TRUMP’S BOGUS BORDER CRACKDOWN & ATTACK ON ASYLUM EXPLAINED: Professor Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia & The Penn State Law Center For Immigrants Rights Clinic Provide “Fact Sheet”

Blocking those Seeking Entry PolicyFinal

page1image1900506480

Joint Rule and Presidential Proclamation On Entry and Asylum: What You Need To Know

Updated November 9, 2018

What are these new policies?

On November 9, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an interim final rule and a presidential proclamation affecting individuals seeking entry at the southern border of the United States. These executive actions place restrictions on asylum for certain noncitizens arriving in the United States.

What are these policies intended to do?

The interim final rule governs eligibility for asylum and screening procedures for those subject to a new presidential proclamation. Together, these executive actions suspend entry for noncitizens crossing the southern border and bar such noncitizens from asylum.

What is the scope of the joint interim rule and presidential proclamation?

page1image1900574000page1image1900574256

The rule applies prospectively, so individuals who arrived in the United States before the effective date of November 9, 2018 are not covered. The rule also does not impact two related forms of relief known as withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. These forms of relief are narrower and without the same benefits of asylum protection. No later than 90 days from the date of the presidential proclamation, November 9, 2018, the Secretary of State, Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security should submit to the President a

recommendation on whether the suspension should be extended or renewed.

page1image1900626096

What legal authority is the administration relying upon to issue the interim final and

page1image1900633552

presidential proclamation?

The joint interim rule points to several sections in the immigration statute known as the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Some of these sections are summarized below.

● INA § 212(f) states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of anyclass of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

The goal of this document is to provide general information and is not meant to act as a substitute to legal advice from an attorney.
1

page1image1900695920

● INA § 208(d)(5)(B)● INA §

Has the administration used INA § 212(f) before?

Yes. Most recently, INA § 212(f) was used as a basis for three travel bans issued by the President, each of which prohibits the entry of nationals from certain countries. On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion in the case of Hawaii v. Trump (Travel Ban 3.0). Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts held that the travel ban does not violate the INA and described INA § 212(f) as a “comprehensive delegation” which “exudes deference to the President in every clause.”

Is the President’s use of INA § 212(f) in the Travel Ban distinguishable?

Yes. In Hawaii v. Trump, the courts did not analyze the suspension clause at INA § 212(f) against the asylum provision at INA § 208(a).

What are the legal concerns with these executive actions?

There is a concern that the executive actions violate the immigration statute and other laws. While the interim final rule and presidential proclamation identify some sections of the immigration statute, these sections cannot be read in isolation to the statute as a whole, nor can it conflict with the U.S. Constitution, statutes and other laws. One concern is that these actions violate the statutory provision that governs asylum law and other laws. INA § 208 states that any person physically present in the United States, regardless of how or where he or she entered is eligible to apply for asylum. The section states in part, “

ated port of arrival.

The goal of this document is to provide general information and is not meant to act as a substitute to legal advice from an attorney.

states that “[t]he Attorney General may provide by regulation for any

other conditions or limitations on the consideration of an application for asylum not

inconsistent with this Act.”

215(a) states that it is “unlawful . . . for any alien to depart from or enter or attempt

to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations,and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.”

INA

§

208(b)(2)(C) states that the “Attorney General may by regulation establish

page2image1898736208

additional limitations and conditions, consistent with this section, under which an alien

shall be ineligible for asylum under paragraph (1).”

page2image1898748880page2image1898749136page2image1898749392page2image1898749712page2image1898749968

Any alien . . . who arrives in the United States (whether or not

at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) irrespective of such alien’s status,

may apply for asylum . . .” (emphasis added).

Because

the plain language of the INA is clear that

any noncitizen is eligible for asylum regardless of her manner of entry, there is a concern that these policies violate the statute by restricting the availability of asylum seekers only to those who

present at a design

page2image1898800848

2

Why is the administration issuing these policies?

page3image1900474976

It is the administration’s position that the United States has seen an increase in the number of noncitizens arriving at the United States between ports of entry along the southern border and that

page3image1900407792

many of the asylum claims brought forth by this population are without merit.

page3image1900460528

What are some of the countervailing views to the administration’s position taken by some

page3image1900492704

refugee advocates and scholars?

Many asylum seekers arriving at the southern border are from the Northern Triangle which is comprised of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. The violence and danger in these countries is well documented. Individuals who have suffered or will suffer individual harm for a specific

page3image1900803184

reason are eligible to apply for asylum under the immigration statute and other laws. Many of the

asylum claims by individuals from the Northern Triangle are with merit.

What is an “Interim Final Rule”?

An Interim Final Rule becomes effective immediately upon publication and is an exception to the general rule that public notice and comment must take place before the effective date of a regulation. DOJ and DHS have concluded that a “good cause” exception exists to publish this asylum regulation as an interim final rule. Written comments can be submitted by the public for a period of sixty days from the date of publication.

What is a presidential proclamation?

A presidential proclamation is one form of presidential power and similar to an executive order. It is an order issued by the President of the United States and may possess the authority of law. See e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

What comes next?

Given the legal concerns of restricting asylum, litigation is expected. Further, under section 4 of the presidential proclamation, if any section of the proclamation is found to be invalid, the remainder of the proclamation shall remain effective.

Where can I find more resources?

See the Penn State Law Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic website for updates on this and other immigration policies. Also visit:

  • ●  Department of Homeland Security
  • ●  American Immigration Lawyers Association
  • ●  American Immigration Council
  • ●  Human Rights FirstThe goal of this document is to provide general information and is not meant to act as a substitute to legal advice from an attorney.
    3

page3image1900937504page3image1900938272page3image1900938528page3image1900939040page3image1900939232page3image1900939424

************************************
It’s critically important to the future of our nation and the world that the actions of Trump and his White Nationalist scofflaws be resisted in the courts and in our  political system.
In the meantime, since virtually everything the Administration says on this topic is a false narrative or obfuscation of their real racist agenda, an honest expert analysis like this is a “gold mine.”
We can (and are) diminishing ourselves as a nation, but it won’t stop human migration!
PWS
11-09-18

CONGRATS: Kansas Removes Racist Grifter Kris Kobach From State-Funded Welfare Rolls, Ending Years Of Abuse Of Public Funds!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/kris-kobach-loses-kansas-governors-race.html

Mark Joseph Stern write in Slate:

THE SLATEST

Notorious Vote Thief and Incompetent Gubernatorial Candidate Kris Kobach Loses in Kansas

By

Failed Republican gubernatorial candidate Kris Kobach speaks at a rally with President Donald Trump in Topeka, Kansas.
Scott Olson/Getty Images

The nation’s most notorious vote thief has gone down in flames.

On Tuesday night, Kansas Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach lostthe governor’s race to Democrat Laura Kelly. Kobach built his career on voter suppression, whipping up nativist fervor by claiming that a large number of noncitizens are casting ballots. (They aren’t.) He led Donald Trump’s failed voter-fraud commission, then eked out a victory in the Republican gubernatorial primary against current GOP Gov. Jeff Colyer. But even in deep-red Kansas, voters appear to have rebelled against his brand of paranoid, xenophobic conservatism.

Although Kobach built up a national profile as a formidable politician, he is, in fact, deeply incompetent. He spent years promoting Crosscheck, a program that ostensibly detected double voting but actually had an error rate of 99.5 percent. He pushed a law that compelled Kansans to provide proof of citizenship in order to register to vote, then defended it himself at trial—at which point it became clear that he doesn’t understand basic rules of civil procedure. A federal judge repeatedly reprimanded him during the hearings, then ruled against him and held him in contempt of court.

As Kobach struggled to defend his signature law, he led Trump’s voter-fraud commission right off a cliff. His own co-commissioners openly criticized him for lying about the existence of fraud. One sued him for concealing key documents from him; after a federal judge demanded that Kobach turn over the documents, he disbanded the commission instead. To save face, Kobach claimed he would take his work to the Department of Homeland Security—a claim that the DHS swiftly rebuked.

Then there was the 2018 Republican primary in Kansas. From an administrative standpoint, the election was an absolute disaster. Officials failed to predict major turnout, leading to endless lines and delays. A number of new voting machines, on which the state spent millions of dollars, also failed. The blame fell upon Kobach, who spent his tenure as secretary of state pursuing phantom voter fraud instead of doing his job and ensuring that elections ran smoothly.

Now Kobach has faced the biggest humiliation of them all: He lost to a Democrat, in Kansas. All his voter suppression schemes—his proof-of-citizenship measure, his poll closures—could not pull him over the finish line. Kobach alienated much of the Republican establishment during his brawl with Colyer, and his flagrant maladministration of the voter fraud commission seems to have hurt his relationship with Trump. There is simply no clear path forward for his political career after Tuesday’s defeat. Kobach has always been a loser. Now he is a loser out of a job.

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

For years, Kobach has been misusing his (largely ministerial) position as Kansas’s Secretary of State as a cover for his nationwide effort to implement a bogus White Nationalist agenda that encourages voter suppression and invidious discrimination against Latinos and other individuals of color in various states and localities.

Judges throughout the country have largely slammed his efforts, leaving taxpayers holding the bag with huge legal bills. As noted by Stern, Kobach, a congenital liar who operates in an “ethics free zone,” has been held in contempt of court. Also as noted by Stern, he has royally screwed up his minor, yet potentially significant, job as Kansas Secretary of State.  That’s the kind of  “expertise” and “leadership” that has spawned the Trump-Sessions racist White Nationalist takeover of the GOP.

Thanks and congratulations to Kansas voters for having the wisdom and decency to “just say no” to this toxic dude, and force him to go out an earn an honest living. Something for which to date he has shown little aptitude. All goes to show that a Yale Law Degree isn’t proof against being a biased incompetent idiot.

PWS

11-09-18

TRUMP’S TOADIES: EOIR JOINS “PARTNERS” AT DHS IN FRIVOLOUS “INTERIM” REG THAT CLEARLY VIOLATES ASYLUM STATUTE! — All In Pursuit Of Trump’s Racist, Anti-Asylum Agenda!

Here’s a link to the “Interim Regulations:”

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-24594.pdf

Here’s “Tal’s Take:”

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Trump-administration-to-issue-travel-ban-like-13376110.php

Trump administration to issue travel ban-like rule at southern border

Tal Kopan Nov. 8, 2018

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is using travel ban-like authority to substantially curtail immigrants’ ability to seek asylum in the U.S.

 

The administration took the first step Thursday to bar immigrants from applying for asylum if they cross the southern border illegally. On Friday, President Trump is likely to issue a proclamation implementing the ban, a senior administration official suggested in a briefing.

 

The ban will apply to future illegal border crossers, not those who have already entered the country, the official said.

 

The move, which was first reported by The Chronicle last month, comes as a caravan of thousands of impoverished migrants is slowly traveling through Mexico toward the U.S. The migrants are still several weeks away from the border, but Trump has already sent 5,000 troops to the Southwest to prepare for their possible arrival.

Related Stories

 

Trump’s proclamation will apply only apply to those who cross the U.S.-Mexican border illegally. The goal, said a second administration official, is to “funnel” asylum seekers to legal border crossings, where the government is “better resourced” and has “better capabilities and better manpower and staffing.”

 

But the rule could have overwhelming consequences for crossings like San Ysidro in San Diego County. The busiest land crossing in the Western hemisphere, that port of entry already struggles to process immigrants who arrive seeking asylum, with wait times often approaching weeks.

 

The administration officials did not answer a question about how the ports of entry would be able to accommodate even more immigrants.

 

The San Ysidro crossing can process 50 to 100 immigrants a day, according to Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan. There were days in July when the line was 1,000 people long.

 

Officials cannot legally turn away immigrants seeking asylum at recognized border crossings. But they do conduct “metering,” stopping immigrants before they get to the crossing and telling them they have to come back.

 

That has created desperate situations south of the border. An inspector general’s report analyzing the administration’s handling of the family separation crisis this summer blamed “metering” for causing more people to cross into the U.S. illegally.

 

Federal law says asylum protections, which afford a path to citizenship for qualifying immigrants who fear persecution in their home countries, are available to immigrants “whether or not” they arrive at a legal crossing. The administration argues that other provisions of the law allow them to restrict that.

 

Immigrant advocates disagree, and have already said they will sue to block Trump’s expected proclamation.

 

“The asylum ban is patently unlawful and disregards our nation’s long commitment to providing a safe haven for those fleeing danger. Court challenges are coming,” said Lee Gelernt, a lead immigration attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.

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

These “Interim Regs” are 78 pages of pure legal gobbledygook, bureaucratic doublespeak, and irrelevant and intentionally misleading stats purporting to “justify the unjustifiable.” So, I’ll make this simple.

 

  • The asylum statute says individuals have a right to apply for asylum regardless of legal status and without regard to whether they arrived or entered at a legal “port of entry;”
  • This “Interim Regulation” purports to make those who don’t arrive at a port of entry ineligible to apply for asylum;
  • The regulation cites a statutory provision that allows the AG and the Secretary of DHS to create “exceptions” and “conditions” on applicants by regulation;
  • But, that statute actually says those “exceptions and conditions” must be “consistent with” the statute;
  • The “exception” to eligibility in this Interim Regulation specifically contradicts the clear language of the statute permitting those who enter or arrive illegally to apply for asylum;
  • Therefore, the exception is beyond the authority of the AG and the Secretary to create by regulation;
  • Indeed, the facial invalidity of this Interim Regulation is so clear that the EOIR and DHS position is frivolous— not passing the “straight face test” — and the policy officials and bureaucrats involved are promoting frivolous litigation before the Federal Courts — generally frowned upon when done by members of the public!
  • Perhaps at some point the Federal Courts will assert themselves by starting to “take names” of those US Government officials wasting court time in pursuit of illegal, racially-motivated objectives.

 

No wonder the Dudes who drafted this piece of garbage wanted to bury their real actions and intent in 78 pages of pure nonsense! This from an Administration supposedly committed to cutting bureaucracy and eliminating unnecessary and burdensome regulations!

 

Tomorrow, as previously promised, Trump will continue to carry out his racist, White Nationalist political agenda by declaring a totally bogus “immigration emergency” by Executive Order (similar to the bogus emergency he used to justify the discriminatory and bogus “Travel Ban”). The only question is whether the Federal Courts will let him get away with thumbing his nose at the statute, our Constitution, and the authority of the Article III Courts themselves.

 

Stay tuned!

 

PWS

 

11-08-18

ATTENTION DC AREA “COURTSIDERS!” – Come Hear My FREE Presentation On Contemporary Immigration Issues @ Fairlington United Methodist Church in Alexandria, VA on Wednesday, Nov. 14 @ 7:00 PM (Dinner for nominal cost @ 6 PM, RSVP for dinner only)

FAIRLINGTON UNITED METHODIST CHURCH IS LOCATED AT:
3900 King Street
Alexandria, VA 22302
(Right near the King Street/Route 7 Exit off I-395)

Immigration event at Fairlington United Methodist Church

 

Immigration 102: Not Like What’s on TV

What happens to immigrants once they arrive in the US?

Wednesday, November 14

7:00 pm to 8:00 pm in the Fellowship Hall

Fairlington United Methodist Church

3900 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22302

Featuring

Judge (Retired) Paul Wickham Schmidt

The presentation is free-of-charge and open to the public.

Join us for recently retired United States Immigration Judge Paul

Wickham Schmidt’s entertaining overview of our immigration system,

or our “National Club” as he terms it. Who is

favored? Who is excluded? Who are the

outcasts? Where do refugees fit in? Trial

judge, appellate judge, chief appellate judge,

prosecutor, government senior executive, big

law partner, manager, advocate, teacher,

writer, civil servant in Administrations of both

parties, Judge Schmidt has “seen it all” in his

43-year career in immigration law. Judge

Schmidt’s presentations on immigration will

provoke a lively discussion.

You are welcome early for our family dinner at 6pm.

Cost for Dinner: $10 per individual or $25 per family.

RSVP for Dinner: Rev. Christian White (703) 671-8557

christian@fairlingtonumc.org

Picture credits: Tal Kopan & Jeffrey Chase

 

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

Hope to see many of you there!

PWS

11-08-18

9TH CIR: SCOFFLAWS OUTED, DREAMERS WIN AGAIN: Sessions Is Gone, But He & Trump Just Can’t Stop Losing On Their Stupid, Cruel, Wasteful, & Illegal Attack On Kids Who Are Our Future!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/politics/daca-9th-circuit/index.html

The rescission of DACA—based as it was solely on a misconceived view of the law—is reviewable, and plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that it must be set aside under the APA. We therefore affirm the district court’s entry of a preliminary injunction.31 The district court also properly dismissed plaintiffs’ APA notice-and-comment claim, and their claim that the DACA rescission violates their substantive due process rights. The district court also properly denied the government’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ APA arbitrary-and-capricious claim, their claim that the new information-sharing policy violates their due process rights, and their claim that the DACA rescission violates their right to equal protection.
***
The Executive wields awesome power in the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws. Our decision today does not curb that power, but rather enables its exercise in a manner that is free from legal misconceptions and is democratically accountable to the public. Whether Dulce Garcia and the hundreds of thousands of other young dreamers like her may continue to live productively in the only country they have ever known is, ultimately, a choice for the political branches of our constitutional government. With the power to make that choice, however, must come accountability for the consequences.

Here’s a link  to the full decision by the 9th Circuit:

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/11/08/18-15068.opinion.pdf

PWS

11-08-18

 

TRUMP CELEBRATES MIDTERM “VICTORY” WITH BOLD FOUR-PRONGED ATTACK ON CONSTITUTION AND RULE OF LAW! — Trump Earns Courtside’s Coveted “Five Clown Rating!”

  • First, he trashed the 1stAmendment by attacking, insulting, demeaning, and revoking the White Press credentials of CNN Correspondent Jim Acosta while fabricating an alleged “incident” involving Acosta that both national TV recordings and dozens of eye-witnesses testify never happened;

  • Second, he fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions (no tears, please, for this corrupt public official and immoral person) and appointed sycophantic Acting Attorney General (and former right-wing commentator and established Trump suck-up) Matt Whitaker, a sleazy maneuver which now gives Trump control over the Mueller investigation through Whittaker (indeed, some legal experts say this maneuver in and of itself could easily be construed as an obstruction of justice);

  • Third, while half-heartedly saying he would be willing to work with House Democrats, he then threatened them with retaliation if they had the audacity to exercise their Constitutional authority to investigate him and his corrupt Administration;

  • Finally, he reportedly plans on Friday to illegally overrule the Refugee Act of 1980 for asylum seekers through an “Executive Order” – a mean-spirited, controversial, and unnecessary move that almost certainly will be blocked by the Federal Courts therefore touching off yet another round of acrimonious and largely frivolous litigation. You can read Vivian Salama’s account about Trump’s latest plans to thumb his nose at the law in pursuit of his racist agenda in the WSJ here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-sign-immigration-directive-revamping-asylum-system-1541629100?emailToken=00b769f8b7a4e89eba0f99cf5b2477154uBTkiIEqaA4RxhOj6r+MwpvKdjXbRWeUanRuOJdVFK4XBp2y4cx7py6fMlif4uGIYfAXBjcnBluaPYf4RL4PppT8TfGt2sTJrEbTE781qozrIjvN+p3sEae+AYFLY5x&reflink=article_email_share

And, remember folks, this is just “Day One of Phase II” of America’s Continuous National Clown Show! Stay tuned for more daily clown performances and hilarious degradations of America, our laws, human rights, and our values from under the Big Top! Today’s Trump performance get Courtside’s coveted “Five Clown” rating!

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

PWS

11-06-18

ELISE FOLEY @ HUFFPOST – Finally, There Will Be Some Meaningful Oversight Of Trump’s Racist, Xenophobic Immigration Policies! – It Won’t Stop, But Could Slow, The “Race To The Bottom!”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-house-immigration_us_5be2ec2fe4b0e84388924c3d

Elise writes:

The new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives can’t force President Donald Trump to abandon his efforts to crack down on asylum-seekers, migrant families and immigrants already living in the U.S. But it can make it harder for him to enact his agenda.

Whether through oversight, withholding funds or passing pro-immigrant bills and daring the Republican-controlled Senate and the president to shoot them down, Democrats now have leverage on immigration.

Republicans, of course, will still control the Senate after Tuesday’s midterms, and Trump will still be in the White House, where he has already cracked down on undocumented immigrants without congressional help.

Still, there were glimmers of hope around the country. Oregon voters rejected a ballot measure that would have ended the state’s “sanctuary” policies. Kansas gubernatorial candidate Kris Kobach, a Republican who has spent years pushing hard-line immigration policies around the country, lost. So did Pennsylvania U.S. Senate candidate Lou Barletta, who enacted an anti-immigrant policy years before as a mayor and recently defended separating families at the border. Several other Republicans who campaigned on immigration crackdowns lost too, which immigrant rights advocates held up as proof that Trump’s fear-based campaigning wasn’t the guaranteed winner he seemed to think it was.

And now that Democrats have taken control of the House, they can serve as a check on Trump’s immigration efforts.

Democrats are expected to launch investigations and conduct oversight on a number of Trump actions and policies ― something Republicans have so far declined to do. And immigrant rights groups will be pressing them to do so.

Tyler Moran, managing director of progressive group The Immigration Hub and a former Senate and White House staffer, pointed out several areas ripe for oversight. Those include the Trump administration’s family separations at the border, its deportation tactics, and its decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for young undocumented immigrants and temporary protected status for certain nationalities of immigrants whose home countries suffered natural disasters or violence.

 Many of Trump’s immigration policies also require significant funding increases ― something a Democratic House is likely to fight. The Democrats have already vowed not to fund Trump’s wall along the southern border. Trump is expected to push for wall funding during the lame duck session while Republicans maintain control of both chambers, and has suggested a government shutdown in December if he doesn’t get what he wants.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told The Wall Street Journal ahead of the election that if Democrats should win a majority on Tuesday, they’d have more leverage to block wall spending even before they officially take over.

“Why would we compromise on the wall now?” she said.

Current House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has pushed for more protections for undocumented immigrants.

BLOOMBERG
Current House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has pushed for more protections for undocumented immigrants.

Democrats are also likely to push legislation that protects undocumented immigrants, particularly young immigrants, which could increase public pressure for Senate Republicans and Trump to back it.

Trump ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, last year, but so far has been forced to keep it running by court orders that he is continuing to fight. Although Republicans opposed DACA, some have voiced support for some type of legislative measure that would keep its recipients ― so-called Dreamers who have lived in the U.S. since childhood ― from being deported.

But so far, Republicans haven’t actually supported measures that would do so, at least without simultaneously aiming to restrict legal immigration and ramp up deportation efforts.

Immigrant rights groups want a “clean” bill for Dreamers, called the Dream Act, that doesn’t include other measures. Democrats are expected to push for it, but past stalemates are likely to continue. More likely, Democrats could make a deal to protect Dreamers while also giving Trump something he wants, but not the whole spate of anti-immigrant measures Republicans tried, and failed, to pass earlier this year.

While Democrats gaining the majority was a good thing for supporters of immigrant rights, it required knocking out some moderate Republicans who could previously be claimed as allies on bipartisan legislation. Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), who unsuccessfully pushed for protections for undocumented young people, lost to a Democrat. So did Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), another Republican who called for legal status for Dreamers, although he spoke in more hawkish terms at an August fundraiser.

The defeat of bipartisan backers may be more of a symbolic loss than a substantive one. The Democrats who will take their place are likely to be even more reliable supporters of immigration reform.

Leading immigrant rights advocates, including Frank Sharry of America’s Voice, cheered Coffman’s defeat.

Even with the departure of the truly terrible Jeff Sessions, the situation is likely to remain grim. Trump’s dreams of legislation slashing legal immigration and eliminating the right to apply for asylum are DOA. Also, he’s not likely to get funding for expanding the New American Gulag, “the wall,” harassing Dreamers, or expanding already bloated, ineffective, and inhumane ICE civil enforcement. Oversight might even result in some accountability for human rights abusers like Nielsen.
But, as he has already shown, there is plenty of damage that Trump can do to the Constitution, human rights, the legal system, and our national values in the area of immigration “administratively.” It’s likely that he’ll look for a total sycophant in the Mike Pence mold for Attorney General. With the Senate firmly in GOP hands, there will be nobody to stop even more unqualified appointments. However, House oversight and budget control might be able to slow the pace of the abuses or at least make a public record for history and future action.
PWS
11-06-18

 

 

 

MARK JOSEPH STERN @ SLATE: GONZO’S GONE! — Bigoted, Xenophobic AG Leaves Behind Disgraceful Record Of Intentional Cruelty, Vengeance, Hate, Lawlessness, & Incompetence That Will Haunt America For Many Years!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/jeff-sessions-donald-trump-resign-disgrace.html

Stern writes:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions resigned on Wednesday at the request of Donald Trump. He served a little less than two years as the head of the Department of Justice. During that time, Sessions used his immense power to make America a crueler, more brutal place. He was one of the most sadistic and unscrupulous attorneys general in American history.

At the Department of Justice, Sessions enforced the law in a manner that harmed racial minorities, immigrants, and LGBTQ people. He rolled backObama-era drug sentencing reforms in an effort to keep nonviolent offenders locked away for longer. He reversed a policy that limited the DOJ’s use of private prisons. He undermined consent decrees with law enforcement agencies that had a history of misconduct and killed a program that helped local agencies bring their policing in line with constitutional requirements. And he lobbied against bipartisan sentencing reform, falsely claiming that such legislation would benefit “a highly dangerous cohort of criminals.”

Meanwhile, Sessions mobilized the DOJ’s attorneys to torture immigrant minors in other ways. He fought in court to keep undocumented teenagers pregnant against their will, defending the Trump administration’s decision to block their access to abortion. His Justice Department made the astonishing claim that the federal government could decide that forced birth was in the “best interest” of children. It also revealed these minors’ pregnancies to family members who threatened to abuse them. And when the American Civil Liberties Union defeated this position in court, his DOJ launched a failed legal assault on individual ACLU lawyers for daring to defend their clients.

The guiding principle of Sessions’ career is animus toward people who are unlike him. While serving in the Senate, he voted against the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act because it expressly protected LGBTQ women. He opposed immigration reform, including relief for young people brought to America by their parents as children. He voted against the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. He voted against a federal hate crime bill protecting gay people. Before that, as Alabama attorney general, he tried to prevent LGBTQ students from meeting at a public university. But as U.S. attorney general, he positioned himself as an impassioned defender of campus free speech.

While Sessions doesn’t identify as a white nationalist, his agenda as attorney general abetted the cause of white nationalism. His policies were designed to make the country more white by keeping out Hispanics and locking up blacks. His tenure will remain a permanent stain on the Department of Justice. Thousands of people were brutalized by his bigotry, and our country will not soon recover from the malice he unleashed.

His successor could be even worse.

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

Can’t overstate the intentional damage that this immoral, intellectually dishonest, and bigoted man has done to millions of human lives and the moral and legal fabric of our country. “The Father of the New American Gulag,” America’s most notorious unpunished child abuser, and the destroyer of Due Process in our U.S. Immigration Courts are among a few of his many unsavory legacies!

The scary thing: Stern is right — “His successor could be even worse.”  If so, the survival of our Constitution and our nation will be at risk!

PWS

11-06-18

BLOOMBERG REPORT: AS ONE PARTY RULE ENDS, BOTH SEE WAY FORWARD TO 2020 — For Dems, It’s Stay “On Message,” Hang On To Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, & Michigan, And Find A Dynamic National Leader To Carry The Message & Joust With Trump – For Trumpists, It’s Continue Leveraging An Election System That Largely Favors White Rural Areas, While Throwing “Red Meat” At Base Apparently Immune To Truth, Facts, Human Decency, & The Well-Being Of Their Fellow Americans!

https://apple.news/Af-KXd7j1QPCSp0T28lnpdg

Craig Gordon & Alex Wayne report for Bloomberg:

Vengeful Democrats vs. Angry Trump: A Post-Election Guide to DC

Both sides can find something to cheer in Tuesday’s election results. Democrats won the House and the rebuke of President Donald Trump they so desperately wanted, even as they fell short of a “blue wave.” Trump can rightfully say his last-minute barnstorming helped protect the Republican Senate majority.

The president has gamely declared it a good night. In reality, Trump’s presidency and his path to re-election grew more difficult after Tuesday.

Explore state-by-state election results with Bloomberg’s interactive map of the 2018 U.S. midterms.

The results reaffirmed the notion of a 50-50 America, and that’s now reflected in a Democratic House and Republican Senate. Here’s what to expect from divided government in Washington:

1. Trump’s re-election bid starts today, but it took a blow

The three Rust Belt states that propelled him to the presidency — Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan — all elected Democratic governors and senators. If Democrats can hold those 46 Electoral College votes along with the states that Hillary Clinton carried in 2016, they’ll win the presidency two years from now.

Suburbanites and women showed Democrats a path back to the White House: run sensible candidates who talk kitchen-table issues like health care.

Trump’s signature legislative win — the tax cut — barely registered with voters, and a split Congress means few fresh achievements to run on.

Trump has a lot to lose if the economy goes downhill at some point before the next election. Some economists are already raising the possibility of a recession by 2020.

And Trump could be running under a cloud: His team seems ill-prepared for the cyclone of investigations and subpoenas headed his way, and whatever Special Counsel Robert Mueller has in store.

2. But Trump’s night had a silver lining

He showed his Trump mega-rallies still have potency in rural, Southern and Western states. His rallies boosted Republican Senate candidates in North Dakota, Indiana, Missouri and Texas.

Republicans picked up governorships in the two most important states in a presidential contest: Florida and Ohio. Trump gets some of the credit for those wins, showing he can run hard in those states in 2020.

Trump did little or nothing to expand his base, but by keeping the Senate, he showed his supporters are still there and willing to follow him.

3. Conservatives have reason to stick with Trump: Judges

Conservatives dream of stocking the federal bench for a generation, including the Supreme Court. A bigger majority means fewer nail-biters on nominations as the caucus waits on a single GOP senator like Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski for the deciding vote.

Other Senate confirmations get easier, too. That will come in handy for the expected post-election house-cleaning. Replacing Attorney General Jeff Sessions or Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, two of his most endangered Cabinet members, may not be as fraught.

4. Embattled Trump aides will head for the exits

The question is when, not if, the president gets rid of Sessions. And Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, never a Trump favorite, could take the fall for a failure to stop the flow of migrants across the Southern border. Trump has also had to fend off questions about the possible departure of Defense Secretary James Mattis.

Resignations will happen at the White House, but they’ll more likely be the result of exhaustion among Trump’s staff than a presidential shake-up.

5. House Democrats will push a broad anti-Trump agenda

Now dead: The GOP Tax Cut 2.0, along with any further attempt to repeal Obamacare.

Now very much alive: the subpoena machine that will torment Trump, on Russia, his businesses, his 2016 campaign, his decision to send troops to stop the migrant “caravan” and maybe even a bid to see his tax returns.

First order of business: H.R. 1, a sprawling good-government bill on voting rights, ethics and campaign finance. Then onto shoring up Obamacare and negotiating cheaper drug prices for Medicare.

6. Nancy Pelosi will be back as House speaker . . .

But she’ll have a hard time taming fellow Democrats.

A top Pelosi priority will be keeping a lid on investigation overreach and overheated impeachment talk, which some of her more liberal members may want to indulge — but which could backfire with many Americans, including Democrats.

7. 2018 was the Year of the Woman — not just symbolically

About 100 women were elected to Congress, the most in history.

That included the first two Muslim women — Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, who’s also the first Somali-American woman in Congress. Ayanna Pressley will be the first black woman elected to Congress from Massachusetts, and Republican Marsha Blackburn will be the first woman Tennessee has elected to the Senate.

Women with national-security expertise flipped several GOP-held districts for Democrats. In New Jersey, former Navy pilot Mikie Sherrill defeated Republican Jay Webber. Outside Richmond, Virginia, former CIA agent Abigail Spanberger defeated one of the most conservative members of the House, Representative Dave Brat. And in Norfolk, Virginia, retired Navy officer Elaine Luria defeated incumbent Republican Scott Taylor, a former Navy SEAL.

8. Keep an eye on. . .

One big winner: Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who’s an odd mix: a progressive populist who supported Trump’s effort to renegotiate the Nafta deal. He could teach his party how to win on the trade issue.

One big loser: Beto O’Rourke, who lost to Republican Texas Senator Ted Cruz. A Democratic voter favorite, O’Rourke may run for president in 2020, even in defeat.

The would-be governors: Andrew Gillum had Democrats thinking they could win Florida, but he fell short to Trump favorite Ron DeSantis. Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams isn’t conceding in her race against Republican Brian Kemp. Both Gillum and Abrams sought to be the first African-American governors in their states.

Republican up-and-comers include Josh Hawley, 38, who defeated incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill in Missouri, and South Dakota’s Kristi Noem, who becomes the state’s first female governor.

9. Stymied at home, Trump will likely look abroad

The president has a lot of latitude to act alone on foreign policy. He’s heading into a busy foreign policy period, with trips to France this weekend and the Group of 20 summit in Argentina at the end of the month, when he expects to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The House has little say over foreign policy — only the Republican-led Senate votes on treaties, for example.

Chinese leaders seem open to a trade deal in Buenos Aires, and so does Trump.

But Trump is free to continue to ratchet up tariffs on China or other economic competitors, abandon international agreements like the Paris climate accord and the Iran nuclear deal, and negotiate with adversaries such as Russia and North Korea.

To contact the reporters on this story:
Craig Gordon in Washington at cgordon39@bloomberg.net;
Alex Wayne in Washington at awayne3@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Michael Shepard at mshepard7@bloomberg.net

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

Seems about right to me. Obviously, Trump sees that doubling down on his divisiveness, lies, racism, and illegal behavior could be a path to victory and holding on to the Senate in 2020, even if he gets clobbered in the popular vote, which is likely.

While there do appear to be some areas of common interest, it’s going to be pretty hard for Dems to “reach across the aisle” when the folks on the other side are conducting a cultural war of lies against them and their constituency — which actually is the majority of Americans.

Meanwhile with a free rein on reshaping the Federal Courts in his own image, Trump and the GOP probably figure that controlling three of the four power centers of Government is enough, and don’t see any need to work with Dems on advancing the public interest. Better to just blame them for everything that goes wrong as a result of Trump’s inability to govern.

I can see that it might (or might not) work again for Trump and his GOP in 2020, and perhaps beyond. On the other hand, the long-term outlook still appears to  favors the Dems, if the country survives that long, or Vladimir Putin if it doesn’t.

Governing in the interests of a dwindling, disgruntled White minority who want to turn us back to the “bad old days” of inequality, exclusion, and exclusive White privilege, while dissing the interests of those who are America’s future can’t possibly be a formula for long-term success. Either the majority at some point will have to gain political control and establish government in the overall public interest, or the country will simply come apart at the seams in a civil discord that can’t be repaired. Putin and his successors would be quite happy to see us “self-destruct.” Not a probability, but certainly a possibility.

PWS

11-06-18

GONZO’S WORLD – NEW TRAC DATA SHOWS SESSIONS’S IDEOLOGICALLY DRIVEN INTERFERENCE AND GROSS MISMANAGEMENT HAS “ARTIFICIALLY JACKED” THE U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT BACKLOG TO OVER 1 MILLION CASES! – And, That’s With More Judges — “Throwing Good Money After Bad!”

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/536/

Immigration Court Backlog Surpasses One Million Cases

Figure 1. Immigration Court Workload, FY 2018

The Immigration Court backlog has jumped by 225,846 cases since the end of January 2017 when President Trump took office. This represents an overall growth rate of 49 percent since the beginning of FY 2017. Results compiled from the case-by-case records obtained by TRAC under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from the court reveal that pending cases in the court’s active backlog have now reached 768,257—a new historic high.

In addition, recent decisions by the Attorney General just implemented by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) have ballooned the backlog further. With a stroke of a pen, the court removed 330,211 previously completed cases and put them back on the “pending” rolls. These cases were previously administratively closed and had been considered part of the court’s completed caseload[1].

When the pending backlog of cases now on the active docket is added to these newly created pending cases, the total climbs to a whopping 1,098,468 cases! This is more than double the number of cases pending at the beginning of FY 2017.

Pending Cases Represent More Than Five Years of Backlogged Work

What does the pending case backlog mean as a practical matter? Even before the redefinition of cases counted as closed and cases considered pending, the backlog had reached 768,257 cases. With the rise in the number of immigration judges, case closures during FY 2018 rose 3.9 percent over FY 2016 levels, to 215,569. In FY 2017, however, closure rates had fallen below FY 2016 levels, but last year the court recovered this lost ground[2].

At these completion rates, the court would take 3.6 years to clear its backlog under the old definition if it did nothing but work on pending cases. This assumes that all new cases are placed on the back burner until the backlog is finished.

Now, assuming the court aims to schedule hearings eventually on all the newly defined “pending” cases, the backlog of over a million cases would take 5.1 years to work through at the current pace. This figure again assumes that the court sets aside newly arriving cases and concentrates exclusively on the backlog.

Table 1. Overview of Immigration Court Case Workload and Judges
as of end of FY 2018
Number of
Cases/Judges
Percent Change
Since Beginning
of FY 2017
New Cases for FY 2018 287,741 7.5%
Completed Cases for FY 2018 215,569 3.9%
Number of Immigration Judges 338/395* 17.0%
Pending Cases as of September 30, 2018:
On Active Docket 768,257 48.9%
Not Presently on Active Docket 330,211 na
Total 1,098,468 112.9%
* Immigration Judges on bench at the beginning and at the end of FY 2018; percent based on increase in judges who served full year.
** category did not exist at the beginning of FY 2017.

Why Does the Backlog Continue To Rise?

No single reason accounts for this ballooning backlog. It took years to build and new cases continue to outpace the number of cases completed. This is true even though the ranks of immigration judges since FY 2016 have grown by over 17 percent[3] while court filings during the same period have risen by a more modest 7.5 percent[4].

Clearly the changes the Attorney General has mandated have added to the court’s challenges. For one, the transfer of administratively closed cases to the pending workload makes digging out all the more daunting. At the same time, according to the judges, the new policy that does away with their ability to administratively close cases has reduced their tools for managing their dockets.

There have been other changes. Shifting scheduling priorities produces churning on cases to be heard next. Temporary reassignment and transfer of judges to border courts resulted in additional docket churn. Changing the legal standards to be applied under the Attorney General’s new rulings may also require judicial time to review and implement.

In the end, all these challenges remain and the court’s dockets remain jam-packed. Perhaps when dockets become overcrowded, the very volume of pending cases slows the court’s ability to handle this workload – as when congested highways slow to a crawl.

Footnotes

[1] The court also recomputed its case completions for the past ten years and removed these from its newly computed completed case counts. Current case closures thus appear to have risen because counts in prior years are suppressed. Further, the extensive judicial resources used in hearing those earlier cases are also disregarded.

[2] For consistency over time, this comparison is based upon the court’s longstanding definition, which TRAC continues to use, that includes administratively closed cases in each year’s count. Under this standard, numbers are: 207,546 (FY 2016), 204,749 (FY 2017), 215,569 (FY 2018).

[3] The court reports that the numbers of immigration judges on its rolls at the end of the fiscal year were: 289 (FY 2016), 338 (FY 2017), and 395 (FY 2018). The 17 percent increase only considers judges who were on the payroll for the full FY 2018 year. See Table 1. For more on judge hires see: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1104846/download

[4] New court cases based upon court records as of the end of FY 2018 were: 267,625 (FY 2016), 274,133 (FY 2017), and 287,741 (FY 2018). Due to delays in adding new cases to EOIR’s database, the latest counts may continue to rise when data input is complete. TRAC’s counts use the date of the notice to appear (NTA), rather than the court’s “input date” into its database. While the total number of cases across the FY 2016 – FY 2018 period reported by TRAC and recently published by EOIR are virtually the same, the year-by-year breakdown differs because of the court’s practice of postponing counting a case until it chooses to add them to its docket.

TRAC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit data research center affiliated with the Newhouse School of Public Communications and the Whitman School of Management, both at Syracuse University. For more information, to subscribe, or to donate, contact trac@syr.edu or call 315-443-3563.
***********************************************
Yes, as TRAC notes, it has been building for many years. And there are plenty of places to place responsibility: Congress, the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration, the DOJ, DHS, and EOIR itself.
But, there is no way of denying that it has gotten exponentially worse under Sessions. Ideology and intentional “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” as well as the same ineffective “terrorist tactics, threats, intentionally false narratives, inflammatory and demeaning rhetoric, and just plain willful ignorance” that Sessions employs in his immigration enforcement and prosecutorial programs are the main culprits. And, they aren’t going to stop until Sessions and this AdministratIon are removed from the equatIon. Not likely to happen right now.
So, if the Article IIIs don’t step in and essentially put this “bankrupt dysfunctional mess into receivership” by appointing an independent Special Master to run it in accordance with Due Process, fairness, fiscal responsibility, and impartiality, the whole disaster is going to end up in their laps. That will threaten the stability of the entire Federal Court system — apparently just what White Nationalist anarchists like Sessions, Miller, and Bannon have been planning all along!
Wonder if Las Vegas is taking odds on the dates when 1) the backlog will reach 2 million; and 2) the Immigration Court system will completely collapse?
The kakistocracy in action! And, lives will be lost, people hurt, and responsible Government damaged. More judges under Sessions just means more backlog and more injustice.
PWS
11-06-18

ROQUE PLANAS @ HUFFPOST: TRUMP’S BOGUS CARAVAN THREAT MIGHT BE HIS MOST OUTRAGEOUS SCAM YET! — GOP’S Racist Commercial So Vile That Even Fox Pulls It!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-fabricating-border-crisis-before-election_us_5be0a522e4b09d43e321d731

Roque Planas writes in HuffPost:

Almost every day last week, the White House thrust immigration to the center of national politics. The Pentagon announced plans to dispatch some 5,200 troops to the border with Mexico. Trump said he planned to eliminate the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship by executive fiat. He announced a coming plan to bar migrants who cross illegally from claiming asylum and to detain them indefinitely in tent cities. To hear him speak at a press conference on Thursday, it would appear the United States faces an onslaught of illegal immigration.

None of this reflects reality. For the last eight years, arrests for illegal border crossing have been at their lowest levels since the 1970s.

But it does jibe with the strategy of a president who propelled himself to the White House by making specious immigration claims. Facing an election cycle that imperils the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, the president’s message is clear: Voters should blame Democrats for a nonexistent catastrophe at the border.

The ad — which NBC abandoned, along with Fox and Facebook, after a major backlash — is part of Trump’s strategy to drum up fears of the caravan among his base. CNN declined to air it, calling it “racist.”

It’s also flatly false.

Luis Bracamontes, the unauthorized immigrant in Trump’s ad, was convicted in 2014 for killing two Sacramento police officers and has nothing to do with the caravan.

The original version of the ad that Trump posted to Twitter was even more blatantly dishonest. After showing clips of a deranged Bracamontes ranting in court about how he would escape and kill others, it claimed that Democrats let him into the country and that they let him stay. It then it cuts to video of the caravan, giving the impression that it’s composed of similar fiends.

In fact, no one let Bracamontes in. He was deported twice, once in 1997 and again in 2001.

Some critics of the ad have noted that the last time he entered the country illegally appears to have been during the presidency of George W. Bush. He didn’t let Bracamontes in either, though. The fact is that Bracamontes evaded law enforcement, which is not in itself noteworthy. The rate of success for people who attempt to enter the country illegally multiple times never dipped below 96 percent until 2008, according to the Mexico Migration Project, the most comprehensive sociological database to track migration across the U.S.-Mexico border.

Implying that the migrant caravan is consists of dangerous criminals like Bracamontes is just as untenable as the claim that Democrats let him in. Among the several thousand people traveling through Mexico in the main caravan are 2,300 kids, according to UNICEF USA. The migrants are banding together in caravans not as some kind of invading force but as a way to seek protection in numbers from human traffickers.

The major challenge that the U.S. faces at the border is how to process efficiently an uptick in the number of Central American families and children who make asylum claims or ask for other forms of humanitarian relief from deportation. But that trend dates from 2014, so it’s hardly new.

It won’t be clear until after the midterm elections whether Trump will follow through on his barrage of immigration promises. But with less than 24 hours to Election Day, the more immediate question is how voters will react to his statements.

Mass migration from Mexico had petered out seven years before Trump launched his campaign for the presidency by vilifying Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists and blaming “open border” Democrats for an immigration crisis that didn’t exist. The strategy helped get him elected in 2016. On Tuesday, we’ll see if it works for him again.

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

Lies, knowingly false narratives, corruption, scams on the American people, racism, intolerance, disrespect for millions of Americans and our Constitution — that’s just business as usual for the Trump Administration.

Truth is, the “Caravans” are doing favors for the US Government in a number of ways:

  • Easy to track;
  • Plenty of advance notice;
  • Reduces danger and deaths along the way;
  • Takes business away from professional smugglers;
  • Almost all “Caravan” members who actually reach the border (only a fraction of those who begin the thousand mile plus journey) are processed in an orderly fashion, either waiting patiently at ports of entry or turning themselves in to the Border Patrol immediately upon entry;
  • There is no evidence of  significant numbers of “Caravan” members disappearing into the interior of the US without some type of inspection and screening — almost all those who are not summarily returned have gone through credible fear screenings and are either detained or released on bond after the Government confirms their identity and reasons for coming,  and determines that they have credible cases for protection under our laws;
  • There is no record that I’m aware of that any “Caravan” has attempted to “storm the border” or violently attacked US border authorities en masse — why would they, since their only chance for survival is to hope and pray that the US authorities will actually live up to our legal responsibilities and give them a chance to seek legal protection under our laws?

However, if the Trump Administration continues to ignore our laws and to mount bogus attacks on fleeing refugees, they probably will be able to convince many of those folks that our legal system is a fraud and they had best employ the services of a professional smuggler to get them into the interior of the US where they can lose themselves in the crowd and probably save their lives — a sort of “do it yourself asylum.” And, while wasting taxpayer money on the “border hoax,” this Administration is failing to fund and intentionally ignoring international efforts to address the dangerous and chaotic conditions in the Northern Triangle that causes these refugee flows in the first place — and will continue to cause them until we put wiser and more honest policies into effect.

The real threat to our country’s security and future is Trump and his willfully blind or in some cases outright White Nationalist, racist, or purposefully racially tone-deaf supporters and enablers.

If that’s not the America you want and want for future generations, get out the vote to start regaining control of our country from a misguided yet loud and active minority trying to shove their lack of values down the rest of our throats! America is for all Americans, not just the “Trump Base” and their fellow travelers!

PWS

11-06-18

CONTEMPT OF COURT: Trump Administration Asks Supremes To Short-Circuit Lower Federal Courts, End DACA!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-daca/trump-turns-to-supreme-court-to-wind-down-dreamer-immigration-program-idUSKCN1NB01D

Lawrence Hurley and Tom Hals report for Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to allow it to end a program introduced by former President Barack Obama that protects thousands of young immigrants who live in the United States without legal status.

FILE PHOTO: Activists and DACA recipients march up Broadway during the start of their ‘Walk to Stay Home,’ a five-day 250-mile walk from New York to Washington D.C., to demand that Congress pass a Clean Dream Act, in Manhattan, New York, U.S., February 15, 2018. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton/File Photo

The day before congressional elections in which Trump’s harsh anti-immigration rhetoric has taken center stage, the administration urged the justices to throw out three lower court rulings that blocked Trump’s plan to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

The policy has shielded from deportation immigrants dubbed “Dreamers” and given them work permits, though not a path to citizenship.

In a court filing, Solicitor General Noel Francisco said the original DACA policy was introduced by Obama administration officials “even though existing laws provided them no ability to do so.” Now, it is lawful for the Department of Homeland Security to change course, he added.

“It is plainly within DHS’s authority to set the nation’s immigration enforcement priorities and to end the discretionary DACA policy,” Francisco said.

The Justice Department’s move was unusually aggressive in terms of procedure, asking the justices to take action even before intermediate federal appeals courts have ruled on the three lower court rulings. The administration says a final ruling is urgently needed.

If the Supreme Court, which has a 5-4 conservative majority, agrees to hear the case, a ruling would likely come before the end of June.

Poll: Voter enthusiasm surges among U.S. Hispanics

Trump and his conservative political allies have made his hard-line policies toward immigration a key issue ahead of Tuesday’s midterm elections that will determine if his fellow Republicans maintain control of Congress.

The Trump administration has argued that Obama exceeded his constitutional powers when he bypassed Congress and created DACA, which offers protections to roughly 700,000 young adults, mostly Hispanics.

The administration is contesting three different district court rulings from judges in California, New York and the District of Columbia that told the administration to continue processing renewals of existing DACA applications while litigation over the legality of Trump’s action is resolved.

Reporting by Tom Hals and Lawrence Hurley, Editing by Rosalba O’Brien

 

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

The Administration shows its utter contempt for the Third Branch in two ways:

  • First, by essentially demanding to skip appealing the District Court orders to the Courts of Appeals, as all other litigants are required to do, they are expressing their contempt for the proper role of the Courts of Appeals;
  • Second, by publicly indicating that they “own” the Supremes and can get them to short-Circuit the system and do their bidding on demand.

A prudent Court would send Trump packing. Indeed, there is no reason whatsoever to allow the Government to circumvent the legal system here. Given that there are already 750,000 cases in Immigration Court, the 800,000 “Dreamers” aren’t going anywhere. Clearly, the Administration’s claim of “urgency” is totally bogus. Moreover, given the sympathetic circumstances of the Dreamers, there is no reason for the Court to rush on this one. It remains something that Congress eventually will have to solve, no matter how much they might want to avoid doing so.

We’ll see how this one plays out. It will tell us lots about the wisdom, integrity, and courage of the Supremes in the age of Trump.

PWS

11-05-18

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S CRUEL ANTI-REFUGEE POLICIES CREATE HEARTACHE FOR APPLETON MAN SEPARATED FROM FAMILY!

https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2018/11/05/appleton-refugee-struggles-reunite-family-amid-trump-policies/1811031002/

Chris Mueller reports for the Appleton Post Crescent:

As Trump administration slashes refugee limits, Appleton refugee tries to reunite family
LINKEDINCOMMENTMORE

APPLETON – Heritier Muhorana talks to his wife and daughter every day.

He can hear their voices on the phone. He can look at their faces on a screen. But for more than three years, he hasn’t seen them in person.

In 2000, Muhorana fled horrific violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo for the relative safety of crowded refugee camps in Burundi, a neighboring country in central Africa.

Muhorana met his wife, Chantal, in one of those refugee camps. That’s where they got married. But in late 2014, Muhorana was approved for resettlement in the U.S. — a process that took nearly two years and began before he was married.

He came alone to the U.S. in 2015, expecting his wife would be able to join him soon after. That didn’t happen. His daughter, Deborah, will be 3 years old in December. He has never met her in person.

His wife and daughter left the refugee camps and now live in Bujumbura, the capital of Burundi. They’re working with World Relief Fox Valley in an effort to get to the U.S., but so far haven’t been successful.

Muhorana tries to stay positive, but it’s difficult not to be frustrated. He doesn’t know when his family will be back together.

“This experience will never happen to me again,” he said. “It’s a very bad experience, not to be with your family.”

RELATED: ‘A biblical issue’: World Relief official offers different perspective on immigration

RELATED:Refugees find ‘place to call home’ in Appleton

The situation isn’t likely to improve anytime soon. The number of refugees being allowed to settle in the U.S. has sharply fallen in the last two years.

In September, the Trump administration announced a plan to limit the number of refugees allowed to resettle in the U.S. this fiscal year to 30,000, down from a limit of 45,000 set last fiscal year — already the lowest since Congress passed the Refugee Act in 1980. The limit during the final year of the Obama administration was 110,000.

Despite the limit of 45,000 last fiscal year, the U.S. only admitted 22,491 refugees, which is the lowest number in decades, according to State Department records.

About 25.4 million refugees exist worldwide, according the U.N. refugee agency.

The number of refugees arriving in northeast Wisconsin has also significantly declined in the last two years. World Relief Fox Valley, which has offices in Appleton and Oshkosh, had 209 arrivals in fiscal year 2016. That fell to 70 in fiscal year 2017 and 57 in fiscal year 2018, which ended Sept. 30.

Phil Stoffel, immigration manager for World Relief Fox Valley, said the situation for refugees trying to bring close relatives to the U.S. has gotten more difficult recently.

“People all across the nation in networks and affiliates that we work with are telling me they’re not getting any answers for any of these cases right now,” he said.

Many refugees have started to lose trust in the system they’re relying on to help them, Stoffel said. World Relief Fox Valley has at least 50 cases of refugees trying to bring close relatives to the U.S., but it doesn’t appear anything is going to change in the near future, he said.

“There’s no other way to explain what’s going on,” he said. “The politics in this are really bad right now.”

Stoffel has one piece of advice to anyone unsure whether the U.S. should welcome refugees at all: meet one.

“Once you meet one, it changes,” he said.

‘A very tough moment’

In 1998, Muhorana fled with his family from their village in Katanga, a former province in the southern part of Congo. The country was descending into war. He was just 12 years old.

He still remembers the night they left. It was about 6 p.m. That’s when they started walking. They didn’t stop until about 2 p.m. the next day. And his family wasn’t alone.

“Thousands of people moving at one time, just walking,” he said. “It was very painful.”

Muhorana didn’t bring much with him, other than what he could carry. He remembers a cousin asking him to hold a bottle for her baby, to help her as they were walking.

They walked for weeks without enough food to eat and in constant danger of being caught up in the violence unfolding around them.

“At that time, what mattered was just to save our lives,” he said.

But they couldn’t always avoid the fighting. The exposure to violence left many people traumatized — or worse, Muhorana said.

“I saw some people who were hurt or shot, some other people were killed on the way,” he said. “It was a very tough moment.”

Muhorana, though, safely found his way to Kalemie, a town on the western shore of Lake Tanganyika, where a relief organization provided food to the crowd of refugees. He stayed there for more than a month, but safety was still a concern.

He eventually continued north to South Kivu, a province near the border with Burundi, and stayed there for almost two years, despite treacherous living conditions. He stayed in churches or schools, often in close quarters with thousands of other people.

“We didn’t have enough food to eat. We didn’t have medical assistance,” he said. “So, everything was just a little bit. It wasn’t enough.”

Disease was a problem, too. Many people got sick. Some died. But safety from the violence remained the primary concern, Muhorana said.

“People were still being killed there,” he said.

He couldn’t think about his plans for the future. The situation didn’t allow it. So, in an effort to find peace and a place he could think about his goals in life, he and his family decided to flee for Burundi.

‘We were limited’

Muhorana was a teenager by the time his family crossed the border into Burundi and arrived at their first refugee camp. They stayed for more than a year, then were forced to move to another camp in the northeast part of country.

The violence unfolding in Congo was behind them. But in the camps, his family encountered other problems. Sickness, mostly.

“I would see people dying every month, every year,” Muhorana said. “You bury a lot of people.”

Their camp was packed with about 10,000 people, he said. And it wasn’t the only camp around. Burundi had multiple refugee camps set up for those fleeing across the border.

The camp was not a good place to live, Muhorana said. He felt trapped, unable to go anywhere without asking permission first.

“When you are young, you have dreams. You have goals. You have ambition. You have something in your heart you desire to achieve,” he said. “In the camp, we were limited.”

Still, despite the limitations, Muhorana found a way to work toward a better life. He left the camp after a few years and made his way to Rwanda, a country to the north of Burundi. There, he was able to finish high school and get a college scholarship, which he used to earn a bachelor’s degree in business.

Then, in 2013, Muhorana returned to the camp, where his family still lived. That’s when he met the woman who later became his wife. She had fled a similar situation in Congo and was already living in the camp when he returned.

He found a lot to like about her, Muhorana said, but her generosity stood out to him. The prospect of getting married in the camp wasn’t ideal, he said. But, in 2015, without other options, that’s exactly what he did.

He hadn’t specifically planned on coming to the U.S. — he simply wanted to find a country where he could live a normal life. But when he was approved for resettlement in the U.S., the prospect excited him.

“We were thinking that maybe life was going to be different than what we have here,” he said.

The process of getting approved for resettlement took nearly two years. And when it was over, Muhorana didn’t get to choose where he was sent. His wife, who hadn’t yet been approved, wouldn’t be able to join him.

“We couldn’t travel together because I was already at the final step,” he said. “I was already ready to come.”

So, with no other choice, he left on his own.

‘Change will come’

Muhorana didn’t speak English — not much, at least — when he arrived in the U.S. in 2015. And that was far from the only challenge he faced.

He was thrilled to arrive, but those first few years weren’t easy at all, he said. The culture was entirely new to him and it took time to adjust.

“I couldn’t imagine that I would have friends and I would get familiar with people here,” he said.

World Relief Fox Valley has services meant to help refugees acclimate to life in the U.S., said Tami McLaughlin, the organization’s executive director.

The organization recruits volunteers who spend time with refugees and serve as companions and valuable sources of information, McLaughlin said.

“Those friendships make the difference in how well somebody transitions into a completely new culture and community,” she said.

To do basic things, such as apply for a job, enroll a child in school, or get health care, can be overwhelming at first for refugees who are often simply relieved to be safe, McLaughlin said.

“You celebrate the little wins and take the little steps,” she said.

RELATED: They help refugees find Wisconsin homes despite political battles

RELATED:Refugee family marks 5 years in Oshkosh

As much as Muhorana tries to remain optimistic about his future, it’s difficult not to be upset with his wife and daughter living thousands of miles away, he said.

The conversations he has with them tend to focus, almost inevitably, on when they might see each other again.They’re still working hard to have a life together, despite the distance between them.

“I try to share my life, my experience here, so I can tell them the difference,” he said.

Muhorana has been working with Stoffel, the immigration manager, for about two years to get his wife and daughter to the U.S., but it’s unclear how much progress they’ve made.

“I can’t begin to tell you how much paperwork we’ve had to file and go through,” Stoffel said. “It’s just a constant back-and-forth with no clear answers from the government.”

Any refugee trying to enter the U.S. has to go through exhaustive background checks, according to U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services. Muhorana’s wife and daughter both have passed those checks, but attempts to get updates on the status of their case have gone unanswered, Stoffel said.

But despite the frustration and the length of time the couple has spent apart, his wife is still excited by the idea of coming to the U.S., Muhorana said.

“She can dream of a bright future too,” he said.

For now, Muhorana will wait. It’s all he can do.

“In life, nothing is permanent,” he said. “Everything is subject to change. So, change will come.”

LINKEDINCOMMENTMORE

READ ABOUT THE EXCITING LIFE & TIMES OF “OUR GANG” MEMBER JUDGE CHARLIE PAZAR – Special Feature in the “Memphis Lawyer”

https://issuu.com/memphisbarassociation/docs/ml_2018_volume_3

The article begins on page 8.

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

Congrats Charlie on your outstanding career and all of your many contributions to scholarship, justice, and Due Process in America! And thanks for the plug on the activities of “Our Gang!”

If my memory serves correctly, I actually brought Charlie into the “immigration family” by offering him a job in the General Counsel’s Office of the “Legacy INS” in 1987, just before I departed for Jones Day! I always did have a pretty good “eye for legal talent” if I do say so myself. What a true pleasure to have an opportunity to work with Charlie and my other great colleagues again in retirement!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-05-18

MR. ROGERS: APOSTLE OF RADICAL KINDNESS

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/fred-rogers-understated-champion-of-radical-kindness/2018/11/02/97e784c4-cb27-11e8-920f-dd52e1ae4570_story.html

Annie Murphy Paul writes in the Washington Post:

In a recent interview on NPR, journalist Beth Macy was asked about the personal toll taken by her work reporting on the ravages of the opioid crisis — work that entailed spending hour upon hour with desperate addicts and grieving families. Macy replied that the words of a friend helped buoy her spirits and guide her approach to the story, which also involved interviewing “the people fighting back” against the scourge of addiction: doctors, social workers, first responders, health activists. Recalled Macy of her friend: “He quoted Mister Rogers — he said, ‘Look for the helpers.’ ”


(Harry N. Abrams)

“Look for the helpers”: a small gift, one of many, for which we can thank the children’s television personality Mister Rogers. The life of Fred Rogers — yes, he had one outside the confines of the living room where each day he changed into a cardigan and sneakers on camera — is recounted in “The Good Neighbor,” a new biography by Maxwell King. King, a former journalist who now leads the nonprofit Pittsburgh Foundation, offers the full complement of heartwarming, feel-good stories we would expect from a book about Mister Rogers. But, as King is at pains to demonstrate, Rogers wasn’t just about feeling good. He was no superficial cartoon of niceness. The man was deep — a quality that distinguished him from the characters featured in other children’s shows, from Soupy Sales and Captain Kangaroo to, later, Barney the Dinosaur and Elmo the helium-voiced Muppet. Rogers treated with sober seriousness notions that the rest of us regard as platitudes — “Love thy neighbor” — and devotedly lived them out. He made niceness radical.

King is a skilled storyteller who captures the essence of not only Rogers the person but also the very particular American scene that produced him. The future television icon was born in 1928 in Latrobe, Pa., an industrial city 40 miles outside Pittsburgh. Viewers who regard him as the epitome of middle-class bourgeois habits may be surprised to learn that Rogers grew up very, very rich, in a mansion with a cook and a chauffeur. His mother, known around town for her extraordinary kindness and generosity, was a model for Fred and the source of the advice Macy found so inspiring: “When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news,” Rogers once related on his show, “my mother would say to me: ‘Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.’ To this day, especially in times of disaster, I remember my mother’s words, and I am always comforted by realizing that there are still so many helpers — so many caring people in this world.”

Rogers himself was a “sickly, chubby boy” whose classmates called him “Fat Freddy” and chased him home from school. Despite such treatment, he formed a loving attachment to his home town, which he would later re-create on his show as “The Neighborhood of Make-Believe,” complete with trolleys and factories. Many of the factories in real-life Latrobe were owned by Rogers’s family, but unlike the super-rich of today, the Rogerses lived and worked and socialized among their less-affluent neighbors instead of other people of wealth. Reading King’s account of this close-knit and community-minded city, one gains new insight into the affection and nostalgia so many feel for “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood”: Its host was dramatizing a world that was already, at that moment, slipping away.

“The Good Neighbor” guides us smoothly from Rogers’s childhood though his early adulthood and the start of his professional career. After studying music composition at Rollins College in Florida (where he met his future wife, a pianist named Joanne Byrd), he was hired by NBC Television in New York, working as an assistant producer and floor director for shows like “The Kate Smith Evening Hour” and the “NBC Opera Theatre.” In 1953, Rogers moved back to Pennsylvania to work at WQED Pittsburgh, the nation’s first community-sponsored educational television station. There he produced a program called “The Children’s Corner,” in which he introduced many of the characters that would later become familiar to generations of young viewers: Daniel Striped Tiger, X the Owl, King Friday XIII, Henrietta Pussycat, Lady Elaine Fairchilde. That show led to the creation of “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood,” featuring Rogers himself as host, which was distributed nationally starting in 1968.

Rogers’s show was earnest, quirky, amateurish in the best sense of the word; it was also groundbreaking. Into the lily-white world of midcentury children’s programming, Rogers invited actors of diverse backgrounds like Francois Clemmons, an African American singer and actor who played a police officer; Maggie Stewart, the African American “mayor” of Westwood, adjoining the Neighborhood of Make-Believe; and Tony Chiroldes, the owner of a shop that sold toys, books and computers in the Neighborhood, and who sometimes taught Mister Rogers words in Spanish. In the 1970s, Rogers became a vegetarian, offering as his reason another understated gem: “I don’t want to eat anything that has a mother,” he said. As King notes, “In many ways, he was ahead of his time.”

And yet, as we’ve noted, Rogers was also a creature of an earlier era. Even as the world around him ratcheted up its speed, Rogers maintained his slow, steady tempo. King tells us that his friends and co-workers called it “Fred-time”: “Whenever one sat down to talk with him, urgency seemed to dissipate, discussion proceeded at a measured, almost otherworldly pace, and the deepest feelings and thoughts were given patient attention.”

Rogers was also deeply religious, committed to his mother’s Presbyterian faith. For eight years, he slipped away from his duties at the television station three or four times a week to attend classes at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary; he was ordained a Presbyterian minister in 1963. Many who knew Rogers seem to have regarded him as almost saintly. King quotes William Hirsch, a friend of Rogers’s from his church: “So what would Christ be like? He would be like Fred. He would encourage you to do things that were right and would help other people.”

King seems to recognize the dangers of regarding Rogers as too good — so impossibly virtuous as to seem not quite mortal — and does his best to excavate Rogers’s dark side. He could be stubborn and rigid, the biographer reveals; to hear former producer Margy Whitmer tell it, Mister Rogers was a bit of a control freak. “Our show wasn’t a director’s dream,” Whitmer confesses to King. “Fred had a lot of rules about showing the whole body, not just the hands. When actors or puppets were reading something, Fred wanted the kids to see the words, even if viewers couldn’t literally read them. The camera moves left to right, because you read left to right. All those little tiny details were really important to Fred.”

It does no damage to Rogers’s reputation to gain this humanizing perspective. One of the most affecting stories in the book, in fact, highlights both his rigidity and his goodness. Before appearing on Oprah Winfrey’s talk show in 1985, Rogers issued strict instructions: No children were to be present during the taping. King explains: “He knew that if there were children in the studio audience, he wouldn’t focus on Winfrey’s questions, he wouldn’t pay heed to her legion of viewers, and he wouldn’t convey the great importance of his work. The children and their needs would come first. He couldn’t help it.” Winfrey and her producers ignored his request and filled her studio with young children and their mothers.

King describes what happened next: “As soon as the children started to ask him questions directly, he seemed to get lost in their world, slowing his responses to their pace, and even hunching in his chair as if to insinuate himself down to their level. This wasn’t good television — at least, good adult television. Everything was going into a kind of slow motion as Fred Rogers became Mister Rogers, connecting powerfully with the smallest children present. He seemed to forget the camera as he focused on them one by one.” Winfrey, King relates, began to look worried. “Then it got worse. In the audience, Winfrey leaned down with her microphone to ask a little blond girl if she had a question for Mister Rogers. Instead of answering, the child broke away from her mother, pushed past Winfrey, and ran down to the stage to hug him. As the only adult present not stunned by this, apparently, Fred Rogers knelt to accept her embrace.”

In today’s ugly climate, full of bitterness and rage on all sides, Rogers’s example feels more necessary than ever. Indeed, 15 years after his death, we’re still passing on his words to each other like something warm to hold. When we look for the helpers, he’s there.

THE GOOD NEIGHBOR
The Life and Work of Fred Rogers

By Maxwell King

Abrams. 405 pp. $30

****************************************************
Fred Rogers actually was exactly what he was on TV. Our oldest son loved Mr. Rogers. I remember taking him down to DAR Constitution Hall to see Mr. Rogers and the rest of his “Neighborhood” “live.”
PWS
11-04-17