with the record at this point, we are prompted to note that it is not at all apparent to us how an application of the Frentescu factors to Dor’s case would lead to a particularly-serious-crime determination. For instance, consider again the June 1 incident — the BIA relied on a police officer’s assessment that Dor had a “large amount” of marijuana on him, but this on-the-scene appraisal by an officer is largely irrelevant to an immigration-law-driven determination that a crime is particularly serious pursuant to the guiding statutes, especially when the actual amount (25 grams, a small amount) is available. See Matter of Castro Rodriguez, 25 I. & N. at 703; Moncrieffe, 569 U.S. at 194 n.7. Consider, too, that while the BIA identified the type of sentence imposed as a Frentescu factor but never mentioned (or weighed) Dor’s sentences, we observe that
– 23 –
Dor received lenient sentences with respect to both offenses (a two-year probation and a one-year suspended sentence that never went into effect since Dor completed a violation-free probation period).
As to Dor’s involvement in trafficking as part of the calculus here, based on the amount in question, and again on the face of this record, this characterization seems ambitious. The May 20 offense officers observed Dor sell “20 bucks[‘ worth]” of marijuana to another individual; the June 1 incident revealed Dor had in his possession a digital scale, a large amount of U.S. currency, and 25 grams of marijuana.
Bottom line: The BIA’s particularly-serious-crime conclusion is devoid of any actual application of the Frentescu factors, and even if we considered it a solid application of the law to Dor’s case, we still do not have a sufficiently rational explanation of the BIA’s particularly-serious-crime conclusion as to Dor’s minor marijuana offenses, and a rational explanation is necessary to ensure Dor was appropriately precluded from obtaining the humanitarian relief he seeks.
DEAN’S LIST: A+‘s go to :
Edward Crane, with whom Philip L. Torrey, Crimmigration Clinic, Harvard Law School, Shaiba Rather, Lena Melillo, and Katie Quigley, Law Student Advocates, Crimmigration Clinic, Harvard Law School, were on brief, for petitioner.
In sum, the Government has identified no evidence that supports divisibility. The statute, the case law, and the available state court documents all support the opposite conclusion.11 Because Pennsylvania’s stalking statute is indivisible as to intent, we apply the categorical approach. And under the categorical approach, Section 2709.1(a)(1), which sweeps more broadly than its generic counterpart in the INA, is not a categorical match. Vurimindi’s offense of conviction therefore does not qualify as a removable offense.
The Dor case also presents a familiarly outrageous characteristic of American immigration policy — still going strong in the era of Biden, Harris, and Garland — “Dred Scottification” — that is systemic injustice — directed at Black Haitian refugees. Indeed, Dor is lucky to be in the “system” at all — no matter how biased and poorly functioning. Following in the footsteps of the overtly racist and xenophobic Trump Administration, under Biden more than 25,000 potential Haitian refugees have been arbitrarily returned under Title 42 with no process at all — not even the “veneer of due process” provided by EOIR! Seehttps://www.wola.org/2022/05/weekly-u-s-mexico-border-update-title-42-ruling-family-self-separations-more-drownings-haiti-expulsion-flights/.
The cases described above have been pending for three and six years, respectively. EOIR presents the worst of both worlds: lengthy delays and backlogs without due process and careful expert consideration of the issues involved. Injustice at a high cost, in more ways than one!
After trips to three levels of our broken immigration justice system, countless hours of legal time, and untold trauma and uncertainty for the individuals subjected to this dysfunctional system, these cases remain far from final resolutions. Now they go back into Garland’s incredible nearly two million case backlog!
Sometimes, the BIA uses this as an opportunity to invent a new “bogus theory of denial.” Other times, the files get lost or reassigned. In other words, they are subject to EOIR’s “specialty:” “Aimless Docket Reshuffling!”
Garland doesn’t lose any sleep over it because: 1) not his life on hold, 2) not his time and money being wasted, and 3) he isn’t paying attention! This is unacceptable public service! Plain and simple! And, there appear to be few, if any, real consequences for anybody except the individuals whose lives and futures are at stake and their (often pro bono) lawyers!
How completely “out of touch” is Garland? He has put bogus, “Mickey Mouse” time limits on new asylum adjudications. Doing incompetent and biased adjudications faster isn’t going to solve the problem. It will actually make backlogs worse and more importantly, increase the number of defective asylum denials — already at beyond unacceptable levels.
You can’t fix a broken system by making it “pedal faster!” Why, after all these years, Garland doesn’t understand that “fundamental rule of Goverment bureaucracy” is totally beyond me!
The obvious solution: Put emphasis on getting these cases right at the first instance. That means “canning” the “anti-immigrant default and assembly line process” and getting expert IJs willing to rule in favor of individuals where appropriate and a revamped BIA of expert judges willing to issue precedents favorable to individuals and insure that IJs properly follow them. It also means a BIA who will follow precedent even where it doesn’t produce a “DHS Enforcement-friendly result.”
Additionally, “lose” OIL’s often-dilatory or quasi-frivolous arguments designed to cover up EOIR failures and block justice! (HINT: The Assistant AG, Civil, one of the key sub-cabinet positions at DOJ, and OIL’s “boss,” remains unfilled approaching the halfway point of the Biden Administration.) This system is broken from top to bottom, including the litigation “strategy” that attempts to shield unfair and legally incorrect EOIR decisions from critical substantive review by Article III judges independent from the Executive.
Yes, Garland recently has “pruned” some of the deadwood at EOIR and brought in a few widely-respected expert “real judges.” That’s some progress.
But, he’s barely scratched the surface of the anti-immigrant culture, “haste makes waste” atmosphere, and shoddy decision making at EOIR and the poorly conceived litigation strategies at OIL! In particular, the dysfunctional DOJ immigration bureaucracy glaringly lacks inspired progressive due-process-committed, human-rights-focused, racial-justice-sensitive leadership willing to stand up for individual rights against Government overreach and abuses!
Of course, the “real” solution is to get the Immigration Courts out of DOJ and into an independent Article I structure. But, unfortunately, that isn’t going to happen tomorrow.
In the meantime, there is plenty that Garland could be doing to improve due process and professionalism and to “pave the way” for the eventual transition to Article I. The more dysfunctional Garland makes his system the more difficult and rocky that transition will be.
Garland isn’t getting the job done! Everyone who cares about the future of our nation and the rule of law should be asking why and demanding better from Garland and his “asleep at the switch” lieutenants!
High-powered lawyers like Courtney Saleski, National Co-Chair of DLA’s White Collar Practice, who successfully litigated Vurimindi in the 3rd Circuit have some “juice.” They need to team up with the ABA, FBA, AILA, ACLU, Human Rights First, NIJC, the NAACP,Catholic Conference, HIAS, and other human rights and civil rights groups and “camp on Garland’s doorstep” until he “pulls the plug” on his dysfunctional, unprofessional EOIR and brings in due-process-focused competence! How many resources and human lives can our nation afford to waste on Garland’s EOIR disgrace?
Individuals whose lives are subject to systemic injustice and their hard-working, often pro bono, attorneys might “dissent” from Garland’s dilatory approach to long overdue due process reforms and key personnel changes in his stunningly dysfunctional Immigration Courts!
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Wendy Young President, Kids In Need of Defense (“KIND”)
Dear Paul –
The entire team at Kids In Need of Defense is devastated by the news that at least 46 people were found dead in an abandoned tractor-trailer in Texas and more than a dozen others in the truck, including children, were taken to local hospitals for treatment. While we wait for more details to emerge, we wanted to share the following statement from our President, Wendy Young.
“As rising violence, natural disasters, and other threats force migrants to make impossible choices in their quest to find safety, our nation’s response cannot be to place families and children in further harm by indefinitely closing our borders to people seeking protection and ignoring the dangers they face in their home countries. This most recent tragedy and the disturbing rise in migrant deaths globally underscore the need to create safer pathways to protection for refugees. The Biden Administration should see this heartbreaking tragedy for what it is, a clarion call to abandon deeply flawed and dangerous immigration policies. It must reinstate humane and orderly processing, including reopening official ports of entry, hiring child welfare experts to care for and screen children, and provide fair adjudication of protection claims. It is time for the United States to regain its footing as a leader in the protection of migrant families and children.”
– The KIND Team
****************
The key part of Wendy’s statement: “including reopening official ports of entry, hiring child welfare experts to care for and screen children, and provide fair adjudication of protection claims.”
Denial rates for recent arrivals who manage to get hearings (see, e.g., Garland’s bogus “dedicated dockets,” — actually “dedicated to denial” and nothing else), many of them children and unrepresented, hover around 100%. They are “guided” by a “largely holdover,” anti-asylum BIA that lacks true asylum expertise and issues no positive precedents instructing judges on how to consistently and legally grant asylum. Consequently, there is no “fair adjudication” of asylum claims. That feeds the toxic nativist myth that nobody at the Southern Border is a “legitimate” asylum seeker.
Unless and until Garland tosses the unqualified jurists at EOIR and replaces them with experts committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and correct, generous, practical precedents and proper applications of asylum law, the system will remain in failure. It’s a monumental mistake by the Biden Administration not to fix that which they absolutely control — starting with the Immigration Courts at EOIR.
Refugees will continue to die at the hands of smugglers who were given control of our immigration system by the Trump Administration and remain empowered by Garland’s & Mayorkas’spoor performance combined with biased, White Nationalist, Federal Judges appointed by Trump at all levels of our failing justice system!
Today’s WashPost editorial described how far-right nativists have basically turned our immigration system over to smugglers:
The absence of any workable legal system that would admit migrants systematically, in numbers that would meet the U.S. labor market’s demand, is the original sin of the chaos at the border. That is Congress’s bipartisan failure, a symptom of systemic paralysis for many years. More recently, a public health rule has had the effect of incentivizing unauthorized migrants to make multiple attempts to cross the border. The rule, imposed by the Trump administration, retained for more than a year by the Biden administration, and now frozen in place by Republican judges, allows border authorities to swiftly expel migrants, but with no asylum hearings or criminal consequences for repeated attempts to cross the border. That has been a boon to migrant smuggling networks.
I take issue with the term “bipartisan failure” in the legislative context. It’s true that the Dems inexplicably squandered a golden chance to fix many immigration problems when they had 60 votes in the Senate in Obama’s first two years. But, before and after that time, the failure to achieve realistic, humane, robust legal immigration reform legislation has been on the nativist right of the GOP that now dominates the party. Pretending otherwise is useless and dishonest.
All of these proposals would have made long-overdue, common sense reforms to eliminate hopeless backlogs, benefit our economy, strengthen our legal system, and facilitate better allocation of Government resources. Yet, there has been scant GOP interest in improving the system. The GOP appears to believe that promoting a dysfunctional immigration system, denying human rights, and guaranteeing a large “extralegal population” available as scapegoats and exploitable labor best serves their parochial political interests.
And, speaking of useless and dishonest, here’s Leon Krausze, WashPost Global Opinions Contributor, on how the disingenuous performance of Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has helped fuel both resurgent Mexican migration and unnecessary deaths at or near the border. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/29/san-antonio-migrant-deaths-trailer-mexico-amlo/.
The “good guys” — those committed to due process, fundamental fairness, individual rights, equal justice, scholarship, and human dignity — need to fight back at every level of our political and judicial systems — while they still exist! Because if the GOP has its way, that won’t be for long!🏴☠️
Hope to see you there! Our ever-amazing Moderator/Organizer/Inspiration Chelsea Queen, 4th Year Doctoral Student @ UTEP & Applied Work Member-at-Large of the SPSSI Graduate Student Committee, promises to 1) keep us “on track;” and 2) involve the audience in the dialogue.
Family Pictures Nolan Rappaport Opinion Writer The Hill
Senators say they’re interested in bipartisan immigration plan; here are some suggestions
Nolan Rappaport, opinion contributor
Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) plan to bring together a group of senators interested in trying to revive immigration discussions after the April recess. They “want to sit at a table and ask members who have immigration, bipartisan immigration bills, to come and propose those bills to us and see if we can build a 60-vote plus margin for a group of bills.”
Are they serious about immigration reform, or are they just doing this so they will be able to say in the upcoming midterm elections that they sponsored a number of immigration reform bills?
It won’t take much effort to repackage bills that have already been introduced.
In any case, they seem at least to be open to a variety of approaches to immigration reform, so I will take this opportunity to offer them a few suggestions.
Registry — The Democrats tried to include a registry provision update in a reconciliation bill in September 2021, but the Senate parliamentarian made them remove it. That was unfortunate. The registry provision has not been updated since 1986.
The registry provision grants lawful permanent resident status to certain undocumented immigrants who have resided continuously in the United States since before Jan. 1, 1972. This means that registry currently is available only to undocumented immigrants who have lived here continuously for half a century, which greatly reduces the value of the provision.
The Democrats went too far in the other direction with the update they put in the reconciliation bill. It would have changed this date to Jan. 1, 2011, which would make legalization available to approximately 6.7 million undocumented immigrants.
At some point, an undocumented immigrant has been here so long that it would be unconscionable to make him leave. It’s just a matter of reaching an agreement on when that point has been reached.
I encourage the senators to include the registry provision in their bipartisan discussion to see if there is a date that would be acceptable to both parties.
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. Follow him at https://nolanrappaport.blogspot.com
****************
Read Nolan’s full article at the link.
Nolan doesn’t claim that enactment of these provisions would “solve all problems” — an ambitious task. But, the package would be a very significant improvement, building on legal and administrative mechanisms that have been successful in the past.
Here are some major things that could be accomplished:
Dramatically cutting into the unmanageable backlogs at both USCIS and EOIR in a way that should actually be “self-funding” and relatively free of litigation;
Reducing pressure on the border without the type of “gimmicks” that have proved unsuccessful in the past and giving individuals the ability toapply and get an answer without making the journey to the border;
Combatting employer exploitation of undocumented workers and maintaining an adequate wage scale for all American workers;
Increasing the pool of legally authorized employment (including employment in “essential occupations”) at a time when it is badly needed; and, incidentally,
Substantially increasing tax revenues.
It would be great to believe that folks on the Hill and in the Administration are actively thinking about such timely, achievable, practical solutions to ongoing problems.
The CLAWmobile — America’s First Due Process Powered Vehicle, Piloted by Attorney Yousof “Joe” Nesari, will be spreading the message to the Commonwealth and beyond!
CANCELLATION & LIFE AFTER WINNING: The CLAW Campaign Kicks Off
Delivered by Paul Wickham Schmidt
CLAW Headquarters, Reston, Virginia
February 27, 2022
Thank you for inviting me this afternoon. I’m honored to be here. Beyond that, I wish to congratulate and thank Neela Nesari and the rest of you for your courage, dedication, and humanity in standing up and speaking out for social justice in America.
Of course, I will start out by giving you my “standard comprehensive disclaimer.” What I’m about to tell you represents solely my views and not the views or opinions of any individual, institution, organization, or group with which I am associated, have been associated in the past, or might associate with in the future!
My time on the stage is winding down. But yours, my friends, is just beginning. You are the ones who control your destinies and must decide what kind of world you want to live in and what you want to leave behind for the next generations.
Relief for families granted cancellation of removal is a “just cause” that should be a “no-brainer” in a fair, well-functioning, human-values-based society. That neither such badly-needed specific remedial changes nor long overdue “big picture” reforms to fix our broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts, restore fairness and functionality to our shattered refugee and asylum programs, and make our legal immigration system robust, realistic, workable, and serving the national interest says something about our current national mood and our political leadership that should be quite concerning to you as the upcoming generation!
My friends, both our Immigration Courts and our democratic republic are in a grave existential crisis. There are powerful and well-organized forces with a very dark, exclusive, intolerant, sometimes belligerent vision of America’s future: one that reverses generations of human progress and knowledge and actively promotes intolerance, misinformation, dehumanization, and deconstruction of our democratic institutions and fundamental human values.
They actively promote an intentionally “whitewashed” version of American history: One that denies the ingenuity, creativity, and forced labor of generations of African Americans who literally built our country!It disregards the courage, tenacity, skill, and strength of Asian Americans who built our Transcontinental Railroad and literally brought our nation together. And, of course, it dismisses the legions of Hispanic Americans who have been “making America great” since before “America was America,” with their culture, hard work, determination, and commitment to the “real” American dream, not the “whitewashed” version. It basically devalues the essential contributions of almost all non-Western-European immigrants!
The future envisioned by these dark forces “x’es out” many, probably the majority, of you in this room. It says that their so-called individual rights to do as they please outweigh the common interests of society and humanity as a whole. Yet, few seem willing to challenge them and stand up for the rights and human dignity of“the others” which are being demeaned, devalued, and, in some cases, erased. Don’t let their darkness, willful ignorance, and often threatening demeanor be your future and that of generations to come.
Look around you here at the real history and the real America represented by this audience. The future is yours! Don’t let the forces of darkness and a “past that never was” deny your destiny!
Now is the time to take a stand for Due Process, fundamental fairness, human rights, human dignity, social justice, and human decency! Become the “next generation leaders” of the New Due Process Army and fight to make equal justice under law and the constitutional and human rights of everyone a reality rather than an unfulfilled promise! Due process forever!
Thanks again for inviting me and for listening.
********************
It was great to see in the audience some of the former students from my last “pre-pandemic in-person speech” to Professor Dree Collopy’s class at Washington College of Law at American University there as lawyers in the ranks of the NDPA!
We would like to cordially invite you to the launch party of CLAW, “Cancellation and Life after Winning” at the CLAW headquarters located at 11710 Bowman Green Drive, Reston, VA 20190 on Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4 pm.
What is CLAW?
CLAW is a campaign initiated by teenager and immigration activist, Neela Nesari. The campaign aims to bring about a change to increase the 4000 limitation cap on 240A cancellation cases.
Neela is initiating an awareness month about this issue in March of 2022 and needs your help. The goal is to educate, organize and advocate for legislative changes to the immigration system with respect to the defense of cancellation of removal.
We are very excited to announce that CLAW has secured the enthusiastic support of renowned former immigration judge and former chairman of the BIA, Honorable Judge Paul Schmidt, who will be the guest of honor at CLAW’s launch party.
We look forward to your support for this worthy cause. As immigration attorneys and advocates, we know too well that a 42b cancellation case doesn’t just end at the Individual Hearing and our clients face a long road ahead before they can become permanent residents. Why not do something about it?
*Practice outside of NY limited to Federal Immigration Law.
***********************************
Unfortunately, in the bizarre and counterintuitive world of U.S. immigration law and our broken Immigration Courts, winning your case, no matter how satisfying, is “only half the battle!” These amazing young people understand how unfair and counterproductive that is and are “walking the walk, not just talking the talk.” Come be inspired by folks who believe in and act for a “Better America” for all of us!
Efiling is not permitted for cases with a preexisting paper file, but all new cases moving forward require efiling with ECAS.
Once a case is fully ECAS, you do not need to serve ICE separately. However, you still need to submit a certificate of service that lists ECAS as the means of service. eService/mail can still be used on paper files. eService is the only method of filing for PD requests.
Also, EOIR apparently has not come up with a system for filing motions to substitute counsel in ECAS. The system physically will not let you file a new primary E-28 if there already is an attorney, and you cannot file a motion without an E-28. The workaround so far has been to file a non-primary E-28 and then to ask the court to change it to primary. Hopefully, EOIR will fix this soon.
Updated Legal Assistant Directories for NYC (attached)
Reuters: The Biden administration will place hundreds of migrants caught at the U.S.-Mexico border on house arrest in the coming weeks as it seeks cheaper alternatives to immigration detention, according to a notice to lawmakers and a U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official. A 120-day pilot program will be launched in Houston and Baltimore, with 100-200 single adults enrolled in each location, according to the notice, which was sent by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and reviewed by Reuters. See also Immigrant Rights Organizations Call on Biden to Stop Expansion of Surveillance and End the Immigration Detention System as a Whole.
TRAC: As of the end of January 2022, the pace of Immigration Court work continues to lag as a result of the pandemic. There have been not only fewer case completions, but the average time required to dispose of each case has doubled since before the pandemic began.
LAA Weekly: Valentine’s Day has been strategically selected for the “Day Without Immigrants” protest, as it is a day where an abundance of consumer spending occurs, through labor that is often carried out by immigrants.
NYT: These migrants were instructed to register with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement within 60 days to complete the process the border officials started. But in some parts of the country, local ICE offices were overwhelmed and unable to give them appointments. So the Haitian family and other new arrivals have spent months trying in vain to check in with ICE and initiate their court cases.
AP: The new statement unveiled Wednesday by Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Ur Jaddou is symbolic but somewhat restores previous language after the agency removed a reference in 2018 to the U.S. being a “nation of immigrants.”
Law360: A Washington federal judge has ruled that a Salvadoran citizen’s U.S. naturalization application was properly denied because of her admission that she distributes marijuana as co-owner of a state-licensed dispensary.
Law360: The U.S. Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review apologized on Tuesday to an attorney after asking her to delete tweets about immigration court hearings for people enrolled in the controversial “Remain in Mexico” program.
WaPo: A patchwork of federal aid kept many families afloat during the pandemic, but families with undocumented parents did not qualify for most of it, including unemployment insurance, the stimulus payments, Medicaid and food stamps.
LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS
AO issues NOID for Afghan Who Worked for U.S.
Boston AO: A NOID from the asylum office stated that an individual who worked for the U.S. government as a mechanic had not demonstrated a fear of future persecution based on his imputed political opinion. The AO held there was insufficient evidence the Taliban was or would become aware of his imputed political option. The AO also stated the Taliban does not have the capability to persecute all former employees of the U.S. and the applicant had not demonstrated similarly situated people were being targeted. Counsel has submitted a detailed rebuttal with testimony from a US military official, and the applicant’s mother was granted asylum by a different officer.
AILA: A federal district court vacated the final rules “Removal of 30-day Processing Provision for Asylum Applicant-Related Form I-765 Employment Authorization Applications” and “Asylum Application, Interview, and Employment Authorization for Applicants.” (AsylumWorks v. Mayorkas, 2/7/22)
NYLAG: Under the settlement, the Board will be required to place nearly all its opinions into an online reading room, accessible to all in perpetuity, ensuring that immigration advocates will have access to these opinions within six months of when they are issued. The Board also must post its decisions dating back to 2017 as well as some from 2016. Posting will begin in October 2022 and will be phased in over several years.
Law360: The Second Circuit on Wednesday granted a Nigerian man’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order that denied him asylum, finding that the agency made several legal and procedural errors and did not adequately explain its reasons.
Law360: The federal government properly charged a Nigerian man as inadmissible to the U.S. rather than removable, because his entry to the country on parole constituted an arrival despite his previous admission, the Third Circuit ruled Friday.
Lexis: We hold that § 706(1) allows the federal courts to command USCIS to hasten an unduly delayed “bona fide” determination, which is a mandatory decision under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(6) and the BFD process. We hold, however, that the federal courts cannot invoke 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) to force USCIS to speed up an unduly delayed pre-waitlist work-authorization adjudication, which is a nonmandatory agency action under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(6) and the BFD process. We hold that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded that USCIS has unreasonably delayed the principal petitioners’ placement on the U-visa waitlist.
Law360: The Ninth Circuit invalidated the subsection of a law that makes it a crime to encourage unlawful immigration, ruling Thursday it is overbroad and covers speech that is protected by the First Amendment.
Law360: The Board of Immigration Appeals need only to consider the possibility — not the reasonableness — of an immigrant’s safe relocation back to their home region when weighing protections under the Convention Against Torture, the Ninth Circuit ruled Wednesday.
Law360: A New Jersey federal judge signed off Wednesday on a class action settlement that would prevent the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services from refusing to place young immigrants on the path to a green card based on Garden State family court findings.
Law360: U.S. Customs and Border Protection is marking the entry records of certain foreign executives’ spouses to show that they are immediately eligible to work in the U.S. without going through the monthslong process of obtaining a work permit.
AILA: EOIR will close the Fishkill Immigration Court due to the closure of the Downstate Correctional Facility in which the court is located. Holding hearings at the location will cease at close of business on February 17, 2022. Pending cases at time of closure will transfer to Ulster Immigration Court.
AILA: EOIR updated its Operation Status website with information clarifying that alternate filing locations are designated for the purpose of filing emergency motions and explaining how it will treat other filings if a court is closed.
AILA: USCIS updated policy guidance addressing VAWA petitions, specifically changing the interpretation of the requirement for shared residence. The guidance also affects use of INA 204(a)(2), implements the decisions in Da Silva v. Attorney General and Arguijo v. United States, and more.
AILA: DHS, in partnership with the Department of Veterans Affairs and Defense, launched an online center to consolidate resources for noncitizen service members, veterans, and their families, including a request form for current or former service members seeking return to the U.S. after deportation.
USCIS: We are updating our interpretation of the requirement for shared residence to occur during the qualifying spousal or parent-child relationship. Instead, the self-petitioner must demonstrate that they are residing or have resided with the abuser at any time in the past.
We are also implementing nationwide the decisions in Da Silva v. Attorney General, 948 F.3d 629 (3rd Cir. 2020), and Arguijo v. United States, 991 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2021). Da Silva v. Attorney General held that when evaluating the good moral character requirement, an act or conviction is “connected to” the battery or extreme cruelty when it has “a causal or logical relationship.” Arguijo v. USCIS allows stepchildren and stepparents to continue to be eligible for VAWA self-petitions even if the parent and stepparent divorced.
After two plus decades of largely wasted time, effort, and resources, EOIR finally moves into the era of E-Filing!
Elizabeth notes one of the “initial workarounds” for motions to substitute counsel. While early glitches are to be expected in any system, this one seems odd because: 1) the system has supposedly been extensively “beta tested;” and 2) motions to substitute counsel have to be one of the most common motions filed at EOIR (particularly with cases often taking many years to complete with the ever-growing 1.6 million case backlog.)
I’d be interested in getting any “practitioner feedback” on how this system (applicable only to newly filed NTAs) is working out for them. You can just put in the “comments box” for this post.
Speaking of backlog, this excellent recent study and analysis from CMS (under “Friday Feb. 11” above) certainly suggests that the majority of the “aged cases” being “warehoused” by Garland’s EOIR relate to law-abiding long-term residents who are already firmly grounded in our society and should be prime candidates for “non-priority” status and removal from the dockets.
Undocumented immigrants contribute to every aspect of the nation’s life.16 During the COVID-19 pandemic, the case for legalization has become increasingly evident to the public and policymakers due, in part, to the fact that a remarkable 74 percent of the nation’s 7.3 million undocumented workers meet DHS’s definition of essential workers (Kerwin and Warren 2020). As the nation ages and its population over age 65 exceeds that under age 15 (Chamie 2021), the need for immigrant workers will only increase. US fertility rates fell for five consecutive years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the US birth rate decreased by four percent in 2020 (Barroso 2021).17
Legalization programs benefit the larger society: they “raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue” (Hinojosa-Ojeda 2012, 191).18 One study has estimated that broad immigration reform legislation, including a legalization program and a flexible, rights-respecting, legal immigration system, would add $1.5 trillion to the US gross domestic product over 10 years (ibid., 176). Another study found that a legalization program would increase the productivity, earnings, and taxes paid by the legalized, resulting in increased contributions to the Social Security (SS) program, which would more than offset the SS benefits that they would receive (Kugler, Lynch and Oakford 2013).
Indeed, the data in the CMS study confirms what many of us have suspected for a long time: That deportation of many of the individuals now occupying the Immigration Court’s mind-boggling docket backlog actually would be a counterproductive “net loss” for the U.S.!
So, why are Garland and Mayorkas letting the backlog fester and ooze disorder and injustice? ☠️ Rather than using largely self-created backlogs to support more “enforcement gimmicks” purporting to lead to theforced removal of many productive members of our society, EOIR is long overdue for some form of the “Chen Markowitz Plan” in anticipation of the types of ameliorative legislation outlined in the CMS study.
Donald M. Kerwin Executive Director Center for Migration Studies — He and his friends at CMS have some great ideas on immigration and human rights backed by some of the best scholarship around! Why are Garland, Mayorkas, and others “tuning them out” while they continue to bungle immigration policy, degrade human rights, and undermine our legal system?
Garland’s disgraceful failure to put a “Progressive A-Team” in charge at EOIR continues to drag down our entire justice system.
Note that Sessions and Barr had no trouble and no hesitation installing their “Miller Time” restrictionist team at DOJ and EOIR despite almost universal outrage and protests from human rights advocates, immigration experts, and some legislators!
Why do Dems keep appointing AG’s who are too “tone deaf,” clueless, and timid to fully “leverage” the almost unlimited potential of reforming EOIR to be a font of due process, best practices, and scholarly, efficient judging?
Why do Dems prefer the equal and racial justice “disaster zone” that they have helped to create, aided, and abetted over the past two decades of abject failure and disorder at EOIR?
There is a reason why Chair Lofgren and others on the Hill are pushing for Article I! But, that in no way diminishes or excuses the failure of Garland to make available due process and best practices reforms at EOIR, including a major shakeup of “Trump holdover” judges and managers who aren’t up to the job of running a system “laser-focused” on due process and fundamental fairness!
Hon. Dana Leigh Marks U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.) One of the most influential, outspoken, and dynamic Federal Judges of the past half-century enters the next phase of her illustrious career, as a caregiver for her granddaughter and a “fighting knightess” of the Round Table, with typical optimism. “Decades of dealing with DOJ and EOIR management has given me the best possible toolbox to meet any challenges on the road ahead,” says “NanaDana.”
😎🇺🇸🗽⚖️👩⚖️ FLASH: JUDICIAL MAVEN HON. DANA LEIGH MARKS RETIRES, JOINS ROUND TABLE! 🛡⚔️ — “Founding Mother” Of U.S. Asylum Law Successfully Argued INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca @ Supremes, Led Immigration Judges’ Association, Spearheaded “Article I”Movement For Judicial Independence, Saved Thousands of Lives Over Career OnBench Spanning More Than Three Decades!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
Jan. 9, 2022
Judge Dana Leigh Marks, one of America’s leading “applied scholars” and human rights jurists, joined the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges. Marks retired from the San Francisco Immigration Court on December 31, 2021, following an extraordinary nearly 35-year career on the bench. Round Table spokesperson Judge Jeffrey S. Chase announced Marks’s move in an e-mail yesterday to the group’s more than 50 members.
In addition to her “number one retirement priority” — helping care for her granddaughter — Marks told Courtside that she “looks forward to continuing the fight for Article I and due process for all in America, now without the disclaimers that DOJ requires.” It’s a mission and a sentiment shared by the group.
Long time colleague and fellow past president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”), Judge John Gossart enthusiastically welcomed and recognized Marks’s fearless advocacy “for due process, fundamental fairness, the right to be heard, and an Article 1 Court.”
Other Round Table judges greeted their newest member with an avalanche of praise, appreciation, admiration, and love for Marks’s intellectual prowess, courage under pressure, and embodiment of the one-time vision of making the U.S. Immigration Courts “the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Over the last several decades, many experts say that noble vision was cashiered by Department of Justice (“DOJ”) politicos in favor of the “go along to get along” and “good enough for government work” aura that infects today’s broken and dysfunctional Immigration Court system. Those courts, now running an astounding, largely self-created backlog in excess of 1.5 million cases, are inappropriately located within the byzantine, politicized bureaucracy of a DOJ still reeling from four years of grotesque mismanagement and misdirection by the Trump group.
Marks graduated from Cal Berkeley in 1974 and received her J.D. from Hastings Law in 1977. She worked for almost ten years as an immigration lawyer in private practice, and was an active leader in AILA’s Northern California chapter during that time. In 1986, as a partner with Simmons & Ungar, then San Francisco’s premier immigration law specialty firm, Marks successfully argued the landmark case, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 US 421 (1987).
There, the Supreme Court rejected the Government’s argument that asylum seekers must establish that their future persecution is “more likely than not” to happen. Instead, the Court adopted the much more generous international standard of a “well founded fear” of persecution. The Court thereby recognized that asylum could be granted where the fear was objectively reasonable, even if it were significantly less than “probable.”
Some also consider this to be the “high water mark” of the Court’s positive use of international law concepts in a human rights case involving immigration. Despite considerable internal resistance to fairly applying the more generous legal standard, Cardoza has undoubtedly saved the lives of tens of thousands of refugees and their families over the past three and one-half decades.
Shortly after submitting the brief (co-authored with Bill Ong Hing, Kip Steinberg and Susan Lydon), but prior to her Cardoza argument, Marks was selected for a judgeship by then Chief Immigration Judge, the late William R. Robie. Then Attorney General Ed Meese adopted Robie’s recommendation, and Marks was sworn in as a U.S. Immigration Judge for San Francisco in January, 1987, two months after the oral argument and two months prior to the decision being issued by the Court.
During her distinguished career on the immigration bench, Marks has been an outspoken fighter for professional treatment of her fellow Immigration Judges, for true judicial independence in the Immigration Courts, and for fair, humane, professional treatment of those coming before the courts. She served on a number of occasions as the President and Executive Vice President of the NAIJ, sometimes “swapping” leadership positions with her close friend Judge Denise Slavin, also President Emerita of NAIJ and now a “fearless fighting knightess” of the Round Table.
Marks and Slavin helped battle two DOJ attempts to “decertify” the NAIJ and thus silence the powerful voices that often exposed severe problems in the administration of the Immigration Courts. Indeed, Marks’s determination to speak “truth to power,” her outsized personality, and her willingness to “level” with the media often put her at odds with “handlers” in the court’s bloated bureaucracy and their DOJ overlords.
The latter often sought to divert the Immigration Courts from their due process mission to focus instead on “deterrence” of asylum seekers and fulfilling each Administration’s goals for immigration enforcement. Among other things, this led to a backlog-building phenomenon known as “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.”
In her writings, speeches, and interviews, Marks decried these glaring conflicts of interest and abuses of normal judicial ethics, not to mention common sense and human decency. She tirelessly advocates that the United States adhere more closely to international standards governing refugees and asylees, which was the clearly expressed legislative intent when the Refugee Act of 1980 was enacted.
Summing up her new life after Immigration Court, Marks said “I will enjoy my new day job of caring for my granddaughter, but will continue my hobby of telling truth about EOIR [the bureaucratic acronym for Immigration Courts] through NAIJ and the Roundtable. I am proud to be in such good company!” The feeling is mutual! Due process forever!
The Slippery Slope of Systemic Racism in Immigration Law – Del Rio by Carrie Rosenbaum
When Senator Maxine Waters proclaimed that what we witnessed in Del Rio, Texas last week, Customs and Border Protection officers on horseback whipping black men, harkened back to slavery, she drew an age-old, but still relevant connection between slavery, Jim Crow, and anti-immigrant racism. In a press briefing, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas stated, “[w]e know that those images painfully conjured up the worst elements of our nation’s ongoing battle against systemic racism.” Yet, if both are right, where are our equality, anti-racism principles and why haven’t they been enough to dismantle systemic racism? Should U.S. anti-discrimination law inhibit anti-black and anti-immigrant racism, in the U.S. and at the border? Does it? Is there a slippery slope, such that undeterred discrimination against immigrants at the border seeps beyond the immediate individuals at the border?
Senator Waters was right to blur the boundaries of citizenship and rights in her speech. Racism begets racism, and racism towards black Haitians at the border translates to anti-black racism within the United States, just as anti-Mexican racism does not confine itself to noncitizens, and never has. Examples abound including obvious examples, like Latinx lynching of the late 1840s through 1920s (which coincided with lynching of Blacks), mass expulsion or “repatriation” of persons of Mexican descent that included U.S. citizens in the early 1920s and 1930s again via “Operation Wetback” in the 1950s and more subtle ones like exploitation and expropriation of Mexican and Central American farm workers and laborers, whether authorized or not, and colorblind or race neutral policies that fall most heavily, even if not completely, on persons from Mexico and Central America, like border jails.
While the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. constitution does not limit itself to citizens, it falls vastly short in protecting racialized people of color, especially immigrants. The U.S. treatment of Haitians in Del Rio implicates the problem of anti-black and anti-immigrant racism, and is indicative of the express and implicit bias that continues to evade remedy. It runs much deeper than the disturbing images of CBP agents on horseback, and its impacts have ripple effects.
At the same time that DHS Secretary Mayorkas decried systemic racism, he spelled out the government’s potential argument that the exclusion of Haitians, and Central Americans, and Mexicans that accompanies such brutal treatment was not discriminatory pursuant to the current state of immigration equal protection. He stated, “if we are able to expel them under Title 42 … we will do so” and announced that its application was “irrespective of the country of origin, irrespective of the race of the individual, irrespective of other criteria that don’t belong in our adjudicative process and we do not permit in our adjudicative process.”
Yet this is precisely how systemic racism flourishes. The reality is, this provision has been used to exclude the same racialized immigrants who have been subject to the worst treatment under immigration law. However, because the law is colorblind, Mayorkas can suggest that there was no discrimination. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 1977 Arlington Heights decision, discriminatory impact has to be accompanied by proof of discriminatory intent. Just by saying that wasn’t his (or implying it was not Congress’) intent, he can erase what too many know to be real. A new immigration priorities memo by the Agency released today stated that ““We must ensure that enforcement actions are not discriminatory and do not lead to inequitable outcomes.” It is a step in the right rhetorical direction, but does little to meaningfully address the colorblind racism that plagues enforcement.
What is the solution? Aside from a more expansive interpretation of the Equal Protection doctrine in line with Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in the Trump era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals case, and modest progress at the district court level in the crimmigration context, Congress could take steps to stop racial harm inflicted via immigration law and policy. By creating a path to legal status for those who not only have been here, but who have suffered the greatest harms of systemic racism, Haitian immigrants, Mexican immigrants, and others, Congress could start to undo the damage. It could also stop the relatively new practice of detaining or imprisoning migrants at the southern border, who happen to be almost entirely from Mexico and Central America, or abolish immigration prisons entirely. The policies that result in the imprisonment of Mexicans and Central Americans at the southern border now started with expulsion and imprisonment of Haitians in the 1980 and 1990s. Instead of expulsions and rumored potential imprisonment at the notorious Guantanamo Bay as was done in response to Haitians fleeing violence after the U.S. supported overthrow of democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the U.S. could re-evaluate both its involvement in foreign affairs, and treatment of those who flee here after our interventions cause disruption and civil strife. The largest number of Black migrants come from Haiti and their mistreatment is rooted in anti-Black racism. Racializing anti-immigrant demonization does not confine itself to noncitizens, nor should the remedies. Immigration reform, and a more robust application of the Equal Protection doctrine to all those inside the country, and at our borders, is necessary to move towards meaningfully dismantling systemic racism.
Access my law review articles and scholarship on SSRN
*******************************
Very eloquently said, Carrie!
Compare this with the racist blather and White Nationalist nonsense of nativist pols like Abbott, DeSantis, Cruz, Cotton, and others who glorify Jim Crow and seek to force a sanitized, whitewashed version of American history down the throats of the public!
Also, compare this with the intellectually dishonest actions by Biden Administration officials. They disingenuously claim to be champions of racial equality and racial justice.
But, in reality, they operate “star chamber courts,” “New American Gulags,” and implement discredited, outmoded, and ineffective “Stephen Miller Lite” border enforcement policies that basically dehumanize people of color and deny them the due process and equal protection to which they are entitled under law. Also, think about the many Federal Judges who spinelessly enable that which most first year law students could tell you is illegal and unconstitutional, not to mention totally immoral!
What exactly does Assistant AG for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke do every day at the Civil Rights Division if unraveling the White Nationalist, racially tone deaf policies of her own Department, the DHS, and the “star chambers for people of color” being operated by her “boss” aren’t first and foremost on her “to do” list?
“Floaters” — The ugly reality of Biden’s “Miller Lite border strategy.” It’s mostly people of color floating face-down in the river, being illegally returned to danger zones, rotting in the “New American Gulag,” and being railroaded through Garland’s biased and dysfunctional “star chamber courts.” Right now, Garland and and the rest of of the Biden Administration have “zero (0) credibility” on racial justice and voting rights!
EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
The biggest failure of the Biden Administration to date is their willful blindness to the obvious connection between lack of overall racial justice in America and running star chambers, gulags, and border enforcement policies that are unconstitutional, dehumanizing, and racially demeaning to individuals of color. Sadly, and tragically we seem to have gone from “zero tolerance” under Trump to “zero credibility” under Biden! “When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn?”
Democrats suffered a major blow when the Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, decided that they could not include immigration provisions in their $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill. According to MacDonough, the effect that the immigration provisions would have on the budget would be incidental to their overall policy effect.
The rejected provisions would have provided legalization for undocumented immigrants who were brought here illegally as children, often called “Dreamers;” undocumented immigrants with Temporary Protected Status; and undocumented essential workers. This would have made lawful status available to more than 8 million undocumented immigrants.
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) claims that there is another option, which is to narrow the immigration reform provisions such that Democrats can navigate it through the Senate’s Byzantine rules. He thinks this can be done with an update to the registry provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Registry is a process that permits undocumented immigrants to become lawful permanent residents (green card holders) on the basis of their long-standing presence in the country, regardless of their status or the way they entered the country.
I don’t think updating the registry provision will be acceptable to MacDonough either — It’s just another way to legalize undocumented immigrants.
But it might be possible to move a registry update through the regular legislative process. The registry process has been in place for nearly a century. It reflects our nation’s historical sense of fairness to allow undocumented immigrants who have lived in the country for a very long time an opportunity to obtain legal status, and it hasn’t been updated since 1986.
As Dean Kevin Johnson noted in his ImmigrationProf post, Nolan correctly predicted that the Parliamentarian would reject registry as part of budget reconciliation. But, the possibility for bipartisan legislation doesn’t end there.
Any time we have Nolan and ImmigrationProf Blog resident expert Professor Kit Johnson talking about the same possible solution, folks in Congress on both sides should wake up and take notice! Doesn’t mean they will. But they should think about proposed solutions from thoughtful subject matter experts, who have been involved in the process for years, and who often come at problem-solving from different angles.
Kit Johnson Associate Professor of Law University of Oklahoma Law School
There are enormous downsides to border disorder, to immigration policy paralysis and to leaving the fates of more than 11 million current immigrants without any path to a secure future — even beyond the reinforcement it provides to the United States’ growing international reputation for dysfunction. No one gains by the chaos except smugglers who soak desperate migrants financially on their way north in hopes of a better life. The losers include not only the “dreamers” brought to this country as children, who must live in perpetual anxiety, but also the country as a whole, which loses the value of immigrants, skilled and otherwise, who would turbocharge entrepreneurship, create jobs and help the economy grow.
There are available solutions if Congress could overcome its horror of bipartisan compromise. The goal should be to establish a realistic annual quota of immigrant visas for Central Americans, Haitians and others desperate to reach this country who otherwise will cross the border illegally — a number that recognizes the U.S. labor market’s demand for such employees. That must be supplemented by a muscular guest worker program that enables legal border crossing for migrants who want to support families remaining in their home countries.
. . . .
**********************
Read the complete editorial at the link.
It’s worth adding that the current “border disorder” is largely the result of White Nationalist, legally defective, anti-immigrant policies of the Trump regime compounded by the failure of Mayorkas and Garland to take the obvious, available, common sense steps necessary to reopen legal border ports of entry, to make the long overdue necessary reforms to establish a fair, efficient, and generous legal asylum system at the USCIS Asylum Offices and the Immigration Courts, and to insist on the creation of a robust, functional refugee program for Latin America and the Caribbean.
None of the this is “rocket science!” 🚀 Plenty of great blueprints for administrative reforms and the potential expert leadership to implement them were “out there for the taking” at the beginning of the Biden Administration. By dawdling, tapping the wrong leaders, and continuing enforcement policies and bad judicial practices that were proven failures, the Administration predictably put itself “behind the eight-ball” in establishing order and implementing the rule of law at our borders!
Until the Biden Administration ends its disgraceful, cowardly, illegal, cruel, ineffective, and inhumane reliance on bogus “Title 42” restrictions to suspend orderly legal processing at the border, they will continue to bobble the next predictable “border crisis.” The GOP will continue to spout nativist nonsense. Desperate people will continue to do desperate things. Only a tone-deaf Administration would continue to ignore this reality!
