Donald Trump – Page 70 – immigrationcourtside.com

16 STATES SUE TRUMP ON BOGUS NATIONAL EMERGENCY — Nolan Says Trump Ultimately Likely To Prevail — “Slate 3” Appear To Agree!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/coalition-of-states-sues-trump-over-national-emergency-to-build-border-wall/2019/02/18/9da8019c-33a8-11e9-854a-7a14d7fec96a_story.html

Amy Goldstein reports for WashPost:

A coalition of 16 states filed a federal lawsuit Monday to block President Trump’s plan to build a border wall without permission from Congress, arguing that the president’s decision to declare a national emergency is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit, brought by states with Democratic governors — except one, Maryland — seeks a preliminary injunction that would prevent the president from acting on his emergency declaration while the case plays out in the courts.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a San Francisco-based court whose judges have ruled against an array of other Trump administration policies, including on immigration and the environment.

Accusing the president of “an unconstitutional and unlawful scheme,” the suit says the states are trying “to protect their residents, natural resources, and economic interests from President Donald J. Trump’s flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution.”

. . . .

Read the rest of Amy’s article at the above link.

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

But, over at The Hill, Nolan Rappaport predicts that Trump ultimately will prevail:

Nolan writes:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer claim that President Donald Trump’s Southern Border National Emergency Proclamation is an unlawful declaration over a crisis that does not exist, and that it steals from urgently needed defense funds — that it is a power grab by a disappointed president who has gone outside the bounds of the law to try to get what he failed to achieve through the constitutional legislative process.

In fact, this isn’t about the Constitution or the bounds of the law, and — in fact — there is a very real crisis at the border, though not necessarily what Trump often describes. It helps to understand a bit of the history of “national emergencies.”

As of 1973, congress had passed more than 470 statutes granting national emergency powers to the president. National emergency declarations under those statutes were rarely challenged in court.

n Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, which was decided in 1952, the Supreme Court overturned President Harry S. Truman’s proclamation seizing privately owned steel mills to preempt a national steelworker strike during the Korean War. But Truman didn’t have congressional authority to declare a national emergency. He relied on inherent powers which were not spelled out in the Constitution.

Trump, however, is using specific statutory authority that congress created for the president.

In 1976, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act (NEA), which permits the president to declare a national emergency when he considers it appropriate to do so. The NEA does not provide any specific emergency authorities. It relies on emergency authorities provided in other statutes. The declaration must specifically identify the authorities that it is activating.

Read more at https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/430340-national-emergency-declaration-a-legal-fight-trump-is-likely-to-win

Published originally on The HIl.

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

While many of us hope Nolan is wrong, his prediction finds support from perhaps an odd source: these three articles from Slate:

Nancy Pelosi Put Her Faith in the Courts to Stop Trump’s Emergency Wall

Big mistake.

By Daniel Hemel

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/nancy-pelosi-trump-emergency-wall-fail.html

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

Trump Is Trying to Hollow Out the Constitutional System of Checks and Balances

The other two branches might let him.

By PETER M. SHANE

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/national-emergency-tragedy-trump-wall.html

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

JURISPRUDENCE

Trump Isn’t Just Defying the Constitution. He’s Undermining SCOTUS.

The president defended his national emergency by boasting that he’ll win at the Supreme Court because it’s full of his judges.

By DAHLIA LITHWICK

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/donald-trump-national-emergency-undermine-scotus-unconstitutional.html

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

We’ll see what happens. While the arguments made by Trump in support of his “Bogus National Emergency” were totally frivolous (and, perhaps, intentionally so), the points made by Rappaport, Hemel, Shane, and Lithwick aren’t. That could spell big trouble for our country’s future!

Trump doesn’t have a “sure fire legal winner” here; he might or might not have the majority of the Supremes “in his pocket” as he often arrogantly and disrespectfully claims. Nevertheless, there may be a better legal defense for the national emergency than his opponents had counted on.

Certainly, Trump is likely to benefit from having a “real lawyer,” AG Bill Barr, advancing his White Nationalist agenda at the “Justice” Department rather than the transparently biased and incompetent Sessions. While Barr might be “Sessions at heart,” unlike Sessions he certainly had the high-level professional legal skills, respect, and the “human face” necessary to prosper in the Big Law/Corporate world for decades.

Big Law/Corporate America isn’t necessarily the most diverse place, even today. Nevertheless, during my 7-year tenure there decades ago I saw that overt racism and xenophobia generally were frowned upon as being “bad for business.” That’s particularly true if the “business” included representing some of the largest multinational corporations in the world.

Who knows, Barr might even choose to advance the Trump agenda without explicitly ordering the DOJ to use the demeaning, and dehumanizing term “illegals” to refer to fellow human beings, many of them actually here with Government permission, seeking to attain legal status, and often to save their own lives and those of family members, through our legal system.

Many of them perform relatively thankless, yet essential, jobs that are key to our national economic success. Indeed, it’s no exaggeration to say that like the Trump Family and recently exposed former U.N Ambassador nominee Heather Nauert, almost all of us privileged and lucky enough to be U.S. citizens who have prospered from an expanding economy have been doing so on the backs of immigrants, both documented and undocumented. Additionally, migrants are some of the dwindling number of individuals in our country who actually believe in and trust the system to be fair and “do the right thing.”

But, a change in tone, even if welcome, should never be confused with a change in policy or actually respecting the due process rights of others and the rule of law as applied to those seeking legally available benefits in our immigration system. That’s just not part of the White Nationalist agenda that Barr so eagerly signed up to defend and advance

It’s likely to a long time, if ever, before “justice” reasserts itself in the mission of the Department of Justice.

PWS

02-19-19

NOTE: An earlier version of this post contained the wrong article from Dahlia Lithwick. Sorry for any confusion.

THERE IS INDEED A HUMAN RIGHTS CRISIS TO OUR SOUTH – But It Has Little To Do With Trump’s Lies, Nonsense, & Racist Ramblings & Certainly Won’t Be Solved By His Latest Round Of Contempt For Congress & Our Constitution!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/you-want-to-see-a-real-emergency-mr-president-visit-me-in-honduras/2019/02/16/4650383c-3151-11e9-8ad3-9a5b113ecd3c_story.html

Amelia Frank-Vitale is a doctoral candidate in anthropology at the University of Michigan. She writes in the Washington Post:

Since I moved to San Pedro Sula, Honduras, in September 2017 to do research for my doctoral dissertation, I’ve accompanied a 16-year-old with three bullet holes in his body to the hospital, only to find that there was no blood for transfusions. I’ve looked in the face of a young mother, anguished over whether she should try to make it the United States, because the gang that she used to be a part of but had left behind wanted to pull her back in. I’ve gotten tearful phone calls from a single mother and her two children, who have been told by a gang that they want her house — and she has nowhere else to go. I’ve talked to many families whose teenagers have been taken away by police, never to be seen again. And I’ve also talked to police officers who have given up on law enforcement here, as their superiors undermine honest work and reward corruption.

On Friday, President Trump declared a national emergency as a pretext to allow him to begin construction of a border wall. But the real national emergency is here, in Honduras.

I arrived shortly before a likely fraudulent election installed Juan Orlando Hernández in a second, unconstitutional term as president. Rather than protest irregularities in the vote-counting process, the Trump administration congratulated Hernández on his victory.

Honduras was already in bad shape: a devastating hurricane in 1998; a coup d’etat in 2009; becoming the world’s most homicidal nation in 2010; and a long history of U.S. intervention. In 2015, the ruling National party was implicated in stealing millions of dollars from the nation’s social security fund. Honduras is also on the primary route for cocaine trafficking to the United States. The Drug Enforcement Administration has arrested many alleged narcotraffickers, among them the president’s brother, Tony Hernández. The country ranks high in corruption, impunity, poverty and inequality. It ranks low for literacy, employment and life expectancy.

The 2017 election, though, brought things to a head. There were massive protests, the country was shut down for more than a month, and at least 31 protesters were killed. Honduras has erupted in moments of insurrection since then, though the most visible aftereffects of the election have been a crackdown on dissidents, especially the young and students, and the caravans heading for the United States. People had staked their hope for a better future in a different electoral outcome. When that was taken from them, they went back to leaving the country.

Honduran migration isn’t new; what is new is that they are doing it publicly, in large groups, and asking, collectively, for protection. The real humanitarian crisis is that, mostly, Hondurans are denied this protection and deported.

So many young Hondurans — especially the urban poor — feel like they have no future here. Eight out of 10 violent deaths here are of young people. A young man told me, at 21 years old, that he once had a dream but it’s over. He has no dreams now. He was recently deported from the United States after losing an asylum claim. Yet, back in Honduras, he has to hide in the trunk of a car to be able to visit his mother. The gang there would kill him if they saw him enter her house.

At least he came back alive.

A week ago, I went with a family to receive the remains of their 16-year-old son, who had been murdered in Mexico. He had traveled as part of a caravan and was killed in Tijuana. We picked up the small coffin at the San Pedro Sula airport and loaded the slight white box into the back of a borrowed, barely running pickup truck. As I drove to the airport with his grandmother that day, her eyes had filled with tears as she told me how his father used to paint his face and take him on the bus, performing simple clown routines, hoping to be given a few lempiras. She also told me how two of her three sons were murdered in their early 20s. The third one was disappeared. An unasked question hung in the air: whether her grandson would have lived to adulthood had he stayed in Honduras.

Human history is one of migration; we are exceptionally good at moving around when the conditions for life become tenuous. Neither walls nor deserts nor oceans have ever deterred us from seeking safer horizons and better opportunities for survival.

Under these circumstances, Hondurans’ drive to seek safety elsewhere is not an emergency; that there may be no place in the world where they are allowed to find refuge is the real crisis.

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

I used to get folks from San Pedro Sula in Immigration Court. Horrible place! Most of them qualified for asylum, withholding of removal, or some other form of relief from removal. Or the DHS Assistant Chief Counsel, having better things to do, and actually not wanting to see decent folks get hurt, offered them prosecutorial discretion (“PD”).

Of course that was in the “pre-Trump days” when Immigration Judges were generally free to properly apply asylum law (if they chose to do so, which, sadly, not all did) and the ICE Chief Counsel in Arlington was taking a stab at working with the courts and the private bar to make the system operate as reasonably and humanely as it could under the circumstances. Not perfect by any means; but, a world away from the intentional cruelty, irrationality, lawlessness, and intentional bias that the Trump regime has used to destroy any semblance of justice, due process, and functionality in the Immigration Courts.

PWS

02-17-19

IEVA JUSIONYTE @ LA TIMES: Border Walls, Fences, & Barriers Are, At Best, Marginal To Real Law Enforcement – But, They Are Absolutely Guaranteed To Cause Fractures, Trauma, & Amputations For Refugees Fleeing Persecution & Other Desperate People Just Looking For A Better Life!

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jusionyte-border-emergency-responders-20190217-story.html

Jusionyte writes in the LA Times:

We found her in a ditch a few steps away from the rusted border fence on the east side of Nogales, Ariz., an inch-and-a-half laceration on her swollen forehead. She came from Guerrero, one of the most violent states in Mexico, and could not remember how she landed on the rugged surface after her grip on the top of the barrier failed and she fell.

Six firefighters carried her to the ambulance, which took her to a helicopter bound for the regional trauma center in Tucson. Captain Lopez recorded the incident in the logbook when we returned to the firehouse: “1107 Medic 2, Engine 2: Dead End Freeport — Jumper/Head Injury.” This was two lines below an entry logged earlier that morning, for a teenage boy who had come down with a 102-degree fever while locked in a cell at the Border Patrol station after agents apprehended him in the desert: “0951 Medic 2: 1500 West La Quinta Rd — High Fever.”

Emergency responders are the first on the scene in any life-threatening situation: car accidents, drug overdoses, heart attacks, shootings. In the southern United States, the list of routine trauma scenarios includes border-related injuries.

For more than a year, while I was volunteering as an EMT and paramedic in Arizona, I witnessed ambulances pick up wounded border crossers so frequently that some of my peers were casually referring to the cement ledge abutting the fence as “the ankle alley.”

Such reinforcements don’t contribute to national security. Instead, they erode the foundations of public safety in communities on both sides of the border.

From EMTs to emergency room doctors, medical professionals see firsthand how, as the design of the barrier changes, so do the patterns of injury: While the previous, shorter fence, built in the 1990s and made of sharp corrugated sheet metal, amputated the fingers of those who tried to scale it, the current 20-foot-tall bollard barrier causes orthopedic fractures and multi-system trauma.

Emergency responders also see that, no matter its design, the fence does not deter unauthorized migrants. Even more often than ambulances are dispatched to “the ankle alley,” they are sent to help those choosing the dangerous journey across what the Border Patrol calls “hostile terrain,” where enforcement is outsourced to the extreme environment.

Migrants rescued in the desert are often severely dehydrated and face a life with permanent kidney damage. Lucky ones, nevertheless: In the last two decades, more than 7,000 people have died crossing the increasingly militarized Southwest border region, some of them from head trauma suffered when they fell off the fence in Nogales.

The border fence, now enhanced by spools of concertina wire, is a key component of “tactical infrastructure,” a term Customs and Border Protection uses to refer to the assemblage of materials and technologies that regulate movement in the name of national security. CBP doesn’t have metrics to assess whether fencing contributes to their border enforcement operations, as the Government Accountability Office noted in a report released last year.

The ineffectiveness of current fences has nothing to do with their size or their length. Barriers along the border have doubled in height since the 1990s and now cover nearly 700 miles, or about one-third of the length of the U.S. Southwest border. But they have failed to stop unauthorized migrants or illegal drugs.

Still, as we can see from the ongoing debate on border security among lawmakers, there are no plans to abandon this brutal and ineffective enforcement strategy.

The stubborn focus on barriers is shortsighted, and it obscures how the deployment of tactical infrastructure harms and threatens the safety of communities that straddle the international boundary, such as Nogales. The same emergency responders who splint broken legs and give IV fluids to wounded border crossers depend on partnerships with fire departments in Mexico. Wildfires and flash floods, air pollution and toxic spills spread from one country to another without regard for borders. Walls don’t stop them.

Arizona is downhill, downwind and downstream from the Mexican state of Sonora. Towns on both sides have their public utilities and transportation systems intermeshed. In Nogales, Ariz., and Nogales, Sonora — together known as Ambos Nogales — an arroyo and a sewage pipeline cross the border through a drainage tunnel underneath the port of entry, where residents line up for passport control steps away from railcars carrying sulphuric acid. Aware of this intertwining, emergency managers and first responders have developed binational partnerships.

Enter the Fray: First takes on the news of the minute »

The U.S. Forest Service and Mexico’s National Forestry Commission jointly fight wildfires within 10 miles of the border. Sister cities have mutual aid agreements, which allow them to share resources in cases of emergency on either side. While Americans push fire hoses through the gaps in the fence, supplying their peers in Mexico with water, Mexican volunteers come to the U.S. side to provide manpower in large structure fires and search-and-rescue operations. Such cooperation is more than a century old. It precedes the fence that divides the communities.

Building barriers undermines these achievements and imperils border residents. To speed up the construction of the wall after Sept. 11, 2001, the Department of Homeland Security was authorized to waive more than 30 environmental and other federal laws, including regulations preserving clean air and clean water. Tactical infrastructure, deployed at any human, social or ecological cost, exacerbates the potentially disastrous consequences of natural phenomena.

We saw it happen a decade ago, when the CBP installed a 5-foot concrete barrier inside the drainage tunnel under Nogales. The barrier formed a bottleneck. With heavy rain, water pressure kept rising, until about 1,000 feet of the tunnel collapsed and inundated the city. Mexican authorities declared the area a disaster zone, citing damage to hundreds of homes, while the CBP recovered two bodies, suspecting the drowned were unauthorized migrants. Despite calls for investigations and reparations, the U.S. government’s only concession was an offer to lower the barrier by a foot and a half.

Such reinforcements don’t contribute to national security. Instead, they erode the foundations of public safety in communities on both sides of the border. As U.S. soldiers added more concertina wire to the fence in Nogales earlier this month, an EMT told me he dreads the day he may be called to help someone entangled in its razor-sharp coils.

Ieva Jusionyte is an assistant professor of anthropology and social studies at Harvard University and the author of “Threshold: Emergency Responders on the U.S.-Mexico Border.” She has volunteered as an emergency medical technician, paramedic and firefighter in Florida, Arizona and Massachusetts.

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

On the “real border,” Trump’s lies and White Nationalist nonsense don’t just waste money and create artificial barrier to international cooperation; they actually harm folks on both sides every day. And, they most certainly bring us no closer to the rational solutions needed to manage a shared border and reasonably control and channel human migration.

PWS

02-18-19

“LIES, DAMN LIES, & (BOGUS) STATISTICS” — That Sums Up Trump’s White Nationalist Immigration Agenda — America Needs To Stand Up Against This Would-Be Fascist Tyrant Who Threatens Our Country, Our Constitution, & Our Precious Democratic Institutions!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-be-fooled-by-trumps-make-believe-crisis/2019/02/15/b66adc60-3158-11e9-8ad3-9a5b113ecd3c_story.html

From the Washington Post Editorial Board:

IT IS hard to single out any single event in Donald Trump’s presidency as the most untethered from truth and reality. Still, Friday’s news conference, in which Mr. Trump tried to defend his end run around Congress based on a make-believe emergency at the southern border, was, to use the president’s own words, a “big con game.”

Mr. Trump’s technique is to spin fiction as fact, secure in the knowledge that minds will reel as fact-checkers labor to deconstruct his ziggurat of falsehoods. So let’s stick to one big, basic truth: There is no crisis at the southern border.

There is no crisis, and there is no justification to specifically and surgically contravene the will of Congress, which just weighed and dismissed Mr. Trump’s demand for $5.7 billion to build a border wall, opting instead to grant him $1.375 billion.

The evidence that no emergency exists rests on the following:

Fact: Illegal crossings between ports of entry, as measured by Border Patrol arrests along the Mexican border, have plummeted since the turn of the century, falling to just below 400,000 in the most recent fiscal year, from more than 1.6 million in 2000. That nose-dive in illegal crossings coincides with better economic conditions in Mexico and a major increase in Border Patrol agents, technology and infrastructure along the southwest frontier.

Fact: Most illegal drugs that enter the country from Mexico are discovered by authorities at legal crossing points, not in remote areas where a wall would serve as a deterrent. That was the case, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, for 90 percent of the heroin seized along the border. It’s not a Democratic talking point. Vice President Pence, in an opinion piece published last month in USA Today, noted that most seizures of illegal narcotics are “primarily at points of entry.”President Trump declares a national emergency at the U.S.- Mexico border during remarks about border security in the Rose Garden of the White House on Feb. 15. (Oliver Contreras/For The Washington Post)

Fact: The number of illegal immigrants in the United States has been falling for more than a decade, and two-thirds of those who remain have been here for more than a decade. An estimated 10.7 million unauthorized migrants were in the country in 2016, about 1.5 million fewer than in 2007, according to the Pew Research Center.

Moreover, among unauthorized migrants in fiscal 2017, about twice as many entered the United States legally — and overstayed their visas — as were apprehended at the southern border, according to government figures.

Fact: Mr. Trump, having conjured a nonexistent crisis, simply could not countenance his failure to persuade Congress to pay for his border wall. The source for this assertion is the president himself, who acknowledged in his news conference Friday that “I didn’t need to do this” and “I just want to do it faster.”

The emergency for Mr. Trump is purely political, impelled by expectations inflated by his campaign promises to build a border wall and force Mexico to pay. Having conflated a political crisis with a national one, Mr. Trump chooses to dodge, dissemble and lie. A self-respecting Congress would not let stand this manufactured emergency.

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

We shouldn’t think that just because 1) the courts likely will stop Trump; and 2) even if they don’t, he’s too incompetent to build much wall anyway, no matter how long his regime lasts, everything “will be OK.”

The real tragedy and shameful disgrace is that with the time, money, and resources being squandered on “Trump’s fraud on America,” a competent “real” Administration could actually solve the problem in less time using current legal procedures.

A “real government” with those resources could:

Hire more Asylum Officers to do “credible fear” interviews;
Hire more U.S. Immigration Judges and Court staff to hear asylum cases in accordance with Due Process;
Provide lawyers for all asylum applicants; and
Hire more CBP Inspectors for Ports of Entry.

It’s not “rocket science;” it’s just using common sense to solve problems in accordance with the law, the (not alternative) facts, and without racist bias.

With competent apolitical professional management, which is undoubtedly available but unsought by this Administration, it could happen in the foreseeable future. And, unlike the “wall hoax,” a solution consistent with the law and due process actually would be as “durable” as anything can be in the 21st Century!

The 2020 elections will be a critical opportunity to use our existing democratic institutions to stop the perverted regime of this pathetic, yet dangerous, self-styled “Knockoff American Mussolini” and to end the “minority rule” that has allowed him and his party to assume power against the will and in disregard for the best interests of the majority of Americans. For the sake of our nation’s future and that of our world, we can’t afford to blow it!

PWS

02-16-19

COLBY KING @ WASHPOST: The “Original Dreamers” Were Disenfranchised African Americans! — “That fight must continue on behalf of today’s dreamers, the disenfranchised, the demeaned and left out, and all freedom-loving people in this nation.“

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-black-men-of-the-civil-war-were-americas-original-dreamers/2019/02/15/8c00088e-30a8-11e9-813a-0ab2f17e305b_story.html

Colby King writes in WashPost:

Today, a wall looms large in my thoughts. It isn’t the structure President Trump has in mind for our southern border. I’m thinking of the Wall of Honor at the African American Civil War Memorial, located at Vermont Avenue and U Street NW.

Listed on the wall are the names of 209,145 U.S. Colored Troops who fought during the Civil War. One of those names is that of Isaiah King, my great-grandfather.

I think of those courageous black men as America’s original “dreamers.”

Today’s dreamers are in their teens and 20s, having arrived in this country as children. King’s generation of dreamers were former slaves or descendants of slaves brought to these shores against their will.

However, the black men who fought in the Civil War had the same status as today’s dreamers: noncitizens without a discernable path to citizenship.

Like dreamers of today, those black soldiers and sailors also had families and attended churches; some were enrolled in schools. They could dream of a future, anchored in the rights and privileges that come with democracy. But they had no legal claim to an existence within America’s borders.

My great-grandfather was born in the slave-holding city of Washington in 1848, but his mother was a freed woman. She moved the family to New Bedford, Mass., when he was 4. Around the time of his 17th birthday, Isaiah King enlistedin the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry (Colored), thinking, “I would have it easier riding than walking,” he told the New Bedford Evening Standard in an interview on the eve of Memorial Day services in 1932.

Black men such as my great-grandfather signed on to fight for a Union in which the right to citizenship was reserved for white people. The Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford, in 1857, that black people were not citizens of the United States. Putting it bluntly, the high court said black people were “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

And even then, they started their service to the United States one step behind.

In his book “The Fifth Massachusetts Colored Cavalry in the Civil War,” Steven M. LaBarre cited the first disparity: It was enshrined in the Second Confiscation and Militia Act of July 17, 1862, which authorized recruitment of black men into the Union army. The law stated that a “person of African descent [of any rank] . . . shall receive ten dollars per month . . . three dollars of which monthly pay may be in clothing.” White privates at the time received $13 per month plus a $3.50 clothing allowance. It wasn’t until July 15, 1864, that Congress granted equal pay to black soldiers.

Yet, serve they did.

As evidence of the regard in which they were held, LaBarre quoted Massachusetts Gov. John Albion Andrew’s commendation of the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry when it was launched: “In this hour of hope for our common country and for themselves; at a time when they hold the destiny of their race in their own grasp; and when its certain emancipation from prejudice, as well as slavery, is in the hands of those now invited to unite in the final blow which will annihilate the rebel power, let no brave and strong man hesitate. One cannot exaggerate the call sounding in the ears of all men, in whose veins flows the blood of Africa, and whose color has been the badge of slavery. It offers the opportunity of years, crowded into an hour.”

Volunteering was a start. They still had something to prove.

According to National Archives, by the end of the Civil War, roughly 179,000 black men were serving as soldiers — 10 percent of the Union army — and 19,000 served in the Union navy. Nearly 40,000 black soldiers died over the course of the war — 30,000 of infection or disease. By war’s end, 16 black soldiers had been awarded the Medal of Honor .

King came back to the capital in May 1864 as a private with the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry to defend the city against attack by Confederate troops. His unit participated in the Siege of Petersburg. They guarded Confederate prisoners at Point Lookout, Md. And his unit was among the first Union regiments to enter Richmond, capital of the dying Confederacy, on April 3, 1865.

The Civil War ended, but not his service. Three months later, the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry was sent to Texas to defend against threats from Mexico. (Sound familiar?) He was mustered out of service on Oct. 31, 1865, at Clarksville, Tex. — still not a citizen of the United States.

It wasn’t until 1868 that the threat of removal from the United States was lifted by the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in this country, including former slaves.

The men with names on the African American Civil War Memorial’s Wall of Honor fought and died to end two centuries of slavery, without being able to count democracy as their own.

For their descendants, the fight for full rights, for full participation in every part of our democracy, goes on.

That fight must continue on behalf of today’s dreamers, the disenfranchised, the demeaned and left out, and all freedom-loving people in this nation.

Read more from Colbert King’s archive.

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

Thanks, Colby, for putting the current plight of “Dreamers” (and I might add refugees and other migrants who are serving, contributing, and building our society despite their disenfranchisement and the government-sponsored dehumanization being inflicted upon them) in the historical context of the fight for civil rights and human dignity in America.

That’s why the “21st Century Jim Crows” like Trump, Sessions, Stephen Miller, Sen. Tom Cotton, Rep. Steve King, and others (largely associated with the GOP) are so pernicious. Like the “Jim Crows of the past,” these guys use degrading racial stereotypes, intentionally false narratives, and bogus “rule of law” arguments to generate hate and bias, sow division, and use the law to suppress and violate rights rather than advancing them.

While sycophant DHS Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen does not appear to be an “ideological racist,” her mindless and disingenuous parroting of the Trump White Nationalist “party lies” and “enforcement” (read “de-humanization”) agenda certainly makes her a “functional racist.”

It’s quite outrageous and dangerous that individuals with these types of views have been elevated to powerful public offices in the modern era, after the death of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn?

PWS

02-16-19

HE’S NO HADRIAN! – Actually, Trump Is A Terrible “Wall Builder!”

David Lauter writes for the LA Times:

With his decision to declare a national emergency on the border and seek to build a border wall by executive fiat, President Trump has guaranteed more high-profile battles and likely more defeats.

What he hasn’t gotten is more fence.

That’s a consistent pattern — Trump opts for fights over actual accomplishments. A year ago, congressional Democrats offered $25 billion for border fencing as part of a broader immigration deal. Trump balked after initially agreeing. Last fall, Senate Democrats approved $1.6 billion to avoid a government shutdown. Trump went for the shutdown instead.

He ended up with $1.375 billion.

TRUMP’S DECLARATION

Trump went back and forth on whether he would sign the spending bill or precipitate another government shutdown. In the end, he agreed to sign it, but only in conjunction with a national emergency declaration that he hopes to use to divert several billion dollars more.

As Noah Bierman wrote, it’s unclear how much additional fencingTrump will actually be able to build even if his emergency declaration survives court challenges. White House officials say they hope to free up about $6.6 billion which could build or upgrade about 234 miles of fencing. They declined to say how much of that would be new construction.

There’s not a lot Congress can immediately do to block the emergency declaration. As Sarah Wire wrote, Trump could veto any move to block it, and although several Republicans have said they oppose the move, enough will almost surely stand with Trump to prevent the two-thirds vote in both houses needed to overturn a veto.

Environmental laws aren’t much of an impediment, either. As Anna Phillips and Molly O’Toole wrote, the 2006 law which expanded the building of fences along the border explicitly allows the Homeland Security department to waive nearly any environmental law. The administration has aggressively used that power.

But the emergency declaration itself will be vulnerable in court, as Trump said in a long, self-pitying riff during his Rose Garden news conference.

Opponents will almost surely sue, arguing that no emergency exists and that Trump is using the declaration in an unconstitutional effort to bypass Congress’ power to control spending. How that fight will be resolved — probably by the Supreme Court — is anyone’s guess.

In addition to those battles, any building project along the Texas border will involve long fights in court with angry landowners challenging efforts to take their land by eminent domain.

Don’t expect to see a “big, beautiful wall” along the border anytime soon.

But some White House advisors say that’s all beside the point. Trump’s core supporters, they argue, would like to see a wall built, but what they really care most about is seeing Trump fight for their priorities. In that analysis, the fight matters more than the outcome.

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

Once a con-man, always a con-man. “Malicious incompetence” is the hallmark of the Trump Administration.

PWS

02-16-19

ACLU & SPLC SUE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ON “MIGRANT REJECTION PROTOCOLS!”

https://www.bustle.com/p/this-update-on-trumps-remain-in-mexico-policy-means-its-about-to-face-a-challenge-15956331

Kavitha George reports for Bustle:

Two weeks ago, immigration authorities began to enforce a new policy that requires some asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their claims are being processed. NPR and The Washington Post have already reported on migrant families being returned across the border by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials. But a new update on Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy means it’s about to face a legal challenge.

On Thursday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) teamed up, filing a lawsuit to address the matter in Northern California’s District Court. The suit names DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, as well as numerous Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials. Nielsen has described the policy, officially known as Migrant Protection Protocols as “a huge step forward in bringing order to chaotic migration flows, restoring the rule of law and the integrity of the United States immigration system.” Bustle has reached out to DHS and ICE for comment.

However, some civil rights organizations disagree with that characterization. “Immigration authorities are forcing asylum seekers at the southern border of the United States to return to Mexico — to regions experiencing record levels of violence,” the lawsuit reads. “By placing them in such danger, and under conditions that make if difficult if not impossible for them to prepare their cases, Defendants are depriving them of a meaningful opportunity to seek asylum.”

In its statement, the ACLU rejected the administration’s claims of an immigration crisis at the border.

Before the implementation of the new return policy, asylum-seekers would legally enter the country through a port of entry along the border, and remain in detention while they waited for a “credible fear” assessment. If they were approved, migrants could remain in the country until a future court hearing. However in 2018, CBS News reported, the Trump administration hit a record high in asylum denials, rejecting some 65 percent of applicants.

In a December statement, Nielsen described the “catch and return” policy as a way to prevent migrants trying to “game the system” by obtaining entry and then “disappear[ing] into the United States, where many skip their court dates.” In fact, according to the Department of Justice’s own data from the 2017 fiscal year, some 89 percent of asylum-seekers released into the country return for their court dates.

Under the new plan, CBS reported, migrants crossing at the San Ysidro checkpoint in San Diego, are processed and returned across the border to Tijuana with a toll-free phone number to check on their claim status. Immigration rights activists argue that this system defeats the purpose of an asylum claim for people trying to escape violence and political unrest in Central America.

“They’re just spending their time just trying to survive in Tijuana,” Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, an analyst for the American Immigration Council, told CBS. “We know that there are people who have been turned away from the border who have then been kidnapped, raped. There are likely people who have been murdered.”

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

Everybody expected this, including the Trumpsters. Stay tuned for the results.

One problem that I see right off the bat for the DHS is counsel. The immigration law guarantees individuals in removal proceedings the right to be represented by counsel of their own choice at no expense to the Government.

Not only did the Administration put these “Protocols” into operation without consulting with NGOs and pro bono groups on both sides of the border, but there have been credible reports of DHS actually harassing and impeding American lawyers going back and forth to Mexico in an attempt to provide the representation guaranteed by statute (and probably also by Due Process).

Additionally, contrary to Nielsen’s lies and misrepresentations, there really was no coordination with the Mexican Government of what steps would be taken to guarantee U.S. lawyers reasonable access to clients in Mexico. There have also been credible reports that the Mexican authorities have been uncooperative and have placed roadblocks in the way of attorneys representing asylum seekers. Add that to the fact that like Trump himself, Nielsen and DHS are well-known for lying, evading, and misrepresenting to Congress, the Federal Courts, the press, and the American people, and we have the makings for yet another in the series of “failed restrictionist initiatives” taken by the Trumpsters.

PWS

02-15-18

“SIMPLY BRILLIANT” — Retired U.S. Immigration Judge Carol King Tells Us All We Need To Know About The Deplorable State Of EOIR & Practice In The Largely “Due Process Free” Zone Of Today’s Immigration Courts In Her Keynote Address To The AILA Northwest Regional Immigration Law Conference!

KEYNOTE SPEECH

I.
KEYNOTE: AILA NORTHWEST REGIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CONFERENCE February 14, 2019
Seattle, Washington
PRACTICING IN PERILOUS TIMES
INTRODUCTION: Practicing in Perilous Times a.What does it mean to be PRACTICING IN
PERILOUS TIMES? Is this time really so
different? b.ALWAYS:
i. You have ALWAYS worked with the most vulnerable clients
ii.You have ALWAYS taken in stories of trauma, persecution and grief in the normal course of your work
iii.You have ALWAYS had an uphill battle obtaining the relief to which your clients are entitled, because you operate in a system that is broken and often oblivious to their suffering.
c.YOU PERSISTED:
i. But you PERSISTED on behalf of your
clients because you had the skills and the courage to fight those battles on a relatively consistent, if not level, playing field.
1

ii.You PERSISTED because you had for inspiration the resilience and courage and dreams of your immigrant clients
iii.You PERSISTED because, maybe not as often as you’d like, but at least occasionally, you had the satisfaction of helping someone achieve a second chance in life – a chance to start over in the country they chose as home, to work and contribute in their chosen manner, to be with their families, to enjoy a life free of persecution or torture or crushing poverty.
d.NOW
i. NOW the playing field tilts more
drastically every day and the battles are so bloody and so mean-spirited and the results so frequently demoralizing and unfair and lacking in due process, that it has become really difficult to carry on, to keep on persisting.
ii.NOW you’re not only experiencing stories of past trauma, but you are witnessing, in real time, the traumatization of your clients as this administration literally terrorizes them with its rhetoric and actions.
2

iii.NOW you see decades of hard-won development of protections for your clients swept away in a single day and with a single pen stroke.
iv.In my more than 30 years both practicing as an immigration attorney and sitting as an immigration judge, I don’t believe there has been a more difficult or perilous time to practice in this area.
1.What you are all doing at this time in history is really, really difficult
2.It takes an inordinate amount of dedication, courage and vision.
3.I am in awe of each and every one of you.
II. IMMIGRATION COURT UPDATE a.I’ve been asked to give today an
IMMIGRATION COURT UPDATE.
i. That’s a bit of a difficult task, since
you are the experts on what you’re seeing every day in court, and since I have been off the bench and somewhat “out of the inside loop” for two years, and much has occurred since then. Despite that, I’m going to venture an opinion, and that is that the Immigration Court system itself is also
3

in serious peril, as is its ability to provide due process of law to those who appear before it.
ii.I want to focus on a few issues that I think are extremely important to protecting due process in our court system.
b.ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES resulting in a Crushing caseload: The Immigration Court has been functioning under a crushing caseload and with entirely inadequate resources for as long as I worked there.
i. That caseload is now growing exponentially for a variety of reasons (the last statistic I heard was that, on average, individual Immigration Judges have a pending caseload of over 2500 cases). What are some of the reasons for this exponential growth?:
1.Priorities: This administration has absolutely refused to set any kind of meaningful priorities for prosecution of cases. The policy is to prosecute every issue in every possible case to the max. There is no recognition that limitations on resources require prosecutorial discretion.
4

2.Erosion of case management tools:
a.The current management of EOIR has eroded the case management tools that in the past allowed judges to juggle a massive caseload and prioritize the cases that were ripe for adjudication. First, administrative closure was taken away by AG Sessions, with a suggestion that such situations could be dealt with by continuances. Then, once that was in place, EOIR openly discouraged continuances, requiring judges to issue a long- form written decision justifying each granted continuance. No such decision is required to deny a continuance. In addition to eliminating essential tools for managing a massive caseload, incentivizing a particular outcome in decision-making undermines the independence of the court and due process
5

and has no place in a court
system!
3.Aftermath of Gov’t Shut Down:
a. My contacts are with the SF
Immigration Court, not Seattle, but I think some generalizations can be made: First, there was ZERO GUIDANCE from EOIR management on how to deal with the specifics of the shut-down. Thus, each court administrator decided how to deal with, for instance, filings during the shut down, and the resetting of cases.
b.In San Francisco, all mail was opened and date stamped, then set for a 10 day call up to begin the day the government reopened. They received 10,000 filings during the 5 week shutdown. None of them could be entered into the system. They all came up for call up on Feb 7, 2019.
6

Thus, the SF court, which is one of the most efficient and well-run courts, is overwhelmed still by the remnants of the shut down.
c. In addition, when the SF Court Administrator asked EOIR for a 3 day “recovery period” after the shutdown, the request was denied and they were told that all courtrooms had to be in full swing as of the morning of the first day the government reopened. ACCs did not have their files, court files had not been pulled for Master Calendar and Individual Calendar hearings. At that point 10,000 filings, including those filed before the two week filing deadline for cases scheduled that morning, were in a pile waiting to be entered into the court
7

system and were
inaccessible to the judges. d.The only support offered
from EOIR was unlimited overtime for staff, so some staff has now been consistently working 20 hours a week overtime to try to catch up on the aftermath of the shutdown.
e.As an example of the delays engendered by the shutdown, in San Francisco 67 full Master Calendars had to be cancelled. As new cases pour in and add to the backlog, all these cases have to be reset to new Master Calendars, not to mention hundreds of individual cases which must now be reset.
4.Severe shortage in resources: As always, the Immigration Court is operating under a severe shortage of resources. As an example, in San Francisco, by this summer they will have a full complement of 27
8

Judges and all courtrooms will be full, but the court is already down 30 Legal Assistants from what they should have and all Legal Assistants are carrying 2 judges’ caseloads, a nearly impossible task even in a short-term emergency situation. Because Legal Assistant hiring falls far behind even IJ hiring, by summer all the Legal Assistants will have to carry 3 judges’ caseloads.
c.LEGAL AND INDEPENDENCE ISSUES
i. I talked about incentivizing denying
continuances. But there are even more direct ways in which this administration has undermined the independence of the Immigration Court. When the Attorney General of the United States goes to a conference of Immigration Judges and specifically tells judges that entire categories of asylum cases should “generally” be denied (as AG Sessions did in the summer of 2018), this is a direct and blatant attack on the decisional independence of the Immigration Judges.
9

ii.Matter of A-B- was only one in a series of decisions in which the current Department of Justice is inappropriately using the AG Certification Process in an attempt to roll back decades of painstaking development of the law, developments which had finally brought us into closer compliance with our international obligations to protect true refugees. This tactic has gone hand in hand with vicious attacks on immigrants in the press and disregard of their true motives for coming to the United States.
iii.Add to all of this the jurisdictional issues raised by the Supreme Court in Pereira v. Sessions and the Immigration Court system is in severe peril. It seems to me extremely clear that the legal conclusion in that case compels a finding that the vast majority of Notices to Appear filed with the court during the entire time I have been involved in immigration law are invalid and incapable of conferring jurisdiction on the Immigration Court. As I’m sure you know, a panel of the 9th Circuit
10

recently held otherwise, but with very shaky reasoning. If eventually all these NTA’s are declared invalid, I have grave concerns for the impact that will have on the Immigration Court system, and even on tens of thousands of immigrants who have been granted relief by Immigration Courts over the last 40 years.
iv.The final perilous factor I want to talk about today is the pressure on judges to complete an overwhelming number of cases in a very short period of time, probably the most dangerous threat to due process of all.
1.Immigration Judges have, for the first time, been mandated to complete 700 cases per year. In the past we had “aspirational goals” to complete certain cases by a certain time, and that in and of itself, created a lot of pressure and fear among judges.
2.But now, not only have the case completion goals become mandatory, they have been tied to the Immigration Judge’s Performance Evaluations. If you
11

look at the ABA’s guidelines for evaluation of judges, you will see that completing a particular number of cases is absolutely inappropriate as a factor to evaluate judges. Judges are evaluated by their peers and party/ stakeholders on criteria such as legal reasoning ability; knowledge of the law; knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence; keeping up on current developments; Integrity and Impartiality; communication skills; professionalism and temperament; administrative capacity (including managing a docket efficiently and effectively) – while this includes promptness in deciding cases, the commentary makes clear that these are aspirational goals, that some factors affecting promptness of decisions may be outside the judges’ control and that the purpose of such an evaluation is primarily for the individual improvement of each judge and
12

should never be tied to
disciplinary action.
3.Now we have a situation in the Immigration Court in which the judges’ continued employment depends on their ability to keep up with an artificial and unrealistic case completion mandate, which requires the completion of approximately three full hearings a day, leaving complex asylum and cancellation hearings lucky to be scheduled for 90 minutes, where such hearings used to be scheduled for a full morning or afternoon, and might take even more than one such session.
4.This is something that requires vigilance by all of us. Knowing that the judges are under an incredible amount of pressure, and even sympathizing with that situation (please do!), does not relieve us of zealously representing our clients. What does that mean in this milieu? It means being super prepared. It means being super efficient in the presentation of your cases. It
13

means trying to work out stipulations with ICE counsel as to issues, admissibility of evidence, the need for cross examination (anything you can think of to make the hearing go faster for the judge), it means briefing every or almost every case and making sure all arguments are addressed in writing in case time is not given for closing arguments or opening statements. And then, after you have done the most thorough, efficient, and complete job you can at presenting your case, if the time given is not sufficient and the judge is cutting off the presentation of the case, it means standing up on the record and using the words “denial of due process”.
III. CONCLUSION:
a.What does all this mean as we struggle to
deal with the peril in which we find ourselves?
i. As a community, we must continue to advocate for a more independent
14

court, one which exists outside of any prosecutorial agency such as the DOJ.
1.For years we had mostly small incursions into decisional independence, most often when EOIR management made what they believed to be an “administrative” decision which inadvertently encroached on decisional independence
2.But, as judges, we saw the potential and feared that more intentional and direct incursions could be made under the current system. Therefore, at peril to our own jobs, we chose to advocate for an independent court under Article 1 of the United States Constitution. Since then, the Federal Bar Association, AILA and others have joined us in this call.
3.We are now seeing the types of direct and intentional attacks on the independence of the Immigration Judges that we mostly only feared before. Therefore, we must redouble our efforts to attain
15

independent status for the
Immigration Court.
ii.As individuals, as I said in the
beginning, we are facing truly perilous times, and we can’t underestimate the impact that has on our health, our ability to stay in the work for the long term, and our competence as attorneys.
1.It bears saying that, in such perilous times, it is terribly easy to feel that there is no time to rest, no time to take a break, spend time with family, engage in self- care such as meditation or exercise or dancing or surfing or whatever floats your boat and helps you renew your stamina. It’s so easy to feel that our clients are suffering so badly that we ourselves have no right or ability to rest.
2.A young lawyer said to me recently, “We start out in this work feeling like warriors; but we wind up barely hanging on.” That got me thinking what it would mean to approach our work with the heart
16

of a warrior. The characteristics of warriors are:
a.Persistence: not accepting what seems to be inevitable. We didn’t accept it when years of “settled law” seemed to preclude effective use of Particular Social Group in asylum cases, and we must not accept either when the AG “grabs” cases in order to undermine decades of patient and attentive legal development, as he did in Matter of A-B-. Likewise, we must not accept having our cases rushed beyond all semblance of due process.
b.Preparation: Warriors prepare themselves for battle – as we are doing now, and do regularly, by educating ourselves, learning from each other, strategizing and skills training. As warriors, we also prepare our cases as well as ourselves, and do so zealously and to the best of our ability.
17

c.Dedication: As warriors, we must consistently ask ourselves – does this work bring me joy? If not, you will not be able to fully dedicate yourself to it for the long term. Because we believe in the work we are doing and the people we are representing, we WANT to give of ourselves 110%. But what does that mean? As part of her preparation for battle, a warrior prepares herself by taking care of body and soul.
I propose to you that in these perilous times, self-care becomes even more essential than it ordinarily is. It HAS to figure in to the 110% that you are giving! Our brains and bodies break down if we remain consistently in fight or flight mode and that effects not only our own happiness and health, but our ability to represent our clients competently and intelligently over a long period of time. Don’t put off this
18

aspect of your role as a warrior for your clients. Please don’t wait, as I did, until you are too fundamentally exhausted to implement a self-care plan.
d.Do it now, do it for yourselves, do it for your family, do it for your current and future clients.
3.Thank you
19

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

Thank you, Carol. Proud to be your colleague in “Our Gang!”

PWS

02-15-19

HEIDI ALTMAN @ HEARTLAND ALLIANCE: How EOIR & Other Trump Toadies Lie & Distort “Statistics” To Support A White Nationalist Immigration Agenda!

https://immigrantjustice.org/sites/default/files/content-type/research-item/documents/2019-01/NIJC-Policy-Brief_Trump-Data-Manipulation_Jan2019.pdf

The Trump Administration’s Manipulation of Data to Perpetuate Anti-Immigrant Policies

The Trump administration regularly manipulates data to support its anti-immigrant agenda. Two weeks after President Trump shut down the federal government because Congress refused to approve funding to build a wall on the southern border, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen presented a slideshow to the president’s Cabinet that was widely publicized for relying on inaccurate and heavily inflated numbers to create a sense of crisis in the border region.1 But it has long been a tried and true strategy for this administration’s agencies and government officials to misrepresent facts and figures and implement policy changes intentionally developed to gin up data points that prove a pre-established nativist narrative.

This policy brief describes how the administration has corrupted immigration data to fuel its anti- immigrant policy agenda. Particularly alarming examples include its manipulation of information and data to (I) undermine access to asylum; (II) exacerbate the due process crisis in the immigration courts; and (III) escalate the criminalization of migrants.

I. Crippling Asylum Access, then Touting Low Approval Rates

as Evidence of Fraud

The Trump administration made it nearly impossible for many people to get asylum, and now cites low grant rates to claim there are no legitimate asylum seekers.

The administration’s campaign to close the
border to asylum seekers began almost on
day one. President Trump’s February 2017
Executive Order on border security called for
higher standards for screening asylum
seekers’ fear of return.2 At the border,
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has
intentionally reduced the processing of
asylum seekers at ports of entry3 and
doubled down on a so-called “metering”
system that numerically limits the number of
asylum seekers processed.4 Within the
immigration court system, Department of
Justice (DOJ) leadership has upended
longstanding case law to make it even more
difficult for survivors of gang-related and domestic violence to establish eligibility for asylum.5Unsurprisingly, these policies have shut off asylum protections for many applicants in need:

January 2019 immigrantjustice.org

under the Trump administration, denial rates for asylum applicants rose from 54.6 percent in fiscal year (FY) 2016 to 60.2 percent in FY 2017 and to 65 percent in FY 2018.6

The president and his Cabinet officials, after imposing such arbitrary obstacles to asylum, now claim that the resulting low asylum grant rates mean that most asylum seekers are here to “game the system,” as Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker recently stated after asserting that “only 20 percent of aliens have been granted asylum after a hearing before an immigration judge.”7 In his presidential proclamation attempting to ban certain migrants from asylum eligibility, President Trump stated that “only a fraction” of claimants at the southern border “ultimately qualify for asylum.”8

The fault in the president’s logic is so simple it’s easy to miss: the Trump administration made it nearly impossible for even the most bona fide refugee to obtain asylum, and now claims that applicants’ failures to win protection proves they filed applications for nefarious reasons. The administration is cynically using its own cruel policies to create facts designed to further more cruelty.

II. Distorting Immigration Court Representation and Appearance Data

The administration downplays the access to counsel crisis in our nation’s immigration courts, especially for children, and lies about the prevalence of non-appearance rates in immigration court.

Trump’s appointed officials frequently mislead Congress through incomplete and conflated data that obfuscates the due process crisis playing out every day in U.S. immigration courts. Most frequently, these misrepresentations downplay the critical importance of legal representation in immigration court proceedings and falsely suggest that the majority of immigrants do not appear for their scheduled immigration court hearings.

The DOJ Executive Office for Immigration Review’s (EOIR) own data shows that at least 60 percent of immigrant families in deportation proceedings appear for hearings, a statistic that rockets up to 98 percent when families are represented by counsel who can help them understand the court process.9 Among unaccompanied children, 67.6 percent overall and over 95 percent of minors with legal representation appear for their hearings.10

But in one recent hearing before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, EOIR Director James McHenry put forward several problematic representations of immigration statistics that

2

subverted this reality.11 At one point, McHenry cited statistics from a program whose scope is limited to providing children’s parents or sponsors a basic legal orientation to argue that providing full legal representation is ineffective in ensuring children’s appearance in court.12During the same hearing, McHenry also blatantly misrepresented court appearance data, testifying without evidence that children in immigration court proceedings appear in court only 53 percent of the time.13

The president’s mischaracterization of this data has been even further removed from reality, including unsubstantiated claims that immigrants “never show up [to court], it’s like a level of 3 percent. They never show up for the trial.”14

Obfuscation about representation and appearance rates in immigration court is particularly harmful given how powerfully the deck is already stacked against immigrants in deportation proceedings. Although U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is represented in each proceeding by its own federal counsel, there is no right to counsel for indigent immigrants who cannot afford private representation. Nationally, only 37 percent of all immigrants and only 14 percent of detained immigrants are represented in their immigration court proceedings.15Representation is a particularly critical due process safeguard in immigration court, where people face life-altering consequences and need an expert in the law by their side to ensure they understand how to comply with complex court processes.16 Immigrants with attorneys are five times more likely to win their cases than those without attorneys.17 For detained immigrants, it can be nearly impossible to even present a case without counsel; those with attorneys are 11 times more likely to be able to seek a defense to deportation.18

III. Increasing Prosecutions to Inflate the Number of So-Called

“Criminal” Immigrants

The administration employs both the criminal justice and deportation systems to target immigrants, using its discretion to increase already sky-high prosecutions of immigrants and subsequently touting increased convictions to demonize immigrants.

The Trump administration is quite literally creating its own crime statistics by making it impossible for asylum seekers to present lawfully at ports and then choosing to prosecute as many people as possible for crossing the border elsewhere to request protection. In April 2017, the DOJ announced it would prioritize the prosecution of migration-related offenses,19a jarring announcement in light of the fact that migration-related prosecutions already constituted more than half of all federal prosecutions when the Trump administration took office.20 A year later, DOJ established a

3

“zero-tolerance” policy, whereby U.S. Attorneys Offices at the southwest border were instructed to prosecute all migrants entering between ports of entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325, improper entry.21

Zero tolerance led to a spike of prosecutions along the southwest border, with a 30 percent increase from the month prior to the announcement of the policy.22 As Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker recently noted, in FY 2018, DOJ charged 85 percent more immigrants with unlawful entry than in FY 2017, and increased felony reentry prosecutions by over 38 percent.23Fueling the zero-tolerance policy was the administration’s concerted blockading of the southern border through illegal turnbacks and so-called “metering” of asylum seekers at ports of entry, both still ongoing, forcing many asylum seekers desperate to reach the safety of the United States to attempt to enter between ports.24

The administration utilizes the statistics resulting from these policies to conflate notions of criminality and immigration status in its policy and rhetoric. ICE routinely touts the high percentage of immigration-related criminal arrests and deportations that involve immigrants who enter outside a port of entry, yet increasingly these statistics reveal the extent to which the administration is cooking the books by driving up the rates of migration-related offenses. Most recently, in ICE’s FY 2018 data release, the agency specifically highlighted arrests of immigrants by “Criminality,” arguing that “the largest percentage of aliens arrested by ICE are convicted criminals (66 percent).” Of the categories of underlying criminal conduct, however, immigration-related offenses ranked as third with 51,249 immigrants.25 Similarly, CBP highlights immigrants convicted of both entry and reentry offenses, with statistics as of August 2018 demonstrating they were the leading type of convictions for so-called “criminal aliens,” representing 41 percent in FY 2017 and 47 percent of all convictions in the first eight months of FY 2018.26 While the administration frames these statistics to argue that migrants have become a greater threat, the story they really tell is of a federal agency that has become obsessed with punishing people for crossing the border.

Conclusion

The use of official government resources to paint groups of people as undesirable or criminal mirrors strategies employed by authoritarian regimes throughout world history who have sought to consolidate power, effectuate anti-democratic agendas, and provide a pretext for persecution. During World War II, the Nazi regime published a list of supposed crimes committed by the Jewish population.27 Russia’s current authoritarian regime regularly employs the criminal justice system to prosecute and convict LGBTQ individuals.28 Scapegoating minorities is one of the time-tested tools for dictators.29

Through data manipulation, the Trump administration is deftly employing the various levers of government to implement inherently flawed policy that criminalizes immigrants, subsequently touting that criminalization to vilify them. Collaterally, the administration manipulates or misrepresents data to impugn immigrants and their families as criminals who are undeserving of protection. The endgame is apparent—to build a foundation to enact policies that erode due process, increase incarceration of communities of color, and strip legal protections from immigrants. Congress and other stakeholders must hold this administration accountable and

4

ensure that its anti-immigrant policies are not justified through the use of data or policy inherently designed to undermine basic human and civil rights.

Acknowledgments

This policy brief was authored by Jose Magaña-Salgado for the National Immigrant Justice Center. NIJC’s Heidi Altman and Tara Tidwell Cullen contributed to the report.

For questions, contact NIJC Director of Policy Heidi Altman at (312) 718-5021 orhaltman@heartlandalliance.org.

Endnotes

1 Philip Bump, “The administration is using heavily inflated numbers to argue for a border wall,” Washington Post, Jan. 4, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/04/administration-is-using-heavily-inflated-numbers- argue-border-wall/?utm_term=.c72735337b9c.
2 Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, Exec. Order No. 13,767, 82 Fed. Reg. 8793, Jan. 25, 2017, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/30/2017-02095/border-security-and-immigration- enforcement-improvements.
3 Hamed Aleaziz, “The Trump Administration is Slowing the Asylum Process to Discourage Applicants, an Official Told Congress,” BuzzFeed, Dec. 17, 2018, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/the-trump- administration-is-slowing-the-asylum-process-to.
4 Human Rights First, Refugee Blockade: The Trump Administration’s Obstruction of Asylum Claims at the Border, Dec. 11, 2018, https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/refugee-blockade-trump-administration-s-obstruction- asylum-claims-border.
5 Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1070866/download. This opinion is currently subject to litigation, with a preliminary, nationwide injunction in place as of December of 2018. Lauren Pearle, “Judge blocks Trump administration efforts to restrict asylum for migrants fleeing domestic and gang violence,” ABC News, Dec. 20, 2018, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-blocks-trump-administration-efforts- restrict-asylum-migrants/story?id=59913629; Grace, et al., v. Whitaker, No. 18-CV-01853 EGS (D.D.C. Dec. 19, 2018), available at https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/grace-v-whitaker-opinion. See also Matter of E-F-H-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 226 (A.G. 2018), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1040936/download (undermining the right to an evidentiary hearing for asylum applicants).
6 TRAC Immigration, Asylum Decisions and Denials Jump in 2018, Nov. 29, 2018,http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/539/.
7 Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker Delivers Remarks on the Importance of a Lawful Immigration System, Dec. 11, 2018, https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/acting- attorney-general-matthew-whitaker-delivers-remarks-importance-lawful-immigration. Asylum denials often have life and death consequences for individuals, with deported asylum seekers facing persecution and even death in their home countries. See Jaya Ramji-Nogales , Andrew I. Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag, Refugee Roulette, Disparities in Asylum Adjudication and Proposals for Reform, 2009; Sarah Stillman, “When Deportation is a Death Sentence,” The New Yorker, Jan. 15, 2018, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/15/when-deportation-is-a- death-sentence (documenting the harms awaiting immigrants deported back to their home countries, including violent deaths).
8 Proclamation No. 9822, 83 Fed. Reg. 57,661, Nov. 15, 2018,https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/11/15/2018-25117/addressing-mass-migration-through-the- southern-border-of-the-united-states.
9 Human Rights First, Myth v. Fact: Immigrant Families’ Appearance Rates in Immigration Court, July 31, 2016,https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/myth-vs-fact-immigrant-families-appearance-rates-immigration-court.
10 American Immigration Council, Children in Immigration Court: Over 95 Percent Represented by an Attorney Appear in Court, May 16, 2016, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/children-immigration-court-over-95- percent-represented-attorney-appear-court.
11 Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee, U.S. Senate,Oversight of Efforts to Protect Unaccompanied Alien Children from Human Trafficking and Abuse, Aug. 16, 2018,https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/hearings/oversight-of-efforts-to-protect-unaccompanied- alien-children-from-human-trafficking-and-abuse.

12 Id. (exchange begins at 1:36:40). In this same hearing, Director McHenry also cited an EOIR-produced statistic that the “representation rate for UACs [unaccompanied immigrant children] in proceedings . . . whose proceedings have been pending for over a year is already 75 percent.” By focusing on representation for unaccompanied minors with cases pending for a year or more, Director McHenry excluded representation rates for cases completed in less than a year, namely cases where a judge ordered a minor deported in absentia (e.g. without the minor’s presence in the court) precisely because the minor did not have representation. See Denied a Day in Court: The Government’s Use of In Absentia Removal Orders Against Families Seeking Asylum 15, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, 2018, https://cliniclegal.org/sites/default/files/Denied-a-Day-in-Court.pdf. Looking at impartial data regarding representation rates provides a more sobering picture; as of November 2018, only 48 percent of unaccompanied minors had representation, regardless of how long their case had been pending. See Juveniles — Immigration Court Deportation Proceedings, TRAC Immigration, Nov. 2018,http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/juvenile.

13 McHenry Testimony, supra note 11, at 1:47:10.
14 Linda Qiu, “Trump’s Falsehood-Laden Speech on Immigration,” The New York Times, Nov. 1, 2018,https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/us/politics/fact-check-trump-immigration-.html.
15 Ingrid Eagly and Steven Shafer, Access to Counsel in Immigration Court, American Immigration Council, Sept. 28, 2016, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/access-counsel-immigration-court.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Office of the U.S. Attorney General, Memorandum for all Federal Prosecutors, “Renewed Commitment to Criminal Immigration Enforcement,” Apr. 11, 2017, https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/956841/download.
20 TRAC Immigration, Immigration Prosecutions for December 2016, June 4, 2018,http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/bulletins/immigration/monthlydec16/fil/; Cristobal Ramon, Federal Prosecutions of Illegal Immigrants, Bipartisan Policy Center, Mar. 27, 2018, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/the-prosecution-pipeline/.
21 Office of the U.S. Attorney General, Memorandum for Federal Prosecutors along Southwest Border, “Zero- Tolerance for Offenses Under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a),” Apr. 6, 2018, https://www.justice.gov/opa/press- release/file/1049751/download.
22 TRAC Immigration, Criminal Prosecutions for Illegal Border Crossers Jump Sharply in April, June 4, 2018,http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/515/.
23 Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker Delivers Remarks on the Importance of a Lawful Immigration System, Dec. 11, 2018, https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/acting- attorney-general-matthew-whitaker-delivers-remarks-importance-lawful-immigration.
24 Human Rights First, Refugee Blockade: The Trump Administration’s Obstruction of Asylum Claims at the Border, Dec. 11, 2018, https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/refugee-blockade-trump-administration-s-obstruction- asylum-claims-border.
25 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Fiscal Year 2018 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report , Dec. 14, 2018,https://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/ero/pdf/eroFY2018Report.pdf.
26 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Criminal Alien Statistics – FY 2018(Oct. 23, 2018), https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics/criminal-alien-statistics.
27 Amanda Erickson, “Adolf Hitler also published a list of crimes committed by groups he didn’t like,” The Washington Post, Mar. 2, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/02/adolf-hitler-also-published-a- list-of-crimes-committed-by-groups-he-didnt-like/ (“There’s a reason Trump’s opponents are so worried. This strategy — one designed to single out a particular group of people, suggesting that there’s something particularly sinister about how they behave — was employed to great effect by Adolf Hitler and his allies. In the 1930s, the Nazis used a similar tactic to stir up anger and hatred toward Jews.”).
28 The Council for Global Equality, The Facts on LGBT Rights in Russia, accessed Jan. 2, 2019,www.globalequality.org/component/content/article/1-in-the-news/186-the-facts-on-lgbt-rights-in-russia.
29 Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith, The Dictator’s Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics, 2012.

Images from The Noun Project. Credits: Robbe de Clerck, Adrien Coquet, Luis Prado, and SBTS

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

It’s time for some House Oversight of the ridiculous mess at EOIR and the lies, fabrications, and intentional distortions that support the restrictionist enforcement agenda of what once purported to be a “court system” but now is a “CINO” (“Court in Name Only”) — an unapologetic adjunct of DHS Enforcement (their “partner” according to the now departed Sessions). Amazingly, it’s actually much worse than the dysfunction that led to the removal of the Immigration Courts from the “Legacy INS’ and establishment of a supposedly “independent” EOIR within DOJ in the first place, in 1983.

Then, I don’t think INS was intentionally falsifying anything or carrying out a political agenda in the Immigration Courts. Honestly, the “Legacy INS’ was simply ethically and administratively incompetent to run a due process court system.

But, to the credit of all involved during the Reagan Administration, including then Commissioner Al Nelson and General Counsel “Iron Mike” Inman, we recognized the problem and acted to solve it. We also saw that a “level playing field” and a more independent Immigration Court would gain credibility with the Article III courts, which would benefit INS enforcement. We even got then Associate Attorney General Rudy Giuliani to endorse the “divestiture program.”

Although the first Director of EOIR, David Milhollan, who was also the BIA Chair, and the first Chief Immigration, Judge William R. Robie, were both stalwart Republicans, neither brooked interference from “Main Justice” with their operations. They were particularly proud and assertive of their independence from INS. Indeed “we’re not INS” became the “mantra” of the “early EOIR.”

Milhollan, having moved EOIR Headquarters across the river to Falls Church, VA more or less hoped that at some point DOJ would forget that EOIR every existed. He occasionally sent a little “excess money downtown” to ensure that the “Main DOJ” and the Attorney General would have only “kind thoughts” about EOIR and would otherwise leave him alone. Up to a certain point, it worked.

Sadly, for all of its original promise and development during its first two decades, the “EOIR Experiment” has turned out to be a disastrous failure. It’s quite painful for those of us who devoted large chunks of our professional lives and emotionally invested in the effort to make EOIR a “real” court.

The idea that a court system can operate independently and provide fairness, impartiality, and due process within the now thoroughly politicized DOJ is simply a non-starter. It’s basically a “return to the Nixon Administration” which is where I came in, with the hope of “learning the ropes” and eventually being able to help in some small way to create “good government” and a better America.

Unfortunately, a divided Congress and an Administration bent on destroying our Constitution and democratic institutions are unwilling and/or unable to put “Eyore” out of its misery. That means that innocent lives will continue to be wrongfully destroyed and Constitutional Due Process mocked until the next generation can put the “malicious incompetence” of Trumpism behind us and advance our nation and the world to a better, fairer, more realistic and inclusive future. That’s what the “New Due Process Army” is all about!

PWS

02-15-19

TAL @ SF CHRON WITH SOME GOOD NEWS ABOUT WHAT’S IN THE “BORDER SECURITY” BILL THAT TRUMP (APPARENTLY) WILL SIGN BEFORE DECLARING HIS TOTALLY BOGUS “NATIONAL EMERGENCY!”

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Funding-deal-blocks-ICE-from-arresting-adults-13617721.php

Funding deal blocks ICE from arresting adults taking in undocumented children

By Tal Kopan

WASHINGTON — A government funding deal on the verge of congressional passage would block federal officers from arresting undocumented immigrants solely because they come forward to take in migrant children.

The constraint on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency comes after The Chronicle reported that the government had made scores of such arrests — including more than 100 people who were taken into custody from July through November despite having no criminal record. Immigrant and child welfare advocates had assailed the practice as endangering young people by keeping them in detention longer and by giving immigrants an incentive to conceal potential sponsors’ true identities.

The population of undocumented children in government custody skyrocketed to record levels as immigration officials investigated the potential sponsors.

The ban on arresting sponsors with no criminal record is included in a bill to fund roughly one-quarter of the government through September. The appropriations legislation is the product of weeks of intense negotiations to avert a repeat of the partial shutdown that began Dec. 22 and lasted 35 days.

The Senate passed the bill Thursday and the House was expected to follow suit before government funding runs out Friday. The White House said President Trump would sign it.

House Democrats pushed strongly for the provision during negotiations over the funding package, said a Democratic aide who was not authorized to speak publicly about the talks. Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz offered the specific legislative language.

“Arresting potential sponsors only ensures that children who flee dangerous circumstances will languish longer in overly crowded detention facilities,” Wasserman Schultz said. “Democrats agree, this cruel, immoral Trump trap does nothing to make America safer.”

At issue is the process of finding homes for undocumented immigrant children who come to the U.S. by themselves or are separated from an adult at the border.

Those children end up detained in a national network of shelters until they can be released to an adult, usually a relative. The shelters are designed to be a temporary bridge for often-traumatized children to more stable homes, in which they can pursue their case to stay in the country legally.

To sponsor a child, adults have long had to go through background checks for any criminal history or other red flags that might endanger the child. Immigration status is not weighed as a risk factor.

But last year the Trump administration added additional layers of review, including working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to run fingerprints of potential sponsors. That caused concern within the immigrant community that sponsors, many of whom are undocumented themselves, could be ensnared in the administration’s no-limits immigration enforcement. The revelation that ICE had in turn used that information to arrest potential sponsors, most of whom had no criminal record, confirmed that fear.

Under the administration’s policies, the number of children in custody reached nearly 15,000, breaking records even after the government halted the practice it implemented in spring 2018 of separating families at the border. In December, the Department of Health and Human Services stopped requiring that every additional adult in a sponsor’s home be fingerprinted, a practice that had greatly slowed the process, keeping children detained longer. Since then, the number of children in custody has dropped to 11,500.

The government funding bill bars the administration from detaining or moving to deport undocumented immigrants based solely on information provided by Health and Human Services, which runs the unaccompanied children program, unless it provides evidence of a past child abuse-related felony or potential human trafficking.

Tal Kopan is The San Francisco Chronicle’s Washington correspondent. Email: tal.kopan@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @talkopan

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

Thanks, Tal, for putting the Chron “on top” of this grotesque mistreatment of children by the Trump Administration. Obviously, your courageous and timely reporting of abuses of human rights that DHS was trying to hide from public view has had a “real life” impact on legislation and people’s lives.

The intentional abuses of children and families that the Trump Administration is perpetrating in the name of our country is simply outrageous! Bad things happen to countries that make child abuse a national policy!

It also shows that the Democrats are right in challenging funding for abusive, wasteful, and unnecessary DHS detention. While they lacked the votes to succeed this time around, the battle certainly will continue, on both legislative and litigation fronts. As it does so, the full range of abuses, corruption, and unethical behavior by the Administration and DHS will be exposed and recorded for posterity.

As I’ve said before, it’s time for Article III Judges who have been lied to by Administration officials and whose orders to reunite families have been arrogantly ignored by the Trump Administration to put some of the Administration officials who have planned and carried out these gross human right abuses and thumbed their noses at court orders in jail for contempt.

Again, Tal, thanks for all you do for “truth, justice, and the American way!” And, thanks to conscientious legislators of both parties who helped put these restrictions on anti-social behavior in place. When the system works for the greater good, everyone benefits.

PWS

02-15-19

JUDICIAL BRAIN DRAIN: As Outlaw Administration Attacks Due Process & Attempts To Institutionalize Xenophobic Bias, Experienced, Conscientious U.S. Immigration Judges Head For The Exits – Abandonment Of Scholarship, Fairness, Commitment To Due Process Threatens Entire U.S. Justice System!

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/immigration-policy-judge-resign-trump

Hamed Aleaziz reports for BuzzFeed News:

Being An Immigration Judge Was Their Dream. Under Trump, It Became Untenable.

“It has become so emotionally brutal and exhausting that many people I know are leaving or talking about finding an exit strategy,” said one immigration judge. “Morale has never, ever been lower.”

Hamed AleazizBuzzFeed News Reporter

Reporting From

San Francisco, California

Posted on February 13, 2019, at 6:15 p.m. ET

Tweet

Share

Copy

Constanza Hevia for BuzzFeed News

Former immigration judge Rebecca Jamil in Fremont, California, on Dec. 28, 2018.

SAN FRANCISCO — Rebecca Jamil was sitting in a nondescript hotel ballroom in suburban Virginia when she realized that her dream job — being an immigration judge — was no longer tenable. It was June 11, 2018, and then–attorney general Jeff Sessions, her boss, was speaking to a room packed with immigration judges, running through his list of usual complaints over what was, in his estimation, a broken asylum system.

Toward the end of the speech, Sessions let slip some big news: He had decided whether domestic abuse and gang victims could be granted asylum in the US. Advocates, attorneys, and judges had been waiting months to see what Sessions, who in his role as attorney general had the power to review cases, would do. After all, it would determine the fate of thousands of asylum-seekers, many fleeing dangerous situations in Central America.

Sessions didn’t reveal to the room the details of his ruling but Jamil, based in San Francisco since she was appointed in 2016, learned later that day that the attorney general had decided to dramatically restrict asylum protections for domestic abuse victims.

“I’d seen the faces of these families,” the 43-year-old judge said. “They weren’t abstractions to me.”

Eric Risberg / AP

Hundreds of people overflow onto the sidewalk in a line snaking around the block outside a US immigration office with numerous courtrooms in San Francisco.

Jamil, a mother of two young daughters, had been shaken by the images and sounds that came as a result of the Trump administration’s policy to separate families at the border. As a judge who oversaw primarily cases of women and children fleeing abuse and dangers abroad, this was the last straw.

Soon after, she stepped down from the court.

“I can’t do this anymore,” she told friends. “I felt that I couldn’t be ‘Rebecca Jamil, representative of the attorney general’ while these things were going on.”

In many ways, her resignation underscores the tenuous position of immigration judges, who are overseen by the attorney general and susceptible to the shifting winds of each administration. To avoid potential conflicts, the union that represents the judges has long called for its court to be an independent body, separate from the Department of Justice.

The Trump administration has undertaken a monumental overhaul of the way immigration judges, which total around 400 across the country, work: placing quotas on the number of cases they should complete every year, ending their ability to indefinitely suspend certain cases, restricting when asylum can be granted, and pouring thousands of previously closed cases back into court dockets.

In the meantime, the case backlog has jumped to more than 800,000 under the administration and wait times have continued to skyrocket to hundreds of days.

The quotas in particular have made judges feel as if they were cogs in a deportation machine, as opposed to neutral arbiters given time to thoughtfully analyze the merits of each case.

“The job has become exceedingly more difficult as the court has veered even farther away from being administered as a court rather than a law enforcement bureaucracy,” said Ashley Tabaddor, an immigration judge who heads the National Association of Immigration Judges, a union representing around 350 judges.

And it’s not just Jamil who has departed because of the massive changes to the court undertaken by the Trump administration, according to observers within the Department of Justice and those on the outside. While some, like Jamil, have resigned, others have retired early in large part because of the policies instituted under Trump, they said.

For those remaining at the immigration court, the mood is bleak.

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks during a news conference on Oct. 16, 2018.

“It has become so emotionally brutal and exhausting that many people I know are leaving or talking about finding an exit strategy,” said one immigration judge who declined to be named. “Morale has never, ever been lower.”

Another Justice Department official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, told BuzzFeed News, “It is exhausting when you feel undervalued by the people at the top of your organization, especially when they are motivated by partisanship and have not spent their careers doing the job that you do.”

Tabaddor, the head of the union, said that her group has noticed a higher rate of retirements and resignations than in the past because of the way judges have been treated under Trump.

Some have been bold in their timing. John Richardson, a former immigration judge in Phoenix, stepped down on Sep. 30, 2018 — the day before the administration instituted a quota for the number of cases to be completed by judges.

“The timing of my retirement was a direct result of the draconian policies of the Administration, the relegation of [judges] to the status of ‘action officers’ who deport as many people as possible as soon as possible with only token due process, and blaming [judges] for the immigration crisis caused by decades of neglect and under funding of the Immigration Courts,” he said in a statement to BuzzFeed News.

Another judge who resigned from the bench in September told staff members in a goodbye email, “I know things are getting difficult for you at [the Executive Office for Immigration Review], but I believe all you will ‘ride through the storm’ and ‘come out with a smile.’”

There have long been work challenges for immigration judges, including heavy caseloads and assignments, leading to comparatively high burnout rates. Justice Department officials told BuzzFeed News that concerns over retirements were nothing new.

“In 2015, 2013, and 2011, the National Association of IJs [immigration judges] raised the same concerns. In 2011, the NAIJ said that ‘stress on judges has reached unbearable levels … a large contributing factor to retirement at the earliest possible opportunity,’” said Steven Stafford, a Justice Department spokesperson. “What is actually new is that we are hiring more and more IJs and doing so faster than ever before. Today we have 68.9 percent more IJs than we did in 2010, and that number is only rising.”

According to the agency, from the beginning of fiscal year 2014 through Feb. 12, 2019, 94 immigration judges have retired, separated, or died. More than a third of those judges, 32, have left since Oct. 1, 2017. The agency does not track why judges leave their positions.

To those within the court and others who have recently retired, the situation has worsened to an unprecedented level. Richardson, the former judge in Phoenix, said he would have continued presiding over immigration cases if the status quo had remained.

“Yes, I was 75 years old with over 50 years of honorable federal service with the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice, but had no plans for retirement as long as I was treated with respect, appreciated, and provided adequate support,” he said. “I had 28 years as an IJ and very much enjoyed my job, even with the poor funding and lack of support by Congress and the White House during that 28 years.”

Jeff Chase, a former immigration judge who stepped down years ago and who speaks regularly with others who’ve left the bench, was blunt in his characterization.

“The fastest growth industry is former immigration judges,” Chase said. Those still on the bench have told him, “It’s horrible. Whatever you think it is, it is much, much worse.”

In the meantime, the Trump administration has hired more than 100 judges to not only fill the vacancies of those who’ve retired but to add numbers to the bench. It’s a rehauling of the courts that could “have a drastic impact,” according to Chase.

Many of the judges retiring in recent months are experienced jurists, hired by the Clinton administration in the mid to late ’90s, he said. These judges, Chase said, were more willing to push back on claims made in court by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement or to allow immigrants extended time to make their cases in what could otherwise be a rushed procedure.

In their place, Chase said, are judges hired by the new administration with case completion quotas, a two-year probation period, and a mandate to avoid showing sympathy for the people appearing before them.

“Even if it doesn’t show up on the sheet, just the level of humanity, that makes a huge difference — that’s what this administration is trying to remove from the immigration judge corps,” he said.

Constanza Hevia for BuzzFeed News

Rebecca Jamil holds her immigration judge certificate.

For her part, Jamil wanted to become an immigration judge from the earliest moments of her legal career. After working as a staff attorney at the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals, she joined the government as a prosecutor with ICE in 2011, where she was able to use discretion to focus deportation efforts on those with serious criminal backgrounds. Under the Trump administration, ICE attorneys have been told that nearly all undocumented immigrants are priorities for deportation.

In 2014, Jamil took a chance to fulfill her dream: She applied to become an immigration judge. It was a 17-month process, full of drawn-out interviews in Washington, DC, but finally, in 2015 she received a phone call informing her that she got the job.

“I thought, and I must have told most people I know, that this is the last job that I would ever have. It’s all I wanted to do,” she said.

Jamil dedicated herself to the exhausting career. She oversaw a docket made up primarily of families and regularly heard cases in which women and children applied for asylum based on abuse that they had experienced by partners and family members abroad.

Day in and day out, Jamil heard intense testimony of physical and sexual violence against women and children.

“You’re sitting in a windowless room and people tell you the very worst parts of their life and you have to decide if it is enough to stay in the US,” she said. “That is very tiring day after day to be the person who makes that decision.”

Then, under the Trump administration, things started to change. In 2018, Sessions instituted a new policy, severely limiting when judges could suspend certain cases. Suddenly, her docket expanded and she wasn’t allowed to decide which cases deserved to remain in court and which didn’t.

Jamil and fellow immigration judges were in attendance at the Virginia conference where Sessions spoke for annual trainings on courtroom procedure. The year before, jurists heard substantive legal updates and trainings on bias in the courtroom.

This version of the training, however, felt different.

“The entire conference was profoundly disturbing. Do things as fast as possible. There was an overarching theme of disbelieving aliens and their claims and how to remove people faster,” Jamil said. “That is not what I saw my job as an immigration judge to be. I was not trained to do that.”

Soon after she returned home, Jamil put in her resignation. Her colleagues fretted, probing her about whether she had considered the type of judge that could fill her spot on the bench and the impact that could have.

She didn’t have an answer, but she knew that she couldn’t do it any longer.

“Family separations; Sessions making his own case law on asylum; when we could continue cases — I could no longer sit below the seal of the Department of Justice and represent the Department of Justice at that point,” Jamil said. “They just chipped away at our authority on a daily basis. It felt like we weren’t really judges. It was frustrating and demoralizing.”

A former colleague, Laura Ramirez, worked for years as an immigration judge in San Francisco. In December, she retired at the earliest date possible, five days after she turned 60.

The changes put in place by the Trump administration, especially the case quotas, and the politicization of her job, became too much to handle.

The loss of judges like Jamil and others could be immeasurable to both immigrants and Department of Homeland Security attorneys, Ramirez said.

“For the system of justice, there’s these highly qualified, fair, thoughtful people who are being squeezed out of the system for political reasons, basically,” she said. “If people like her are squeezed out, it’s a loss to people who appear before her. The system can’t be fair if good people like her are pushed out.”

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

Forcing the “best, brightest, and fairest” out. Reinforcing “worst practices.” Enabling judges with well-established records of anti-asylum, nationality-based, and misogynistic bias. Attacking those private attorneys who steadfastly defended legal and Constitutional rights that were being systematically undermined by the Administration. Blaming others for his own incompetence and lack of scholarship. That’s what the “Sessions program” was all about.

The only good news: folks like Judge Jamil, Judge Ramirez, Judge Richardson, and Judge Chase are now part of the ever-growing “Our Gang” of retired Immigraton Judges helping others to fight the injustices and destruction of Due Process being pushed by the Trump Administration and a DOJ that has abandoned its mission in favor of a White Nationalist political agenda. Our voices are being heard in support of the efforts of the “New Due Process Army.”

And, while I doubt that anyone outside of Trump and Miller can match the viscous lies, racism, and knowingly false narratives of Sessions, I wouldn’t expect much improvement under Barr. Barr thought Sessions was “the greatest thing since sliced bread.” That, more than the Mueller investigation, should have caused all Democrats to vote against his confirmation. He’ll just “lose” some of the overtly racist and inflammatory lingo of the White Nationalist restrictionists and attack immigrants on the basis of bogus “strict enforcement” platitudes.

Every American who believes in our Constitution and thinks that America is different from the “Banana Republics” we often criticize will be threatened by this development. Malicious harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all; and the collapse of one of the “building blocks” at the “retail level” of the American justice system will adversely affect everybody’s ability to get justice with fairness and impartiality.

Many of us don’t think we will need fair, independent, and impartial courts until we do. Once the Trump Administration destroys them, they won’t easily be rebuilt.

Who will defend your rights when the time comes if you stand by and watch the rights of others being trampled?

PWS

02-14-19

RADNOFSKY, PETERSON, & ANDREWS: The WSJ’s “Terrific Trio” Takes You Behind The Detention Stats In The “Deal” – It’s Somewhere Between 45,278 & 58,000 In The GOP’s “New American Gulag!”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/border-deal-doesnt-put-detention-questions-to-bed-11550012005?emailToken=e4d9f2903df6925fba0d7795cbe27f54IMR8XuU2eAzPC6wGnaQDljiBDM2JV3QgNqW//jtaX6Ic4r6VRI/10Hmv9RbvuGDwx/GCWiy7mPkYWpOuzZko/5pWA5CLAdmZkvCwIyYeISU=&reflink=article_email_share

By

Louise Radnofsky,

Kristina Peterson and

Natalie Andrews

Feb. 12, 2019 5:53 p.m. ET

Democrats largely came up short in their quest to limit the detention of immigrants as part of a bipartisan border deal reached this week, but the arcane math left lawmakers citing different numbers and activists on both sides crying foul.

The dispute over funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention beds emerged as a late sticking point in the negotiations, and its resolution was key to the deal. Democrats wanted fewer beds and sought limits designed to prioritize the detention of criminals over other immigrants, such as people who overstayed their visas. Republicans wanted more beds and no constraints on which immigrants ICE can detain.

The complications arise in part from the way funding for ICE detention facilities is determined. The formula includes the agency’s average daily population of detained immigrants, but ICE has also moved money around to fund the beds.

In the last fiscal year, Congress funded ICE’s average daily population at 40,520. Under the agreement reached by Democrats and Republicans this week, the administration will get funding for an average daily population of 45,274 in the current fiscal year, congressional aides say. ICE currently holds over 49,000 people in custody.

Democrats have pointed to the possibility that the negotiated number means ICE will have to reduce detention to make the new average work. Republicans have countered that ICE has the ability to transfer money, as it has been doing, to maintain a higher level of beds. Democrats aren’t disputing that they can transfer money, though they note that money will have to come from another account.

The complexities led to varying takes on Capitol Hill, with lawmakers disagreeing on whether the deal increased or decreased the number of detention beds.

Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R., S.D.) estimated that once ICE has transferred money, it could fund up to “58,000 or thereabouts” beds. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) argued the agreed-to number of beds was actually a reduction. “They are pretty much at 45,000 or so,” she said.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R., N.C.), a hard-liner on illegal immigration, made the GOP’s initial goal his baseline. Comparatively, “it’s less than that,” he said. “It’s about 7,000 beds less.”

Pro- and anti-immigration activists both saw problems with the deal. Sandra Cordero, director of Families Belong Together, said the deal would keep detention levels steady and was “funneling more money to agencies that ripped thousands of children from their parents’ arms.” Mark Krikorian, head of the Center for Immigration Studies, said the reduction in ICE detention capacity “more than cancels out any benefit from that small amount of extra fencing.

Others saw the result as more clear-cut.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), the Senate majority leader, claimed victory on the issue and applauded Democrats for abandoning what he called “extreme positions,” including “the idea that we should impose a hard, statutory cap on ICE detainees.”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), a member of the 17-lawmaker group that negotiated the border deal, said Tuesday the Democrats didn’t get everything they had hoped for on beds, a reflection of GOP control of the Senate and White House.

“We had hoped to not only stop the grand and glorious wall, paid for by Mexico, but also to deal with detention beds. I don’t know what the final wording is on this,” Mr. Durbin said, but “we wanted to address both, and it became more difficult when we realized the political reality.”

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

I recognize that the Dems couldn’t solve this problem in these particular negotiations. That’s particularly true because, as aptly noted by Senator Durbin, the GOP holds power in two of the three political entitles of government.

However, let’s not forget that “behind the numbers” are real human beings, not just objects like “beds” or “bed numbers” — terms used to dehumanize the victims and obscure the true nasty nature of DHS “civil” detention. Most of them are not serious criminals and there might not be an “actual suspected terrorist” in DHS detention today. Indeed, it would probably be “gross negligence” to entrust a real suspected terrorist to DHS detention. If given a reasonable chance to get a lawyer, understand the system, and prepare a case, the vast majority of those now detained would appear for their Immigration Hearings, particularly if given an opportunity to be released on ankle monitors or other “alternatives to detention.”

While in the “Gulag,” these individuals have their rights to fairness and Due Process impaired, suffer from substandard conditions (while private contractors who run much of DHS detention profit), and are often duressed into giving up valuable rights and opportunities to apply for relief and “taking removal” just to escape from the intentionally coercive situation that DHS creates.

Yes, a much more limited amount of detention, 15% to 25% of the current number of “beds” (actually humans held in the “Gulag”) might be necessary to protect us from the relatively small number of dangerous individuals and those likely to abscond.

Nevertheless, the “New American Gulag” as now constituted by Trump and enthusiastically supported by the GOP is both unnecessary and a total disgrace to our national reputation and humanity. So, the Dems should “keep at it” for the next budget cycle and continue educating the American public about the useless cruelty, intentional dehumanization, wasted taxpayer money, and questionable contractual arrangements involved in promoting this human rights abomination. It’s also a massive (and expensive) failure as a “deterrent” which, for the most part, is its real purpose.

It’s possible that the Article III Courts eventually will step in. As noted previously in this blog, the Administration appears headed for a “big time” loss on the constitutionality of indefinite detention in the 9^thCircuit. However, unless Chief Justice Roberts “gets religion” and joins the liberals, the Supremes are likely to sell out the Constitution on this one. After all, none of the “Conservative Justices” are in unconstitutional indefinite “civil” detention right now. But, life being what it is, they might not want to be so smugly tone-deaf about caving to the Executive on issues affecting life and liberty. Who knows, maybe someday someone they are related to, know personally, or love will be arbitrarily tossed in the Gulag and have the keys thrown away.

Whether it happens now or long after I’m gone, history will judge the GOP and their enablers harshly for this intentional and thinly disguised racially motivated degradation of humanity. It will have adverse consequences for our country and the world for many generations to come.

Therefore, it’s important to continue “making the record” and never letting the GOP off the hook for what they are doing (although, I will concede that the Dems have also gone through periods of infatuation with the idea of “detention as a deterrent.” Won’t work, never has, never will.)

And, this is from someone, me, who spent part of my earlier career defending, with mixed results, the “Legacy INS’s” right to detain individuals, sometimes indefinitely.

PWS

02-14-19

GREG SARGENT @ WASHPOST: “Good Guys” Apparently Gaining Legislative Traction Against The Trump-Miller White Nationalist Cabal!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/12/with-new-border-deal-republicans-are-trying-negotiate-trumps-surrender/

Sargent writes:

At President Trump’s big rally in El Paso on Monday night, you could see signs everywhere that proclaimed: “Finish the wall.”

That’s some amusingly dishonest sleight of hand — it’s meant to create the impression that the wall is already being built, which is a lie Trump tells regularly. Thus, it substitutes an imaginary Trump win for a real one, since apparently support for Trump among his voters on such an important symbolic matter is too delicate to withstand the unbearable prospect of him losing without withering or shattering.

Now that negotiators have reached an agreement in principle for six months of spendingon the border, however, it’s once again clear that Trump’s win on the wall will remain firmly in the category of the imaginary.

It includes only $1.375 billion for new bollard fencing in targeted areas. That’s nothing like Trump’s wall — it’slimitedto the kind of fencing that has already been built for years— and it’s substantially short of the $5.7 billion Trump wants. It’s nothing remotely close to the wall that haunts the imagination of the president and his rally crowds. The $1.375 billion is slightly lessthan what Democrats had previously offered him. It can’t even be credibly sold as a down paymenton the wall.

Trump’s political and media allies are already in a rageover this point. And Trump may not accept the deal, or perhaps he’ll agree to it and try to find the wall money through executive action.

The compromise, to be clear, is a mixed bag for progressives. But on balance, based on what we are learning now, it’s plainly more of a victory than not.

The deal will include ‘substantial’ humanitarian spending

A House Democratic aide tells me that negotiators also agreed that the deal would include “substantial” expenditures to address the humanitarian plight of migrants arriving at the border.

Such money would go toward “medical care, more efficient transportation, food and other consumables,” to “upgrade conditions and services for migrants,” as the original Democratic proposalat the start of conference committee talks put it.Democrats had called for $500 millionfor this purpose. It’s not yet clear how much the final deal will include, as negotiations are ongoing, but it is likely to be in the hundreds of millions.

The details on this spending will matter greatly. But if structured well, it could be significant. The goal would be to upgrade current facilities where migrants are held before entering the system, which were not designed to cope with a new type of immigration: the arrival of asylum-seeking families and children, which has spikedeven as adults looking to sneak across illegally — the type Trump mostly rages about — is at historic lows.

Such an upgrade could address some terrible things we’ve seen: migrant families herded into tight conditions, and migrant children stacked up on concrete floorsand at medical riskdue to a lack of transportation out of remote areas, or proper screening and treatment.

Here’s the bad news

Unfortunately, Democrats backed down on a core demand: a cap on Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention beds. Democrats hoped this would force ICE to focusresources on dangerous undocumented immigrants, thus picking up fewer longtime noncriminal residents.

But Democrats instead agreed to fund 45,000 detention beds. To understand this, note that ICE is currently overspending against last year’s budget, by funding around 49,000 beds. So relative to that, Democrats are cutting the number of beds. But as Heidi Altman notes, what Democrats agreed to is higher than the actual number of beds legitimatelyfunded last year. So that’s a hike. And if there is no hard statutory cap on beds, ICE can find money elsewhere to fund extra beds, detaining more people than funding levels suggest. As one advocate told me, the deal “contains no new controls on ICE overspending.”

That’s a very serious problem. But overall, if the humanitarian money turns out to be real, the emerging agreement could prove to be a far-from-perfect but nonetheless decent one.

Some of Trump’s worst designs are getting frustrated

The larger context here is that Trump and top adviser Stephen Miller have pushed on many fronts to make our immigration system as cruel as possible. They’d hoped to use the first government shutdown to force Democrats to agree to changes in the law that would make it harder for migrant children to apply for asylum, and easier to deport migrant children and to detain migrant families indefinitely.

The overriding goal behind such changes is to reduce the numbers of immigrants in the United States — not just through deportations, but also through deterring people from trying to migrate and/or apply for asylum. That was the goal of Trump’s family separations, and after those were halted last year, he renewed the push for those other changes.

Trump’s first surrender three weeks ago temporarily conceded that he would not be able to make those things happen. Now the new compromise suggests Republicans want him to agree to reopen the government for far longer, without getting those legal changes orthe wall.

“We have yet to see the details in writing, but based on news reports, I’d say this deal is a huge loss for Donald Trump and Stephen Miller,” Frank Sharry, the executive director of the pro-immigrant America’s Voice, told me.

“This deal has no money for his concrete wall and less money for barriers than was on offer last December,” Sharry added. “Trump tried to use a shutdown to force through radical policy changes, and at this point, Republicans are saying, ‘Let’s keep the government open and move on.’”

Sharry conceded that the failure to get detention bed caps is a “real setback.” But he also noted that in six months, Democrats can renew the battle for caps, now that “a lot of lawmakers understand that ICE is detaining many more people than Congress funds. We live to fight another day.”

Trump and Republicans suffered an electoral wipeout in an election that Trump turned into a referendum on his xenophobic nativist nationalism. He then used a shutdown to try to force the new Democratic House to accept both his wall and radical legal changes that would have made our immigration system far more inhumane. He isn’t getting his wall or those changes, and it looks as though a lot of humanitarian money will be channeled to the border to address the actual crisis there.

In other words, the fake crisis that Trump invented — and with it, his broader immigration vision — is getting repudiated. The only question is whether Trump will agree to the surrender Republicans are trying to negotiate for him.

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

Update:I’ve rewritten the section on detention beds to make it more accurate.

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

Bad news for Trump on immigration is great news for America!

And, don’t forget how Trump’s devotion to himself, first, foremost, and always, as opposed to our country or even his White Nationalist restrictionist supporters played out at the DOJ. Trump’s concern for his own skin caused him to unceremoniously dump loyal White Nationalist acolyte former AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, the “role model” for Stephen Miller.

In fewer than two years on the job, Sessions managed to push for the White Nationalist restrictionist immigration agenda in every possible way. In a sea of ethically questionable behavior during his tenure at the DOJ, the “original sin,” in Trump’s eyes, was Sessions’s following DOJ ethical advice to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation. Ethics is a dirty word in the Trump world.

A “shout out” to my friend Heidi Altman over at the Heartland Alliance who apparently helped thwart a DHS sleight of hand on detention statistics.

PWS

02-13-19

TRUMP TAKES “LIEFEST” TO EL PASO BORDER — Many Protest Against His White Nationalist Baloney!

TRUMP TAKES “LIEFEST” TO EL PASO BORDER — Many Protest Against His White Nationalist Baloney!

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-beto-border-rallies-20190211-story.html

Eli Stokols & Molly Hennessy-Fiske reports for the LA Times:

President Trump falsely told a raucous rally in El Paso on Monday night that he is already building a wall on the adjacent border with Mexico, as a potential Democratic challenger assailed him at a large protest nearby and, in Washington, congressional negotiators announced a tentative funding deal without the billions he demanded for a wall.

Beneath banners reading “Finish the Wall,” Trump hailed what he called a “big, beautiful wall right on the Rio Grande,” though no such construction is known to be underway. When supporters launched into a chant of “Build the wall!” — standard at his rallies for years — Trump corrected them: “You mean finish the wall.”

The president alluded to lawmakers’ announcement of a deal, which came moments before he took the stage, but did not give it his blessing. Nor did he disparage it though one of his foremost confidants, Fox News host Sean Hannity, came on the air midway through the president’s rally and condemned the reported agreement as “this garbage compromise.”

Without the president and Congress agreeing to a border security funding bill by midnight Friday, the government could be partially shuttered again, just three weeks after a shutdown that at 35 days was the longest ever. The “agreement in principle” called for $1.375 billion for 55 miles of new barrier on the 2,000-mile border — less than a quarter of the $5.7 billion Trump demanded.

He told the crowd that he hadn’t bothered to find out the particulars of the agreement because he was eager to take the stage. “I could have stayed in there and listened, or I could have come out to the people of El Paso, Texas,” he said. “I chose you.”

Outside the El Paso County Coliseum, thousands of protesters, bundled against the evening chill, marched along the Rio Grande to a nearby park. There, El Paso’s former congressman and a possible Democratic 2020 presidential candidate, Beto O’Rourke, joined other locals who spoke of El Paso and neighboring Juarez, Mexico, as one community and expressed indignation over Trump’s false characterization of their city as a violent one in last week’s State of the Union address.

“With the eyes of the entire country upon us, all of us together are going to make our stand. Here in one of the safest cities in the United States of America — safe, not because of walls but in spite of walls,” O’Rourke said, in the sort of rousing speech that brought nationwide attention to his Senate race last year, though he lost to Republican Sen. Ted Cruz.

“Let’s own this moment and the future and show this country there’s nothing to be afraid of when it comes to the U.S.-Mexico border,” O’Rourke said to cheers. “Let’s make sure our laws, our leaders and our language reflect our values.”

Late Monday, the House-Senate committee bargaining over border security funding and trying to avert another shutdown reached an “agreement in principle,” according to Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Talks had stalled on the weekend, Republicans said, over Democrats’ demands to limit the detention of undocumented immigrants, many of them seeking asylum.

Should Congress pass a compromise, the onus would be on the president to accept it, or risk taking blame again for a partial federal shutdown. Before arriving in El Paso, Trump sought to preemptively shift blame to Democrats should the legislative effort ultimately fail. After the recent shutdown, polls showed the public put the blame squarely on him, and his approval rating slid.

With both his rally and the protest featuring O’Rourke receiving national coverage, the split-screen moment promised something of an audition of a hypothetical 2020 matchup, effectively creating a live debate between the president and a charismatic potential challenger on the issue that most animated Trump’s followers in 2016 and probably will again in his reelection bid.

Before leaving the White House, the president signaled that he too saw the dueling rallies as an early competition, with his familiar emphasis on crowd sizes. “We have a line that’s very long already,” Trump told reporters at the White House, referring to people waiting to enter his El Paso venue. He added, “I understand our competitor’s got a line too, but it’s a tiny little line.”

At his rally, Trump bragged that 10,000 supporters were inside the arena and 25,000 more were standing outside. According to the El Paso Fire Department, 6,500 people — the building’s capacity — were allowed inside, while at least 10,000 attended the protest rally. Organizers, however, had a slightly lower estimate.

“We have 35,000 people tonight and he has 200 people, 300 people,” Trump said. “Not too good. That may be the end of his presidential bid.”

While the border visit was intended as an opportunity for Trump to promote his signature issue, he wandered widely in his remarks — attacking Democrats repeatedly, including on abortion and on a so-called Green New Deal environmental platform that some are advocating, and mocking Virginia Democrats for controversies that have roiled the state’s government.

Trump’s drumbeat on immigration has yet to pay political dividends beyond his own supporters, and it has further galvanized his opponents. His fear-mongering during campaign rallies last fall over caravans of immigrants failed to prevent a Democratic wave that cost Republicans a net 40 seats and their majority in the House.

And during his State of the Union address, his incorrect portrayal of El Paso — he said it had “extremely high rates of violent crime” and was “one of our nation’s most dangerous cities” until the government built a “powerful barrier” there — touched a nerve among civic leaders and citizens.

The El Paso County Commissioners Court on Monday approved a resolution assailing the president and his administration for misinformation and lies about a “crisis situation” on the U.S.-Mexico border, and noting that the federal government said “no crisis exists” and that “fiscal year 2017 was the lowest year of illegal cross-border migration on record.”

Yet Trump, at the rally, denounced his critics and media fact-checkers who disputed his claims that existing border fencing had slashed crime rates in El Paso. “They’re full of crap when they say it doesn’t make a difference,” he said, suggesting that local officials tried to “pull the wool over everybody’s eyes” by reporting low crime rates.

Lyda Ness-Garcia, a lawyer and founder of the Women’s March of El Paso, said organizers of Monday night’s protest were motivated to counteract Trump’s “lies” about their city.

“There was a deep sense of anger in our community, from the left and the right. It’s the demonization of our border. It’s the misrepresentation that the wall made us safe when we were safe long before,” she said.

Referring to the Mexican city just over the border, Garcia added: “We’re connected to Juarez. People forget. We’re not separate. We’re one culture.”

In truth, violent crime dropped in El Paso after a peak in 1993. It was at historic lows before Congress authorized a fence along the Rio Grande in 2006. Crime began to rise again over the next four years, after the fencing went up.

The city’s Republican mayor, Dee Margo, admonished Trump after the State of the Union speech, saying during an appearance on CNN that the president’s depiction of El Paso is “not factually correct.”

Fernando Garcia, executive director of the Border Network for Human Rights, said organizers intended the march as a community celebration rather than an anti-Trump or pro-O’Rourke political event. “The administration, they didn’t believe our community would react, that people would get upset about the lies,” he said. “Our community spoke in numbers.”

Garcia noted that residents had seen the fallout from the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policies firsthand, both in family separations and in asylum-seekers being turned away from border bridges and required to remain in Mexico while they await hearings.

In December, two Guatemalan migrant children died in Border Patrol custody in the El Paso area after seeking asylum.

“Trump has created policies and strategies that have created deep wounds in our region,” Garcia said. “We are not a violent city. We are not criminals. We are part of America and we deserve respect from this president.”

Although the protest event brought together roughly 50 local groups, O’Rourke’s political star power generated significant media coverage.

“If you’re Beto, there couldn’t be a better, more visual contrast,” said Jen Psaki, a former communications director to President Obama. “By leading a march, he gets back to his grass-roots origins and it allows him to stand toe to toe with the president of the United States and to echo a message that even local Republicans agree with. It gives him a platform and a megaphone at a beneficial time.”

Not willing to cede the moment completely to O’Rourke, Julian Castro — a former mayor of San Antonio, an Obama Cabinet member and already a declared presidential candidate — went Monday to the border checkpoint where his grandmother entered the United States as a young girl. He filmed a video denouncing the president and calling Trump’s visit to El Paso an effort “to create a circus of fear and paranoia” and “to tell lies about the border and about immigration.”

Speaking directly into the camera, Castro added, “Don’t take the bait.”

Politics Newsletter

Twice-weekly

Analysis and breaking news from our award-winning journalists in Sacramento and Washington, D.C.

Eli Stokols

CONTACT

Eli Stokols is a White House reporter based in the Los Angeles Times Washington, D.C., bureau. He is a veteran of Politico and the Wall Street Journal, where he covered the 2016 presidential campaign and then the Trump White House. A native of Irvine, Stokols grew up in a Times household and is thrilled to report for what is still his family’s hometown paper. He is also a graduate of UC Berkeley and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.

Molly Hennessy-Fiske

CONTACT

Molly Hennessy-Fiske has been a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times since 2006. She won a 2018 APME International Perspective Award;2015 Overseas Press Club award; 2014 Dart award from ColumbiaUniversity; and was a finalist for the Livingston Awards and Casey Medal. She completed a Thomson Reuters fellowship in Lebanon in 2006 and a Pew fellowship in Mexico in 2004. Hennessy-Fiske grew up in Upstate New York and graduated from Harvard College. She spent last year as Middle East bureau chief before returning to cover foreign/national news as Houston bureau chief.

COMMENTS (41)

Please enable JavaScript to view the <a href=”http://solidopinion.com/”>comments powered by SolidOpinion.</a>

MOST READ

ADVERTISEMENT

LATEST POLITICS

Gavin Newsom has been more antagonistic to Trump than Jerry Brown was. And he’s just getting started
5h

Border showdown: Trump and Beto O’Rourke hold dueling rallies on immigration in El Paso
FEB 11, 2019

Lawmakers announce a deal to prevent another government shutdown, but prospects remain uncertain
FEB 11, 2019

Border funding fight bogs down over detention beds. Here’s why
FEB 11, 2019

Slamming Trump’s ‘political theater,’ California Gov. Gavin Newsom pulls National Guard from border
FEB 11, 2019

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

The racist lies about immigration just keep spewing forth from Trump and his White Nationalist support groups, including the “right wingnut” media.

We’re not being invaded by foreign criminals. Actually, we’re experiencing a quite predictable and potentially manageable influx of refugees seeking to exercise their legal rights to lawfully apply for asylum in the US. Not surprising, given that we have no viable refugee program in or near the Northern Triangle and have undoubtedly contributed to the breakdown of the rule of law and society in those “failed states.”

The idea that real criminals, terrorists, drug smugglers, or human traffickers will be stopped or even materially deterred by a Wall is beyond absurd. Walls generally “reroute migration” and kill more innocent people. Real threats to our security are laughing at Trump and his base while they view the diversion, wasted time and money, and the failure to beef up intelligence, undercover, and anti-smuggling operations as a free gift.

And, I’m sure they cheer the focus on “rounding up” and detaining asylum applicants who turn themselves in to apply for asylum (because Trump has intentionally disabled reasonable processing through legal ports of entry) instead of doing the real law enforcement work of breaking up criminal enterprises.

“Numbers” aren’t everything, particularly when the majority of the apprehensions have little to do with criminals or other “bad guys. But, it’s easier to “chalk up big numbers” and support a bogus White Nationalist narrative about “loss of border security” by apprehending asylum applicants who are in search of ever more elusive justice in the U.S.

Unfortunately, outright fibs and bogus racist narratives seem to work for our “Lier-in-Chief!” Here is an article from today’s NY Times by native Texan Richard Parker actually suggesting that Trump succeeds because Texans are as addicted to “Tall Tales” as Trump is to “Big Lies!” In other words, a “match made in Heaven.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/opinion/el-paso-trump-beto.html

Rather an unhappy commentary, if true. Who am I as a “mere Badger” to say, but I would suspect that these tall tales of fake invasions and bogus fear mongering directed mostly at the growing Latino community appeal more to some Texans than to others.

Just shows the importance of the work of the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”) in defending our laws and Constitution! Also illustrates the importance of committing ourselves to “regime change” in 2020. The immigration nonsense from Trump and his supporters and the intentional divisiveness, chaos, and anarchy that flow from it is an existential threat to our national existence — much greater than his mostly fake “border emergency.”

PWS

02-12-19

POLITICS: SHUTDOWN COUNTDOWN: Legislators Say They Have A Deal – No Details!

Emily Cochrane & Glenn Thrush report for the NYT:

WASHINGTON — Top House and Senate negotiators said late Monday that they had reached an “agreement in principle” on border security that would avoid a second government shutdown that would begin this weekend. Lawmakers declined to offer details, but seemed confident that the agreement — if supported by leadership and signed by President Trump — could resolve an immigration dispute and allow the government to keep operating. It was unclear if Mr. Trump would go along with the deal, the specifics of which must still be worked by congressional staff members. The president has already accepted, reluctantly, far less money than he wanted for repairs and extensions of existing border barriers — and no new wall. Progress on the deal had been stalled by an impasse over Mr. Trump’s roundups and detention of undocumented immigrants. Yet, as the negotiations continued, but before the deal was announced, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and the top member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said both he and Mr. Shelby thought it was preferable to find a resolution by the end of the night and not let the impasse languish. “We’re trying to be legislators,” he said. A specific point of contention has been the number of detention beds under the control of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Aides in both parties had warned that a final deal might leave the number of detention slots — or “interior beds” — unchanged, not reduced as Democrats want and not increased as Mr. Trump wants. House Democrats, urged on by immigration rights group, have pushed hard, hoping to leverage White House fears of another damaging shutdown into a softening of the president’s hard-line immigration policies that they say have torn apart families, wrenched productive citizens from the communities they have lived in for years and infused a heartlessness into official American immigration policy. The Democrats’ tool: limit the number of beds that ICE has to hold undocumented immigrants in custody to 16,500 from around 20,700. The Democrats’ ultimate goal is to cut the overall number of detention beds, including those occupied by asylum seekers and people caught at the border, from its current level of around 49,000 to 34,000, the number funded during the Obama administration, Democratic aides said. That, they say, would end sweeps and roundups, and force ICE to focus on pursuing hardened criminals. Last year, the Trump administration requested funding for 52,000. With their number, Democrats say they can seize the initiative on immigration from a president who has staked his political fortunes on the issue. “We started at zero on the wall, and we compromised a lot after that, and we are now asking them to change, too,” said Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard, Democrat of California and a member of the 17-member House and Senate conference committee tasked with hammering out a compromise. Mr. Trump was catching on. When Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, presented him with the Democrats’ demand, he rejected it quickly, according to two people briefed on the exchange. “These are people coming into our country that we are holding and we don’t want in our country,” the president told reporters at the White House late Monday. “That’s why they don’t want to give us what we call ‘the beds.’ It’s much more complicated than beds, but we call them from ‘the beds.’” In private, Republicans responded with a plan that would exempt many detained immigrants from the cap, including those people either charged with or convicted of crimes, including misdemeanor drug offenses and violent felonies. That, in turn, was rejected by Democrats. “You have ICE agents picking up mothers and fathers and children in their own neighborhoods. That’s why the beds issue is so much more important than the wall,” said Ms. Roybal-Allard, whose Los Angeles-area district is 85 percent Hispanic, the highest percentage of any district in the country. The number of beds occupied by detainees fluctuates over time, influenced by a variety of factors, including ICE enforcement policies and the flow of migrants at the border with Mexico. The rate of that flow is unpredictable and determined by factors such as the performance of the economies north and south of the border, crime, gang activity and the business practices of coyotes paid to transport migrants from Mexico and Central America to California and the Southwest. The number of monthly apprehensions of migrants at the border has averaged 25,000 to 40,000 for most of the past decade, but has risen to about 50,000 over the past several months, according to statistics compiled by the Department of Homeland Security. If ICE does not have enough room to place individuals and family members they detain, they must loosen their enforcement actions, creating a powerful motive for new migrants to enter the country illegally, Trump administration officials say. “You cannot have border security, without strong interior enforcement, whether there is a wall there or not,” said Matt Albence, the deputy director of ICE, on Monday in a conference call with reporters. Republicans closed ranks to blast the plan. “This is a poison pill that no administration, not this one, not the previous one, should ever accept,” said Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, said on the Senate floor. “Imagine the absurdity of this: House Democrats want to set a limit on how many criminal aliens our government can detain.” Earlier Monday, Democratic leadership aides said that there would be no deal without some concession on the bed issue — in part because immigrants rights groups and party liberals would revolt if they agreed to extend border barriers without getting something tangible in return. Last Friday, when word of a possible deal first leaked out, advocates for immigrants reached out to Democratic leadership offices, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s, to say that they would oppose any deal that did not address their concerns about ICE. “For the last two years, we have been trying to limit the bad. We have taken a defensive approach, but now House Democrats have the power to start doing some good,” said Lorella Praeli, the deputy national political director of the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups that has pressed the Democratic leaders, Ms. Pelosi of California and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, to reject any deal that does not include steps to reduce aggressive immigration enforcement. “It’s time for them to show that they are fighting for us,” Ms. Praeli added. “It means you have to do something more than a floor speech or a tweet supporting immigrants. It’s time to actually do something.”

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

I hope it happens. But, as I always say, “the devil is in the details,” and we don’t have any yet. Stay tuned.

PWS

02-11-19

Nancy Pelosi Put Her Faith in the Courts to Stop Trump’s Emergency Wall

Big mistake.

NOTE: An earlier version of this post contained the wrong article from Dahlia Lithwick. Sorry for any confusion.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

TRUMP’S DECLARATION

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Funding deal blocks ICE from arresting adults taking in undocumented children

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: