"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.
President Trump has adopted a blunt new message in recent days for migrants seeking refuge in the United States: “Our country is full.”
To the degree the president is addressing something broader than the recent strains on the asylum-seeking process, the line suggests the nation can’t accommodate higher immigration levels because it is already bursting at the seams. But it runs counter to the consensus among demographers and economists.
They see ample evidence of a country that is not remotely “full” — but one where an aging population and declining birthrates among the native-born population are creating underpopulated cities and towns, vacant housing and troubled public finances.
Local officials in many of those places view a shrinking population and work force as an existential problem with few obvious solutions.
“I believe our biggest threat is our declining labor force,” said Gov. Phil Scott of Vermont, a Republican, in his annual budget address this year. “It’s the root of every problem we face.
“This makes it incredibly difficult for businesses to recruit new employees and expand, harder for communities to grow and leaves fewer of us to cover the cost of state government.”
Or if you look at a city like Detroit, “many of the city’s problems would become less difficult if its population would start growing,” said Edward Glaeser, a Harvard economist. “All sorts of things like the hangover pension liability become much more solvable if you’re actually looking at new people coming in.”
A road less traveled in Rutland, Vt., last spring. Vermont’s governor has described the state’s shrinking labor force as “at the root of every problem we face.” CreditCaleb Kenna for The New York Times
Image
A road less traveled in Rutland, Vt., last spring. Vermont’s governor has described the state’s shrinking labor force as “at the root of every problem we face.” CreditCaleb Kenna for The New York Times
This consensus is visible in official government projections. The Congressional Budget Office foresees the American labor force rising by only 0.5 percent a year over the coming decade, about one-third as fast as from 1950 to 2007. That is a crucial reason that economic growth is forecast to remain well below its late 20th-century levels.
And that, in turn, is reflected in the national fiscal outlook. There are now 2.8 workers for every recipient of Social Security benefits, a rate on track to fall to 2.2 by 2035, according to the program’s trustees. Many state pension plans face even greater demography-induced strains.
In smaller cities and rural areas, demographic decline is a fundamental fact of life. A recent study by the Economic Innovation Group found that 80 percent of American counties, with a combined population of 149 million, saw a decline in their number of prime working-age adults from 2007 to 2017.
Population growth in the United States has now hit its lowest level since 1937, partly because of a record-low fertility rate — the number of children born per woman. The United States increasingly has population growth rates similar to slow-growing Japan and Western Europe, with immigration partly offsetting that shift.
The Trump administration has portrayed the surge of asylum seekers at the southern border as a crisis, and applied aggressive tactics to deport undocumented immigrants already in the United States. But it has also announced plans to issue up to 30,000 additional H-2B visas for temporary workers.
“That immigrants keep showing up here is a testament to our freedom and the economic opportunity here,” said Matthew Kahn, an economist at the University of Southern California. If immigrants weren’t trying to come — if they believed the United States to be full — that would be a problem, Mr. Kahn said.
A particular fear, said John Lettieri, president of the Economic Innovation Group, is that declining population, falling home prices and weak public finances will create a vicious cycle that the places losing population could find hard to escape.
He proposes a program of “heartland visas,” in which skilled immigrants could obtain work visas to the United States on the condition they live in one of the counties facing demographic decline — with troubled counties themselves deciding whether to participate.
Although some of the areas with declining demographics are hostile to immigration, others, cities as varied as Baltimore, Indianapolis and Fargo, N.D., have embraced the strategy of encouraging it.
“One of the key solutions is to welcome immigrants into these communities,” said Brooks Rainwater, director of the National League of Cities’ Center for City Solutions.
Many parts of the country that are growing in population and that are more economically dynamic have depended on the arrival of immigrants for that success.
Sun Belt metros like Dallas and Phoenix have been built on the logic of rapid expansion — of quickly built homes, of poached employers, of new highways paved to ever-newer subdivisions. Their economic development strategy is growth. Their chief input is people — the more, the better.
“Growth cities need immigrants to continue their growth,” said Joel Kotkin, executive director of the Houston-based Center for Opportunity Urbanism, which promotes policies to help cities grow. “The older historically declining cities need immigrants to reinvigorate their economies. And the expensive cities need them because, frankly, white people, African-Americans and middle-class people are leaving for more affordable areas.”
As many industrial cities have lost population since the mid-20th century, Americans have built whole new metropolises on land that was virtually empty then. The Las Vegas metropolitan area, with more than two million people today, had barely 50,000 in 1950.
Still, only about 3 percent of the country’s land is urbanized.
America’s metropolitan areas remain among the least dense in the world, said Sonia Hirt, a professor of landscape architecture and planning at the University of Georgia. Nationwide, the United States has less than one-third of the population density of the European Union, and a quarter of the density of China.
“Factually speaking, the country is not actually full — that’s impossible,” Ms. Hirt said. “The real question is, if you continue on the current path of immigration, does this bring more benefits than it brings costs?”
Economists, too, argue that countries, or even cities, can’t really fill up. Rather, communities choose not to make the political choices necessary to accommodate more people. At the local level, that means neighbors may be unwilling to allow taller buildings or to invest in more schools or improved infrastructure. At the national level, it means that politicians may be unwilling to take up immigration reform, or to address workers who fear unemployment. The president’s comments echo such local fights.
“We’re full” has often been a motto for people to keep out poorer renters, minority households or apartment buildings, among both conservatives and liberals. The claim can be a way of disguising exclusion as practicality. It’s not that we’re unwelcoming; it’s just that we’re full.
When it comes to the economy, at least, the country looks more like one that is too empty than too full.
The White Nationalist agenda, which is being pushed not only by the White House but also by a number of GOP Senators and Representatives, prevents us from having the discussion we really must have: how many more individuals should we admit through our legal immigration system and how should we allocate those admissions to:
Best respond to market needs;
Reduce the need for a “black market system” that will continue to flourish as long as our system is out of whack with supply, demand, and humanitarian needs and obligations; and
Assist legitimate law enforcement by shifting the focus away from (often futile and always wasteful) efforts to prevent entry of those we should be welcoming through our legal immigration system.
A federal judge on Monday blocked an experimental Trump administration policy that requires asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases make their way through the immigration court system, a major blow to President Trump as border crossings have surged to their highest point in more than a decade.
U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco enjoined the Migrant Protection Protocols policy days after outgoing Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pledged to expand the program. The policy began in January.
Trump has justified blocking asylum seekers from entering the United States by claiming that many asylum seekers are trying to carry out a scam — that they are coached to file false asylum claims knowing that they will be released into the country because of a lack of detention bed space. The administration had hoped to keep more asylum seekers in Mexico — and off U.S. soil — while they await court hearings on their claims.
Migrants who reach U.S. soil — including areas that are outside U.S. border barriers but inside U.S. territory — have the legal right to seek asylum. They generally are either held in detention facilities to await rulings in their cases or are released into the United States.
The policy had been one idea to stem the flow of migrants into the country, but Seeborg said his order ending the policy will take effect at 5 p.m. on April 12. Within two days, he said, the 11 migrants named in the lawsuit must be allowed to enter the United States, and the administration may not implement or expand the program.
The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups that filed the lawsuit, hailed the ruling as a “very important decision” on an “unpredecented” attempt to block asylum seekers from setting foot on U.S. soil.
“What it will mean is that nobody else can be sent to Mexico,” said Judy Rabinovitz, an ACLU lawyer. “They can’t enforce this policy.”
Evy Warshawski, The Arts Landscape: A retired judge Polly Webber creates a refugee narrative
Evy Warshawski
Updated
“Caught in the Covfefe” (24 by 18 inches) is one of Polly Webber’s rug designs. The retired judge takes on the topic of immigration in her rug designs.
Submitted photo
Retired judge Polly Webber began creating hooked rugs as “a form of meditation.”
Immigration is a complicated issue.
Rarely a day goes by when we’re not hearing about it, reading about it, talking about it and shaking our heads at our leaders’ constantly shifting laws, policies and reforms. Like the unpredictability of Napa’s weather, the myriad issues surrounding immigration keep us constantly guessing about the outcomes.
Newish-to-Napa resident Polly A. Webber has been in the thick of immigration law for more than three decades.
Her resumé reads like a “Who’s Who” on the subject. She served 21 years as a trial level administrative judge in San Francisco, rendering oral and written decisions for more than 19,000 cases. She also served as national president of the American Bar Association-affiliated American Immigration Lawyers Association and held faculty positions at Santa Clara University School of Law and Lincoln Law School in San Jose. In private practice for 18 years, she has written articles for distinguished legal publications and earned a plethora of awards and accolades earned throughout her legal career.
During her last 10 years on the bench as well as in retirement, Webber has been creating fiber works, through rug hooking and yarn arts, describing her artistry as “a form of meditation” and a way “to get out of my head.”
“There is a pressing need for immigration reform in the United States,” Webber has written. “The Dreamers captured the hearts of a majority of Americans, and the taking of the children captured their outrage. It is time to bring this issue forward whatever way possible. This is my small contribution.”
Webber calls her folk art inspired, refugee-themed triptych of rugs “Refugee Dilemma.” Each wall hanging pays tribute to the thousands of people all over the world who flee and seek refuge from their places of origin.
The first in the series, “Fleeing from Persecution,” was completed in August, 2017. The image portrays Webber’s interpretation of the iconic, but now extinct, set of traffic signs used in San Diego – ostensibly meant to protect fleeing refugees. The plea “help us” appears in Spanish, Mayan, Haitian, Arabic, Pashto, Somali, Sudanese, Russian and English.
“I used marbled red and brown wool for the silhouettes,” Webber said, “to make them more human and universal. The white outline around the figures is a technique found in Russian art.”
“Caught in the Covfefe,” completed in December, 2018, portrays a border patrol officer taking a young girl from her undocumented mother, who pleads in Spanish, “Don’t take my daughter!” Webber describes the image: “An officer’s face is hooked in pure white, an institutional and domineering color, and he is given an almost robotic stance. The mother is frenzied, understandably, and the child is traumatized. The chicken wire fence around them with its barbed wire atop, and the borders around the rug are all done to project the feeling of being trapped. With the more open border at the top, there is hope.”
The most recently-completed rug in September, 2018, “Safe Haven,” illustrates two Central American women and their children in a place of relative safety. “For some,” Webber explains, “this is still aspirational, while others have succeeded. Their smiles are tired smiles, but full of hope. The pattern for this rug was developed from a rug my aunt, Emma Webber, hooked decades ago from a 1950s UNICEF card. Knowing how much my aunt would have appreciated this group of rugs, I wanted to honor her as well.”
Webber has hooked upwards of 25 rugs and often uses patterns made from photographs or draws images freehand. She’s “hooked” her brother’s home and a portrait of her parents with materials consisting of 100 percent wool cloth cut into strips about 1/4 inch thick.
“There are a number of wine country rug hooking groups in Santa Rosa, “ said Webber, “and we sit around and hook with other people. There are also camps that bring in specialized teachers and cutters, and it’s a true art form to go to these places.”
“I poured my heart and soul into these rugs,” Webber said, “and I still think assimilation and advocacy are important parts of the refugee narrative. There may be one or two more rugs coming!”
2020 Democrats grapple with immigration message as border crossings surge
By Tal Kopan
WASHINGTON — Democrats credit their 2018 midterm success to focusing on pocketbook issues and avoiding engaging with President Trump on immigration They may not have that luxury in 2020.
The U.S. is on pace to receive more migrants at the southern border — many of whom are seeking asylum — in fiscal year 2019 than in any year in over a decade. At current rates, more than 750,000 migrants would either be caught trying to cross the border illegally or show up at a valid crossing without authorization to enter. The Trump administration says it is unable to handle the influx, and photos of migrants held in pens under a bridge in El Paso last month made national headlines.
But aside from condemning Trump’s immigration policies as cruel contributors to the problem, Democrats have largely avoided talking about border-security ideas. Most of the party’s presidential candidates have focused on expanding access to health care and other economic measures intended to boost the middle class, and have touched on immigration only in broad strokes.
But that could change very soon — and should, some experts say.
“Trump wants to turn the 2020 election into a debate between GOP border hawks and Democratic open borders-types,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the pro-immigrant advocacy group America’s Voice. “Democrats would be wise to turn the debate into Trump’s cruelty and incompetence versus Democrats’ practical solutions. … I think it’s a time for serious people to step up with serious ideas.”
Trump threatened to close the U.S. border with Mexico before backing away from the idea last week. But he’s made clear that just as they were in 2016, immigration issues will be at the center of his 2020 campaign. On Friday, the Trump campaign released a video consisting of comments from Democratic presidential contenders downplaying the situation at the border, with text declaring, “Democrats do not want to keep Americans safe.”
Democrats consistently attack Trump’s immigration comments and agenda, but tend to limit discussion of their own policies to promoting paths to citizenship for sympathetic populations of undocumented migrants. Some worry that if they don’t have a clear plan to address the increasing numbers of asylum seekers at the border, Trump could ride the issue to victory again.
“This is going to be the cannon fodder for the Trump campaign and for Republicans in general,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., a senior member of Congress’ Progressive Caucus and Hispanic Caucus. “I think that we need to be proactive. … The hard edge is going to want nothing but Trump’s policy, of which there is none. I think the vast middle are looking for somebody taking the lead to try to solve the issue, as opposed to continuing to use it” politically.
Two of former President Barack Obama’s top communications strategists agreed.
“We need to go on offense as soon as humanly possible,” former Obama national security spokesman Tommy Vietor said last week on the “Pod Save America” podcast. “We can’t sit back and say just, ‘No wall, no fence,’ and let him hammer us until (the) election.”
Former Obama chief speechwriter Jon Favreau added, “The point that Democrats don’t make enough is, we always say that his immigration policy is cruel, which it is, but it’s also dumb. It just doesn’t work.”
Although Grijalva has not endorsed any of the Democratic candidates for president, he praised former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro for releasing a formal immigration policy last week, making him the first candidate to do so.
Castro’s proposal includes the Democratic staples of offering a pathway to citizenship for “Dreamers” — young undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as minors — as well as the broader undocumented population. It would rescind many Trump administration policies, including the ban on travel from several majority-Muslim countries and other nations, and pour money and diplomatic resources into the Central American nations that many of the migrants are fleeing.
Castro also proposes progressive positions like breaking up Immigration and Customs Enforcement and redistributing its functions. He also would make it no longer a crime to cross the border illegally, leaving it up to immigration courts to handle the civil offenses related to being in the country without authorization.
Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke comes from the border city of El Paso, but when he served in the House, he played no leadership role in immigration debates. O’Rourke wrote a Medium post last week on the issue and offered a set of 10 proposals that included expanding legal immigration and investing in border infrastructure and Central America.
Other candidates have also spoken up about immigration, without making it a central theme of their campaigns. The Chronicle reached out to the major declared candidates for their policies, and all the ones who responded supported a pathway to citizenship for at least some undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. But none offered many specifics about what they would do at the southern border, other than encouraging aid to Central America.
California’s Kamala Harris has engaged on the issue as a senator, questioning the Department of Homeland Security on its policies and being an outspoken advocate of Dreamers. Last week, she introduced a bill that would allow Dreamers who are temporarily protected from deportation under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals act to be paid for work in congressional offices. She frequently cites her own life story as the child of two immigrants. But as a candidate, Harris has said little about her border policy proposals and has made economic issues her signature.
A spokeswoman for New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker said he would reform the immigration system while “enforcing our laws and securing our borders in ways consistent with our values.”
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders wants a “humane and secure” system that “dismantles inhumane deportation programs,” restructures ICE and puts “the sanctity of families at the forefront,” according to his campaign.
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren supports comprehensive immigration reform, reversing cuts in aid to Central America and “making sure we provide the support needed so mamas don’t have to flee with their babies for their lives,” according to an aide.
The lack of engagement by the presidential field is indicative of broader soul-searching within the party, including in the House. Progressive Caucus co-chairwoman Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., said she is part of a group working on “principles” for the party. O’Rourke’s successor in his House seat, Rep. Veronica Escobar, said she spoke to the Democratic caucus during a recent closed-door meeting about the need to come up with a plan.
“The Trump administration does everything it can to fuel the flames of fear and discord and xenophobia, and we have to demonstrate an alternative to that,” Escobar said. “So I do think presidential candidates need to lean in.”
But not every Democrat thinks going on offense on immigration would be wise. Swing district Democrats largely avoided the issue in the 2018 midterms — they were “queasy” at the idea of getting near it, Grijalva said — and some Democrats hope to repeat their success by side-stepping it again, at least for now.
“We had a 35-day national conversation about border security, and it ended with Donald Trump engaging in an unconditional surrender,” said New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, a member of party leadership, referring to the partial government shutdown over border wall funding. “The 116th Congress, from the perspective of House Democrats, will continue to be about lowering health care costs and enacting a real infrastructure plan, and trying to do those two things in a bipartisan fashion.”
He said Democrats’ focus in the presidential race should be distinguishing themselves in the primary. “It’s not necessarily clear to me that in that context there’s a lot of daylight on immigration,” Jeffries said. “Once somebody emerges as a Democratic nominee, then there will be an opportunity to lay out a contrasting vision with the xenophobe-in-chief Donald Trump.”
Hillary Clinton’s former campaign press secretary, Brian Fallon, who now runs the left-aligned advocacy group Demand Justice, argued that Democrats should avoid debating on Trump’s terms.
“In 2020, Donald Trump can be expected to do the same thing that he did leading up to the 2018 midterms, which is try to manufacture political controversies on his issues,” Fallon said. “Getting wrapped around the axle on the terrain that he wants to fight on is a losing strategy, and he would love the first, second, and third issue in October of 2020 to be immigration. And if we are trying to choose our preferred issue, it should be health care.”
A senior aide for Trump’s re-election campaign confirmed that Trump would again be running on a border security message.
“He’s made that a cornerstone of his campaign since Day One — that’s not going to change,” said the aide, who requested anonymity to speak more freely. “Democrats are denying the crisis at the border. They want to see who can go the furthest left as they try and not address the issue at hand. They want to abolish ICE, they want to tear down existing barriers, they want to decriminalize border crossings. At what point are we addressing what is a true crisis at the southern border?”
One risk for Democrats is letting the loudest and most progressive voices define the issue for the party, said Ali Noorani, executive director of the moderate immigration advocacy group the National Immigration Forum. Many progressives, for example, want to abolish ICE, a proposal that could be unpopular with swing voters.
“I think the challenge for the party writ large, whether it’s the presidential candidates or Congress, is the perception that Democrats are just against whatever Trump is for on immigration, and a lot of the political conversation is sucked up by the progressive element in the House,” Noorani said.
The 2020 candidates should quickly articulate their own vision on the issue, he added. “Otherwise, Trump will define the Democrats’ position for them.”
Some Republicans join Democrats in believing Trump has left room in the middle with his aggressive immigration agenda. GOP strategist Kevin Madden, a veteran of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaigns, said Trump’s immigration message hurt Republicans with suburban swing voters in the midterms, and that “pragmatism” would sell.
“It can’t just be reflexive opposition,” Madden said. “If you know this debate is going to take place, why would you wait until the president starts attacking you to come up with your plan and your message? You have to have an anticipatory self-defense on this so you have a greater opportunity to win the middle.”
A rational, humane, generous immigration policy that benefits the economy while rejecting the politics of bombast, hate, racism, and ignorance should be a winner in 2022 just like it was in 2018. That’s particularly true because Trump and the GOP have self destructed on health care, another winning issue for the Dems.
As I mentioned last week, I think the immigration policy agenda offered by Julian Castro is where America must go sooner or later to survive and prosper. He might not be the candidate, but his common-sense, fact-based proposal could be the “winning ticket.”
McALLEN, Texas — Federal immigration officials dropped the first group of several dozen asylum seekers — all Central American parents with children — at the downtown bus station early in the day.
They dropped more throughout the day, all of them Spanish speakers in need of food, medicine and guidance from volunteers.
Jose Manuel Velasquez, 24, cradled his squirming 3-year-old-daughter, Sofia, as volunteer Susan Law advised him how to reach Oklahoma City, where he hoped to join his cousin. He was one of thousands of asylum seekers trying to leave the border region this week to reach friends, family and immigration court hearings in other parts of the country.
Ahead of President Trump’s Friday visit to California,volunteers along the border helped hundreds of asylum seekers who had been released from U.S. custody. Cities are pitching in, but helping the migrants has mainly fallen to volunteers whose resources were already at a breaking point from responding to a slew of new immigration policies.
On Thursday in McAllen, the U.S. released 700 migrants to crowded nonprofit shelters and dropped others at the bus station. Some arrived at the station with confirmation numbers to claim tickets paid for by relatives. Many arrived confused.
Law, a volunteer with the group Angry Tias and Abuelas of the Rio Grande Valley, said the constant arrivals this week made volunteers’ work “more overwhelming.”
The 73-year-old, a retired human resources director for Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, sat with one parent after another Thursday. She explained each step of their bus trip, highlighting connections on a stack of maps.
She reviewed their paperwork, reminded them to keep their addresses updated and attend immigration court, and shared lists of free legal services at their destinations.
Many eastbound buses arriving in McAllen on Thursday were already packed with those released in El Paso and San Antonio. The wait time for migrants released to shelters to make it onto a bus has stretched to two days, according to Eli Fernandez, a volunteer at a nonprofit shelter.
Migrant advocates have suggested that recent mass releases at the border were intended to create chaos and give Trump something to point to when he argues that there is a national emergency.
Border Patrol officials have said their resources were strained by people crossing into the U.S. and asking for asylum. The officials have asked for millions more in funding to run temporary holding areas in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley.
A Federal Emergency Management Agency team arrived in the valley this week, meant to support Border Patrol operations and nongovernmental groups, a FEMA spokeswoman said. But many volunteers said they hadn’t been contacted by the agency.
Trump policies blocking asylum seekers led volunteers to found Angry Tias and Abuelas about a year ago, after U.S. officials blocked asylum seekers at a border bridge south of McAllen. They brought food and supplies to the bridge and kept helping migrant families once Border Patrol started separating them. As immigrant parents were released, the volunteers shifted to the bus station to assist Catholic Charities, which runs a nearby shelter.
Most volunteers in Angry Tias and Abuelas are local, some are winter Texans, and others out-of-state visitors.
Luis Guerrero, a retired firefighter, remembers a 4-year-old Salvadoran girl explaining why she and her parents had to flee to the U.S.: Armed men had broken into their house and demanded money. “If you stay here,” Guerrero told the couple, “make sure your daughter gets therapy.”
Many of the migrants are from poor, rural areas and need the most basic help, volunteers said.
A young Honduran mother paid attention Thursday as Law traced the route she would follow to join her sister, a legal resident who migrated years ago and settled in Memphis, Tenn. Olga Lara had brought her 3-year-old, Alva, but left her 13-year-old daughter, Lilia, in Honduras with Lara’s mother.
Lara, 29, said she hoped to learn to read, as her sister had, in the U.S. She doesn’t know how to spell her name. She has never attended school, she said, because her family couldn’t afford it.
Law ensured the woman was traveling with another migrant who could read, write and look out for her. Law also warned Lara and other female migrants about the risk of trafficking, advising them to stay in main bus terminals and avoid anyone who might try to persuade them to leave.
Lara tucked her ticket into her bra and her paperwork into a bag next to Alva’s Elmo doll. She was wearing a donated puffy jacket and sneakers that were stripped of shoelaces while she was in Border Patrol detention. Law ran to grab her some of the laces she keeps stashed at the bus station. Lara threaded them through her shoes and thanked the volunteer.
On Thursday, good Samaritans from local churches dropped by with books, toys and hot breakfast tacos for the migrants. But there were not enough tacos to go around. A van from the nearby shelter was delayed when it ran out of gas. A few families boarded buses without eating.
Volunteer Roland Garcia, a former U.S. Marine, loaned his cellphone to a single Salvadoran mother of three, a domestic violence victim, so she could contact family in Houston and book her bus ticket.
“If we could just get more volunteers to help these people,” he said. “To them, everything is new. Some of them don’t even know how to work the Coke machine.”
Garcia, 60, who used to be a truck driver, started volunteering after he ducked into the bus station a few months ago to wait during a delivery and saw the crowds. He had been diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer and felt the need to do something meaningful. He’s already recruited other volunteers.
His friend Rafael Mendoza said volunteers counter misinformation some asylum-seeking families receive from staff in Border Patrol facilities: “You’re wasting your time, you’re going to lose your case, you’re not welcome here.”
“Our own agents are telling them that,” said Mendoza, 59. “It’s very discouraging.”
The Catholic Charities shelter was packed Thursday, even after opening a second site when the Border Patrol started releasing large groups of families two weeks ago. The shelter’s halls were full of parents with small children who had not bathed in days while being held in chilly Border Patrol cells, where they said they caught colds.
Honduran Eulogio Erazo Varela said his 3-year-old daughter developed a fever while they were held for almost a week, first in a Border Patrol cell — what migrants call a hielera, or icebox — then behind a chain-link fence in a converted warehouse.
He was relieved to meet volunteers at the bus station Thursday. He said they treated him kindly as he prepared to catch a bus to Memphis — unlike Border Patrol agents, he said, who didn’t provide much treatment or help.
Many of the volunteers, including Law, had caught the migrants’ colds. But they were determined to keep helping. Law has driven a few migrants whose families could afford tickets to the airport, and hoped to recruit more volunteer escorts to help them navigate air travel in coming weeks.
Law recalled a migrant mother she met Wednesday, confused by her bus itinerary until the volunteer walked her through it in Spanish. Afterward, the woman said she would have been lost without Law’s help.
Ironically, government by the worst among us (“kakistocracy”) is bringing out the best in many others. Along with the efforts of the “New Due Process Army,” it’s certainly reason to hope for a better future for America and for mankind!
TRUMP’S MALICIOUS INCOMPETENCE IS THE REAL “SOUTHERN BORDER CRISIS” — AND, A GENUINE HUMAN TRAGEDY — The Legal Tools To Address The Crisis In The Northern Triangle Causing A Refugee Flow Exist; This Administration Stubbornly Refuses To Use Them!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
United States Immigration Judges (Retired)
In short, families are coming to ports of entry and crossing the border to turn themselves in to be screened for credible fear and apply for asylum under our existing laws. That’s not a “border crisis;” it’s a humanitarian tragedy. It won’t be solved by more law enforcement or harsher measures; we’re actually quite fortunate that folks still believe in the system enough to voluntarily subject themselves to it.
Most don’t present any particular “danger” to the U.S. They are just trying to apply for legal protection under our laws. That’s something that has been denied them abroad because we don’t have a refugee program for the Northern Triangle. This Administration actually eliminated the already inadequate one we had under Obama.
Certainly, we have enough intelligence to know that these flows were coming. They aren’t secret. There was plenty of time to plan.
What could and should have been done is to increase the number of Asylum Officers and POE Inspectors by hiring retired Asylum Officers, Inspectors, adjudicators, and temps from the NGO sector who worked in the refugee field, but no longer have anything to do overseas since this Administration has basically dismantled the overseas refugee program.
A more competent DOJ could also have developed a corps of retired Immigration Judges (and perhaps other types of retired judges who could do bond setting and other functions common to many judicial systems) who already “know the ropes” and could have volunteered to go to the border and other places with overloads.
Also, working closely with and coordinating with the NGOs and the pro bono bar would have helped the credible fear process to go faster, be fairer, the Immigration Courts to function more fairly and efficiently, and would have screened out some of the “non viable” cases.
For some, staying in Mexico is probably a better and safer option, but folks don’t understand. Pro bono counsel can, and do, explain that.
By treating it as a humanitarian tragedy, which it is, rather than a “fake law enforcement crisis,” the Administration could have united the private sector, border states, communities, and Congress in supporting the effort; instead they sowed division, opposition, and unnecessary litigation. I’m actually sure that most of the teams of brilliant “Big Law” lawyers helping “Our Gang of Retired Judges” and other to file amicus briefs pro bono would just as soon be working on helping individuals through the system.
A timely, orderly, and fair system for screening, adjudicating, and recognizing refugee rights under our existing laws would have allowed the Administration to channel arrivals to various ports of entry.
I think that the result of such a system would have been that most families would have passed credible fear and the majority of those would have been granted asylum, withholding, or CAT.
Certainly, others think the result would have been mostly rejections (But, I note even in the “Trump Era” merits approval rates for Northern Triangle countries are in the 18-23% range — by no means an insignificant success rate). But, assuming “the rejectionists” are right, then they have the “timely rejection deterrent” that they so desire without stomping on anyone’s rights. (Although my experience over decades has been that rejections, detention, prosecutions, and harsh rhetoric are ineffective as deterrents).
No matter who is right about the ultimate results of fair asylum adjudication, under my system the Border Patrol could go back to their job of tracking down smugglers, drug traffickers, criminals, and the few suspected terrorists who seek to cross the border. While this might not satisfy anyone’s political agenda, it would be an effective and efficient use of law enforcement resources and sound administration of migrant protection and immigration laws. That’s certainly not what’s happening now.
Establish an inclusive roadmap to citizenship for undocumented individuals and families who do not have a current pathway to legal status, but who live, work, and raise families in communities throughout the United States.
Provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers and those under Temporary Protected Status and Deferred Enforced Departure, through the Dream and Promise Act of 2019, and defend DACA and TPS protections during the legislative process.
Revamp the visa system and strengthen family reunification through the Reuniting Families Act, reducing the number of people who are waiting to reunite with their families but are stuck in the bureaucratic backlog.
Terminate the three and ten year bars, which require undocumented individuals—who otherwise qualify for legal status—to leave the United States and their families behind for years before becoming citizens.
Rescind Trump’s discriminatory Muslim and Refugee Ban, other harmful immigration-related executive orders, racial profiling of minority communities, and expanded use of denaturalization as a frequently used course of action through the USCIS Denaturalization Task Force.
Increase refugee admissions, reversing cuts under Trump, and restoring our nation to its historic position as a moral leader providing a safe haven for those fleeing persecution, violence, disaster, and despair. Adapt these programs to account for new global challenges like climate change.
End cooperation agreements under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and other such agreements between federal immigration enforcement agencies and state and local entities that erode trust between communities and local police.
Allow all deported veterans who honorably served in the armed forces of the United States to return to the United States and end the practice of deporting such veterans.
Strengthen labor protections for skilled and unskilled guest workers and end exploitative practices which hurt residents and guest workers, provide work authorization to spouses of participating individuals, and ensured skilled and unskilled guest workers have a fair opportunity to become residents and citizens through the Agricultural Worker Program Act.
Protect victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking, ensuring these individuals are not subject to detention, deportation, or legal reprisal following their reporting these incidents.
2. Creating a Humane Border Policy
Repeal Section 1325 of Immigration and Nationality Act, which applies a criminal, rather than civil, violation to people apprehended when entering the United States. This provision has allowed for separation of children and families at our border, the large scale detention of tens of thousands of families, and has deterred migrants from turning themselves in to an immigration official within our borders. The widespread detention of these individuals and families at our border has overburdened our justice system, been ineffective at deterring migration, and has cost our government billions of dollars.
Effectively end the use of detention in conducting immigration enforcement, except in serious cases.Utilize cost-effective and more humane alternatives to detention, which draw on the successes of prior efforts like the Family Case Management Program. Ensure all individuals have access to a bond hearing and that vulnerable populations, including children, pregnant women, and members of the LGBTQ community are not placed in civil detention.
Eliminate the for-profit immigration detention and prison industry, which monetizes the detention of migrants and children.
End immigration enforcement raids at or near sensitive locations such as schools, hospitals, churches, and courthouses.
Reconstitute the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) by splitting the agency in half and re-assigning enforcement functions within the Enforcement and Removal Operations to other agencies, including the Department of Justice. There must be a thorough investigation of ICE, Customs and Border Protection, and the Department of Justice’s role in family separation policies instituted by the Trump administration.
Reprioritize Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to focus its efforts on border-related activities including drug and human trafficking, rather than law enforcement activities in the interior of the United States. Extend Department of Justice civil rights jurisdiction to CBP, and adopt best practices employed in law enforcement, including body-worn cameras and strong accountability policies.
End wasteful, ineffective and invasive border wall construction and consult with border communities about repairing environmental and other damage already done.
Properly equip our ports of entry, investing in infrastructure, staff, and technology to process claims and prevent human and drug trafficking.
End asylum “metering” and the ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy, ensuring all asylum seekers are able to present their claims to U.S.officials.
Create a well-resourced and independent immigration court system under Article 1 of the Constitution, outside the Department of Justice, to increase the hiring and retention of independent judges to adjudicate immigration claims faster.
Increase access to legal assistance for individuals and families presenting asylum claims, ensuring individuals understand their rights and are able to make an informed and accurate request for asylum. Guarantee counsel for all children in the immigration enforcement system.
Protect victims of domestic and gang violence, by reversing guidance by Attorney General Jeff Sessions that prohibited asylum claims on the basis of credible fear stemming from domestic or gang violence.
3. Establishing a 21st Century ‘Marshall Plan’ for Central America
Prioritize high-level diplomacy with our neighbors in Latin America, a region where challenges in governance and economic development have consequences to migration to the United States, U.S. economic growth, and regional instability.
Ensure higher standards of governance, transparency, rule-of-law, and anti-corruption practice as the heart of U.S. engagement with Central America, rejecting the idea that regional stability requires overlooking authoritarian actions.
Enlist all actors in Central America to be part of the solution by restoring U.S. credibility on corruption and transparency and encouraging private sector, civil society, and local governments to work together – rather than at cross purposes – to build sustainable, equitable societies.
Bolster economic development, superior labor rights, and environmentally sustainable jobs, allowing individuals to build a life in their communities rather than make a dangerous journey leaving their homes.
Ensure regional partners are part of the solution by working with countries in the Western Hemisphere to channel resources to address development challenges in Central America, including through a newly constituted multilateral development fund focused on sustainable and inclusive economic growth in Central America.
Target illicit networks and transnational criminal organizations through law enforcement actions and sanctions mechanisms to eliminate their ability to raise revenue from illegal activities like human and drug trafficking and public corruption.
Re-establish the Central American Minors program, which allows individuals in the United States to petition for their minor children residing in Central America to apply for resettlement in the U.S. while their applications are pending.
Increase funding for bottom-up development and violence prevention programs, including the Inter-American Foundation, to spur initiatives that prevent violence at the local level, support public health and nutrition, and partner with the private sector to create jobs.
Finally a thoughtful, empirically-based, plan that stops wasting money, harming people, and limiting America’s future: Moving us forward rather than “doubling down” on all of the worst failures and most dismal mistakes of the past.
Castro’s plan echoes many of the ideas I have been promoting on immigrationcourtside.com and reflects the “battle plan” of the “New Due Process Army.” Most important, it establishes an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court, the key to making any reforms effective and bringing back the essential emphasis on fulfilling our Constitutional requirement to “guarantee fairness and Due Process for all.”
While stopping short of recommending “universal representation,” something I would favor, Castro does:
Recognize the importance of increasing, rather than intentionally limiting access to counsel;
Promote “know your rights” presentations that help individuals understand the system, its requirements, their responsibilities, and to make informed decisions about how to proceed; and
Universal representation for children in Immigration Court (thus, finally ending one of the most grotesque “Due Process Farces” in modern U.S. legal history).
So far, Castro remains “below the radar” in the overcrowded race to be the 2020 Democratic standard-bearer. But, even if his presidential campaign fails to “catch fire” his thoughtful, humane, practical, and forward-looking immigration agenda deserves attention and emulation.
Many thanks to Nolan Rappaport for passing this along.
Ted Hesson, Immigration, Pro — Staff mugshots photographed Feb. 20, 2018. (M. Scott Mahaskey/Politico)
Ted Hesson reports for Politico:
The border crisis that President Donald Trump used to justify declaring a national emergency was never real, but a different crisis at the border is now starting to escalate as immigration officials hold hundreds of parents and children in makeshift facilities, including a parking lot.
During a press conference in El Paso, Texas, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan argued Wednesday that a surge of incoming Central American migrants has pushed the U.S. immigration system to a “breaking point” and that all available resources should be devoted to manage it.
But Democrats and advocates contend that the Trump administration’s response is exacerbating the problems.
Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), a freshman lawmaker who represents El Paso, fumed Thursday over the border situation — which she also described as a crisis — during an interview after leaving the House floor.
“They knew that the numbers would increase,” she said. “Why were they not planning?”
Here’s what’s really happening now at the border:
The president’s frequent claims that unprecedented numbers of undocumented migrants are streaming into the country remain untrue. (Twice as many came during the 1990s and early 2000s.) And President Trump’s caricature of border-crossers as violent criminals is still belied by study after study showing that immigrants in general, and undocumented immigrants in particular, commit fewer crimes than the native-born.
“We have a capacity crisis, if you want to think of it that way,” Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) told POLITICO. “We don’t have capacity to deal with the populations that they’re getting at the border right now.”
Border Patrol anticipates that it will apprehend more than 55,000 family members in March, by far the highest monthly total since such record-keeping began in fiscal year 2012. The warmer spring and summer months ahead will likely bring even higher numbers.
The adult men from Mexico who a decade ago constituted most border migrants were able to be returned more swiftly, often simply by walking them across the border. While they were detained, the men required comparatively little in the way of social or medical services.
Furthermore, a 2008 federal law and related bilateral agreement allowed the U.S. to repatriate Mexican unaccompanied minors rapidly. The law, called the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, does not similarly authorize quick deportation for children from Central America.
By contrast, the greater volume of children among the new Central American migrants imposes on immigration agencies a need for more psychologists, nutritionists, educators and a host of others. Border officials contend that with the rise in families and children, more migrants have health issues than in the past.
“We are doing everything we can to simply avoid a tragedy,” McAleenan said at the border Wednesday. “But with these numbers, with the types of illnesses we’re seeing at the border, I fear that it’s just a matter of time.”
Federal court orders in recent years have limited to 20 days the time children can be kept in detention, which means border agents often must release families into the interior. Such releases speed up processing, but demoralize agents and may encourage more migration, McAleenan argued.
The current migratory flow is also different because of the greater proportion of asylum applications at the border in recent years. Central American families arriving at the border frequently seek such refuge, which puts them into an immigration process that can take years to resolve.
The Trump administration argues that the asylum claims largely lack merit, but immigration court statistics don’t back that up. Roughly 25 percent of defensive asylum applications were approved by an immigration judge in fiscal year 2017, with 41 percent denied and 34 percent resolved in another manner, such as a withdrawn application.
Still, immigration hard-liners contend that lax asylum laws have been a magnet for Central Americans.
Mark Krikorian, director of the restrictionist Center for Immigration Studies, compared the current influx at the border to Europe’s migratory surge in 2015.
“We are seeing an Angela Merkel-style disaster on the border caused by loopholes in our laws that the Democrats refuse to even consider changing,” he said.
Democrats and advocates argue that the Trump administration’s response has exacerbated problems at the border.
Administration officials have known for months — arguably years — that more migrant families could trek to the United States, yet they appear to have been caught flat-footed.
During McAleenan’s press conference in El Paso Wednesday, reporters observed hundreds of parents and children held in a parking lot converted into a makeshift detention center.
“That’s their solution? That’s not a solution,” Escobar said. “In my community when these families are released, the community … scrambles and works hard to create hospitality centers, to feed these people, to help get them to their final destination. If we can do it with a fraction of the resources and power of the federal government, surely DHS can find a better solution.”
Escobar said DHS hasn’t taken adequate steps to deal with a long-term trend of more family and child arrivals. Border Patrol often uses small concrete cells that were better suited to the earlier populations of single men, many of whom would be sent back to Mexico in a day’s time, she said.
“They’ve been acting and responding in the same way over the last five years despite the change in the migration pattern,” she said.
The spending package approved by Congress in February included $192 million to construct a large processing center for migrant families in El Paso. The facility will house multiple agencies that deal with families in one building, but will take six months to a year to become functional, according to Escobar.
In the meantime, the Texas Democrat argues that if Trump truly deems immigration a national emergency, he should work harder to house and care for incoming migrants, perhaps with Federal Emergency Management Agency trailers or Red Cross assistance.
Under a January 2017 Trump executive order, federal immigration officials remain tasked with arresting and detaining as many migrants as possible, without a system of prioritization. Advocates contend the enforcement push has sapped resources that could be used to address the care and custody of newly arrived migrant families.
“They just detain any grandpa or mom that they find in the interior and they don’t prioritize who they should be putting in detention,” said Kerri Talbot, a director with the Washington, D.C.-based Immigration Hub. “They don’t need any more money, they need a new strategy.”
Under its “zero tolerance” strategy, the Trump administration sought to prosecute all suspect border crossers for illegal entry. Children couldn’t travel with their parents to criminal detention facilities, so they were reclassified as “unaccompanied” and transferred to the custody of the Health and Human Services Department. Thousands of families were split apart from April until June, only to see Trump reverse the policy and a federal judge order families reunited.
The administration also has sought to keep asylum-seeking migrants in Mexico for longer periods of time.
Using a practice known as “metering,” border officials have forced families to wait in Mexico, only accepting a certain number of asylum applicants at ports of entry each day.
A September report by the DHS inspector general’s office found evidence that forcing migrants to wait at ports actually encouraged more people to cross illegally. The report cited a Border Patrol supervisor and accounts of several migrants who said they attempted to enter illegally after being turned away at a port.
“They’re afraid of waiting in Mexico until they can get in at the port,” said Theresa Cardinal Brown, director of immigration and cross-border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center. “They’re balancing that against their desire to do it legally. And I definitely think its emboldening the smugglers to go to those who are waiting.”
McAleenan acknowledged during a December Senate committee hearing that metering could lead to an increase in the number of people attempting to cross the border illegally, saying it’s “certainly a concern.”
Still, the Trump administration has moved forward with a separate policy to keep asylum seekers in Mexico for extended periods of time.
The administration’s “remain in Mexico” policy — announced in late December and now implemented in several areas along the border — forces certain non-Mexican asylum seekers to wait in Mexico during the duration of an asylum case.
At the same time, the administration has moved slowly to disperse funding to address root causes of migration in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.
POLITICO reported this week that hundreds of millions in aid dollars remain stalled at the White House budget office as aides wonder how seriously to take Trump’s threats to cut the funding.
“Mexico is doing NOTHING to help stop the flow of illegal immigrants to our Country. They are all talk and no action,“ Trump tweeted Thursday. “Likewise, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador have taken our money for years, and do Nothing. The Dems don’t care, such BAD laws. May close the Southern Border!“
*******************************************
Trump’s unwise threat to “close” the Southern Border could turn a humanitarian situation into a self-created international crisis. And, Trump continues to be the “best friend” of smugglers, cartels, and gangs.
There is a clear and present threat to our national security. It’s not desperate refugees (mostly women, children, and families) seeking to exercise their legal rights; unfortunately, it’s our President.
(CNN)On your 18th birthday, immigration officials will come for you, a lawyer explained. You will be shackled, you will be placed in an orange jumpsuit, and you will be taken to jail. “But I need you to know you are not a criminal.”
This is how Allison Norris, toll litigation staff attorney at Americans for Immigrant Justice, prepares her teenage clients in federal migrant detention shelters who are nearing age 18 without the prospects of a suitable sponsor to whom they can be released.
One of these clients is Veronica, whose name has been changed to protect her identity for fear of retribution. At age 17, she arrived in the United States alone, fleeing sexual predators in El Salvador.
Between the time Veronica arrived and when she turned 18, just over four months, Norris says, she attempted to find a sponsor. But none of the family friends who applied met the extensive list of requirements of the Office of Refugee Resettlement in order for her to be released from the shelter for migrant children in South Florida where she was detained.
On her 18th birthday, she woke up scared, wondering what would happen to her, Veronica said. Norris’ detailed warnings had not exactly calmed her down.
At 8 a.m. on her birthday, immigration officials arrived at the shelter. She was placed in ankle shackles and put in a “very cold room” for hours before being taken into adult detention, Veronica said.
In the months that followed, Veronica describes feeling depressed, crying every day and losing hope. Because she wasn’t serving a specific sentence, she had no idea how long she’d spend in detention.
With hours to fill in a cell she shared with three older women, she relived in her mind the attacks she suffered in El Salvador.
“I didn’t know what was worse: to have died in El Salvador or to be locked up,” she said.
Veronica is part of a group of kids known as ORR age-outs. When unaccompanied minors arrive in the United States, they are placed in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the US Department of Health and Human Services, a humanitarian agency in nature.
Once they turn 18, teens are moved into the custody of the Department of Homeland Security — more specifically, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a law enforcement agency known as ICE. Migrant youth cannot, by law, stay in the shelters that housed them before they turned 18.
“I have interviewed the children right before they turn 18 and they go into these facilities,” said Yenis Castillo, a forensic psychologist with the nonprofit advocacy group Physicians for Human Rights. “All the kids I interview are terrified.”
In the weeks leading up to their 18th birthdays, Castillo said, she has seen teens act out, develop chronic headaches or high blood pressure, become depressed and even become suicidal.
“When people undergo trauma, they live in a constant state of alert, and on top of that, then we are sending them to prison,” she said.
Neha Desai, director for immigration at the National Center for Youth Law, has toured immigrant child detention centers across the country. “Everywhere I go, the kids that are in most extreme and visible distress are the ones that are approaching age-out. There’s so much anxiety in that period of time,” she said.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, passed in 2000 and reauthorized in 2008 and 2013, states that when unaccompanied immigrant children in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement turn 18, ICE “shall consider placement in the least restrictive setting available after taking into account the [individual’s] danger to self, danger to the community, and risk of flight.”
“What we’ve seen is that they very rarely do,” said Xiaorong Jajah Wu, immigration attorney and deputy program director at the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights. Wu oversees offices in Houston and Chicago, where she says it is the child’s attorney or child advocates who put forth alternatives to adult detention, “basically begging ICE not to take these kids on their 18th birthday.”
Wu said her team has not seen what they’d consider “any level of thought” being put into the decision of whether to take a migrant youth into adult detention.
In California, Lindsay Toczylowski, an immigration attorney and founder and executive director of the immigrant Defenders Law Center, says the move into adult detention has become the norm rather than the exception for teens over the past two years.
“What we’ve seen is a lack of discussion for ICE when deciding whether or not they are going to take a kid into custody,” she said. Toczylowski also worries about the way in which this is done, which she describes as “overkill,” considering that these are typically petite teens from rural communities in Central America who have committed no crimes.
Kate Melloy Goettel, senior litigation attorney at the National Immigrant Justice Center, noted that “Congress really understood that these kids are vulnerable. And now we are just trying to get ICE to understand that they have obligations under the law to really try to find options other than detention.”
These options, Goettel explains, includes placement with family members, non-family sponsors, shelters, group homes and institutional placement.
Jennifer Elzea, press secretary for ICE, wrote in an email that “custody determination is made by ICE on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the totality of the individual’s circumstance, to include flight risk, threat to the public and threat to themselves.” Elzea acknowledged understanding the requirement that the agency consider the least restrictive setting available and to consider alternatives to detention.
Goettel is part of the team of attorneys at the National Immigrant Justice Center who, in March 2018, sued Homeland Security and ICE on behalf of two migrant teens who were placed in adult prisons when they turned 18. The lawsuit alleges that ICE “failed to consider them for placement in ‘the least restrictive setting available’ and to provide them with meaningful alternatives to detention, as required by amendments to the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.”
According to documents obtained from the Office of Refugee Resettlement as part of the class-action lawsuit, 528 children aged out of custody in 2015. The number doubled to 1,044 in 2016, remained about the same at 1,091 in 2017 and, in the first half of 2018 alone, included 1,240 kids.
In November, Health and Human Services confirmed that there were a record 14,000 unaccompanied children in Office of Refugee Resettlement custody.
Since the lawsuit was filed, a judge required ICE to reassess the custody of the two original teens and place them in the “least restrictive setting possible.” In August, the court granted a motion for class action certification, meaning the lawsuit against Homeland Security is now on behalf of all unaccompanied migrant children in custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement who “age out” when they turn 18.
When asked about the lawsuit, Elzea said, “ICE does not comment on pending litigation”
As for Veronica, she spent just over two months in adult detention. Norris, her attorney, says that a family friend with lawful status was able to get all required documents quickly, and Homeland Security released Veronica to live with her.
But, Norris says, the process can take much longer for other teens, many of whom lose hope while in detention and ask to be sent back to their home countries.
“They fought all this way to come here, raised all this money to go on this very dangerous journey to escape horrific violence, and all of a sudden they’ve been in detention for three months, and they’re like ‘just send me back. I can’t take it anymore,’ ” she said.
****************************************
The obvious solution: protect the kids; resist the Trump Kakistocracy. That’s what the New Due Process Army does!
CBP COMMISSIONER McAleenan Is At It Again — Blaming Victims & The Smugglers He Empowers For His Own Incompetence & Lack Of Courage To Stand Up For Human Rights, The Real Rule Of Law, & Legitimate Law Enforcement — Don’t Let Him Get Away with His Latest False Narrative!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
CBP Commissioner McAleenan is at it again: declaring a self-created “border emergency” and blaming smugglers (whom he aided and empowered with “designed to fail” policies) and lax asylum laws for the problem.
No mention of wasting time on walls and barbed wire, zero tolerance, child separation, mindless detention, Migrant Protection Protocols, bogus “Regional Compacts” that don’t address the problems, illegal regulations, overloading the courts, wrong credible fear advice, failing to deal with root causes, eliminating the Central American Refugee program, slow walking asylum applications, overloading the Immigration Courts with cases that never should have been brought, deporting gang members without considering the consequences, failing to work cooperatively with attorneys and NGOS, failing to focus on conditions in the Northern Triangle, intentional misinterpretation and bias in asylum adjudication, bogus statistics, false narratives about crime, or any of the other many failed Administration “enforcement only” policies that created this perfectly foreseeable “crisis.” While it is a legitimate humanitarian tragedy, it is not a “law enforcement crisis.”
Apparently, the only solution according to McAleenan is for Congress to eliminate rights of asylum seekers and kids so that the Border Patrol can just arrest them and toss them back across the border without any process at all. (No mention, of course, of how that might affect folks turning themselves in — why wouldn’t smugglers just do a “quick reset” and smuggle everyone to the interior? Too deep a thought for the Commish, apparently).
Problem is that in the absence of knowledge and an understandable “counter-message and solutions” McAleenan’s idiotic restrictionist views are getting traction with the press. Indeed, they were reflected in Nielsen’s equally idiotic and dishonest request to Congress for permission to abuse and threaten the lives of the most vulnerable of the vulnerable — children.
Seems like it would be prudent for some group with expertise and credibility to push back against this latest offensive. And, it would also be critical to get folks to the House Dems with the information and facts they need to resist what is sure to be a new offensive by the Administration and GOP for harsh laws basically eliminating asylum status, claiming quite falsely that it’s the only way to secure the border. Or perhaps, the declaration of a “New Border Emergency” suspending asylum laws and the Fifth Amendment.
Indeed, the best way of securing the border would be the immediate removal of Trump and the rest of the “malicious incompetents” who make up his Kakistocracy. But, that’s not going to happen any time too soon.
Trump has failed yet again. That means that his victims and the “usual suspects” — asylum applicants, kids, women, lawyers, NGOs, reporters, Dems — are going to have to pay “big time” for his latest failure. Might as well get ahead of the curve.
WASHINGTON — Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen will ask Congress for the authority to deport unaccompanied migrant children more quickly, to hold families seeking asylum in detention until their cases are decided and to allow immigrants to apply for asylum from their home countries, according to a copy of the request obtained by NBC News.
In a letter to Congress, Nielsen said she will be seeking a legislative proposal in the coming days to address what she called the “root causes of the emergency” that has led to a spike in border crossingsin recent weeks. The letter has not yet been sent.
The legislative proposal would have to clear the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, which is likely to respond with strong opposition.
Since February, Customs and Border Protection has seen a jump in the number of undocumented immigrants attempting to cross the border each day.
Daily border crossings have recently hit a 13-year high, leading immigration agents to release immigrants from their custody rather than transferring them to prolonged detention. The influx has left many charities in the U.S. and Mexico scrambling to provide care and has left many asylum seekers waiting in dangerous areas without shelter on the southern side of the border.
Under current law, children who enter from non-contiguous countries, which effectively means children from Central America, are transferred to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services, which works to reunite them with a relative or sponsor in the United States. And under a federal court agreement, immigrant families with children cannot be detained longer than 20 days. The Trump administration has previously tried to reverse the court decision through executive action, but has so far been unsuccessful.
In the letter, Nielsen makes the case that the law’s limitations on DHS’s ability to deport migrant children is serving as “another dangerous ‘pull’ factor.”
“The result is that hundreds of Central American children come into our custody each day, await transfer to (Health and Human Services) care, and, ultimately are placed with a sponsor in the United States,” Nielsen said in the letter, which is expected to be sent to members of Congress on Thursday night.
The letter also indicates that the Trump administration will be requesting emergency funds to deal with the migrant flow, including what Nielsen predicts to be thousands of shelter beds for unaccompanied migrant children.
Kirstjen Nielsen, from center, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, tours the border area with San Diego Section Border Patrol Chief Rodney Scott at Borderfield State Park along the United States-Mexico Border fence in San Ysidro, California on Nov. 20, 2018.Sandy Huffaker / AFP – Getty Images file
HHS, the agency responsible for sheltering children who arrive at the border without a parent, “is still approaching its maximum capacity and will very likely require thousands of additional beds in the coming weeks and months,” the letter said.
Nielsen said in the letter that the exact dollar amount of the request is still being worked out with the Office of Management and Budget, but a senior administration official told NBC News the request is likely to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The funding would also cover more medical teams and vehicles to transport immigrants, following the deaths of immigrants in the custody of CBP agents who were not able to provide care in time.
Julia Ainsley
Julia Ainsley is a national security reporter for NBC News.
*******************************
Every day demonstrates the complete “malicious incompetence” of the Trump Kakistocracy! Clearly DHS needs (but won’t get) competent management at all levels that knows how to deal with humanitarian situations in some way other than rolling out more gimmicks and bogus requests in an attempt to turn a refugee situation into a fake law enforcement crisis.
There is no real law enforcement crisis with refugees turning themselves in to assert their legal rights under our laws. Indeed, a more competent Administration with all this advance notice could have channeled most folks to designated ports of entry where they should have been guaranteed prompt, fair, and humane processing. Instead they mindlessly wasted time and money on unneeded troops, dumb walls, and illegal gimmicks that haven’t and won’t “deter” forced migrants (but do encourage, empower, and enrich smugglers).
Why not rehire retired Asylum Officers, Refugee Officers, and other retired personal at the USCIS Office of International Operations? Why not use VOLAGS involved in overseas refugee processing who now under Trump’s destruction of refugee programs have nothing to do overseas? Why not ask for processing help from the UNHCR? Why not use some of the bloated DHS enforcement and detention budgets to hire temporary Asylum Officers from the private sector? Why not offer grants to Catholic Conference, LIRS, HIAS and other experienced refugee resettlement agencies to aid in temporary placement of those who pass credible fear? Why not beef up accreditation programs for non-attorney representatives working for charitable organization to meet representation needs? Why not simply recognize gender-based persecution as a subset of “particular social group” rather than forcing slow and intensive re-litigation of gender-based issues in ever case with inconsistent results and no guidance for parties or adjudicators.
There are lots of things a competent Administration dedicated to fairly administering refugee and asylum laws could do to handle this humanitarian situation. But, that won’t happen without “regime change” and removal of the Kakistocracy.
Indeed, the most likely outcome of the Trump Admonistration’s “malicious incompetence” will be complete loss of faith in our legal system. Folks will do what they have to do to save their lives — even if it means abandoning a system that has betrayed Due Process and fundamental fairness.
Then, we finally will have a Trump-caused “law enforcement crisis.” While the presence of more refugees in the U.S. presents more of an opportunity than a security problem, the disappearance of our Constitutional protections and intentional destruction of our legal system will be a lasting problem for all of us.
Thompson claimed that when it comes to border security, the Trump administration is misleading the American people. Maybe, but I watched a video of the hearing and it seemed to me that the Democrats are the ones who are misleading the American people.
According to the testimony of the hearing’s only witness, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, the country is facing a very real humanitarian and security crisis. Uncontrolled illegal migration is posing a serious and growing risk to public safety, national security, and the rule of law.
She is not the first DHS Secretary to make that claim. Every DHS Secretarysince the Department’s inception has sounded the alarm about our unsecured border.
Nielsen testified that DHS expects to apprehend more migrants crossing the border illegally in the first half of fiscal 2019 than it did in the entirety of fiscal 2017, and the numbers are rising. This, however, is not the only problem.
There also has been a change in who is making the illegal crossings.
Historically, illegal crossers were predominantly single adult males from Mexico who generally could be removed within 48 hours if they had no legal right to stay. Now, more than 60 percent of them are family units and unaccompanied alien children.
The detention facilities were intended to be short-term processing centers that would hold adult men for 72 hours or less. They are not suitable for lengthy detentions of women and children.
The Trump Administration has manipulated both the asylum legal system and asylum statistics in an attempt to prove their false narrative about widespread fraud and abuse. Indeed, it’s notable that even with all these political machinations and roadblocks to fair asylum adjudication, approximately 20% from the Northern Triangle succeed — certainly a significant number. Moreover, many of those who fail actually face danger if returned — they just can’t fit it within our somewhat arcane asylum system. Failing to be granted asylum is not an indication of fraud and has little or nothing to do with our obligation to provide fair and unbiased asylum adjudications consistent with Due Process. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/02/15/heidi-altman-heartland-alliance-how-eoir-other-trump-toadies-lie-distort-statistics-to-support-a-white-nationalist-immigration-agenda/
Something that jumps out: those who are represented succeed at a significantly higher rate, understand the system better, and are highly likely to appear. Therefore, the single most cost efficient and obvious measure to take would be providing funding for universal representation of asylum seekers. It’s much cheaper than cruel, expensive, and unnecessary “civil” detention and walls that will have no effect on the current rule flow of asylum seekers. And, as more cases are granted the less necessary it becomes for DHS to waste court time by contesting every case and the more the “problem of removals” diminishes. Those granted asylum don’t have to be removed or monitored — they can actually go to work and begin contributing to our society.
Addressing the causes of the human rights debacle in the Northern Triangle would also be more helpful, logical, and cost effective in the long run than more gimmicks and futile attempts to solve a refugee situation unilaterally at the “receiving” end by “designed to fail” enforcement efforts, while ignoring or intentionally aggravating the causes of the refugee flow.
Over a hundred years ago, from 1850 to 1920, the United States of America experienced a wave of mass migration like never before – the highest levels in its history.
While the topic of immigration remains a divisive issue to this day, we now have some interesting evidence to add to the mix. A new study has found that US counties with more historical immigration enjoy better economies.
In 1850, at the onset of the Age of Mass Migration, over 90 percent of the foreign born living in the US were from either Great Britain, Ireland, or Germany. By the end of the Age of Mass Migration, in 1920, this figure was only 45,” the team explained.
“While previous waves [of immigrants] were primarily from western Europe, the new wave included large numbers of immigrants from southern, northern, and eastern Europe who spoke different languages and had different religious practices.”
Today, if it weren’t for that huge wave, some parts of the US would look far less fortunate.
Not only has immigration increased individual incomes in these counties, the study found it has also reduced unemployment and poverty while improving education and populating urban areas.
What’s more, the sudden influx of eastern, northern and southern Europeans did not somehow unbalance the social fabric of the country.
The researchers found no evidence that historical immigration affects social capital, voter turnout, or crime rates.
“What is fascinating is that despite the exceptionalism of this period in US history, there are several important parallels that one could draw between then and now,” says development economics research Sandra Sequeira from The London School of Economics and Political Science.
“These parallels are] the large influx of unskilled labour, the small but important inflow of highly skilled innovators, as well as the significant short-run social backlash against immigration.”
Examining data from a panel of US counties from 1850 to 1920, the researchers estimated the percentage of people with foreign descent born every decade.
Because immigrants usually travelled by rail to their destinations, the researchers focused their attention along the country’s train network. Their findings reveal that soon after the arrival of immigrants, these regions experienced an industrial boom and long-term prosperity.
Nearly a hundred years later, these counties are still enjoying enormous economic benefits. Using this historical data, the researchers suggest that on average, when the number of immigrants in a county went up by just 4.9 percent, it increased the average income by 13 percent today.
Of course, it also completely rearranged American society. Between 1880 and 1914, over 20 million Europeans migrated to the US, at a time when the country only had 75 million residents.
Still, it’s an example of how change, even when it’s disruptive, can have beneficial effects in the long term. While it’s true that this wave of immigration did spur a short-term ant-immigration backlash – both politically and socially – in the long run, the economic benefits appear to far outweigh the social costs, which tend to fade with time.
Unfortunately, like many other political issues, the current debate around immigration in the US is almost primarily focused on the wrong thing. Instead of giving our attention to the short-term, the new research suggests we should look at the bigger picture.
Sure, the mass wave of immigration that occurred nearly a century ago was under different circumstances, but even still, the authors think it might be relevant now.
“There is much to be learned from taking a longer perspective on the immigration debate,” says Sequeira.
How quickly we forget our own history and what made America grow and prosper. That’s particularly true when we are “led” by a kakistocracy that glories in disrespecting knowledge, truth, and our history as a nation of immigrants.
Is It Time to Bring the Nation’s Immigration Courts Under the Judicial Branch?
U.S. immigration courts face an “existential crisis.” The American Bar Association says it has a solution.
The American Bar Association is renewing calls for lawmakers to overhaul the nation’s overwrought immigration court system by making the courts independent from the Department of Justice, and therefore from the Trump administration. The association is joined by a broad array of legal workers in accusing the administration of enacting policies that pressure immigration judges to ramp up deportations, with no apparent concern for due process or the rule of law.
The United States immigration court system is not part of the judicial branch, but rather is governed by the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. The office was created to oversee the courts in 1983; previously they were under the control of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, also under the Department of Justice. Last week, the ABA identified an “existential crisis” within this system, finding it subject to “political interference,” to “policies and practices that threaten due process,” and to “longstanding and widespread under-resourcing.” It calls for a Congressional vote to establish the courts as an independent entity per Article I of the Constitution—also known as an Article I Court.
Shortly after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, his administration told the press that it would work to slash an overwhelming backlog of immigration court cases, restoring an overburdened, sclerotic system to working shape. What followed were a seriesofpolicies—among which were quotas on case closures—that observers blame for threatening due process in an effort to facilitate mass-deportation of immigrants, and for exacerbating the immigration court backlog by funneling unprecedented numbers of immigrants into the system.
The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment.
Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, expresses her organization’s support for an independent immigration court. The ABA, NAIJ, and other organizations, including the Federal Bar Association, began to call for an independent immigration court system long before the Trump administration, during the presidency of Barack Obama.
“We hope that this administration and those mindful of a reasonable approach realize this isn’t a right-wing or left-wing answer; it’s an American answer that protects both efficiency and integrity of the courts,” Tabaddor says. “It hasn’t only been this administration that has pushed back on the idea of an independent [immigration court system]. Unfortunately, part of human nature is it resists what it perceives as giving up power. It means the executive branch would lose direct influence over how [the courts are] used.”
Although the Trump administration has repeatedly acknowledged the backlog and overwhelming challenges faced by immigration judges, it has also opposed an independent immigration court system. James McHenry, director of the Department of Justice office that oversees the courts, told a Senate committee in April that independent courts would not “address any of the core challenges facing the immigration courts.” McHenry repeatedly maintained that all immigrants are afforded due process.
Legal analysts argue, by contrast, that the current status of immigration courts as under the purview of the Department of Justice has politicized their work. “Our current system permits the political branches of government to yield tremendous power over immigration enforcement policies and practices,” says Kathleen Kim, an immigration law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “Without an independent judiciary, our system of government provides no check on abuse of that power and immigration court decisions suffer from the taint of impartiality.”
And with a court beholden to the president’s political agenda, immigrant lives—and the Constitution’s guarantees of fair trials—hang in the balance. “As we have seen in the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the Trump administration, the rights of immigrants have become a political football,” says Margaret Russell, a constitutional law professor at Santa Clara University. “Only independent immigration courts can provide a fair forum, as free from partisan politics as possible.”
“Just one day observing in immigration court would highlight how inherently unfair the system can really be for someone fighting for their case,” says Julia I. Vázquez, an immigrant rights professor at Los Angeles’ Southwestern Law School.
Late last year, Pacific Standard reported the story of a Guatemalan woman whose asylum petition had been denied even before a judge had an opportunity to review documents in support of her case, including her initial asylum declaration.
Despite the administration’s promises to help improve the immigration court system, analysts have decried a number of policies that they say have undermined the courts. In April of 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions required that immigration judges close at least 700 cases a year—with a low rate of appeal—in order to receive a favorable performance review. The move, ostensibly aimed at reducing the backlog, pressured the judges to plow through their caseloads, analysts have said, threatening due process for immigrants. And the move backfired: Rushed rulings are frequently appealed, further compounding the backlog.
In another similar measure in May, Sessions stopped the use of administrative closures, in which immigration judges withhold judgment on a case while immigrants make formal petitions for legal status. Administrative closures had helped judges to prioritize their dockets and avoid getting bogged down with lower-urgency cases.
Coupled with the administration’s unprecedented push to arrest undocumented immigrants with no criminal record, these decisions have made the court’s backlog grow nearly 50 percent under the Trump administration, according to the Syracuse University non-profit data research center, Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. In November, there were over 768,000 outstanding cases.
Even with overwhelming concerns over backlog and broader questions about due process, it remains highly improbable that the immigration courts will become independent under a divided Congress and the Trump administration. “Keeping immigration courts within the executive branch will ensure adherence to the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant policy objectives,” Kim says.
What’s more, control of the immigration courts will enable the Trump administration to continue to ramp up deportations without the approval of a split Congress. “The opposition [to independent courts] is likely to defend executive branch oversight of immigration courts as the best antidote to Congressional inaction,” Russell says.
NAIJ’s Tabaddor says that, while it is not likely that immigration courts will be made independent anytime soon, there’s growing awareness among lawmakers from both parties of the problems with the system.
“As we see the expansion of the groundswell of support [for independence], it’ll be difficult for Congress not to act,” she says. “Of course, you always have to have hope in life, otherwise it’s not worth it.”
*********************************************
EOIR’s “no problem” response to the unfolding disaster which, under DOJ political direction, its own bureaucrats have helped engineer “doesn’t pass the straight face test.”
Of course, giving control of Immigration Court dockets back to the judges who actually have to hear and decide cases is the necessary first step in rationalizing the system, ending the DOJ/EOIR’s “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” and establishing priorities based on fundamental fairness to all parties and overall judicial efficiency, not solely the “DHS enforcement priority of the day.”
Nobody can solve overnight all the problems in our Immigration Courts that have built up and been allowed to fester over decades. But, placing the courts under apolitical, professional judicial control, like all other successful courts, would be a necessary first step from which “best practices” and other efficiencies that are consistent with Due Process would flow.
Sonia C. Gomez is a historian of gender and immigration in the 20th century United States, and is currently a postdoctoral fellow at the Mahindra Humanities Center at Harvard University.
March 22
On Feb. 22, a young Honduran migrant woman went into premature labor and gave birth to a stillborn baby boy at the Port Isabel Detention Center in South Texas, four daysafter being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The incident raises new questions about the detention of pregnant migrant women, and concerns that border control officials are infringing on the reproductive rights of migrant women and undermining their health and that of their babies. And there’s reason to worry: Such actions have historically been frequent and quite intentional. Nativist movements have long feared the reproductive capacity of migrant women and its potential for changing the demographic contours of the United States. This incident, and others like it, remind us once again how deeply intertwined women’s rights are with questions of immigration today.
In 1901, a Japanese teenager named Kaoru Yamataya arrived in Seattle visibly pregnant. Her pregnancy made Yamataya a target of a zealous immigration inspector named Thomas Fisher. Fisher claimed that Yamataya was “likely to become a public charge,” grounds for deportation under the dominant immigration law, and took her into U.S. custody. Two months after her arrival, Yamataya gave birth to a baby boy. Two months later, the infant died of pneumonia while he and his mother were still in the custody of the U.S. government.
This death created hardly a ripple in the press, a sign of shifting winds in U.S. immigration policy. Targeting women, particularly of Asian descent, as “public charges” was already commonplace. Its roots were in the Page Law of 1875, which barred contract laborers and prostitutes from “any Oriental country” from entering the United States. The Page Law created a system of immigration control that targeted women’s sexual practices.
But Yamataya’s case was at the leading edge of this desire to control immigrant women’s bodies extending to include greater focus on their reproductive capabilities. By 1924, Sen. James D. Phelan (Calif.) openly pleaded with Congress to pass legislation to exclude all Japanese women because, as he falsely claimed, they accounted for 33 percent of all births in California. Phelan’s fear was that “every child born is an American citizen under our very generous Constitution, intended to encourage population by European immigration of an earlier date when Asia was a closed book. What a Pandora’s box we opened when Admiral Perry went there and opened the gates of Japan!”
While Fisher said nothing so explicit in adjudicating Yamataya’s case, he pushed forward with the deportation process despite the death of her son. The inspector charged Yamataya with entering the United States under “surreptitiously clandestine” intentions, code for prostitution. Throughout the hearing in 1903, Yamataya denied the charge. She claimed to have immigrated to the United States for educational purposes, a claim backed by family members on both sides of the Pacific. Still, Fisher was unrelenting, and the law was on his side, giving him discretionary power to interpret and execute the law as he wished.
But Yamataya refused to give up the fight. She retained legal counsel, who argued that the 1891 Immigration Act was unconstitutional because it had deprived her of due process of law. Her attorney argued that Fisher whose “inspection” of Yamataya and subsequent investigation was “garbled, incomplete, misleading, and in many respects untrue” detained her unlawfully. During Fisher’s proceeding, Yamataya did not have adequate counsel nor did she receive an opportunity to present evidence to counter Fisher’s claims against her. Finally, she was not given the opportunity to consult with a language interpreter, made all the worse by the fact that Yamataya did not speak any English. At the time of Fisher’s initial investigation Yamataya had not even realized she was under investigation.
Yamataya’s case went to the Supreme Court, and on April 6, 1903, the court upheld the constitutionality of Immigration Act of 1891, as well as Yamataya’s deportation. However, it also established an immigrant’s right to a deportation hearing. Unfortunately for Yamataya, the court ruled that the ad hoc hearing conducted by Fisher and his colleagues constituted a legitimate hearing, and she returned to Japan in 1906.
Cases like Yamataya’s or that of the Honduran woman have become a major flash point over the past two decades, as a new nativist movement focuses on the threat that migrant mothers, especially those visibly pregnant, pose to their conceptions of America. The key is, as Phelan lamented nearly a century ago, the birthright citizenship enshrined in the 14th Amendment. This provision guarantees citizenship to all who are born in the United States, including the children of immigrant parents.
In 1994, fears that migrants taking advantage of this provision could dramatically alter the racial and ethnic composition of America spurred the passage of California Proposition 187, dubbed the Save our State initiative, which sought to bar undocumented immigrants from accessing education, welfare and health-care services. This measure targeted migrant women and children, particularly those of Mexican and Central American origins.
In the 21st century, such fears drove the rise of a new term: anchor babies. The Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington popularized this phrase in the early 2000s to pejoratively refer to the American-born children of undocumented immigrants, and it stuck, giving nativists a new language to express their fears.
But this new language should not obscure the reality: Suspicions about migrant women’s reproduction have historically shaped immigration policy and practice. Given this history, we need to understand the current immigration crisis from a different perspective. At stake are not just migrant rights, but women’s rights as well.
Activism to safeguard women’s reproductive rights must extend to migrant women. Women’s rights groups should be demanding answers to an array of questions surrounding the 24-year-old Honduran women who gave birth to a stillborn while in ICE custody: What were the circumstances surrounding her premature labor? Was she given proper medical attention and care? Did she suffer additional abuse because of her visible pregnancy?
Migrant mothers, whether carrying a child in their wombs or in their arms, have faced the brunt of anti-immigration fervor, and they need allies to publicize such abuses and to mobilize to change the law that has failed women for over a century.
***********************************************
Fear, loathing, bias, contempt, and total disrespect for the humane intent behind asylum laws and the true desperate situation of female refugees fleeing from the Northern Triangle radiates from Sessions’s decision in Matter of A-B-. How such a biased and unqualified individual would be in a position to make such a “quasi-judicial” decision is another question. That’s why we need an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court now!
