ANTH 375 @ BELOIT COLLEGE: Professor Jennifer Esperanza & Her Students Blaze Path To Understanding Migration In The Liberal Arts Context — Every College In America Should Be Teaching These Essential Skills!

Back in 1973, when I graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School and  joined the staff of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) at the U.S. Department of Justice, nary a law school in the U.S. taught a course in immigration law. The handful of law school courses on the subject were taught almost entirely by Adjunct Professors. Indeed, shortly after I joined the Board, they sent me to what was then the premier law school immigration course at Georgetown Law taught by none other than Charles Gordon, the legendary General Counsel of the “Legacy” INS.

Today, thanks to a great extent to the efforts of such noted “scholar/public servants” as Professor David Martin of the University of Virginia Law School, Professor Alex Aleinikoff, former Dean of Georgetown Law, and Professor Stephen Legomsky of Washington University Law School, some form of immigration law or immigration clinic is offered at most major U.S. Law Schools.

But, a serious void remains at the most critical level of education: undergraduate institutions. However, at Beloit College in Beloit, Wisconsin, Professor Jennifer Esperanza is blazing the way for the future. Her “ANTH 375: Migrants, Immigrants, and Refugees” Summer Session class is jumping head-on into creating constructive dialogue, understanding, and action on the most important issue facing America today: migration.

I had the pleasure of working with Professor Esperanza and her fourteen “super students” as a “Guest Professor” during three days in late May. The students hailed from different backgrounds and entered the class with varying levels of immigration experience and interest.

Some were there because of their own backgrounds or prior work with migrants; others were there . . . well, just because they were there. But, funny thing, by the end of my three days I couldn’t tell the difference. Everyone pitched in as a team, demonstrated sharp analytical skills, asked incisive questions, showed creativity and originality, and made spectacular group presentations on some very tough subjects. In other words, it was all the things I love: fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, and teamwork!

Among our exercises: we watched and discussed the documentary “Credible Fear;” broke the group into two teams which designed and presented their own refugee systems based on competing “Mother Hen” and “Dick’s Last Resort” principles; and read, analyzed, and discussed two cases I had been involved in: the BIA’s landmark precedent Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996) recognizing for the first time “female genital mutilation” (“FGM”) as a basis for asylum in the United States, and another decision (which was published on the internet) from my time at the Arlington Immigration Court where I granted “particular social group” asylum to a family from El Salvador.

I teach as an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown Law, one of the top law schools in the country. To my pleasant surprise, I found that Esperanza’s Beloit students were able to discuss the issues in a manner very similar to the class dialogue produced by some really great second-year, third-year, and graduate law students. Amazing!

I’m reproducing the results of the “Create Your Own Refugee System” exercise below, along with a class picture and some other pictures of my stay at Beloit (where my son-in-law, Daniel Barolsky, is a Professor of Musicology).

I also note that Professor Esperanza’s system and “real-world-oriented” approach to undergraduate education produces results, as in jobs in the real world! As featured in the Fall 2015 issue of Beloit College Magazine, Esperanza’s students were making an immediate difference: Jessica Slattery ’12, as a paralegal for the New York Legal Assistance Group in the Bronx, NY;  Dan Weyl ’10, with the Heartland Alliance, an international human rights organization that provides resources for LGBT refugees resettling in the United States (as a footnote, following retirement I have been helping out the Heartland Alliance Washington, DC, office with various projects); Jane Choi ’14, working on the political team at the British High Commission in Cape Town, South Africa; Key Ishii ’12, working with African refugees in Israel; Angela Martellaro ’10, a licensed real estate agent at Chief Properties in Kansas City, MO, specializing in helping refugee families from Myanmar buy their first home; and Nikki Tourigny ’10, working for Hot Bread Kitchen, a wholesale nonprofit bakery in NYC that trains immigrant and minority women to work in the restaurant industry.  Impressive!

On a personal note, I graduated in 1970 from Lawrence University, just up the road from Beloit in Appleton, WI. Like Beloit, Lawrence is a member of the Associated Colleges of the Midwest.

I majored in History, minored in German, and spent a semester abroad in Germany. I found that a broad research and writing intensive, liberal arts eduction that promoted critical analysis and effective dialogue was the best possible preparation for all that followed: U.W. Law School, government attorney, private practice of immigration law, and several Senior Executive Service positions with the U.S. government, as well as Adjunct Professor positions. I spent the last 21 hears of my career as a U.S. Immigration Judge at the appellate and trial levels and served as Chairman of the BIA for six years. I can’t imagine a better preparation for the global perspective, analytical ability, and research and writing skills needed for judicial work than what I received at Lawrence. I just wish that someone like Professor Esperanza had been teaching her innovative approach to cultural anthropology when I was an undergrad!

Finally, I might add that Professor Esperanza and her husband Paul, who works in Administration at the College, are part of a a group of talented young professionals, which includes my daughter Anna, who teaches middle school English in the Beloit Public Schools, her husband Daniel, and their children, who have chosen to make their homes in Beloit, near the College. They enjoy and actively participate the in Beloit community and are big supporters of the “Beloit Proud” movement.

Here’s the pictorial version of my “tenure” at Beloit.

ANTH 375: Migrants, Immigrants, and Refugees” – Professor Jenn Esperanza — May 2017 — Beloit College, Beloit WI

Back Row:

Dan Arkes, Me, Joe Enes, “The Talking Statue,” Mark Hauptfleisch, Cynthia Escobedo, Yoon Ja Na, Rosa Ennison, Keila Perez, Gabe Perry

Front Row:

Jamie Manchen, Professor Jennifer Esperanza, Leanna Miller, Terra Allen, Abby Segal, Matt Tarpinian

Here are the results of the “Create Your Own Refugee System” Exercise. Click on the links for some really “great stuff:”

For “Dick’s Last Resort:”

The GreatHermetic Principles

For the “Mother Hens:”

ANTH 375- Mother Hen Refugee Program

And, here’s what the class looked like “in action,” as well as a picture of our dog Luna in front of the historic “Middle College Building” at Beloit.

 

PWS

06-04-17

WashPost: Professors (And Former USG Senior Execs) Martin & Legomsky Analyze Judge Brinkema’s Travel Ban Decision — Religious Discrimination Finding Might Be Key To Opponents’ Future Success (Or Not)!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/why-virginia-matters-in-the-travel-ban-fight/2017/02/14/27cfff3c-f2ec-11e6-b9c9-e83fce42fb61_story.html?utm_term=.880047c24800

Rachel Weiner reports:

“’Judge Brinkema spells out a lot more; she really fleshes out one of the possible claims, and that’s the religious discrimination claim,’” said David Martin, a professor at the University of Virginia who, for many years, helped shape immigration policy inside the government. ‘That may well prove to be the strongest or more fruitful line of inquiry for the plaintiffs in these various cases, particularly if they’re trying to reach past green-card holders or people on immigrant visas. It’s hard to get there without a religious discrimination case of some kind.’”

. . . .

“’It was a very well-reasoned, thoughtful decision. Frankly, I think, a more careful decision than the 9th Circuit decision,’ said Steve Legomsky, former chief counsel for immigration services in the Department of Homeland Security. In her opinion, Legomsky said, Brinkema ‘pretty methodically went through the various statements by Trump. . . . They put great weight on the opinions of the former national security officials to show the absence of counterevidence from the Trump administration. For both of those reasons, I think the Virginia opinion is very important.’
Brinkema also brings to the case extensive national security experience. She presided over the trial of Sept. 11, 2001, conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, among other high-profile cases.

‘It was a thoughtful opinion, it’s well considered, it wasn’t hastily done like some of these other decisions had to be in light of circumstances,’ said Justin Cox of the National Immigration Law Center. His group is involved in several lawsuits against the ban, including one filed in Maryland last week focused on refugees. That case is specifically focused on religious discrimination.

‘Legally [the Virginia ruling] is actually quite significant because it’s the first court to squarely hold that the executive order violates the establishment clause,’ Cox said.

The danger for opponents of the ban is that, should the Justice Department appeal Brinkema’s decision, they will face the more conservative 4th Circuit rather than the left-leaning 9th Circuit.

‘It would be a close call,’ Legomsky said. ‘There is such strong evidence of religious discrimination — it’s really hard to know.’”

*************************************

As noted in this article, in addition to being leading academic “immigration gurus,”  both Professor Martin and Professor Legomsky have lived in the “real world” of shaping Government policies and managing programs that actually implement those policies.

As they point out, while many of the objections to the “travel ban” could be eliminated by applying it just prospectively to those outside the U.S. who have not previously been admitted, that wouldn’t necessarily overcome Judge Brinkema’s finding that the “national security” reasons asserted by the Government in her court were merely “pretext” for unconstitutional religious discrimination.

While Justin Cox might be correct that the Fourth Circuit is not as liberal as the Ninth Circuit, that distinction probably would apply to every other Circuit Court of Appeals. Having spent 13 years as an Immigration Judge in Arlington, where my decisions ultimately could be reviewed by the Fourth Circuit and Fourth Circuit law applied, I found their immigration rulings very balanced. Indeed, they sometimes cited Ninth Circuit precedent and even were ahead of the Ninth in recognizing some migrants’ rights.

While the Fourth Circuit affirmed the overwhelming majority of BIA and Immigration Judge decisions in unpublished, non-precedential decisions, when they spoke in published precedents they always had important guidance to offer. The Fourth Circuit also was not afraid to stand up to the Government and “call them out” when necessary in the field of immigration.

And, at least in the Arlington Immigration Court, we trial judges paid close attention. I think that the Fourth Circuit’s very fair and well-reasoned asylum jurisprudence, in some significant ways more faithful to the asylum law and regulations than rulings of the BIA, was one reason why asylum applicants were often successful in Arlington. That’s also why many asylum cases in Arlington could be resolved by the parties in “short hearings” based on extensive written documentation and application of the Fourth Circuit law.

There is also a wonderful pastel portrait of Judge Brinkema in her court with the full article at the link. Check it out!

PWS

02/16/17

“Brief Of The Two Steves” — Read The Yale-Loehr/Legomsky Amicus Brief Explaining Immigration Detention Filed With The Supremes in Jennings v. Rodriguez!

Jennings final amicus brief

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Interest of amici curiae………………………………………………. 1 Introduction and summary ………………………………………… 2 Argument…………………………………………………………………… 5

  1. Aliens arriving in the United States at a port
    of entry…………………………………………………………….6

    1. Arriving asylum seekers are detained
      under color of Section 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii),
      even after an asylum officer has found a credible fear of persecution………………………… 6

      1. Asylum seekers detained under Section 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) have limited oppor- tunity for review of detention or re-
        lease ……………………………………………………… 7
      2. Aliens seeking asylum may be detained for lengthy periods ……………………………….. 9
    2. Arriving aliens who are not subject to expedited removal, but are not “clearly
      and beyond a doubt entitled to be
      admitted,” are detained under color of Section 1225(b)(2)(A)………………………………… 11
  2. Aliens apprehended in the United States………. 13
    1. Aliens apprehended in the United States
      but not convicted of a qualifying crime may be detained and are only sometimes permitted a bond hearing pending a
      removal decision ………………………………………. 13
    2. Aliens apprehended in the United States
      who are convicted of a qualifying crime are subject to mandatory detention and are
      not provided opportunities for conditional release except in limited circumstances……. 16(I)

II

Table of Contents—Continued:

  1. Aliens convicted of qualifying crimes are detained under Section 1226(c)…………… 16
  2. Aliens detained under Section 1226(c) are released from detention in only narrow circumstances…………………………………….. 17
  3. Aliens held under Section 1226(c) general- ly are detained for longer periods of time than are other aliens ………………………….. 19

C. Aliens ordered removed are generally detained until the removal order is
executed ………………………………………………….. 21

III. The bond hearing process provides limited procedural rights, which vary across the circuits………………………………………………………….. 22

  1. Aliens detained under Section 1226(a) are entitled to bond hearings in certain circumstances………………………………………….. 22
  2. Federal courts have held that aliens
    detained under Sections 1225(b), 1226(a),
    and 1226(c) are entitled to bond hearings when detention becomes prolonged………….. 28

    1. The Ninth and Second Circuits provide for bond hearings for aliens detained
      over six months…………………………………… 30
    2. The First, Third, Sixth and Eleventh Cir- cuits provide for bond hearings on a case- by-case basis………………………………………. 31
    3. Bond hearings based on prolonged deten- tion are procedurally similar to Section 1226(a) bond hearings ………………………… 32

III

Table of Contents—Continued:

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………33 Appendix…………………………………………………………………..1a

****************************

This is an absolutely fantastic resource for anyone litigating, writing, speaking, or reporting on immigration detention written by two of the “best in the business.”

Rodriguez could be a problem for the Administration and the Immigration Courts. President Trump’s Executive Orders ramp up border enforcement, interior enforcement, immigration detention, and will further clog the already overwhelmed U.S. Immigration Courts.

If the Supreme Court places time limits on the Government’s ability to detain individuals without individual bond hearings pending the completion of Removal Hearings on the merits in Immigration Court, it could lead to an increase in the number of bond hearings conducted by U.S. Immigration Judges. Combined with pressure from the Administration to complete Removal Hearings before bond hearings are required, it likely will lead the Administration to “torque up” the pressure on Immigration Judges to cut corners and expedite hearings without regard to the requirements of due process. This is likely to force the issue of due process in Immigration Court into the Article III Federal Courts for resolution .

PWS

02/14/17