THE GIBSON REPORT — 06-07-21 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group

Elizabeth Gibson
Elizabeth Gibson
Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group
Publisher of “The Gibson Report”

COVID-19 & Closures

Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify information with the government and colleagues.

 

EOIR Status Overview & EOIR Court Status Map/List:

EOIR plans to resume non-detained hearings on July 6, 2021 at all remaining immigration courts.

 

Changes to USCIS Mask Policy: Fully vaccinated staff and visitors are not required to wear masks. However, some government buildings may still require masks for all visitors, including 26 Federal Plaza.

 

TOP NEWS

 

Justices deny green cards to noncitizens granted Temporary Protected Status

SCOTUSblog: The court ruled in Sanchez v. Mayorkas that adjustment of status is reserved for those who were inspected at the border and admitted to the United States by an immigration officer, thus disqualifying the majority of those granted Temporary Protected Status.

 

Biden Has Given Prosecutors More Power To Decide Which Immigration Cases To Drop

BuzzFeed: The guidance, written by chief ICE attorney John Trasviña, a President Biden appointee, was sent to prosecutors on May 27 and represents a shift in how the agency pursues deportation orders in immigration court by emphasizing the discretion prosecutors have in court. While it does not require prosecutors to toss cases, it could lead to more immigrants having the ability to push for delays or dismissal of their deportation cases.

 

Biden administration formally ends ‘remain in Mexico’ policy after suspending it earlier this year

CNN: Shortly after President Joe Biden took office, the Department of Homeland Security suspended new enrollments to the program formally known as Migrant Protection Protocols. The department subsequently kicked off the process of gradually allowing asylum seekers previously subject to the program into the US. Between February 19 and May 25, around 11,200 migrants were processed into the US, according to Mayorkas’ memo Tuesday.

 

The false promises of more immigration enforcement

Vox: [R]esearch shows that the threat of detention and deportation in the US doesn’t dissuade migrants from making the journey to the southern border, especially if they are victims of violence and may be seeking to escape the “devil they know” in their home countries.

 

Biden Wants Mexico To Do More To Stop Immigrants Trying To Cross The US Border

BuzzFeed: Ahead of a planned visit by Vice President Kamala Harris, the Biden administration wants Mexico to send back more immigrants turned around by the US, take back additional families expelled by border agents, and do more to prevent Mexican airports from being used as pit stops for migration routes, according to government documents obtained by BuzzFeed News.

 

Docs Show ICE Didn’t Track Consent For Alleged Sterilization

Law360: Advocacy groups on Thursday released records acquired through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that showed failures in oversight by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of its medical personnel at a Georgia detention center, which is at the center of allegations of medical abuses and forced gynecological procedures.

 

Biden has quietly deployed an app for asylum seekers. Privacy experts are worried

LATimes: In recent weeks, U.S. border officials have taken an unprecedented step, quietly deploying a new app, CBP One, which relies on controversial facial recognition, geolocation and cloud technology to collect, process and store sensitive information on asylum seekers before they enter the United States, according to three privacy-impact assessments conducted by the Homeland Security Department and experts who reviewed them for The Times. See also US Border Officers Are Collecting DNA From Asylum-Seekers Even Though They Don’t Have Criminal Records.

 

Texas is seeking to evict migrant children from state shelters.

NYT: Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas has instructed state officials to end contracts with the Biden administration for shelters in the state that hold migrant children and teenagers who have been arriving alone, in record numbers, to the southwest border.

 

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

 

Supreme Court Says TPS Is Not an Admission

The Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision, holding that a TPS recipient who entered the United States unlawfully is not eligible under §1255 for LPR status merely by dint of his TPS. (Sanchez et ux. v. Mayorkas, 6/7/21) AILA Doc. No. 21060799

 

Matter of D-G-C-, 28 I&N Dec. 297 (BIA 2021)

BIA: The mere continuation of an activity in the United States that is substantially similar to the activity from which an initial claim of past persecution is alleged and that does not significantly increase the risk of future harm is insufficient to establish “changed circumstances” to excuse an untimely asylum application within the meaning of section 208(a)(2)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) (2018).

 

CA1 Upholds Denial of Cancellation of Removal to Ecuadorian Petitioner with Two Young Children

Posted 6/1/2021

The court held that the BIA did not err when it found that the petitioner, who had a 12-year-old son and a five-year-old daughter, had not met his burden to show that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his family. (Tacuri-Tacuri v. Garland, 5/24/21)

AILA Doc. No. 21060138

 

CA3 Rejects Government’s Attempt to Invoke Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine, But Upholds Denial of Withholding of Removal

Posted 6/1/2021

The court held that the government’s evidence of petitioner’s fugitive status was insufficiently probative to justify discretionary dismissal of his petition, but found that BIA did not err in denying petitioner’s withholding of removal application. (Galeas Figueroa v. Att’y Gen., 5/19/21)

AILA Doc. No. 21060140

 

CA4 Finds That EAJA Does Not Apply to Habeas Applicants Seeking Release from Civil Detention

The court held that the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) does not apply to a habeas proceeding seeking release from civil detention, and thus affirmed the district court’s order denying the petitioner attorney’s fees under the Act. (Obando-Segura v. Garland, 5/28/21) AILA Doc. No. 21060734

 

CA5 Says Conviction for Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering Is an Aggravated Felony Under INA §101(a)(43)(D)

The court held that the petitioner’s conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering plainly constituted an aggravated felony under INA §101(a)(43)(D), and that the remainder of the petitioner’s claims were either meritless or unexhausted. (Maniar v. Garland, 5/20/21) AILA Doc. No. 21060434

 

CA5 Says Attorney General Interpreted INA §208(b)(2)(A)(iv) in Matter of A-H- Correctly as a Matter of Law

Where the government had ordered petitioner removed after he threatened to commit an act of terrorism, the court held that the Attorney General had interpreted INA §208(b)(2)(A)(iv) correctly, and thus that the government had lawfully terminated his asylum status. (Mirza v. Garland, 5/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21060432

 

CA5 Finds Plea Agreement That Lacked Judge’s Signature Could Serve as Clear and Convincing Evidence of a Conviction

The court held that the petitioner had failed to show that the IJ or the BIA had violated a statutorily imposed evidentiary requirement in finding that the plea agreement form proved the existence of a forgery conviction by clear and convincing evidence. (Nguyen v. Garland, 5/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21060430

 

CA6 Rejects Castro-Tum: Garcia-DeLeon V. Garland

LexisNexis: Garcia-DeLeon v. Garland “We conclude that 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e)(4)(iii), in conjunction with 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii), gives IJs and the BIA the authority for administrative closure to permit noncitizens to apply for and receive provisional unlawful presence waivers.

 

CA9 Affirms Denial of Deferral of Removal to Jamaican Petitioner Who Claimed She Suffered Physical Abuse by Former Domestic Partner

Upholding the BIA’s denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), the court held that the record did not compel a finding that it was more likely than not that the petitioner would suffer future torture if she returned to Jamaica. (Dawson v. Garland, 5/26/21) AILA Doc. No. 21060732

 

CA9 Finds Nunc Pro Tunc Order Did Not Retroactively Establish Naturalized Parent’s Sole Legal Custody Under Former INA §321(a)

The court held that where it has not been proven that a custody order was entered in error, a nunc pro tunc order cannot retroactively establish a naturalized parent’s sole legal custody for purposes of derivative citizenship under former INA §321(a). (Padilla Carino v. Garland, 5/18/21) AILA Doc. No. 21060731

 

CA9 Says Exceptional Circumstances Warrant Reopening of In Absentia Removal Orders of Salvadoran Mother and Child

The court held that exceptional circumstances warranted reopening of in absentia removal orders entered against a mother and her minor child due to the mother’s failure to appear, where the mother suffered from memory problems and was illiterate. (Hernandez-Galand v. Garland, 5/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21060438

 

9th Circ. Says Judges Can Reopen Deported Immigrant Cases

The Ninth Circuit on Wednesday held that immigration judges can reopen the cases of immigrants who have been removed from the U.S. or who voluntarily left, reversing a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that held that the “departure bar” in immigration law blocked those reopenings.

 

9th Circ. Will Rehear Split Political Asylum Denial Ruling

Law360: The Ninth Circuit has agreed to reconsider en banc the denial of a Bangladeshi citizen’s asylum application based on alleged politically motivated threats against his family following a dissent from the panel decision citing evidentiary failures in the initial immigration court finding.

 

DOJ Asked To Pull Case That Busted Immigration Judge Union

Law360: A group of House Democrats asked the U.S. Department of Justice to withdraw a Trump administration petition that led the Federal Labor Relations Authority to rule immigration judges are managers who cannot unionize, saying the ruling broadly threatens federal employees’ union rights.

 

DHS Says Wolf Had Power To Issue Asylum Work Permit Regs

Law360: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security asked a Maryland federal court to preserve Trump-era regulations restricting asylum-seeker work permits, saying the official who created the policies had the legal authority to do so despite several courts calling that authority into question.

 

NJ Counties Fight Immigrant Info-Sharing Curb At 3rd Circ.

Two New Jersey counties urged the Third Circuit on Thursday to strike down New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal’s order that county and local law enforcement officers must restrict information they share with immigration authorities, arguing that it obstructs federal law.

 

ICE Issues Interim Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities

ICE issued interim guidance to all OPLA attorneys to guide them in appropriately executing interim civil immigration enforcement and removal priorities and exercising prosecutorial discretion. AILA Doc. No. 21060499

 

DHS Terminates the Migrant Protection Protocols Program

DHS announced that after review of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program, the Secretary of Homeland Security made a determination that MPP be terminated. This announcement does not impact this phased entry strategy into the United States of certain individuals enrolled in MPP. AILA Doc. No. 21060141

 

USCIS Announces Pilot Program for Credit Card Payments Using Form G-1450 When Filing Form I-485

USCIS announced a pilot program for accepting credit card payments using Form G-1450, Authorization for Credit Card Transactions, for U nonimmigrants filing Form I-485. The pilot program began on May 3 and is limited to the Nebraska Service Center. AILA Doc. No. 21060200

 

RESOURCES

 

 

EVENTS

 

 

ImmProf

 

Monday, June 7, 2021

·         Supreme Court Rules Against TPS Recipient in Adjustment Case

·         Student Is Denied High School Diploma for Wearing Mexican Flag

·         VP Harris to Visit Guatemala, Mexico to Discuss Migration, Human Trafficking, Corruption

Sunday, June 6, 2021

·         New Interim Guidance re: Immigration Enforcement

·         Does Increased Enforcement Deter Migrants?

Saturday, June 5, 2021

·         Biden Administration Adopting Immigration Changes

Friday, June 4, 2021

·         Teaching the Categorical Approach: The Cute Kittens Method

·         New Issue of Daedalus on Immigration, Nativism & Race in the United States

·         AP Report: U.S. government has groups to pick asylum-seekers to allow into the United States

Thursday, June 3, 2021

·         Congressional Research Service Report on Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity

·         The Equal Access to Green Cards for Legal Employment (EAGLE) Act of 2021

Wednesday, June 2, 2021

·         June is immigrant heritage month; June 21 world refugee day

·         Slowing U.S. Population Growth Could Prompt New Pressure for Immigration Reform

·         Will VP Kamala Harris take the lead on immigration?

·         Few Former Immigration Lawyers in Congress

Tuesday, June 1, 2021

·         Termination of the Migrant Protection Protocols (Remain in Mexico) Program

·         Supreme Court Rules for U.S. Government in Asylum Credibility Case

Monday, May 31, 2021

·         UK Orchestrating Rapid Relocation of Afghan Interpreters & Their Families

·         Ironic tribute to MAVNI on Memorial Day

·         2021 Annual Pre-AILA Crimes & Immigration Seminar

 

 

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

Thanks, Elizabeth!

Item #3 makes an essential point that experts have long recognized and that undermines the assumptions on which many of the failed Trump and Biden immigration policies are based: U.S. enforcement policies have little or no effect on forced migrants’ decisions to leave their homes. 

Indeed, as immigration experts have told the Administration, to little apparent avail, “forced migration” is exactly what it says it is: migration resulting from forces in home countries that are largely beyond the immediate control of either the migrants or the U.S. Government. 

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t understand and constructively address the root causes of human migration. Of course we should! 

But, such systemic changes will take time and will have only marginal effects, if any, on current migration patterns. And, harsh, cruel enforcement and illegal border closures will continue to waste resources while squandering any remaining moral leadership authority we have on migration issues following four years of unrelenting illegal and immoral behavior by the Trump regime!

Vox: [R]esearch shows that the threat of detention and deportation in the US doesn’t dissuade migrants from making the journey to the southern border, especially if they are victims of violence and may be seeking to escape the “devil they know” in their home countries.

I just watched a TV news report in which law enforcement officials and reporters hypothesized the higher walls had caused smugglers to use more dangerous methods such as maritime entries, that, in turn, kill more migrants. Is that how we measure “success?” And, even killing a few more migrants won’t have a material effect on departures or overall illegal entries.

Why not encourage individuals to apply for refuge from abroad or at legal ports of entry where they will be treated fairly and humanely by officials and judges actually qualified to administer asylum and protection laws? Why not structure our legal immigration system around the “market realities” of human migration and “push, pull factors” rather than continuously swimming against the tides of migration? Why not put experts who understand the realities of human migration in charge of our policies and courts, rather than politicos who look only for the expedient, while all too often eschewing the intelligent?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-10-21

😰👹👺🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️🤮“DARKNESS ON THE EDGE OF TOWN” — Nicole Narea @ Vox With A Glimpse Of Trump’s Second Term: American Apocalypse — Dark, Ugly, Hateful, Violent, Dishonest, Exclusionary, Stupid, Racist, Diminished, Yet Very White & Privileged — Are People Of Color & Their Allies Really Going To Stand By & Watch While Their Past & Our Future As A Strong, Creative, Tolerant, Diverse, Humane Nation Is Written Out Of History By A Racist GOP & Its Totally Wacko Yet Dangerously Evil Cult Leader?

DARKNESS ON THE EDGE OF TOWN pastedGraphic.png

Album version

Music & Lyrics by Bruce Springsteen

Well, they’re still racing out at the Trestles

But that blood it never burned in her veins

Now I hear she’s got a house up in Fairview

And a style she’s trying to maintain

Well, if she wants to see me

You can tell her that I’m easily found

Tell her there’s a spot out ‘neath Abram’s Bridge

And tell her there’s a darkness on the edge of town

There’s a darkness on the edge of town

Well, everybody’s got a secret, Sonny

Something that they just can’t face

Some folks spend their whole lives trying to keep it

They carry it with them every step that they take

Till some day they just cut it loose

Cut it loose or let it drag ’em down

Where no one asks any questions

Or looks too long in your face

In the darkness on the edge of town

In the darkness on the edge of town

Well, now some folks are born into a good life

And other folks get it anyway anyhow

Well, I lost my money and I lost my wife

Them things don’t seem to matter much to me now

Tonight I’ll be on that hill ’cause I can’t stop

I’ll be on that hill with everything I’ve got

Well, lives on the line where dreams are found and lost

I’ll be there on time and I’ll pay the cost

For wanting things that can only be found

In the darkness on the edge of town

In the darkness on the edge of town

——— Source: springsteenlyrics.com, click here for music: https://www.springsteenlyrics.com/lyrics.php?song=darknessontheedgeoftown

Nicole Narea
Nicole Narea
Immigration Reporter
Vox.com

https://apple.news/AyEIE9zXYSTeZ-TvO2TLZAQ

Nicole writes at Vox:

. . . .

As he seeks a second term, [Trump has] also made it clear that he hasn’t finished. He still wants to end the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program once and for all, drive out the millions of unauthorized immigrants living in the US and curb their political power, enact what he calls “merit-based” immigration reform, and pursue a slew of restrictive immigration regulations.

The US has already seen the harms of Trump’s first-term immigration policies, which could cut deeper if he’s given another four years: Legal immigration is plummeting, stymying growth in the labor force and threatening the US’s ability to attract global talent and recover from the coronavirus-induced recession. The US has abdicated its role as a model for how a powerful country should support the world’s most vulnerable people. And the millions of immigrants already living in the US, regardless of their legal status, have been left uncertain of their fate in the country they have come to call home.

Other concerns — including the coronavirus, racial justice, and unemployment — have recently eclipsed immigration as a top motivating issue for voters. But for Trump, who currently lags former Vice President Joe Biden in the polls, restricting immigration proved a winning message in 2016, and he will likely try to replicate that strategy again.

“It’s the thing he keeps going back to,” Douglas Rivlin, director of communication at the immigrant advocacy group America’s Voice, said. “It is his comfort zone — to go after people of color and turn them into sort of the specter of scary, violent people as a political strategy.”

. . . .

Whether any version of that proposal will get traction would largely depend on the makeup of the next Congress and whether Democrats win a majority in the Senate. Most immigration policy experts aren’t convinced that Trump will see success in negotiating with Democrats, but the political calculus could change if Democrats control both chambers of Congress and need Trump to sign their legislation.

It also depends on Republicans acting as a unified front on immigration. So far, pro-business Republicans aren’t challenging the restrictions and travel bans Trump has imposed during the pandemic, and as the US continues to grapple with its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and more than a million Americans are out of work, they will likely continue to follow the president’s lead. But in the long term, they might find themselves at philosophical odds with the anti-immigrant wing of the party.

“I think the reality of the economics of immigration and the sort of more ideological agenda are going to come into conflict,” Rivlin said.

But if Trump can overcome those hurdles, the prize would be substantial: the ability the leave his mark on the immigration system beyond a series of executive actions that could be reversed by the next Democrat who assumes office.

“Merit-based immigration reform would be a legacy for him on immigration, more so than a border wall,” the Bipartisan Policy Institute’s Cardinal-Brown said. “That would have impacts on the future of immigration for decades.”

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

Read the rest of Nicole’s gloomy yet (as always) well-written outlook at the link.

Don’t be fooled. In “Trumpspeak” the term “merit-based” means “race-based” (favoring, of course, White guys, preferably rich, English speaking, and prospective GOP toadies). Again, to state the obvious, a “kakistocracy” by definition lacks the ability to recognize and reward true “merit.” That’s why it’s a “kakistocracy,” not a “meritocracy!”

America is a nation of immigrants. To change that, Trump will have to destroy America, which, as this week’s “clown show of hate, fear, loathing, and complete nonsense” (a/k/a “The GOP Convention”) shows, he and his followers are perfectly willing to do. 

This perverted “vision” of America also ties in well with the Trump/GOP approach to racism and social justice: Ignore injustice and double down on violence administered by the largely White power structure against communities of color. Kill, maim, blame, punish, jail, intimidate, disenfranchise, and dehumanize the victims rather than looking for cooperative ways to solve the problems. Sow fear, hate, and division to insure that institutionalized racism and White grievance will be indelibly ingrained in America! As these self-inflicted grievances play out, the Trump family and its cronies will use the ensuing chaos as a diversion to loot the Treasury and use what remains of “government” to further their own personal interests, without regard to the common welfare. Nice folks!

It’s doubtful that America as the majority of us have envisioned it can survive another four years of Trump’s corruption, racism, and malicious incompetence. Despite some liberal wishful thinking, our democratic institutions and apparently overrated “checks and balances” are crumbling before our eyes. 

The “JR Five” on the Supremes and the GOP Senate already have reached “Penceian levels” (“Pence” rhymes with “incompetence”) of mindless sycophantic subservience to the “Clown Prince” and his entourage. None of them would be able to extract their collective heads from the more than ample Presidential rear to see any daylight during a second term. Trump’s re-election would inevitably convert the “City on The Hill” to a “wealthy universally despised third world kleptocracy.” That’s the real “vision” of Trump and the GOP. (I think that Nicole’s “hypothetical” of a Trump victory and a Dem Senate is the “least likely scenario.”)

This November, vote like your life and the world’s future depend on it! Because they do!

Equal Justice & A Diverse America For All! Trump’s Dark, Evil, Dishonest Vision Of America, Never!

PWS

08-27-20

BREAKING: WHAT DID I TELL YOU? – HASTE MAKES WASTE! – TRUMP SCOFFLAWS FORCED TO AGREE TO REHEAR ASYLUM CASES OF THOSE DENIED DUE PROCCESS THROUGH FAMILY SEPARATION!!!!

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/13/17853770/children-separated-news-update-parents-trump

Dara Lind reports for Vox News:

As many as 1,000 parents separated from their children are getting a second chance to stay in the US

In a huge reversal, the Trump administration is giving families another chance to claim asylum — and even some parents who’ve already been deported might be eligible.

A Honduran father and his 6-year-old son worship during Sunday mass on September 9, 2018, in Oakland, California. They fled their country seeking asylum in the US.
Mario Tama/Getty Images

The Trump administration has just agreed to give parents who were separated from their children at the US-Mexico border earlier this year a second chance to make asylum claims in the US.

The Department of Justice has negotiated an agreement that covers three lawsuits filed against the government over the family-separation policy. Parents in the US who’d been ordered deported would get another chance to pass an interview demonstrating a “credible fear” of persecution — the first step in the asylum process.

If either the parent or the child passes the screening interview, families will be allowed to apply for asylum together. Some parents who don’t pass will be allowed to remain with their children in the US while the children’s cases are adjudicated.

And in some cases, the government is even willing to consider reopening cases for parents who were already deported from the US.

The agreement covers three lawsuits: Ms. L v. ICE, which forced the government to reunite separated families this summer; M- M- M- v. ICE, brought on behalf of children separated from parents; and Dora v. Sessions, a lawsuit from parents who had failed their initial asylum screenings because they were distraught after weeks of separation from their children.

If the agreement is approved by the federal judges overseeing the three lawsuits, it will result in a second chance for hundreds of parents. Muslim Advocates and the Legal Aid Justice Center, who represented the plaintiffs in Dora v. Sessions, believe it could give “well over 1,000” parents another chance at an asylum claim. And for many families, it will eliminate (or at least defer) the impossible choice between giving up a child’s legal case, and separating the family again by keeping the child in the US while the parent is deported.

Separating families made it much harder for parents to seek asylum

Under the Trump administration’s family separation policy, a parent who wanted to seek asylum in the US had one chance: to pass a “credible fear” screening interview with an asylum office.

If a parent passed the credible fear screening, he or she was given a chance to seek asylum before an immigration judge; if the parent failed, he or she could appeal the decision to an immigration judge, with much worse odds. Losing the appeal, or agreeing to drop the case, led to an order of deportation.

Generally, most asylum seekers pass their credible fear screenings. But evidence suggests that parents who were separated from their children often failed their interviews. Parents were often so consumed by grief over their separation from their children that they weren’t able to answer asylum officers’ questions fully and effectively, according to the lawsuit filed in Dora v. Sessions.

“Explaining the basis for an asylum claim is very difficult under the best of circumstances,” said one source familiar with the interview process but not professionally authorized to speak on the record. “When someone is a) detained, b) almost certainly unrepresented, and c) beside herself with fear and desperation because of having had her child taken from her,” the source continued, “it is almost impossible.”

By the time nearly 2,000 parents and children were reunited in July (thanks to Judge Dana Sabraw’s rulings in the Ms. L case ordering family reunification), the overwhelming majority of parents had already lost their cases and been ordered deported. But their children — who’d been placed on a separate legal track as “unaccompanied alien children” after being separated from their parents — often still had ongoing cases and a real chance of winning some form of legal status in the US.

So upon being reunited, hundreds of families were faced with the choice between returning to their home country together (and facing possible peril or persecution), and keeping the child in the US in hopes of winning asylum or another form of legal status — and separating the family anew. (Some parents alleged they weren’t even given this chance, and were coerced into withdrawing their children’s legal claims — and forcibly reseparated without warning if they refused to comply.)

None of this would have happened if families hadn’t been separated to begin with. Under normal circumstances, if either a parent or a child passed an asylum interview, the government would allow them both to file asylum claims. And obviously, parents who weren’t traumatized by family separation might have had a better chance with their interviews. But simply reuniting the family didn’t solve the problem.

The government is agreeing to give reunited families the same chance they’d had if they’d never been separated

Here is what the agreement proposed by the government would actually do, if approved:

  • Parents who passed their initial “credible fear” interviews for asylum will be allowed to continue; this agreement doesn’t change those cases.
  • Parents who had lost their cases and been ordered deported will be given a full review to reassess whether or not they have a credible fear of persecution. This review will include a second interview for “additional fact-gathering” — during which a lawyer can be present (or can dial in by phone). Parents will be allowed to do this even if they didn’t ask for a credible fear interview when they were first arrested.
  • Parents who fail their credible fear screenings will be allowed to remain in the US and apply for asylum if their child passes his or her credible fear screening. The reverse is also true: If a child fails her asylum screening but the parent passes his, both parent and child will be allowed to apply for asylum. This is the way things normally work when families are apprehended together; by instituting it now, the government is essentially wiping away the legal side effects of family separation.
  • Parents who aren’t eligible for a credible fear interview because they had been deported before and were returning will still be allowed to avoid deportation if they meet a higher standard (“reasonable fear”) and qualify for something called “withholding of removal.” Even if they fail that standard, they will be allowed to stay in the US while their children are going through their asylum cases.
  • Parents who have already been deported will not have their cases automatically reviewed by the government. However, the plaintiffs in these lawsuits will have 30 days to present evidence to the government that particular parents should be allowed to return, and the government will consider those requests. (The agreement doesn’t make it clear whether deported parents will have their own cases reopened, or whether they will solely be allowed to return to stay with their children while the children’s legal cases are ongoing.)

If the agreement is approved, it will officially send the legal fight over family separation into its endgame phase. While hundreds of parents and children remain separated, the legal fight over reunification is largely about who’s responsible for carrying out various parts of the government’s reunification plan; the new agreement would set a similar plan up for the legal due process of parents and children making claims to stay in the US.

It would almost certainly run into similar implementation obstacles to the reunification plan, but it would set expectations that the government would provide this process by default, rather than moving forward with deportation.

The Trump administration is never going to wholly be able to erase the consequences of its decision to separate families as a matter of course. But it is now agreeing to give up the legal advantages that it accrued by separating parents’ and children’s cases — and forcing parents to go through interviews with life-or-death stakes without knowing when or whether they’d ever see their children again.

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

I’ve been saying it over and over again. Why not just do it right, provide full Due Process, and follow the law?

Not only are the policies being promoted by Sessions, Trump, and the rest of the GOP White Nationalists unconstitutional, illegal, vile, and immoral, they are totally wasteful of limited Government resources (particularly in a time of GOP-fueled budget deficits) and unnecessarily tie up the Federal Courts. Contrary to Jeff Sessions’s false narratives, no court system anywhere has unlimited time for all the nonsense that the Government could potentially pursue. When common sense and sane prosecutorial discretion lose out, they whole system suffers.

Think what might have happened if, instead of wasting time and money on illegal family separation, unnecessary criminal prosecutions, and bending protection law out of shape, the Government had done the right thing and spent the money:

  • Working with NGOs and legal aid groups to release folks in locations where they could get legal assistance, virtually guaranteeing their appearance in Immigration Court;
  • Agreeing to grant the many domestic violence and other types of gang-related cases that could have been granted after proper preparation and documentation under a proper application of the law (before Sessions messed it up);
  • Taking all of the cases of long-term law-abiding residents off overloaded Immigration Court dockets so that the real contested asylum cases could be given priority without denying anyone Due Process or moving everything else back through “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”).
  • Any “bad guys,” or “true economic migrants” could have been given full hearings, denied, and removed. But, totally contrary to Sessions’s racist blather, most of the folks arriving are actually legitimate refugees. They could have been granted status and allowed to go out and work and study to make America better. I’ve found few individuals (including many native-born US citizens) more grateful and willing to work hard and contribute than those granted asylum.
  • The money spent on wasteful litigation and needless, cruel and inhuman, detention could instead have been used;
    • to establish a viable overseas refugee screening program in the Northern Triangle;
    • working with other countries to share resettlement responsibilities;
    • and trying to correct the situations in the Northern Triangle which gave rise to the refugee flows in the first place.

Sadly, this is hardly the first, and probably by no means the last, time that the US Government has been forced to reprocess large numbers of asylum seekers because of a failure to follow Due Process and do the right thing in the first place. Just check out the history of the ABC v. Thornburgh litigation and settlement (a case I was involved in during my time in the “Legacy INS” General Counsel’s Office).

Indeed, the Trump scofflaws are “doubling down” on every failed policy fo the past. They actually are at it again with their bone-headed proposal to thumb their collective noses at Judge Dolly Gee and withdraw from the Flores settlement and set up a “Kiddie Gulag” by regulation. Good luck with that. The Trump Scofflaws are already wasting your taxpayer money on more “tent cities in the Kiddie Gulag” that they almost certainly will be enjoined from using at some point. Then, cooler heads will prevail and we’ll undoubtedly have a “Flores II” settlement.

Also, compare the real role of immigration lawyers in enforcing the law and holding Goverment scofflaws like Sessions and Nielsen accountable with the totally bogus picture painted by Sessions in his false, unethical, and highly inappropriate speech to US Immigration Judges this week. Truth is exactly the opposite of nearly everything that Jeff Sessions says.

Our country can’t afford the scofflaw conduct, inhumanity,  immorality, and wastefulness of Trump, Sessions, Miller and their racist White Nationalist cabal. Vote for regime change this Fall!

Haste Makes Waste! Told ya so!

PWS

09-13-18

 

HISTORY: Matthew Yglesias In VOX Shows How Immigration Made America Great, Right From Our Beginning — It Wasn’t Always About Generosity To Others; It Was Mostly About What Made Us More Successful & Prosperous!

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/3/14624918/the-case-for-immigration

“George Washington set in motion a strategy so radical that it made this country the wealthiest and strongest on Earth — it made America great.

Immigration.

He embraced a vision for an open America that could almost be read today as a form of deep idealism or altruism. “America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions,” he told newly arrived Irishmen in 1783. He assured them they’d be “welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.”

But Washington’s vision wasn’t primarily about charity or helping others. It was about building the kind of country that he wanted the United States to become. Greatness would require great people. America would need more than it had.

The contemporary debate around immigration is often framed around an axis of selfishness versus generosity, with Donald Trump talking about the need to put “America first” while opponents tell heartbreaking stories of deportations and communities torn apart. A debate about how to enforce the existing law tends to supersede discussion of what the law ought to say.

All of this misses the core point. Immigration to the United States has not, historically, been an act of kindness toward strangers. It’s been a strategy for national growth and national greatness.

. . . .

Last but by no means least, while it’s certainly true that Americans care about the average well-being of American citizens, we also care about something else — greatness, for lack of a better word.

In per capita income terms, the United States has, by most measures, been overtaken by Switzerland. The Netherlands is relatively close behind, and when you consider inequality and quality of public services, the typical Dutch person may well enjoy a higher standard of living than the typical American. This kind of thing matters. But at the same time, there is a reason that when Americans feel anxiety about national decline, they tend to think of China and not Switzerland. The Netherlands is a great place to live, but it hasn’t been a great nation since the early 17th century.

Aggregates matter, in other words.

If Americans had listened to the counsel of the Know-Nothing movement in the 1850s and drastically curtailed immigration from outside of Protestant Europe, it would probably still be a rich country today. But it would be a very different kind of rich country from the one we know — one with fewer, smaller cities mainly focused on exporting agricultural goods and other natural resources to the wider world. A place more like Canada or a supersize version of New Zealand, rather than an industrial and technological powerhouse that intervened decisively in two world wars and anchored a coalition of liberal states to defeat communism.

Going forward, demographers forecast that immigration — both the people it provides directly and the children that immigrants bear and raise — is the only reason America’s working-age population isn’t declining. This is doubly true when you consider that immigrants’ work in the household and child care sectors likely serves to increase native-born Americans’ childbearing as well.
A declining working-age population, seen already in Japan and some southern European countries, poses some serious challenges to a national economy. It tends to push interest rates down to an incredibly low level, making it difficult for central banks to respond to a recession. It also makes it more difficult to sustain public sector retirement programs and elder care more generally.

There are some offsetting upsides (less strain on transportation infrastructure, for example), and, like anything else, the problems are solvable. Fundamentally, however, an America that is shrinking is a country that is going to be a lesser force in the world than an America that is growing. It’s true, of course, that an America that continues to be open to immigrants will be a progressively less white and less Christian country over time. That’s a threatening prospect to many white Christian Americans, who implicitly identify the country in ethnic and sectarian terms. But America’s formal self-definition has never been in those terms.

And for those who believe in the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the value of America’s ideals, accepting a future of decline and retreat in the name of ethnic purity should be unacceptable. That the more homogeneous America will be not just smaller and weaker but also poorer on a per capita basis only underscores what folly it would be to embrace the narrow vision. That hundreds of millions of people around the world would like to move to our shores — and that America has a long tradition of assimilating foreigners and a political mythos and civil culture that is conducive to doing so — is an enormous source of national strength.

It’s time we started to see it that way.”

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

I had these same feelings about many of the “happy cases” that came through my courtroom in Arlington over the years. I was constantly impressed with the courage, dedication, determination, and under-appreciated skills of the folks who came before me. And, I felt inspired and optimistic that they had chosen, notwithstanding hardship and obstacles, to join our national community and help make America even greater. Building America, one case at a time.

PWS

04//03/17

Lexis Nexis: “Trump’s Refugee Executive Order a ‘Priceless Recruiting Tool for ISIS’ – Former INS General Counsel David A. Martin”

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/outsidenews/archive/2017/01/30/trump-39-s-refugee-executive-order-a-39-priceless-recruiting-tool-for-isis-39-former-ins-general-counsel-david-a-martin.aspx?Redirected=true

Dan Kowalski at Lexis Nexis summarizes the most hard-hitting part of Professor Martin’s analysis of the Executive Order on Refugees and Visas:

“30 Jan. 2017 – Prof. David A. Martin (please read his full bio) has annotated President Trump’s 27 Jan. 2017 Executive Order. Among other things, Prof. Martin states, “The order is a priceless recruiting tool for ISIS and similar movements, because it so easily fits their narrative that the United States is the enemy of all Muslims. And it will discourage tips and information from American Muslim communities — information that in the past has proved highly valuable to the thwarting of terrorist acts. Accordingly, the Bush and Obama administrations both strived to avoid all measures that could be painted as broadly anti-Muslim. Much of that vital engagement with Muslim communities has been gravely undone by this order.””

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

Go on over to Lexis Nexis at the link for further links to the complete analysis in Vox, Professor Martin’s spectacular biography, and a great picture of Professor Martin.

PWS

01/30/17