LA Times – Page 2 – immigrationcourtside.com

🤯YOU’VE GOT TO BE KIDDING! — Bumbling Administration “Cans” One Of Few Positive Changes In Asylum Adjudication Process!

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-04-12/biden-asylum-processing-rule-pause

Hamed Aleaziz in the LA Times:

The Biden administration will pause its signature effort to reform asylum processing at the border, Department of Homeland Security officials confirmed Wednesday.

The so-called asylum processing rule, which the administration launched with great fanfare in 2022, allowed asylum officers to grant and deny asylum to migrants at the southern border.

Administration officials say the pause is a temporary measure designed to ensure that the country’s immigration agencies are prepared for a potential increase in border crossings after the end of Title 42, a pandemic-era policy that allows border agents to quickly turn back migrants.

But critics say the pause signals President Biden’s latest move away from reforming the asylum process and back toward Trump-style restrictions at the southern border.

. . . .

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

Read Hamed’s complete’s article at the link.

Like the term “temporary,” a “pause” is a bureaucratic “term of art” used to deflect attention from what’s really happening. “Pauses” can last indefinitely. If, after two years to work on it, and touting it as a transformational change, the Biden Administration can’t put this fairly straightforward “no brainer” change into effect, it’s not obvious what the “right time” would be!

Granting much more asylum at the AO level nearer to the time of initial encounter is one way of gaining “leverage” and avoiding the EOIR backlog — without stomping on anyone’s rights! The latter is key!

I think most experts would say that it should have been much easier to implement this positive change than some of the new, tone-deaf, bone-headed “proposed restrictions” on asylum, re-instituting dehumanizing and problematic “family detention,” and removing 30,000 non-Mexicans per month to potential danger, exploitation, and death in Mexico. These moves are guaranteed to provoke strong opposition as well as generating some rather unhappy publicity when the situation in Mexico gets out of control, as it inevitably will.🏴‍☠️

Remember folks, the Biden Administration claimed a year ago that it wanted to terminate Title 42 at the border. After an additional year, they still don’t have a plan for following the law! No wonder some critics perceived that the Biden Administration was actually relieved when a right-wing Federal Judge abused his authority to block the ending of Title 42.

Clown Car — Most experts doubt that the Biden Administration has the “right team” (pictured above) in place to restore fair, competent, due-process-compliant asylum adjudication at the border or anywhere else!
PHOTO CREDIT: Ellin Beltz, 07-04-16, Creative Commons License, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. Creator not responsible for above caption.

Instead of preparing, planning, and “knocking some heads” within the bureaucracy, the Administration has squandered the last year thinking up new anti-asylum gimmicks, rather than making the long-overdue changes at EOIR, the Asylum Office, and the Refugee Program necessary to admit refugees legally, robustly, and timely — in other words to restore the rule of law as they had promised.

Oh, for some competence, backbone, and leadership in the Biden Administration’s immigration policy bureaucracy! Never has America needed the Ambassadorial Level position of Refugee Coordinator more than now! Unfortunately, that important role established by the Refugee Act of 1980 was “swallowed and digested” by a hostile bureaucracy years ago. Alex Aleinikoff, where are you when your country needs you?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-13-23

⚖️🗽 INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS EXPERTS PROFESSORS KAREN MUSALO & AUDREY MACKLIN LAMBASTE ADMINISTRATION’S EXPORT OF TRUMP’S CRUELTY TO THE NORTHERN BORDER! — LA TIMES — “[M]ost tragically, they abandon principle and humanity, and set off a chain reaction that ends up returning refugees to persecution.“☠️⚰️

Professor Audrey Macklin
University of Toronto
Law Faculty
PHOTO: U of Toronto

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwici4Gv7YP-AhWXFFkFHd8TDXYQFnoECA4QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fopinion%2Fstory%2F2023-03-29%2Fsafe-third-country-policy-at-canada-united-states-border-hurts-asylum-seekers&usg=AOvVaw0lGBjB9cBDdxHBiQnCQ5Zc

At almost 4,000 miles, the United States’ northern border is about twice as long as the U.S.-Mexico border — much of it wild, unmarked and dangerously cold for half the year. And yet, human smuggling and deaths at the U.S.-Canada border have not been a major phenomenon, as they have been down south. Nor has Canada poured billions of dollars into a network of walls, fences, robotic dogs and militarized border patrol. It is also true that historically the number of asylum seekers and migrants seeking entry to Canada has been relatively low.

But the ills of the U.S.-Mexico border seem bound to spread northward, now that Canada reached a deal with the Biden administration to expand a 2004 agreement to repel Canada-bound asylum seekers back to the United States (and vice versa).

As U.S. policies toward asylum seekers grew harsher from 2017 on, the number attempting to enter Canada increased. Instead of appealing to its southern neighbor to do better, Canada is coordinating with the U.S. to pass the buck on the legal obligation to protect refugees, which both countries undertook when they signed the Refugee Convention and Protocol more than 50 years ago. Their current approach foists responsibility onto poorer, less stable countries that are already doing more than their share.

Both the U.S. and Canada have pursued this under a “safe third country” rule, which enables a country to return asylum seekers to a nation they have passed through on their journey if it is considered safe and deemed to have a fair process for seeking protection. That “safe third country” then has the responsibility to determine their claims.

. . . .

This has been labeled a crisis, but it simply isn’t, especially when one considers that 85% of the world’s refugees are hosted in lower- and middle-income countries. Furthermore, Canada knows how to manage refugee inflows decently when it chooses to do so: Over 160,000 Ukrainian refugees have been welcomed during the past year.

. . . .

The Safe Third Country Agreement and related policies subvert the obligations to which Canada and the U.S. are subject under international refugee law. They undermine the existing global system of protection. But most tragically, they abandon principle and humanity, and set off a chain reaction that ends up returning refugees to persecution.

Karen Musalo is a law professor and the founding director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at UC Law, San Francisco. Audrey Macklin is the director of the Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies at the University of Toronto.

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

Read the complete op-ed at the link.

Predictably, bad things happen when the border is closed to legal asylum seekers! Illustrating the point made by Professors Macklin and Musalo, the bodies are already being found along the Northern border. See, e.g., http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=071fc539-98b4-49fc-9656-26412f42e79b.

The obvious answer is to establish a fair, timely, generous asylum adjudication system at ports of entry and to dramatically increase the number of legal refugees who can come from countries in Latin America, particularly the Northern Triangle. If you build a functional legal refugee and asylum system refugees will use it. Why wouldn’t they?

A legitimate refugee and asylum system results in permanent admission with permission to work that leads to green cards and, eventually, citizenship for those who choose the latter. It’s quite different from ad hoc, nationality and numerically limited use of discretionary “parole” stratus. Parole status lacks transparent criteria, does not necessarily prioritize refugees and asylees as the law requires, and most seriously has no “built in” path to permanent status.

Consequently, “parolees” must either apply under a incredibly backlogged asylum system in the U.S. — thus guaranteeing delay and unnecessarily adding to the already monster backlog — or find themselves “in limbo” after two years and clearly becoming both a target and “political football” for restrictionists. And, there can be little doubt that even if the Biden parole program survives pending court challenges, it will immediately be terminated by any future GOP Administration.

Making the existing legal system work in a durable, fair, and properly generous manner to protect refugees is clearly the way to go! It would be hugely beneficial to both both the refugees and our nation! Why the Biden Administration insists on scofflaw “deterrence only” gimmicks that advance the racist/nativist agenda of the losers of the 2020 election is beyond me!

🇺🇸 ⚖️🗽 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-02=3-23

🤯🤮☠️ HOW “CRAZY BAD” IS BIDEN’S “DEATH TO ASYLUM SEEKERS” ⚰️ PROPOSAL? — USCIS ASYLUM OFFICERS SAY IT REQUIRES THEM TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION! 🏴‍☠️ Why Is A Dem Administration Going “Full S. Miller Scofflaw” On Most Vulnerable? 🤬

Hamed Aleaziz reports for the LA Times:

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-03-27/biden-asylum-plan-break-law

President Biden’s plan to limit some migrants’ access to asylum could force federal asylum officers to break U.S. law, the union that represents asylum officers argued Monday in a formal filing opposing the proposal.

Enforcing Biden’s policy would violate asylum officers’ oath to carry out the immigration laws set out by Congress and “could make them complicit in violations of U.S. and international law,” attorneys for the American Federation of Government Employees Council 119 wrote in a comment submitted to the Department of Homeland Security.

The same union regularly protested the Trump administration’s efforts to restrict asylum at the southern U.S. border, including by joining lawsuits that sought to block his policies. Its decision to oppose Biden’s asylum proposal is one indication of the plan’s similarities to Trump-era efforts.

“At their core, the measures that the Proposed Rule seeks to implement are inconsistent with the asylum law enacted by Congress, the treaties the United States has ratified, and our country’s moral fabric and longstanding tradition of providing safe haven to the persecuted,” the union argued. “Rather, it is draconian and represents the elevation of a single policy goal — reducing the number of migrants crossing the southwest border — over human life and our country’s commitment to refugees.”

. . . .

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

Why is this guy still calling the policy shots in a Dem Administration? This is “nutsos!” Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com

Much appreciation to the professional Asylum Officers for helping to lead the charge against these truly cruel, lawless, wasteful, dishonest, and damaging proposals!

One reason that the Biden Administration’s approach to immigration, human rights, and racial justice has been so incredibly inept and counterproductive is that they aren’t paying attention to the views of experts already on the USG payroll (not to mention those in the private sector) before going public with “designed to fail, warmed over Stephen Miller crackpot nativist policies” that any Dem Administration should vigorously oppose as a matter of principle and sound policy!

There are numerous ways to bring “order to the border,” enforce the law (including the rights of refugees to seek and receive protection), and encourage refugees to use the legal system without violating anyone’s legal rights or diminishing their humanity. Why won’t the Biden Administration just “do the right (and smart) thing?”

The amount of time, energy, and resources being devoted to trying to get the Administration to cut the nonsense and comply with the laws already on the books is astounding! Obviously, the wrong people are “calling the shots” on human rights and racial justice efforts in the Biden Administration! Why?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-27-23

🤯🤮 AUTOMATED CRUELTY: FAMILY SEPARATION? — THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION HAS AN APP FOR THAT! — Latest Failed Gimmick From Administration Inflicts Unnecessary Chaos On Vulnerable Individuals Trying To Work Within An Incredibly Incompetent & Poorly Administered System!

Andrea Castillo reports for the LA Times:

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=b5d4d78a-33fb-4da8-9a0c-cdc6120dbb7d

Asylum seekers must wait for appointments in U.S. for everyone, or leave some behind.

By Andrea Castillo

WASHINGTON — Inside a tent near the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Jeyson woke up before 3 a.m. every day for a month to fill out applications to request asylum for his family of four through a U.S. government mobile app.

The 25-year-old from Venezuela eventually secured appointments for himself and his wife, but the slots filled up so quickly that he couldn’t get two more for their children. They weren’t worried, though — they had heard about families in similar situations being waved through by border officials.

Instead, he said, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent told them recently that because each member of the family did not have an appointment, “you two can enter, but not your children.” Jeyson asked The Times to withhold his last name out of fear for his family’s safety.

Now, many families like Jeyson’s have found themselves confronted with a seemingly impossible decision: Wait indefinitely for enough appointments for the whole family, or split up. It is unclear how many migrants have been put in this position.

. . . .

“We already risked it all,” he said. “What can we do? We are hopeful that we can get three appointments. Three, in the end, is less than four.”

Advocates said some parents have decided to leave their children with extended family or friends in order to keep their appointments.

Jeyson said a couple from his encampment did just that, leaving their five children at the border bridge and entering the U.S. after managing to get only two appointments.

Children who are unaccompanied by a parent are exempt from Title 42. Those in the care of adults who are not their legal guardians — even if they are extended family — are separated until a guardian can be properly vetted. Jeyson said he watched as the children walked up to a border agent and were taken into custody.

Felicia Rangel-Samponaro, director of the Sidewalk School, a nonprofit that offers education, medical care and other assistance to migrants in Mexican border towns, has organized sessions with parents at various shelters and encampments in Matamoros and Reynosa to explain what will happen if they send their child across the border unaccompanied.

“We don’t want them to think you cross and then your child crosses and will come back to you a day later,” she said. “We were surrounded by parents who were showing us, one after the other, [who] have an appointment but their child does not.”

Rangel-Samponaro recommended to parents that they cancel their appointments and restart their search. But some parents told her they would separate from their kids anyway.

“Family separation has never stopped,” she said, referencing the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” border policy that led to thousands of migrant children being taken from their parents. “The only difference here is that CBP One is now doing it instead of the other ways it’s been done since 2018.”

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

Read Andrea’s complete article at the link.

Let’s start with one undisputed fact: The number of appointments available on CBP One is pathetically, ridiculously inadequate for the KNOWN number of potential applicants waiting in Mexico! Why would this be after the Administration has had over two years to work on this perhaps challenging, yet very solvable problem?

Unnecessary delay is just another form of “bureaucratic deterrence through incompetence” used by the Trump Administration and, inexcusably, continued under Biden.

Just how bonkers is this DHS-created problem? Dependents are included on a primary asylum seeker’s application. Consequently, in most cases one application covers the entire family.

And, dependents don’t have to “prove” independent eligibility for asylum. Therefore, anything beyond biographical information and perhaps proof of relationship is unnecessary.

There is absolutely no reason for requiring a separate “appointment” for each family member. The current system is “pure harassment and deterrence through bureaucratic incompetence.”

In Immigration Court, a family of five required only ONE asylum hearing slot — NOT FIVE!

Most legal asylum seekers at the border want to “do things the right way” — present themselves to DHS and submit an application. It’s neither profound nor “illegal.”

The BEST way of getting applicants to use the ports of entry is to work with experts and NGOs to establish a user-friendly, generous, timely system that prioritizes the many strong claims and grants them promptly at the Asylum Office rather than feeding them into a backlogged and dysfunctional EOIR.

In other words, if you BUILD a fair, credible, user-friendly legal application system at legal ports of entry, applicants will USE it. That the Trump White Nationalists destroyed our legal, statutory refugee and asylum systems was well-known at the time. Indeed, Biden and Harris campaigned on a pledge fix the system and restore legal asylum!

Instead, the Administration failed to utilize the skills and experience of experts to have a planned fix ready on “day one.” Since then, over more than two years, they have inexplicably ignored expert advice, wasted time, squandered resources, and bobbled through a bewildering series of mindless “Stephen Miller Lite deterrence gimmicks,” including “dedicated dockets,” prioritizing the wrong cases, “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” on steroids, a “Miller Lite holdover” BIA known for hostility to asylum seekers, ignoring the need for pro bono representation, failing to train and deploy enough Asylum Officers to the border, and not working with advocates, NGOs, and asylum seekers to prescreen cases, start granting asylum and moving qualified refugees (and their families) through the system and into durable legal status prior to the lifting of Title 42.

The CBP One screwup is just the latest in a string of “unforced errors” by the Biden Administration that abuse asylum seekers without any systemic benefits to anyone — “random acts of cruelty and stupidity!” This app was obviously designed by non-users for use by USG “gatekeepers” without any idea of what its like to be an asylum seeker stuck in Mexico.

Indeed, it appears that the app’s developers have little idea of how the legal asylum system works. Talk about “amateur night at the Bijou!”

“Family separation” has never stopped; now it has been “automated” — by a Dem Administration that has abandoned humanity and betrayed its campaign promises! Inexcusable!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-27-23

🇺🇸⚖️🗽LEADING EXPERT PROFESSOR KAREN MUSALO’S BLUNT MESSAGE TO BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: “Enough with the political games. Migrants have a right to asylum!” — LA Times

https://www-latimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-01-06/biden-border-immigration-asylum-title-42?_amp=true

President Biden’s seemingly chaotic policy toward asylum seekers at the U.S. border is no accident. It’s carefully crafted to minimize political fallout. The administration should keep it simple instead, by following the law and doing the right thing — admitting those who arrive at our borders seeking asylum.

Give voters a chance, Mr. President. The American people value decency. They don’t respect craven and calculated inconsistency.

This week, the Biden administration announced an expansion of a Trump-era policy to turn away individuals fleeing persecution who reach our borders. This began with a pretext of limiting the spread of COVID-19, using a public health law known as Title 42. Now it’s just a sop to people who oppose immigration.

Until the Trump administration used Title 42 in this way, the nation had honored its obligation to asylum seekers for 40 years, under the 1980 Refugee Act. It grants the right to seek protection. Abrogating that right has resulted in the untold suffering, the return of refugees to persecution and death, and chaos at the U.S.-Mexico border.

In April 2022, the Biden administration stated its intent to end Title 42. Litigation delayed the termination, but in mid-November, a federal judge ruled the policy unlawful, and ordered it to end by Dec. 21. The Supreme Court has stayed that order until it hears arguments next month.

Now, in a head-spinning turn of events, Biden has announced the expansion of Title 42 to Haitians, Nicaraguans and Cubans — nationalities that had not previously been subject to summary expulsion at the border.

If this were not enough of a contradiction, the administration also plans to resurrect another Trump-era policy which Biden had previously denounced, the “transit ban.” This rule bars from asylum any migrants who do not apply for and receive a denial of asylum from the countries they pass through on their way to the U.S.

This “outsourcing” of our refugee obligations to countries of transit, which a federal court found unlawful when implemented by the Trump administration, is ludicrous on its face. The asylum seekers who arrive at our border pass through countries such as Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, with human rights conditions as dire as in the migrants’ nations of origin.

To date, the only country with which we legally have such an arrangement is Canada — which makes sense because it has a robust refugee protection system and an admirable human rights record. And even if there are other countries of transit, such as Costa Rica, that have a well-developed framework for the protection of refugees, and solid records on human rights, they are already taking in numbers of asylum seekers that far exceed their capacity.

. . . .

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

Read Karen’s full op-ed at the above link.

It’s simply appalling, not to mention disingenuous, for Biden to ignore the advice of experts like Karen, the founder and moving force behind the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at U.C. Hastings Law. (Karen also argued the landmark Kasinga case before the BIA when I was Chair). Instead, disgracefully, he has turned human rights and immigration policies over to a bunch of spineless, scofflaw politicos and “go along to get along” bureaucrats.

He has multiplied the problem by following and adopting their highly politicized program of “carefully crafted chaos” — which both ignores the law and inflicts irreparable harm, including death, on legal asylum seekers! The “crime” of these victims of Biden’s tone-deafness? Seeking to exercise their legal rights under U.S. and international law to apply for asylum!

Biden and some Dems seem to have forgotten the nationwide, grass roots wave of support for admission of refugees in response to Trump’s despicable “Muslim ban!” As Karen points out, rather than “running from” immigration, refugees, and asylum as issues, Biden and other Dems should be embracing them as part of our heritage as a nation of immigrants and a source of strength and shared prosperity for our future! Refugees and asylees are a key component of our legal immigration system.

Making the necessary progressive, due process and fundamental fairness oriented, reforms to enable our nation to welcome those qualified in a timely, humane, and fair manner should be a top priority! As Karen cogently notes, “doing the right thing,” and doing it really well, “is good politics!”

Biden’s latest immigration nonsense will be attacked by litigators on both sides. Both the ACLU and Stephen Miller’s nativist legal group “America First Legal” have pledged to resist various parts of the new policies in court. The irony here is that Biden’s latest anti-asylum efforts incorporate much of the “Miller White Nationalist agenda” that Biden and other Dems campaigned (and fund-raised) against during the 2020 election!

Miller Lite — Biden and his immigration advisors apparently have been overindulging in this stuff lately! It shows in their disturbingly poor performance on asylum, human rights, an “order at the border!”

Karen’s message is the same as mine. “It’s not rocket science!🚀 Migrants have a right to asylum.”🗽 Start with that straightforward truth and everything else falls into place!

Thanks for speaking out so forcefully, articulately, and truthfully, Karen, my friend!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-07-22

🤮👨‍⚖️OUR FAILING COURTS👎🏽: Dean Erwin Chemerinsky Slams Supremes For Scofflaw, Politicized, Biased Title 42 Travesty — The Supremes’ Misconduct & Incompetence In This Case Affecting Human Lives Is Totally Unacceptable! 🏴‍☠️ — Progressives Must Take The Fight To The Neo-Fascist Right For American’s Future! — “The Supreme Court’s order is senseless!”

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=792adcfa-2c82-4cca-953c-bf1dfeb1a070

On Title 42, the Supreme Court rules for a partisan agenda

COVID-19 is no reason to shut out migrants. Yet it’s used as a political pretext.

By Erwin Chemerinsky

The Supreme Court’s ruling last week to keep in place a Trump-era immigration order can only be understood as five conservative justices advancing a conservative political agenda, in violation of clear legal rules.

Without giving reasons or any explanation, the court reversed lower court decisions that allowed the Biden administration to lift a restriction that prevents asylum seekers at the border from entering the country, imposed early during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The federal law — referred to as Title 42 — permits the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to prohibit people from coming into the U.S. to avert the spread of a “communicable disease” present in a foreign country.

.. . .

In November, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, in Washington, D.C., found that the continued use of Title 42 was “arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.” He ruled that the expulsion policy was no longer justified based in light of the present state of the pandemic, which includes widely available vaccines, treatments and increased travel in the United States.

Nineteen states with Republican attorneys general, however, oppose that ruling and sought the right to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They were not parties to the lawsuit in the District Court and the law generally does not allow parties to get into a case for the first time at the appeals level. On Dec. 16, the federal Court of Appeals, following its well-established law, refused to allow the states to intervene. The states then sought Supreme Court review of that decision.

On Dec. 27, in Arizona vs. Mayorkas, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, not only said that it would hear the states’ appeal, but that it would require that the Biden administration continue to use Title 42 to expel migrants.

The court’s action makes no sense for several reasons. Title 42 provides the government authority to close the borders only if a public health crisis involving a communicable disease requires it. No one in the litigation disputes that COVID no longer warrants restrictions on immigration.

. . . .

The states are intervening not because they believe that a continuing public health emergency requires Title 42, but because they want to use it as a pretext to close the borders.

In fact, in another case now pending on the Supreme Court’s docket — on whether the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness program is justified as a response to the pandemic emergency — 12 of the states in the Title 42 case argued in their brief that “COVID-19 is now irrelevant to nearly all Americans.”

The Supreme Court’s order is senseless for another reason: The only issue before the court is whether the states can intervene in the case. It is not about whether the District Court erred in ending the use of Title 42 to expel migrants. Even if the states were allowed to join the case, they can’t plausibly make the case that COVID concerns still justify immigration expulsions at this point.

. . . .

The five conservative justices based their decision not on the purpose of Title 42, which is to stop the spread of a communicable disease, but on their partisan agreement with conservatives on immigration issues. We should expect better of the court than that.

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

Read Dean Chemerinsky’s full article at the link. Having a High Court, with life tenure, where a majority of the Justices enter “senseless orders” — targeting some of the most vulnerable and abused in our society who also happen to be predominantly individuals of color — is in and of itself senseless — from a standpoint of preserving our democracy!

The action of the five GOP Supremes is beyond outrageous! The NDPA CAN turn this gross right-wing minority abuse of our judicial system around! Likely not in my lifetime!

But, you need to keep pushing Dems to pay attention to judicial appointments and start insisting on meaningful professional expertise in immigration and actual experience representing individuals in Immigration Court as a basic requirement to serve as a Justice. Also we need an Article I Immigration Court and NO MORE Attorneys General without proven “grass roots” immigration and human rights experience!

Immigration is “where the action is” on the fight to save American democracy! If tone-deaf and spineless Dem politicos keep “running” from the key issue in American law and society, perhaps it’s time for true liberals, progressives, and constitutional humanitarian realists to “run” from the Dem Party!

This Supreme farce also reinforces the disgraceful failure of Garland and the Dems to reform the “Supreme Court of Immigration” — the BIA — by replacing enforcement-tilted Trump holdovers with practical scholar, expert, progressive judges committed to realizing long-denied due process, fundamental fairness, and the best interpretations of immigration and refugee laws! Dems control an important Federal Appellate body and are too clueless and afraid to do the right thing — even with the rule of law, racial justice, and human lives on the line!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-02-23

🗽FROM LA TIMES ED BD: TWO BIG LIES & A WIDELY IGNORED TRUTH ABOUT THE S. BORDER: 1) LIE #1: Title 42 Is Effective Border Control; 2) LIE #2: The Border Is Wide Open; 3) TRUTH: There Is A Humanitarian Crisis At The Border & Many Gov. Actions Are Making It Worse!

Biden Border Message — “Border Message”
By Steve Sack
Reproduced under license

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-12-28/la-ed-border-myths

BY THE TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD

DEC. 28, 2022 3 AM PT

Facebook

Twitter

Show more sharing options

The myths — or, rather, convenient lies — that some politicians keep circulating about the U.S.-Mexico border have resulted in another disappointing congressional session for immigration reform.

Instead of crafting much-needed solutions to address the fate of young immigrant “Dreamers,” the backlog of cases in immigration courts or any of the myriad problems caused by outdated immigration laws, policymakers spent most of their time wrangling over Title 42, a public health order invoked during the COVID-19 pandemic to manage border crossings.

Disinformation prevents policymakers from having honest discussions and enacting sensible solutions. The complex U.S.-Mexico border region is a confluence of cultural, social and economic communities whose problems need sophisticated solutions not easily summarized by sound bites. Yet many people continue to peddle misconceptions about the border and engage in partisan theater such as dispatching migrants to Vice President Kamala Harris’ home or creating a wasteful wall of shipping containers, as the Arizona governor has done.

The debate on immigration and border control is likely to intensify in early 2023, when the GOP takes control of the House. Though there’s little expectation of significant legislation in a divided Congress, the constant arrival of migrants at the border is sure to keep the topic in the news. Because it’s important to look beyond sound bites, we’re fact-checking the misconceptions about the U.S.-Mexico border you are likely to hear in the coming months.

. . . .

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

Read the complete editorial at the link.

The lies and myths are largely pushed by GOP nativist politicos, and some right wing activist Federal Judges, although disgracefully some Dems have adopted, enabled, or gone along with certain aspects of them.

NGOs, communities, and advocates are about the only ones acting with urgency on the truth of this solvable humanitarian crisis. In doing so, they too often face roadblocks or lack of competence, honesty, and urgency from government officials at all levels.

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-29-22

🤯“The words egregious and illegal don’t go far enough!” — LATEST SCREW-UP BY DHS ENDANGERS CUBAN ASYLUM SEEKERS!

Hamed Aleaziz reports for the LA Times:

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2022-12-19/cuba-immigrants-deported-asylum-leak

The Department of Homeland Security inadvertently tipped off the Cuban government this month that some of the immigrants the agency sought to deport to the island nation had asked the U.S. for protection from persecution or torture, officials said Monday.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials are now scrambling to foreclose the possibility that the Cuban government could retaliate against individuals it knows sought protection here. The agency has paused its effort to deport the immigrants in question and is considering releasing them from U.S. custody.

The accidental disclosure to the Cuban government is an example of any asylum seeker’s “nightmare scenario,” said Robyn Barnard, associate director of refugee advocacy at Human Rights First.

Many immigrants who seek safety in the U.S. fear that gangs, governments, or individuals back home will find out that they did so and retaliate against them or their families. To mitigate that risk, a federal regulation generally forbids the release of personal information of people seeking asylum and other protections without sign-off by top Homeland Security officials.

“The words egregious and illegal don’t go far enough,” Barnard said. “And this is not any foreign government, but a government we have irrefutable evidence routinely detains and tortures those they suspect of being in opposition to them.”

An even larger breach of confidentiality last month led directly to the surprising disclosure to the Cuban government. Less than three weeks ago, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials accidentally posted the names, birth dates, nationalities and detention locations of more than 6,000 immigrants who claimed to be fleeing torture and persecution to the agency’s website.

. . . .

Anwen Hughes, director of legal strategy at Human Rights First, has years of experience comforting asylum seekers who are worried that their home countries will find out about their applications.

“They come in nervous, shaking and afraid their relatives could get arrested,” Hughes said.

Hughes has long told her clients that they should feel secure that their information would be protected.

But the most recent disclosures have given her pause.

“I don’t want to say things that won’t be true,” she said. “It is important that these assurances be meaningful.”

ICE’s November disclosure of the 6,252 names had already triggered a massive effort by the agency toinvestigate the causes of the error andreduce the risk of retaliation against immigrants whose information was exposed.

. . . .

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

Read Hamed’s complete article at the link.

Robyn Barnard
Associate Director of Refugee Advocacy
Human Rights First
PHOTO: Linkedin

Thanks for speaking out so forcefully, Robyn! There is Fourth Circuit case law holding that breaches of confidentiality can give rise to entirely new asylum claims that require evaluation by adjudicators.

As cogently pointed out by Anwen, problems like this also diminish confidence in the system. That, in turn, undermines efforts by advocates to assure asylum applicants that they should use the legal system, rather than being afraid of it. This is also something that the Government should be doing, but isn’t!

For example, right now at the southern border, thousands of asylum applicants are waiting patiently in Mexico, many in dangerous and substandard conditions, for Title 42 to end so they can appear at legal ports of entry and present their claims in an orderly and legal manner. This right for “any individual, regardless of status” to apply for asylum, is guaranteed by law. Every stay or delay in the lifting of Title 42 undermines the credibility of the entire system.

As cogently found by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, asylum applicants have been illegally denied this “life or death right” to apply for asylum in an orderly manner at the border since 2020, first by the Trump Administration and now by the Biden Administration. Tellingly, the GOP nativist politicos (and, sadly, some Dems) promoting continuing abuse of Title 42 have abandoned the original Trump claim that it was a “public health measure.” They now openly present it as a “border management tool” something that it clearly was never intended to be!

Contrary to the nativist blather, the unlawful suspension of the legal asylum system at ports of entry has actually driven irregular entries, rather than discouraging them! Additionally, nativists and many member of the media fail to acknowledge that, even without Title 42, the existing law grants DHS extraordinarily authority to “summarily remove” asylum seekers if they can’t establish a “credible fear“ of asylum in an interview by a trained and well-qualified Asylum Officer.

This process was designed to take place within a relatively short period of time, at or near the border, after the individual has indicated a fear of return upon initial encounter with an Immigration Inspector at a port of entry or to a Border Patrol Agent. Those who “fail” the credible fear process can be summarily removed by DHS without formal removal proceedings before an Immigration Judge (although there is a right to request a brief review by an Immigraton Judge of the Asylum Officer’s negative decision).

Additionally, under recently enacted regulations, Asylum Officers can now grant asylum to those who pass credible fear if they find that the generous “well-found fear” standard has been met. This also has the potential of avoiding full Immigration Court hearings. Unfortunately, however, DHS to date has failed to “leverage” this ability to rapidly grant asylum, even though the potential volume of asylum seekers has been evident for many months, if not years!

It’s also notable, in contravention of many nativist politico claims, that individuals crossing the border to seek asylum often voluntarily turn themselves in to the Border Patrol so that they can get the legal screening that the Government has been improperly denying them under Title 42.

Life threatening mistakes, two years without a plan to restore the rule of law for asylum seekers, inaccurate data, bad legal rulings, many poorly qualified judges, inadequate training, failure to use and leverage refugee programs, screwed up priorities, regressive thinking, lack of expertise, no commitment to protection, unending backlogs, absence of inspiring dynamic leadership: The Biden Administration’s inept and morally vapid approach to human rights is a life-threatening mess!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-20-22

☠️⚰️ THEIR VOICES DROWNED OUT BY THE NOISE OF WAR, COVID, SUPPLY CHAIN PROBLEMS, & INFLATION, MILLIONS FACE STARVATION!

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=20ee182f-524e-4e7d-8158-51345f6fd59e

Tracy Wilkinson reports in the LA Times:

By Tracy Wilkinson

WASHINGTON — The scenes witnessed by journalists and humanitarian workers in recent months have been striking: In Sudan, swollen-bellied babies are looking for anything to eat. In Yemen, where warring parties have blocked humanitarian aid, hollow-eyed children and their mothers languish on the brink of death from starvation. In Ukraine, the elderly are collecting rancid rain runoff for drinking water.

Malnourishment and hunger were big problems even before Russia invaded Ukraine in February and cut off Europe’s breadbasket from its markets, sparking a flurry of dire warnings about the world’s food supplies. Dozens of countries across the globe are already suffering from devastating food shortages, so much so that the number of people facing starvation more than doubled in just the last two years, to 345 million, according to United Nations figures.

The causes are myriad: drought and flooding, and the interruption of supply chains triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in China. An estimated 20 wars or conflicts — the latest in Ukraine — have also seriously disrupted access to food and water.

“The current food security challenge that we’re facing [is] due to these three Cs: climate, COVID and conflict,” said Ramin Toloui, assistant secretary of State for economic affairs, one of several Biden administration officials tasked to food-security issues.

The bleak situation drew the attention of powerful diplomats Friday when U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and the foreign ministers of six other of the world’s largest economies met in Germany to map out plans for easing global food shortages. Few observers expect real solutions to emerge but hope the summit will highlight the crisis and boost funding for anti-hunger efforts.

The Biden administration has committed about $8.5 billion to emergency food assistance and related programs, focusing initially on the Horn of Africa, Yemen, Lebanon and Haiti, Blinken said.

“We hear all these numbers; we’ve all cited numbers of this growing food insecurity,” Blinken said in Berlin. “But what we know is this: We know that those numbers are people, real people, real lives, real livelihoods, mothers, fathers, children. … As human beings, all of us have to be seized with this.”

The U.N.’s World Food Program calculates that eight of the 10 largest food crises worldwide are being primarily driven by conflict — in Yemen, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Such wars force people from their homes into long desperate treks for safety. They devastate farms and wreak havoc on food distribution systems.

In Latin America, food scarcity is also driving tens of thousands of people to abandon parched or hurricane-leveled farms and migrate to the United States.

These were the disasters already in motion when Russia invaded Ukraine. Now, the U.N. says the Russian blockade of Ukraine’s Black Sea ports could lead 40 million more people to go hungry.

. . . .

Caitlin Welsh, a veteran expert in global food security who heads that program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said hunger and famine have consequences for both health and politics.

Hungry people can be angry people, and the rising price of food or fuel have led to coups throughout history. The health effects of going hungry can be far-reaching and insidious, Welsh said.

“The sudden elevation in prices [of foodstuffs like bread] can make people shift from more nutritious food to items of lower nutrition,” she said. And for pregnant women and young children, that can cause lifelong disabilities, Welsh said.

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

Read Tracy’s complete article at the link.

War is bad, particularly when those who needlessly start them for their own amusement, ego, and nationalistic jingoism escape accountability. See, e.g., V. Putin.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-27-22

🔫WELL, ACTUALLY, TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE GOP BS, GUN CONTROL LAWS DO SAVE LIVES! — “The states with America’s lowest rates of gun-related deaths all have strict gun laws; in states that allow easy availability of guns, more people die from them.”

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=e8e45d47-c3b3-4b69-862f-6cc848e9bb43

David Lauter in the LA Times:

WASHINGTON — Time was — not that long ago — that after a mass shooting, gun rights advocates would nod to the possibility of compromise before waiting for memories to fade and opposing any new legislation to regulate firearms.

This time, they skipped the preliminaries and jumped directly to opposition.

“The most effective tool for keeping kids safe is armed law enforcement on the campus,” Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz said to MSNBC a few hours after a shooter killed at least 21 people in Uvalde, Texas. “Inevitably, when there’s a murder of this kind, you see politicians try to politicize it. You see Democrats and a lot of folks in the media whose immediate solution is to try to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. That doesn’t work.”

The speed of that negative reaction provides the latest example of how, on one issue after another, the gap between blue America and red America has widened so much that even the idea of national agreement appears far-fetched. Many political figures no longer bother pretending to look for it.

Broad agreement

on some measures

And yet, significant agreement does exist.

Poll after poll has shown for years that large majorities of the public agree on at least some limited steps to further regulate firearms.

A survey last year by the Pew Research Center, for example, showed that, by 87% to 12%, Americans supported “preventing people with mental illnesses from purchasing guns.” By 81% to 18% they backed “making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks.” And by a smaller but still healthy 64% to 36% they favored “banning high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.”

The gunman in Uvalde appears to have carried seven 30-round magazines, authorities in Texas have said.

So why, in the face of such large majorities, does Congress repeatedly do nothing?

One powerful factor is the belief among many Americans that nothing lawmakers do will help the problem.

Asked in that same Pew survey whether mass shootings would decline if guns were harder to obtain, about half of Americans said they would go down, but 42% said it would make no difference. Other surveys have found much the same feeling among a large swath of Americans.

The argument about futility is one that opponents of change quickly turn to after a catastrophe. It’s a powerful rhetorical weapon against action.

“It wouldn’t prevent these shootings,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said on CNN on Wednesday when asked about banning the sort of semiautomatic weapons used by the killer in Uvalde and by a gunman who killed 10 at a Buffalo, N.Y., supermarket 10 days earlier. “The truth of the matter is these people are going to commit these horrifying crimes — whether they have to use another weapon to do it, they’re going to figure out a way to do it.”

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott made a similar claim at his news conference on Wednesday: “People who think that, ‘well, maybe we can just implement tougher gun laws, it’s gonna solve it’ — Chicago and L.A. and New York disprove that thesis.”

The facts powerfully suggest that’s not true.

Go back 15 years: In 2005, California had almost the same rate of deaths from guns as Florida or Texas. California had 9.5 firearms deaths per 100,000 people that year, Florida had 10 and Texas 11, according to data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Since then, California repeatedly has tightened its gun laws, while Florida and Texas have moved in the opposite direction.

California’s rate of gun deaths has declined by 10% since 2005, even as the national rate has climbed in recent years. And Texas and Florida? Their rates of gun deaths have climbed 28% and 37% respectively. California now has one of the 10 lowest rates of gun deaths in the nation. Texas and Florida are headed in the wrong direction.

Obviously, factors beyond a state’s laws can affect the rate of firearms deaths. The national health statistics take into account differences in the age distribution of state populations, but they don’t control for every factor that might affect gun deaths.

Equally clearly, no law stops all shootings.

California’s strict laws didn’t stop the shooting at a Taiwanese church in Laguna Woods this month, and there’s no question that Chicago suffers from a large number of gun-related homicides despite strict gun control laws in Illinois. A large percentage of the guns used in those crimes come across the border from neighboring states with loose gun laws, research has shown.

The overall pattern is clear, and it reinforces the lesson from other countries, including Canada, Britain and Australia, which have tightened gun laws after horrific mass shootings: The states with America’s lowest rates of gun-related deaths all have strict gun laws; in states that allow easy availability of guns, more people die from them.

Fear of futility isn’t the only barrier to passage of national gun legislation.

Gun law opponents harden positions

Hard-core opponents of gun regulation have become more entrenched in their positions over the last decade.

Mostly conservative and Republican and especially prevalent in rural parts of the U.S., staunch opponents of any new legislation restricting firearms generally don’t see gun violence as a major problem but do see the weapons as a major part of their identity. In the Pew survey last year, just 18% of Republicans rated gun violence as one of the top problems facing the country, compared with 73% of Democrats. Other surveys have found much the same.

Strong opponents of gun control turn out in large numbers in Republican primaries, and they make any vote in favor of new restrictions politically toxic for Republican officeholders. In American politics today, where most congressional districts are gerrymandered to be safe for one party and only a few states swing back and forth politically, primaries matter far more to most lawmakers than do general elections.

Even in general elections, gun issues aren’t the top priority for most voters. Background checks and similar measures have wide support, but not necessarily urgent support.

. . . .

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

Read David’s complete article at the link.

Unfortunately, the much ballyhooed polls on this issue turn out to be highly misleading. The polls showing widespread support for gun control suggest that there should be a heavy political price to pay for GOP gun zealots who mock the need for rational measures to protect kids, worshippers, shoppers, and others from mass firearms’ assaults.

However, the exact opposite is true. As Chuck Todd recently pointed out on NBC News, even in the “post-Sandy-Hook” era, no incumbent politician has lost his or her position for opposing reasonable firearms controls. The converse is not true.

Todd also pointed out that we now have more guns than people in the U.S., a situation that didn’t exist a decade ago. The irrational response to more gun deaths, lead by the NRA and GOP politicos, has been more guns — NOT common sense, concern for the common good, or courageous bipartisan problem solving.

That perhaps explains how sleazy immoral characters like Gov. Greg Abbott, Sen. Ted Cruz, VA Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears and a host of other corrupt “guns are the answer to all problems” GOP politicos remain in office as innocent kids and others die and the problem gets worse.

As the article suggests, lack of urgency and priority also might be a reason why the polls are so completely misleading on this issue. For the “guns trump human lives crowd,” adhering to positions promoting irresponsible “absolutist” firearms agendas are a “litmus test.” Apparently, for too many of those in the “majority,” saving some kids and other human lives is in the “nice to have, but not essential” category.

So, despite their immoral and irrational stand on guns, the GOP controls a majority of state and local Governments. Nationally, thanks to the electoral college, gerrymandering, and local control of national voting, the GOP appears poised to sweep back into power on the national level and impose their anti-individual-liberty, anti-democracy, anti-humanity, pro-guns and big corporations agenda on all until the last shadow of American liberal democracy is wiped out.

It’s clear from the “in your face” reactions of Cruz and other GOP pols that they expect no fallout from their latest, deadly policy failures. Indeed, I think they fully anticipate a political boost from their ridiculous and widely-panned suggestions and their ever more outrageous fact-free “shoot ‘em up — ignore the real problem” proposals. Kid deaths and grieving parents who can be fobbed off or ignored have become a “gold mine” for valueless GOP politicos to exploit and demean.

Sadly, they probably are correct. Despite the perhaps “over coverage” by the media obsessed with public demonstrations, the GOP has little to fear politically from outraged parents of dead kids, students walking out of classes, newspaper editorials, or demonstrators outside the NRA Convention.

Unless and until gun control proponents can find a way to make arrogant GOP pols on all levels “pay a price” for their immoral actions and horrible positions, the latest “surge in public sentiment” will be just as meaningless as the polls they engender. That means reaching out to the rural Americans who drive the GOP’s pro-gun agenda and changing at least some minds with facts. That’s something that Dems as a whole have failed to do over decades, as the GOP developed a stranglehold over rural America.

While GOP politicos like Abbott and Cruz (who, let’s remember, fled with his family to a resort in Mexico while ordinary Texans suffered through Abbott’s mismanagement of the power grid) babble nonsense, parents who have lost children understand exactly who is to blame for preventable mass murders:

“There’s no reason for just an average citizen to have these types of weapons,” she said. Adding, “What for? What do you need them for? Is it worth my kid? These kids?”

https://apple.news/ABvfx3I_pRjubQAjtOz4c-A

Of course, as the article acknowledges, gun control won’t solve all problems or prevent all mass shootings. But, contrary to widely promoted GOP myths, such laws would be a major step in the right direction that demonstrably would preserve some human lives.

The GOP gun lobby’s outrageous “expand the universe of gun ownership and military-style firepower” agenda clearly results in more unnecessary deaths. Even more significantly, there is no case for the proposition that reasonable firearms restrictions and limitations on military assault-type weapons place any unreasonable burden on sportsmen, target shooters, or other types of legitimate gun owners.

No private citizen in America needs an assault weapon for self defense or sporting purposes! Pro-gun commercials suggesting that assault weapons are necessary for self-defense at home or to “protect America” are the pure BS! But, they apparently are much more effective than angry demonstrations, school walkouts, or tearful testimonials from those deprived of their loved ones and colleagues by preventable mass gun violence.

Tougher laws might, however, stop at least a few kids or angry folks from getting their hands on military-grade weapons of mass destruction and murder.

Significantly, it now appears that about the only folks who “did the right thing at the right time” during the Uvalde mass murder were the unarmed kids who, risking their lives, called, sometimes repeatedly, those authorized to use deadly force and assault-style weapons for public protection. But, it was largely to no avail, as the so-called “good guys with guns” stood around as kids died — they were afraid they might get shot by an 18-year-old kid armed like a combat soldier. Their teachers, not the “good guys with guns” were the ones willing to sacrifice their lives in an attempt to save others.

Also, while Texas seems to revel in “anti-Federalism,” it’s worth noting that the slaughter only stopped when Federal Border Patrol Officers ignored local police leaders and confronted the shooter.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-29-22

☠️👎🏽DEM’S CATASTROPHIC DUE PROCESS FAILURE: AS PREDICTED, GARLAND’S “DEDICATED DOCKETS” ARE “ASYLUM FREE ZONES” TARGETING CHILDREN!🤮

“Floaters” — Garland’s vision of “justice” for refugee children appears to be little different from that of Stephen Miller and his White Nationalist predecessors at DOJ!
EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)

Cindy Carcamo reports for the LA Times:

BY CINDY CARCAMO STAFF WRITER

MAY 25, 2022 11:56 AM PT

After drug traffickers killed his little brother, William and his 6-year-old son, Santiago, fled Colombia last September to seek asylum in the United States.

Unbeknownst to William, who ended up in Los Angeles with a friend, he and his son immediately became part of a cohort of thousands of families in a “dedicated docket” program that the Biden administration established in 11 cities, including Los Angeles, in May 2021.

In response to a sudden rise of apprehensions last spring of families and children at the Southwest border, Biden promised the accelerated docket would resolve cases “more expeditiously and fairly.” These sorts of programs have existed in various forms under previous administrations; Biden’s program pushes immigration judges to resolve cases in 300 days, significantly shorter than the 4.5-year average of asylum cases in immigration court.

But according to a new Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA Law report, the docket’s fast-track timeline has imposed new hardships on many asylum seekers and created additional obstacles that ultimately lead to higher rates of deportation orders, sometimes based on legal technicalities.

For William — who didn’t want his last name published, fearing reprisal against his family still living in Colombia — the docket’s expeditious nature meant he had only six weeks to secure legal representation before his first court hearing, leaving him to navigate a complex and often confusing system without an attorney. Immigration officials provided him with documents heavy with legal jargon in English. He could read only in Spanish.

In addition, those on the docket are released with “alternatives to detention,” which means they are monitored, either with an ankle bracelet or via a phone application. Immigration officials shackled William with a GPS monitor on his ankle before releasing him and his son.

Ultimately, an immigration judge ordered William and his 6-year-old to be deported in “absentia” when they didn’t show up for their court hearing at U.S. Immigration Court in downtown Los Angeles. In fact, at the time the judge gave the order, William was in the building, but was three floors below the courtroom in a waiting area at the direction of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement official. By the time William was told he was in the wrong place, the judge had already ordered the father and son’s removal from the U.S.

In Los Angeles, an estimated 99% of the 449 cases completed on the dedicated docket as of February of this year resulted in removal orders and about 72% of those cases were issued to people who missed their court hearing — “in absentia” — according to a report released Wednesday by the Center for Immigration Law and Policy and Immigrants’ Rights Policy Clinic at UCLA School of Law

Perhaps most striking, the report shows that almost half of those in absentia removal orders are for children, many 6 and younger.

In addition, court data analyzed in the report show that an estimated 70% of people on this particular docket don’t have legal counsel. In contrast, an estimated 33% of those on the Los Angeles court’s non-accelerated docket lack legal counsel.

The nature of the accelerated dockets made it nearly impossible for asylum-seekers to get a fair hearing, the report’s authors concluded. The high absentia rate, the report concluded, is a red flag that the dedicated docket isn’t working as it should.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Cindy’s totally disturbing article at the link!

Sadly, this news will come as no surprise to readers of “Courtside.” Having watched these types of efforts to co-opt the Immigration Courts as a vehicle of unfair, racially motivated “deterrence” and “enforcement,” I could see that this program was going to be an unmitigated disaster at EOIR, given Garland’s failure to install progressive judicial leadership and human rights and due process expertise into the broken and biased system he inherited from Sessions and Barr.

The NDPA is going to have to “dig in” and fight Garland and Mayorkas every step of the way, at every level of the system, to save as many lives as possible from their disgraceful continuation of a “Miller Lite” White Nationalist, anti-immigrant program of abusing and dehumanizing asylum seekers — most individuals of color and many of them children or other “vulnerable individuals.”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever! Garland’s dysfunctional, biased, leaderless, soul-less, ethically challenged EOIR, never!

PWS

05-26-22

🤮WHITE REPLACEMENT THEORY (“WRT”) IS SIMPLY FASCISM “REBRANDED!” — “In terms of propaganda, it is a rebranding of the same thing, namely longstanding fascist paranoias and lies about invasion and racial and political replacement.”

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=34dc9d2d-a5e6-4795-a504-e742e1148d06

Jason Stanley and Fredrico Finchelstein write in the LA Times:

. . . .

Democracy is essentially a system based around two values — freedom and equality. Fascists promoted the idea of replacement as a way of arguing that democracy and its ideals were incompatible with the nation. The very first chapter of Grant’s book is “Race and Democracy,” in which he contends that democracy is a threat to Nordic supremacy, because democracy leads inevitably to greater immigration and equality between races.

In fascist ideology, true national consciousness is pitted against domestic “enemies,” who are against national forms that are racially, ethnically or religiously homogeneous. These domestic “enemies” are invariably institutions and individuals who champion democracy and its ideals.

The Indian nationalist ideologue M.S. Golwalkar, the ideological founding father of BJP, the right-wing Hindu party of Narendra Modi, argued against the idea that a nation was composed of all of its inhabitants and rejected the idea that every citizen of India had equal rights to freedom. Like Grant, Golwalkar regarded democratic ideals as a clear threat to his vision of the nation.

If enemies are people who either look, think or behave differently, and if their mere existence poses a threat to the imagined homogeneity of the nation, it is not surprising that the most radicalized believer would carry out mass murders, as has happened in the U.S., Europe and New Zealand, and pogroms as in India.

And, of course, we see it in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Ideas of replacement are central to Russian extremist, nationalist, antisemitic and fascist traditions. They motivate the nature of its attack in Ukraine, such as wiping out Ukrainian identity culturally and physically. Vladimir Putin also considers liberal democracy as an existential threat to Russian cultural greatness, and by extension, to the Russian nation.

The link between WRT and fascism is not accidental. WRT is a relatively recent label for old fascism. In terms of propaganda, it is a rebranding of the same thing, namely longstanding fascist paranoias and lies about invasion and racial and political replacement. WRT’s logic justifies mass violence. When it is normalized, it poses an existential threat to democracy and its ideals. It targets the very idea of common humanity that underlies them.

Jason Stanley is a professor of philosophy at Yale University. His most recent book is “How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them.”Federico Finchelstein is a professor of history at the New School. He is the author of the forthcoming book “Fascist Mythologies.”

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

Read the complete article at the link.

“Targeting the idea of common humanity” is central to today’s far-right political activism — from legislatures to the courts.

As I have frequently pointed out, anti-immigrant myths and fear mongering are the “heart and soul” of modern White Nationalist fascism.

Trump’s degrading of migrants from Haiti and Africa and his wish for more Norwegian immigrants is a classic example of the “myth of Nordic supremacy” that is a staple of some fascist movements. See, e.g., https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-referred-haiti-african-countries-shithole-nations-n836946.

That’s why Dems failure to take strong pro-immigrants’-rights actions and to aggressively undue the nativist anti-immigrant agenda of the Trump regime is so problematic and short-sighted!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-26-22

POLITICS: KURT BARDELLA @ LA TIMES: WHAT “DEMS DON’T GET” THREATENS AMERICAN DEMOCRACY☠️: “They should do what the Republicans would do given a chance: Refuse to compromise and go on the attack. This difference, of course, is that the Democrats are going after the insurrectionist machine and defending democracy while the GOP is tearing it down.”

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=8323fc34-a52b-46ef-9c44-5be1f107c380

By Kurt Bardella

The question I get asked the most as someone who went from being a Republican to a Democrat is: “What’s the biggest difference between the two parties?”

The answer: Every impulse Democrats have is defensive and every impulse Republicans have is offensive.

A report in the Washington Post this week showed these dynamics at play perfectly between Democrats and Republicans on the House Jan. 6 select committee. As the Post described, Democratic Rep. Stephanie Murphy (Fla.) insisted that the committee focus less on former President Trump and more on the security and intelligence failures that allowed the attack on the Capitol. In response, Republican Vice Chair Liz Cheney (Wyo.) argued that the committee should keep its focus on the former president.

This is the best illustration I have come across that demonstrates how different Republicans and Democrats approach things on a tactical and, I’d say, cellular level.

When Republicans have the reins of power, they do not hesitate to go after the very top. From Barack Obama’s birth certificate to Hillary Clinton’s emails and potentially Hunter Biden’s laptop, the GOP is unapologetic about pursuing witch hunts for political gain.

Democrats, on the other hand, are always pursuing lines of legitimate oversight reluctantly. At times, it feels like they are apologizing for doing the right thing.

I think back to Trump’s first impeachment and the hesitant posture displayed by the Democrats during those proceedings. It was almost as if they were forced into it, regretted that it came to this, and moved as fast as possible to get it over with.

Democrats controlled the House majority but never forced Trump administration officials with firsthand knowledge of the events that were at the center of the impeachment inquiry to testify, such as John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney or Rick Perry, and the Republican-controlled Senate predictably torpedoed any effort to compel them to testify.

History repeated itself during Trump’s second impeachment as firsthand witnesses like Mike Pence, Mark Meadows, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Rudolph W. Giuliani, etc., were never called to testify. Hillary Clinton, of course, was grilled by the Republican-led Benghazi committee for more than 11 hours.

It’s almost as if Democrats believe there is some prize awaiting them for showing what they would characterize as restraint. There isn’t.

. . . .

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

Read the complete article at the link.

This has been obvious in the Dems’ feckless approach to Immigration, and particularly the Immigration Courts, over the years.

Without enacting any significant legislation, the GOP instituted an overtly racist/nativist/restrictionist program. They negated existing laws, scorned the Constitution, abrogated log-standing international agreements, and aggressively and blatantly stacked the Federal Judiciary at all levels with far-right zealots. And they have gotten away with it!

Yet, even after successfully running on programs promising a restoration of the rule of law and the Constitution in immigration and human rights, Dems have been from feckless, to timid, to complicit in the GOP’s vile programs.

The GOP did not hesitate to “stack” the Immigration Court system at all levels with questionably qualified judges who lacked perspective, expertise, and a commitment to due process. The result was a dramatic plunge in the grant rates for asylum seekers, even though conditions in the primary sending countries have continued to worsen dramatically over the years.

No justification for what the GOP did, and no hesitation or self-doubts about doing it! Amid tons of criticism, they just plowed ahead and did it! They “played to the most extreme elements of their base” — nobody else! They weren’t scared to take extreme actions that most polls showed the majority of American’s didn’t favor!

By contrast, the Dems approach to immigration and human rights policy is a complete mess. And, worst of all, the Immigration Courts and EOIR remain largely as the Trump regime left them. Indeed, the backlog is growing at an astounding rate, as Garland flails and fails to bring on board the “best and brightest” judges and intellectual leaders to reform EOIR into the due-process oriented “model judiciary” that it was once intended to be!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-22-22

🏴‍☠️SCOFFLAW NATION! — TRUMP US JUDGE, GOP NATIVIST AGs CONTINUE TO DUMP ON ASYLUM SEEKERS, ☠️ HANDING HUMAN SMUGGLERS A HUGE VICTORY!🤮

Andrea Castillo reports for the LA Times:

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=80d73090-8dd0-48a7-a802-afbc852fc2f8

. . . .

A family in Tijuana who wanted to request asylum and advocacy groups including Innovation Law Lab sought to intervene in the lawsuit. They argued that a court order keeping Title 42 in place should only apply to states involved with the suit. Summerhays denied their request.

Alicia Duran Raymundo, her partner and their 6-year-old daughter fled El Salvador after gang members threatened to torture and kill them. She said in a news release from her lawyers last week that they wanted to live with extended family in California while pursuing asylum, but instead joined the thousands of migrants living in Mexican border towns while they wait for the U.S. to reopen its doors.

“We’ve tried many times to ask for asylum but they just tell us the border is closed,” Duran said.

Seeking asylum is a legal right guaranteed under federal and international law, regardless of how someone arrived on U.S. soil. Some of those turned away are fleeing persecution, while others pushed out by turmoil in their home countries seek jobs and security.

Though migrants can’t seek asylum under Title 42, they can still be screened under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. But those screenings are more difficult to pass.

Lee Gelernt
Deputy Director
ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Program
PHOTO: ACLU

Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s immigrant rights project, noted that regardless of Friday’s decision, a prior ruling in Washington, D.C., District Court taking effect Monday prevents Title 42 from applying to families who face persecution or torture if they are expelled. Gelernt is lead attorney in that case.

“Hypocritically, the states that brought this lawsuit seemingly care about COVID restrictions only when they involve asylum seekers,” he said. “The lawsuit is a naked attempt to misuse a public health law to end protections for those fleeing danger.”

. . . .

Migrants have been removed from the U.S. nearly 2 million times since Title 42 was first used in March 2020, in some cases to dangerous situations in which they’ve been tortured or raped.

. . . .

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick
Policy Counsel
American Immigration Council
Photo: Twitter

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Council, predicted that Title 42 is likely to stay in place until at least next year.

Summerhays’ decision signals that while the Biden administration can establish a policy under emergency conditions, terminating it requires a rulemaking comment period that could take six months to a year.

Louisiana and the other states are not arguing that the policy can never end, Reichlin-Melnick said, but they’re imposing judicial roadblocks to delay it. The CDC is likely to try to end the policy again while satisfying the judge’s demands, he said.

In the meantime, he said, “we’re going to see an ever higher number of repeat crossings. Look at the border and tell me Title 42 works.”

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

The case is Louisiana v. CDC, WD LA, 05-20–22. Here’s a link to the opinion:

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/LouisianaetalvCentersforDiseaseControlPreventionetalDocketNo622cv/7?1653080541

Read Andrea’s full report at the above link!

Of course Title 42 doesn’t work! But, it’s never been about a “working” border asylum policy. NO, it’s always been about cruelty fueled by nativist racism!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-21-22

🗽END THE “DOUBLE STANDARD” FOR REFUGEES — All Refugees Must Be Treated With Respect, Dignity, & In Accordance With The International Legal Standards!

Nikolái Ingistov-García Lecturer in Spanish Language and Latin American Studies at UC Riverside

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=7fe1b555-69d3-499c-b9cc-3deaebd50a26

A glaring double standard on refugees

The portrayal and treatment of Ukrainians fleeing war and of Haitian, Central American and Mexican asylum seekers also fleeing deadly violence could not be more different

By Nikolái Ingistov-García

. . . .

Over the course of that weekend, I watched how the Ukrainian refugee crisis grew day by day. I read that Airbnb was paying for thousands of refugees to stay in their rooms. Thousands of Europeans in dozens of countries opened their doors to Ukrainians. I was encouraged but bothered at the same time. Media outlets all over the world from the left, right and center praised the courage of these refugees, and some reporters called them heroes.

An overwhelming majority of my students in my classes at UCR are Latino. Several of them are refugees from Latin America, and a few are “Dreamers.” I asked if any of them noticed anything with this growing refugee crisis in Eastern Europe, and several were quick to point out the double standard.

A few weeks before Putin’s invasion of Ukraine started, my class watched interviews about the forced sterilization of Latina refugees at an immigration detention center in Georgia. We discussed the Latino children fleeing Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala who are being held in U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement detention centers to this day. The double standard in the me-dia’s portrayal of the Ukrainian refugees in Europe compared with the images of Haitian, Central American and Mexican migrants at the Mexican border was obvious to everyone in my class.

I thought about the tens of thousands of refugees fleeing Ukraine and the tens of thousands of refugees who have had to flee their homes in Central America, Mexico and other parts of Latin America because of wars, dictatorships, gang warfare and cartel terrorism. Refugees and migrants who are uprooted from their homes all go through trauma whether they come from Latinoamérica or Eastern Europe.

The images of people fleeing Ukraine shook me as I remembered my family’s histories from Ukraine and Mexico, with both sides leaving their homelands for a better life.

. . . .

Ukraine and Mexico came together to form my family in the borderland of Los Angeles. My Chicano-Mexican-Russian-Ukrainian border-crossing identity hurts as I watch Putin’s war unfold while more waves of Latin American and, very recently, Ukrainian refugees arrive at the Tijuana-U.S. border. My hope is that out of this tragedy, future refugees that come to the Mexican border, whether they are from Honduras or Ukraine, are treated with equal dignity — which all of them deserve.

Nikolái Ingistov-García is a lecturer in Spanish languageand Latin American Studies at UC Riverside.

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

Ukrainian refugees are “courageous heroes.” Meanwhile, equally brave and deserving refugees of color from Haiti, Latin America, and Africa are dehumanized, degraded, and removed to potential death or danger without a thought and in violation of law.

They are often called by the misnomer “illegal migrants” — or worse! Ironically, however, the refugees arriving at Southern Border, even if not “invited,” are exercising internationally and domestically recognized legal rights to apply for asylum and other legal protections from involuntary return, some mandatory!

Of course, as intelligent humans, they don’t wait in vain or line up for “imaginary invitations” that will never come! We have no viable refugee programs for Haiti, Africa, and Latin America. Indeed, after four years of Trump and one of Biden we barely have any refugee programs anywhere! Even worse, we have immorally and illegally closed legal ports of entry to asylum seekers. So, having left refugees no viable legal avenues for seeking refuge in the U.S., a right guaranteed by both statute and international convention, we dehumanize and degrade them for using the only “self-help” methods available! Talk about chutzpah!

It’s actually folks like Vice President Harris, Secretary Mayorkas, AG Garland, and his band of scofflaw lawyers at the DOJ who are the “illegals” in this scenario. The Biden Administration is hardly the first to turn refugee and asylum laws as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of our Constitution on their heads.

The Trump regime gloried in violating the law and mistreating refugees simply for the cruelty, racism, and hate involved. Shockingly, with a some exceptions, life-tenured Federal Judges gave them a pass — particularly at the Supremes which developed their own “special double standard” to dehumanize and “Dred Scottify” immigrants of color!

The Biden Administration sweeps their own gross misconduct and racially charged “double standards” under the rug! Under Garland, the DOJ has “gone along to get along” and even disgracefully defended illegal, immoral, and deadly removals without any process at all. In doing so, they have advanced some of the same discredited myths and disingenuous pretexts developed by Miller, Sessions, Barr and the Jim Crow White Nationalist nativists!

The “mainstream media” give excruciatingly detailed coverage of the humanitarian plight of Ukrainian refugees. Meanwhile, the similar humanitarian plight of vulnerable equally deserving refugees of color, like Ukrainians many of them desperate women and children, gets little coverage outside of a few specialized reporters.

Of course, beyond the rhetoric, the Biden Administration has actually done very little to help even Ukrainian refugees beyond hollow expressions of sympathy and using them as “props” in the “war of words” with Putin. Leadership is a combination of rhetoric backed with action!

Our refugee and asylum systems are in shambles, without the leadership and expertise in place to respond to either predictable refugee flows or humanitarian catastrophes in a practical and effective way. That needs to end! But, unfortunately, its hard to see the current, spineless (non) leadership from Harris, Mayorkas, Garland, and others in this Administration getting the job done!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-21-22

Hamed Aleaziz in the LA Times:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 ⚖️🗽 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Hamed Aleaziz reports for the LA Times:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Andrea Castillo reports for the LA Times:

Asylum seekers must wait for appointments in U.S. for everyone, or leave some behind.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Hamed Aleaziz reports for the LA Times:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Tracy Wilkinson reports in the LA Times:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

David Lauter in the LA Times:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Cindy Carcamo reports for the LA Times:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever! Garland’s dysfunctional, biased, leaderless, soul-less, ethically challenged EOIR, never!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Andrea Castillo reports for the LA Times:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

A glaring double standard on refugees

The portrayal and treatment of Ukrainians fleeing war and of Haitian, Central American and Mexican asylum seekers also fleeing deadly violence could not be more different

By Nikolái Ingistov-García

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts: