"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
BILL BARR – Unqualified For Office – Unfit To Act In A Quasi-Judicial Capacity
There have been many articles pointing out that Bill Barr unethically has acted as Trump’s defense counsel rather than fulfilled his oath to uphold the Constitution and be the Attorney General of all of the American people. There have also been some absurdist “apologias” for Barr some written by once-respected lawyers who should know better, and others written by the normal Trump hacks.
Here are my choices for four of the best articles explaining why Barr should not be the Attorney General. It goes without saying that he shouldn’t by any stretch of the imagination be running the Immigration Court system. His intervention into individual cases in a quasi-judicial capacity is a clear violation of judicial ethics requiring avoidance of even the “appearance” of a conflict of interest. There is no “appearance” here. Barr has a clear conflict in any matter dealing with immigration.
Attorney General William Barr. Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
House Democrats are going to face a difficult decision about launching an impeachment inquiry into President Trump. Balanced against the president’s impressive array of misconduct is the fact that several more criminal investigations that may add to the indictment are already underway, and that impeaching the president might jeopardize the reelection of red-state Democratic members. But in the meantime, Attorney General William Barr presents them with a much easier decision. Barr has so thoroughly betrayed the values of his office that voting to impeach and remove him is almost obvious.
On March 24, Barr released a short letter summarizing the main findings of the Mueller investigation, as he saw them. News accounts treated Barr’s interpretation as definitive, and the media — even outlets that had spent two years uncovering a wide swath of suspicious and compromising links between the Trump campaign and Russia — dutifully engaged in self-flagellation for having had the temerity to raise questions about the whole affair.
Barr had done very little to that point to earn such a broad benefit of the doubt. In the same role in 1992, he had supported mass pardons of senior officials that enabled a cover-up of the Iran–Contra scandal. Less famously, in 1989 he issued a redacted version of a highly controversial administration legal opinion that, as Ryan Goodman explained, “omitted some of the most consequential and incendiary conclusions from the actual opinion” for “no justifiable reason.”
And while many members of the old Republican political Establishment had recoiled against Trump’s contempt for the rule of law, Barr has shown no signs of having joined them. He met with Trump to discuss serving as his defense lawyer, publicly attacked the Mueller investigation (which risked “taking on the look of an entirely political operation to overthrow the president”), called for more investigations of Hillary Clinton, and circulated a lengthy memo strongly defending Trump against obstruction charges.
The events since Barr’s letter have incinerated whatever remains of his credibility. The famously tight-lipped Mueller team told several news outlets the letter had minimized Trump’s culpability; Barr gave congressional testimony hyping up Trump’s charges of “spying,” even prejudging the outcome of an investigation (“I think there was a failure among a group of leaders [at the FBI] at the upper echelon”); evaded questions as to whether he had shared the Mueller report with the White House; and, it turns out, he’s “had numerous conversations with White House lawyers which aided the president’s legal team,” the New York Times reports. Then he broke precedent by scheduling a press conference to spin the report in advance of its redacted publication.
It is not much of a mystery to determine which officials have offered their full loyalty to the president. Trump has reportedly “praised Barr privately for his handling of the report and compared him favorably to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions” —whose sole offense in Trump’s eyes was following Department of Justice ethical protocol. Trump urged his Twitter followers to tune in to Barr’s conference, promotional treatment he normally reserves for his Fox News sycophants.
The press conference was the final disqualifying performance. Barr acted like Trump’s defense lawyer, the job he had initially sought, rather than as an attorney general. His aggressive spin seemed designed to work in the maximal number of repetitions of the “no collusion” mantra, in accordance with his boss’s talking points, at the expense of any faithful transmission of the special counsel’s report.
Barr’s letter had made it sound as though Trump’s campaign spurned Russia’s offers of help: “The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign,” he wrote. In fact, Mueller’s report concluded, “In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer,” but that the cooperation fell short of criminal conduct.
Where Mueller intended to leave the job of judging Trump’s obstructive conduct to Congress, Barr interposed his own judgment. Barr offered this incredible statement for why Trump’s behavior was excusable: “[T]here is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks,” Barr said. “Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation,” and credited him further with taking “no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation.”
Sincere? How can Barr use that word to describe the mentality of a man whose own staffers routinely describe him in the media as a pathological liar? Trump repeatedly lied about Russia’s involvement in the campaign, and his own dealings with Russia. And he also, contra Barr, repeatedly denied the special counsel access to witnesses by dangling pardons to persuade them to withhold cooperation.
It is true that many of Trump’s attempts to obstruct justice failed. As Mueller wrote, the president’s “efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”
This is a rather different gloss on the facts than the happy story Barr offered the press. What’s more, it is a pressing argument for Barr’s own removal. Next to the president himself, the attorney general is the most crucial actor in the safeguarding of the rule of law. The Justice Department is an awesome force that holds the power to enable the ruling party to commit crimes with impunity, or to intimidate and smear the opposing party with the taint of criminality.
There is no other department in government in which mere norms, not laws, are all that stand between democracy as we know it and a banana republic. Barr has revealed his complete unfitness for this awesome task. Nearly two more years of this Trumpian henchman wielding power over federal law enforcement is more weight than the rickety Constitution can bear.
In the years after Watergate, Justice Department officials — from both parties — worked hard to banish partisan cronyism from the department. Their goal was to make it the least political, most independent part of the executive branch.
“Our law is not an instrument of partisan purpose,” Edward Levi, Gerald Ford’s attorney general, said at the time. Griffin Bell, later appointed to the same job by Jimmy Carter, described the department as “a neutral zone in the government, because the law has to be neutral.”
Attorney General William Barr clearly rejects this principle. He’s repeatedly put a higher priority on protecting his boss, President Trump, than on upholding the law in a neutral way. He did so in his letter last month summarizing Robert Mueller’s investigation and then again in a bizarre prebuttal news conference yesterday. As The Times editorial board wrote, Barr yesterday “behaved more like the president’s defense attorney than the nation’s top law-enforcement officer.”
Throughout his tenure, Barr has downplayed or ignored the voluminous evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing — his lies to the American people, his willingness to work with a hostile foreign country during a presidenial campaign, his tolerance of extensive criminal behavior among his staff and his repeated efforts to obstruct an investigation. Barr even claimed that Trump “fully cooperated” with that investigation, which Vox’s Ezra Klein notes is “an outright lie.”
Since he took office, Trump has made clear that he wants an attorney general who acts as first an enforcer of raw power and only second as an enforcer of federal law. In Barr, Trump has found his man. Together, they have cast aside more than four decades worth of Justice Department ideals and instead adopted the approach of Richard Nixon.
President Donald Trump has long wished for an attorney general who would act as his own private lawyer, protecting him from any potential legal damage. He finally found his man in William Barr.
Barr could have released special counsel Robert Mueller’s report from the beginning. Instead, the attorney general chose to twice present his own interpretation of the special counsel’s findings on foreign interference in the 2016 U.S. election ― before allowing members of the public to see the report and decide for themselves whether Trump and his associates did anything improper.
The first time the public received a glimpse of what was in the Mueller report was on March 24, when Barr sent a four-page letter to congressional leaders summarizing his conclusions from the report the special counsel team had submitted to Barr two days earlier.
The second time the public heard about the report’s content was in a Thursday morning press conference when Barr went out of his way to echo Trump talking points, attacking the media and the president’s “political opponents.”
To the Justice Department’s credit, the redactions in the Mueller report were relatively light ― allowing the public to see a substantial amount of the content.
But still, in his public comments, Barr made sure to paint as positive a picture of Trump before the report became widely available.
Here’s how the attorney general misled the public:
He left out the Trump campaign’s expectation of benefiting from hacked material.
In his letter to Congress on March 24, Barr wrote:
The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: ”[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election inference activities.”
While it’s true that the Mueller report did reach that conclusion, that quote is incomplete. Barr left out the first part, which was less complimentary to the Trump campaign.
Below is the full quote from the Mueller report, with the part Barr omitted in bold:
Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
He said it was up to him to make a decision on obstruction of justice.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Attorney General William Barr went to bat for Trump in a Thursday morning press conference.
In his March 24 letter, Barr said Mueller’s team did not come to a conclusion on whether Trump had obstructed justice in the course of the investigation. Therefore, Barr claimed, it was now up to him to make that determination.
“The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime,” he wrote.
Barr said he concluded that the evidence “is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
But Barr never had to make that legal conclusion, as Matt Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department under President Barack Obama, pointed out. And Mueller never asked Barr to so.
Indeed, the report said the special counsel’s team couldn’t come to such a conclusion:
[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.
The report also said that ultimately, the obstruction call wasn’t for Mueller to make. The special counsel decided not to make a decision on whether to prosecute Trump because the Justice Department’s position, according to an Office of Legal Counsel memo, is that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
“Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations … this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction,” the report states.
Furthermore, it seems clear that Mueller and his team expected that ultimately, Congress would make the decision on obstruction of justice.
NBC News reported earlier that some in Mueller’s office had said “their intent was to leave the legal question open for Congress and the public to examine the evidence.”
“[W]e concluded that Congress can validly regulate the President’s exercise of official duties to prohibit actions motivated by a corrupt intent to obstruct justice,” the report says.
In other words, Congress can impeach the president if it wants to do so.
He gave an incomplete picture of Trump’s actions that could be construed as obstruction of justice.
“In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct,” Barr wrote in his March 24 letter.
The report doesn’t let Trump off the hook quite so easily. It says Trump tried to obstruct justice ― but he didn’t succeed because his staff refused to follow his orders.
“The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests,” the report reads.
The report detailed 10 acts by Trump that could amount to obstruction of justice.
He said Mueller found “no collusion.”
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been called to testify before Congress about his report.
One of Trump’s favorite phrases is that there was “no collusion” between his campaign and the Russian government in the 2016 elections. He has tweeted it 84 times.
Barr used the phrase four times in his 18-minute remarks in Thursday’s press conference:
“Put another way, the special counsel found no ‘collusion’ by any Americans in the IRA’s illegal activity.”
“But again, the special counsel’s report did not find any evidence that members of the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its hacking operations. In other words, there was no evidence of Trump campaign ‘collusion’ with the Russian government’s hacking.”
“After finding no underlying collusion with Russia, the special counsel’s report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the president could amount to obstruction of the special counsel’s investigation.”
“At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the president’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was, in fact, no collusion.”
But the Mueller report never actually said the investigation found no collusion. In fact, the report explains specifically why it doesn’t use the term “collusion.” The word only appears in the report as part of this explanation or in quoting someone else.
MUELLER REPORT
The Mueller report avoided using the term “collusion,” and explains why here.
Therefore, Barr repeatedly saying Mueller found “no collusion” was simply the attorney general adopting a Trump talking point.
He said Trump fully cooperated with the investigation.
Barr was extremely sympathetic to Trump in Thursday’s press conference. He tried to paint a picture of a president under extreme ― and unfair ― pressure, telling reporters, “As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as president, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates.”
He said Trump was “frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks,” so it’s not surprising if he may have lashed out a bit. And, he added, Trump deserved credit for “fully cooperat[ing]” with the special counsel at all:
Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the special counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims.
Trump, however, didn’t fully cooperate. He refused repeated requests to give an interview to Mueller and his team. The report said the special counsel’s team considered issuing a subpoena for Trump to testify but ultimately decided it wasn’t worth it:
MUELLER REPORT
The Mueller report says Trump refused to be interviewed by the special counsel and his team.
******************************************
Finally, this editorial form the SF Chronicle really “hammers home” Barr’s patent unfitness to continue serving.
Editorial: Attorney General Barr’s misplaced loyalties
Chronicle Editorial Board
Updated
Photo: Tom Brenner / New York Times
Attorney General William Barr has been acting as if he is Presisdent Trump’s personal attorney.
President Trump has never made any secret of his desire to have an attorney general whose first loyalty was to him. Regrettably for the nation and the honest administration of justice, Trump unquestionably now has one in William Barr.
The attorney general has lost all credibility with his disgraceful handling of the rollout of the Mueller report into Russian interference into the 2016 election. Barr left the American people for more than a month with a seriously skewed characterization of the “principal conclusions” from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s findings from the two-year investigation.
His four-page summary of those conclusions amounted to “nothing much to see here, folks.” While he was correct that the Mueller team could not make a case that anyone in Trump’s campaign broke the law by conspiring with Russians, the Barr summary was downright deceptive in its portrayal of the special counsel’s findings on possible obstruction of justice by the president.
Barr’s summary suggested that “difficult questions of law and fact” left it difficult for Mueller to determine whether Trump had obstructed the probe. Barr and his deputy took it upon themselves to conclude that “the evidence developed by the special counsel is not sufficient” to establish obstruction.
Americans who have now read the Mueller’s team’s own words in the 448-page report discovered that Barr’s account was highly misleading. In fact, Mueller’s hesitation was not based on an inability to decide; it was guided in part by a Department of Justice policy that a sitting president could not be indicted. Given that, Mueller suggested it would be unfair to accuse Trump of a crime when the president could not have a chance to defend himself in a “speedy and public trial” with the constitutional protections.
Barr also suggested that Trump could not have obstructed justice into an investigation of a crime he did not commit.
Mueller’s report clearly stated otherwise.
“The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong,” it stated. Mueller’s investigation detailed “multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations.”
Rather than punting the obstruction decision to Barr, Mueller very clearly noted that a decision on what to do with the substantial evidence of wrongdoing he collected should be made by Congress, which has the power of impeachment.
Barr never bothered to correct Trump’s exhortation of “complete and total exoneration.” Barr might as well have been on a Trump spokesman, rather than the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, at a bizarre Thursday news conference (before the report’s release) in which he offered a sympathetic explanation for Trump’s repeated efforts to stymie the investigation. Barr chalked it up to Trump’s anger and frustration.
Justice has been frustrated. Americans are justifiably angry. Barr has proved himself unfit for the high office he holds.
This commentary is from The Chronicle’s editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters.
Undoubtedly, Trump is unfit for office as many of us have been saying for some time now. The Mueller report confirmed what most thinking people already knew: the guy is dishonest, immoral, pathological, and a not very bright “con man.” (He’s also a racist and a White Nationalist would be authoritarian, although those admittedly were not points of emphasis in the Mueller report which focused on other aspects of his totally disgraceful conduct.)
But, I’ll concede that Trump’s removal is unlikely to happen except at the ballot box. Even that is uncertain with about 40% of American voters apparently wedded to a “beggar thy neighbor, who cares about the majority, country be damned” worldview. Trump is already focused on a “race-baiting” strategy of leveraging the most problematic aspects of our electoral college system while treating the interests of majority of Americans with mockery and disdain.
It remains to be seen whether any Democratic candidate can unite the diverse majority of Americans for at least long enough to save our country by removing Trump and, hopefully, his GOP enablers along with him. It also remains to be seen whether any country where 40% of the voters are so out of touch with reality and the common interests of the rest of us can actually be governed, once majority rule is restored.
But, Barr is a different matter. He’s not elected, he’s not President, and we don’t have to enable his continued unethical misuse of authority at the DOJ, at least not in the the all important area of the U.S. Immigraton Court.
If Congress won’t do the job by creating an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court, it’s time for the Article III courts to invalidate precedents produced by Barr’s and Sessions’s unethical participation in individual quasi-judicial decision-making and to start invalidating removal orders entered by “courts” controlled by political enforcement officials, in clear contradiction to the Due Process requirement that individuals facing the life or death authority of the Federal Government are entitled to have fair and impartial decision makers and reasoned decisions. That can’t happen in a system controlled and directed by biased political “enforcement only” officials like Barr (and Sessions before him). Barr has made it crystal clear that he always will put the selfish interests of Trump above truthfulness, the law, due process, fundamental fairness, and the common good.
Letting this farce of a “judicial system” continue unfairly endangering individual lives and deferring to officials who are neither subject matter experts nor fair and impartial quasi-judicial decision makers is unconstitutional. By letting it continue, life-tenured Federal Judges both tarnish their reputations and fail to fulfill their oaths of office.
As a young attorney in the Department of Justice during the Watergate Era, I, along with many others, were indelibly impressed and inspired when then Attorney General Elliot Richardson and his Deputy William Ruckelshaus resigned rather than carry out Nixon’s illegal order to fire the Watergate Special Prosecutor (a/k/a/ “The Saturday Night Massacre”). Obviously, Barr has dragged the Department and its reputation down to new depths — back to the days of Nixon and disgraced (and convicted) Attorney General “John the Con” Mitchell, who actually planned criminal conspiracies in his fifth floor office at the DOJ.
Obviously, there are systemic problems that have allowed unqualified individuals like Barr and Sessions to serve in and co-opt the system of justice, and denigrate the Department of Justice. (I spoke to some recently retired DOJ officials who characterized the morale among career professionals at the DOJ as “below the floor”). Some of those can be traced to the lack of backbone and integrity in the “Trump GOP” which controls the Senate and refuses to enforce even minimal standards of professionalism, meaningful oversight, and independent decision making in Trump appointees. That’s what a “kakistocracy” is. It’s up to the rest of us to do what is necessary under the law to replace the kakistocracy with a functioning democracy.
Politico: President Donald Trump’s dramatic purge of Homeland Security leaders is about more than personnel: It helps clear the way for him to take controversial new steps to curb illegal immigration, including an updated version of his furiously criticized family separation policy. See also White House eyeing former head of anti-immigration group for DHS job.
SF Chron: The Justice Department is on the verge of issuing rule changes that would make it easier for a handful of appellate immigration judges to declare their rulings binding on the entire immigration system, The Chronicle has learned. The changes could also expand the use of single-judge, cursory decisions at the appellate level — all at the same time as a hiring spree that could reshape the court.
Bustle: There’s now a plan for Border Patrol agents to take a larger role in the asylum process — something that not only migrant advocates but LGBTQ experts take issue with, too, ThinkProgress reported.
WaPo: The talk of hauling Miller before lawmakers comes days after The Washington Post reported that he played a key role in a plan first discussed last year to release undocumented immigrants into “sanctuary cities” represented by President Trump’s Democratic critics. While the plan never came to fruition because of objections from agency officials, Trump has since embraced the idea.
Buzzfeed: The administration is proposing a dramatic increase in the time before an asylum-seeker would become eligible to receive a work permit — from 180 days to 365 days.
Slate: The Trump administration claims it now only separates families when parents have serious criminal histories, when parents or children have medical issues, or when officials determine that the parent poses a danger to the child. But the administration is apparently interpreting “serious criminal history” to mean the parent has tried to enter the U.S. before. See also: Family Separation Has Scarred These Kids For Life.
QZ: CBP is now expanding its capacity to take custody of even more people, spending as much as $37 million over the next eight months to build two new tent cities for children and families detained in Texas, according to a newly-issued federal contracting notice reviewed by Quartz.
CMS: I know I am not alone in feeling the weight that this constellation of circumstances of an out-of-date law and political pressure on immigration judges has created. All around me, I see frustration, disillusionment, and even despair among immigration law practitioners who are also suffering the consequences that the speed-up of adjudications places on their ability to prepare fully their cases to the highest standards.
Reuters: More and more aspiring immigrants – especially Mexicans – are being denied visas based on determinations by the U.S. State Department that they might become “public charges,” dependent on the government for support, according to official data and interviews with attorneys, immigrants and their family members.
WaPo: Unlike past migration waves, when most migrants were Mexican laborers who typically headed for Texas, California and other western states, the latest newcomers are fanning out across the United States to reunite with family members.
NBC: Immigrants and their advocates have already gotten access to such licenses in a dozen states and are targeting more, including New York, New Jersey and Wisconsin.
Citylab: Specifically, the project raised at least $1.2 billion of its financing through a controversial investor visa program known as EB-5. This program enables immigrants to secure visas in exchange for real estate investments. Foreigners who pump between $500,000 and $1 million into U.S. real estate projects can purchase visas for their families, making it a favorite for wealthy families abroad, namely in China. EB-5 is supposed to be a way to jumpstart investment in remote rural areas, or distressed urban ones.
Jurist: Judge John Koeltl of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that several young immigrants who were deemed to have been abused or neglected by their parents could not be denied special immigration juvenile status by the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) department of citizenship and immigration services.
AIC: A U.S. district court judge ruled that certain detained asylum seekers must receive a bond hearing within seven days of requesting one. The ruling in the Padilla v. ICE case is a defeat for the Trump administration.
Lawfare: A federal court issued a preliminary injunction against the administration’s policy of making asylum seekers wait in Mexico pending the resolution of their cases. The decision prevents the government from implementing or expanding the policy, effective Friday, April 12. See also: After judge halts “remain in Mexico” policy, hundreds of migrants sent across border seek answers.
Slate: On Friday afternoon, the government signed a settlement agreement in a massive class-action suit challenging the Trump administration’s termination of the little-known Central American Minors (CAM) parole program. As a result of that agreement, almost 3,000 vulnerable kids will have a chance to be reunited with their families in the United States.
ICE arrested 123 individuals during a month-long operation conducted by ICE in New Jersey that targeted foreign nationals with prior arrests or convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. AILA Doc. No. 17041232
Department of the Treasury notice that for the period beginning 4/1/19 and ending 6/30/19, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration Bond interest rate is 2.45 per centum per annum. (84 FR 13788, 4/5/19) AILA Doc. No. 19040833
Yet again the Trump administration has had one of their cruel immigration policies smacked down byfederal judges. This time, it was the administration’s attempt to prevent California from carrying out sanctuary laws which protect undocumented immigrants in the state, according to Bloomberg.
A three judge panel at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the administration’s attempt to shut down California sanctuary policies. The panel affirmed a previous decision by a federal judge in Sacramento, who ruled that a 2017 immigrant sanctuary regulation, which restricts local police’s cooperation with federal immigration authorities, doesn’t conflict with constitutional law.
From Bloomberg:
The appeals court concluded that while Congress may have expected cooperation between state and federal authorities on immigration enforcement, Washington doesn’t have the constitutional power to require California’s assistance.
The decision regarded the California law SB 54, also known as the California Values Act, which was signed by former Governor Jerry Brown in 2017.
“SB 54 may well frustrate the federal government’s immigration enforcement efforts,” the court panel wrote. “However, whatever the wisdom of the underlying policy adopted by California, that frustration is permissible, because California has the right, pursuant to the anticommandeering rule, to refrain from assisting with federal efforts.”
The panel also upheld a state law that requires employers to inform workers before workplace inspections by federal immigration authorities, and told a lower court judge to take another look at a law that “authorizes the state attorney general to inspect facilities that house immigrants not detained for criminal offenses,” according to Bloomberg.
Many of the Trump administration’s attempts to harden immigration policy have met resistance in the courts. Most recently, the “Remain in Mexico” policy, which requires asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their claims are processed, was blocked by a federal judge. Since then, the decision has been temporarily reversed.
It’s somewhat ironic that this decision would come down now, the week after it was made public that the Trump administration considered dumping undocumented people in these so-called “sanctuary cities.” After the absurd and cruel suggested policy was publicized, Trump threatened to do something similar, suggesting that immigrants who were caught crossing the border but couldn’t be detained should be sent to liberal cities with sanctuary laws like San Francisco.
************************************
In addition to being really stupid (you’re not going to get much useful cooperation from states and cities by suing them) this litigation borders on Constitutionally frivolous. It’s wasting the time of the Federal Courts.
Undoubtedly, a competent Administration with rational immigration enforcement priorities could have reached accommodations with most jurisdictions on genuine law enforcement issues (not the mindless “deport anyone who is here without documents” program).
There was a time when professionals with some backbone at the DOJ and in the Solicitor General’s Office would have “just said no” to this type of “garbage litigation” being pushed by White House politicos. But, not today’s DOJ and today’s Solicitor General who see themselves as Trump’s sycophantic lawyers rather than upholding their oaths of office and serving the American people (who, after all, pay their salaries, not Trump — who apparently doesn’t even pay taxes). (Sessions’s downfall was that he saw himself more as an instrument of hate, racism, and xenophobia than as a personal protector of the Trumps.)
The Trump Kakistocracy has destroyed the remaining integrity of the DOJ and forced many of its best lawyers to leave, “go underground,” or become “hall walkers” to survive. That’s going to be bad for America long after Trump finally leaves office.
Mary Claire Kelly writes for the Southern Poverty Law Center:
On the stretch of highway careening south from Columbus to Lumpkin, patches of Georgia red clay lie like open sores on the road’s shoulder. The sun burns bright orange, through air that is hazy with pollen and smoke from controlled forest fires.
The land here was once valuable. It was coveted. Nearly 200 years ago, white men named this county Stewart, after a revolutionary war militia general. White men massacred the men, women and children of the Creek Confederacy over this land.
Wealthy white men forced black men, women and children to scrape this land and stuff it with cotton. They gouged this land. Farmers, laborers and enslaved Africans dug deep ditches, taking no steps to avoid soil erosion, and those ditches became pits. In one part of Lumpkin, flowing water carved out the enormous pinnacles that mark Providence Canyon State Park. Nicknamed Georgia’s “Little Grand Canyon,” it is a beautiful scar of a violent extractive history.
Today, Stewart is one of the poorest counties in the state of Georgia. Its economic and population peak was in the mid-1800s, when slavery still reigned. Now, nearly half the roads in this majority-black district are still unpaved. Lumpkin’s downtown area, the county seat, has one four-way stop and many boarded up businesses.
The city’s population more than doubles when you include the 2,000 people locked away at the county’s main employer, Stewart Detention Center. The immigration prison is made of concrete and steel, but is sustained by a diversity of barriers.
First, there are the barriers you see: The trees hide Stewart from the roads, the two layers of curly-cue barbed wire fences insulate the facility, the formidable red gates stand tall, and the freshly cut grass stretches like a moat around the building.
Then, there are the barriers you experience: You leave your phone and any other connection to the outside world in your car, wait at two red gates outside the building entrance for an unseen force to open them, endlessly wait for one of three designated rooms to open for visitation, remove your jacket and shoes to endure the TSA-style security process to enter, and then you wait in the empty visitation room for a man with sleepless, red eyes to appear behind the thick, protective, plastic partition.
Next, there are the barriers you hear: the screech of your chair whenever you shift positions, the distracting human resources video blaring in the hallway outside of the visitation room, the echoes reverberating in the small concrete space that prevent you and the immigrant who sits behind the plastic barrier from being able to hear each other, and the static crackling across the telephone line that you must use to listen to the man who is sitting only feet away.
Then, there are the barriers that comprise the very reason this man sits in front of you: the violent political divisions in his home country, the obstacles to making a living wage, the language barrier, the gap in education needed to navigate the labyrinth of immigration bureaucracy.
And, last but not least, there is the barrier that is the entire reason for this place and this situation: the American border.
Through the entrance to the courtroom, President Donald Trump smiles in the lobby from his portrait above the list of that day’s hearings. In those hearings, detainees who have come from all over the world will sit on hard, wooden pews facing the U.S. Department of Justice seal.
Here, an attorney for the government will argue why each of these men and trans women should stay at this immigrant prison, or be sent back to the country they fled. In many cases, these immigrants might not have an attorney to represent them, because they do not have the constitutional right to counsel. Sometimes, family and friends can sit in on the hearing to show support for their loved one’s case.
Here, an immigration judge in black robes will methodically determine whether each of these people will remain caged at Stewart, be returned to the country they escaped, or be allowed to leave the prison. The verdict is delivered either by the judge with an authoritative tone, or the courtroom interpreter with a clinical lilt. If a person is allowed to leave, they will most likely have to continue waiting in this immigrant prison until someone on the outside can pay their bond, which is typically thousands of dollars. If they do leave, it will likely be late in the evening – too late to find transportation out of Stewart County.
The men and trans women who churn through Stewart’s machinery are called by their A-number, not their name. They are reduced to numbers. CoreCivic receives approximately $62 of taxpayer money for each body that fills a bed in its institution each day, according to Shadow Prisons, an SPLC report about the immigration system that is rife with civil rights violations, poor conditions, and little commitment to the safety of detainees. CoreCivic pays the people who are detained here as little as $1 a day for their “voluntary” labor.
To gain their freedom, these detained individuals must prove, through financial statements, that they will not be an economic burden on the government.
SIFI staff see past the mold. They look into the eyes of each person they represent. They recognize the details that belong to that individual, and that individual alone: their family on the outside working for their release, the aches and pains that prevent them from sleeping, the professional skills they worked for years to achieve.
For many detained individuals, their bureaucratic purgatory in Stewart has been the end of an Odyssean journey to escape torture, the murders of loved ones, and threats on their lives. Every one of these tragic epics is woven with contagious trauma.
Yet, the men and women of SIFI are strong – even when the battles seem uphill every day. They model for volunteers how to confidently perform quality legal work, while treating each client with respect and compassion.
The small community of immigrants’ rights activists in Lumpkin, which also includes local immigration attorneys and the hospitality ministry El Refugio, often supports one another. They celebrate victories — the release of a client, the grant of a low bond amount — and quietly mourn defeats.
Stewart Detention Center is a painful symptom of violent injustice. It festers in a South Georgia landscape that bears deep, historic wounds.
Mary Claire Kelly is a Harvard Law School student and a former digital media associate at the SPLC.
*********************************
Grotesque abuses of Constitutional Due Process, fundamental fairness, and human decency, not to mention errors of law, go on daily in the “NAG” aided and abetted by its EOIR enablers. What kind of “court” operates in such a one-sided and coercive atmosphere. Why don‘t those in charge insist on neutral hearing sites rather than those controlled by one of the parties in interest?
Bill Barr just went to great pains to insure that even those who pass “credible fear” and who can prove financial responsibility won’t in the future be released from detention (unless, of course, ICE runs out of detention space, which is already happening).
In fact, they won’t even get a chance to make the case for relief to an Immigration Judge. That’s the kind of mindless “Jim Crow” use of the law to promote cruelty and unfairness that corporate “stuffed shirts” like Barr, more concerned with covering for his corrupt boss than upholding the Constitution, can mete out from his protected perch at the DOJ. But, perhaps the folks at SIFI will be able to stuff Barr’s disregard for the Fifth Amendment back in his face in the “real” Federal Courts.
In any event, history won’t forget the Barrs of the world, any more than they have forgotten the Wallaces and others who were on its “wrong side.”
If nothing else, the performance of Bill Barr over the last several days shows why a true “court system” can’t possibly run under his auspices.
The left might try to defame this White House by insisting its hard-line immigration policies are motivated by nativism or even white-nationalist sympathies. But the administration has made its true motives perfectly clear: It has not adopted a “zero tolerance” policy toward undocumented immigrants out of animus for foreign people but simply out of reverence for American law.
“In a Trump administration, all immigration laws will be enforced,” Trump promised a crowd in Phoenix two months before his election. “Anyone who has entered the United States illegally is subject to deportation — that is what it means to have laws and to have a country.”
Trump has repeatedly invoked this absolutist commitment to the law when seeking to justify unpopular immigration policies. The president never offered an affirmative argument for canceling the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which provided temporary work permits to 700,000 undocumented immigrants who were brought to this country as children. To the contrary, almost immediately after terminating DACA, the president claimed he supported protections for Dreamers in principle and implored Congress to write such protections into legislation. He didn’t want to hurt Dreamers — or use them as bargaining chips in negotiations with Democrats — he just felt the Executive branch did not have the authority to make immigration policy unilaterally. Sure, past Republican presidents (and the federal courts) might have considered deferred action to be within the Executive branch’s purview. But Trump was a stickler about the Constitution’s separation of powers. We are a nation of laws, not men. On such grounds, the president would later justify making America into the kind of nation that punishes migrant mothers by separating them from their children.
Of course, the white-collar-criminal-in-chief’s professed devotion to law and order was always a transparent fraud (this is a man who has publicly insisted that the attorney general’s job is to subordinate the law to the president’s personal interests). But even by this administration’s standards, its latest efforts to crack down on “illegal immigration” are gobsmacking in their hypocrisy.
Last week, the White House purged many of its own appointees from the Department of Homeland Security, suggesting that the president was looking to go in a “tougher” direction. Subsequent reporting has clarified that tougher was a euphemism for “lawless.”
Under U.S. law, any foreign national who sets foot on our nation’s soil has a legal right to seek asylum from persecution or violence in that person’s home country — if he or she can pass an initial screening conducted by asylum officials. And Congress designed such screenings with an eye toward minimizing the number of genuinely endangered people whom America sends back into harm’s way (rather than minimizing the number of economic migrants whom our asylum courts are forced to process). As a result, about 90 percent of those who claim asylum make it past the initial screening.
As violence and instability in Central America have sent hundreds of thousands of migrant families to our border, this law has created logistical problems for the Trump administration. Litigating asylum claims can take months, even years. And the United States does not have the resources to detain every asylum seeker who makes it past the initial test. Thus the White House finds itself in the position of releasing asylum seekers into the United States, likely allowing some number to slip into the country and thereby become undocumented immigrants.
In a separate conversation, President Trump implored then–DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to ban migrants from seeking asylum.
It is abundantly clear, then, that the Trump administration’s fanatical opposition to illegal immigration is not rooted in a commitment to upholding U.S. law but rather in some other concern it does not wish to speak in public.
*********************************
Duh!
Like policies driven by White Nationalism and racism. Or, maybe “malicious incompetence.” That’s why it’s important for Dems not to be hoodwinked into abandoning or wrongly watering down (under the guise of a bogus “compromise”) the laws that offer refugees and migrants at least some legal protections in response to Trump’s self-created crisis that doesn’t threaten U.S. security but does threaten the lives and rights of refugees and other migrants.
Indeed, the best short-term solution to the Southern Border would be to work in a competent, cooperative, and good faith manner to fairly administer the asylum and other protection laws that we currently have on the books.
But, a fair and efficient administration of the laws already on the books undoubtedly would result in more refugees from Central America (and elsewhere) being granted asylum or some other form of protection. And, since that could be done by adjudication and judicial officials, the Border Patrol could go back to protecting the borders from real threats.
But, that’s the result that Trump and his White Nationalist cronies don’t want. That’s why they are working so hard to make the mess worse while shifting blame to the victims. Pretty much the definition of official bullying and cowardice.
About Dan’s Show “”The Dan Abrams Show: Where Politics Meets The Law” on “POTUS Channel” on SiriusXM —
NEWS RELEASE
Dan Abrams, ABC News’ Chief Legal Analyst and Host of A&E’s “Live PD,” to Anchor Weekday Show Exclusively for SiriusXM
10/25/2018
“The Dan Abrams Show: Where Politics Meets The Law” will premiere on SiriusXM P.O.T.U.S. channel on October 29 NEW YORK, Oct. 25, 2018 /PRNewswire/ — Today SiriusXM announced that Dan Abrams will host an exclusive SiriusXM radio show starting October 29. “The Dan Abrams Show: Where Politics Meets The Law” will air live on weekdays on P.O.T.U.S. channel 124 at 2:00 p.m. ET.
On his new show, Abrams will analyze the biggest news stories of the day from a legal perspective. With so much of today’s breaking political news having a legal component, Abrams will delve into the issues with a team of specialists, including former federal prosecutors and other high-prole experts. The program will also feature one- on-one interviews with top newsmakers, panel discussions, and listener calls.
The addition of Dan Abrams to SiriusXM P.O.T.U.S. further positions the channel as a top source for political news, analysis, and discussion.
“The legal side of news stories is more important and prominent than ever,” said Abrams. “I’m thrilled to have this opportunity on SiriusXM to really dig in and separate the legal realities from the wishful spin for listeners and people calling in to the show.”
“Dan is the perfect voice to add to our great P.O.T.U.S. lineup,” said Megan Liberman, Senior Vice President of News, Talk, and Entertainment at SiriusXM. “There has never been a more critical time to address the intersection of law and politics, and I can’t think of anyone better to lead that conversation.”
1
Over the course of his career, Abrams has established himself as one of the nation’s top legal analysts, rst covering the O.J. Simpson trial for Court TV and NBC News. Now the Chief Legal Analyst for ABC News, Abrams is well known for his shrewd analysis of legal issues ranging from high-prole criminal trials to the Mueller investigations and the Supreme Court.
Abrams is also the host of A&E’s Live PD, the highest rated live show on all of cable among adults 18-49 and 25-54.
As a media entrepreneur, he created the inuential website Mediaite.com, which chronicles the intersection of media and politics, and founded the popular OTT and linear network Law&Crime, among other projects. His work has been acknowledged with numerous Emmy and Edward R. Murrow Awards, and he has covered nearly every major national legal story of the past two decades. The Duke University and Columbia Law School graduate also recently penned the New York Times bestselling book Lincoln’s Last Trial.
Below is the new SiriusXM P.O.T.U.S. lineup of top non-partisan political news and analysis programs:
The Morning Brieng with Tim Farley, 6:00 – 9:00 a.m. ET The Michael Smerconish Program, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. ET Let’s Get After It with Chris Cuomo, 12:00 – 2:00 p.m. ET The Dan Abrams Show, 2:00 – 3:00 p.m.
Press Pool with Julie Mason, 3:00 – 6:00 p.m.
The Big Picture with Olivier Knox, 6:00 – 7:00 p.m.
In addition to listening to “The Dan Abrams Show: Where Politics Meets The Law” on channel 124, SiriusXM subscribers with streaming access can hear the program on a wide variety of connected devices including smart TVs, Amazon Alexa devices, Apple TV, Sony PlayStation, Roku, Sonos speakers and more. Go
to www.SiriusXM.com/AtHome to learn more.
About SiriusXM
***********************************
Check it out on your Sirius XM App, POTUS Channel, On Demand!
WASHINGTON, DC – On April 16, 2019, Attorney General William Barr issued a decision in Matter of M-S- in which he determined that asylum seekers who establish a credible fear of persecution and will be placed in removal proceedings are not eligible for an individualized determination of their custody status before the immigration court.
AILA Treasurer Jeremy McKinney stated, “With this decision, the Attorney General is unilaterally depriving asylum seekers of their right to a bond hearing in front of an immigration judge despite the fact they have passed a credible fear interview administered by a USCIS asylum officer. By overturning Matter of X-K, which provided for an independent review of the government’s justification to detain someone, the Attorney General is sweeping aside 14 years of standing Board of Immigration Appeals precedent that the courts and DHS have long implemented. This is a devastating blow to those seeking protection from persecution at the U.S. border, since far more will be held in detention. This decision further expands mandatory and prolonged detention of people who are neither dangerous nor flight risks, practices which are constitutionally suspect and a waste of taxpayer money. This administration is using detention as a sword against both due process and the humanitarian principles our nation was founded upon.”
AILA Executive Director Benjamin Johnson added, “While Matter of M-S- will not take effect for 90 days, the impact of Attorney General Barr’s decision, along with the other decisions issued by his immediate predecessors on asylum and the nation’s immigration courts, cannot be overstated. With full control over the immigration court system, the Attorney General is not only rewriting asylum and detention law but also stripping judges of the most basic operational authorities and judicial independence. Asylum seekers arriving at the southern border can be processed in an orderly way while also being provided with thorough and fair review of their asylum cases. To accomplish that, the immigration courts must be allowed to operate as courts, not puppets of the Attorney General. Without delay Congress should create an Article One immigration court system, separate from the Department of Justice to counteract the political machinations of the administration.”
Cite as AILA Doc. No. 19041734.
**************************************
There is no end to this Administration’s campaign of unrelenting cruelty toward asylum seekers. Even lack of ability to carry out their morbid fascination with creating the “New American Gulag” —- this time targeting individuals who actually have established a “credible fear” of persecution — doesn’t deter their inhumanity. It’s likely to face Constitutional obstacles, at least in the lower Federal Courts.
AILA gets it right. It would be possible to fairly process asylum seekers with additional trained Asylum Officers (not Border Patrol Officers masquerading as Asylum Officers) through an independent Article I Immigration Court System committed to fairly and efficiently applying asylum laws. Lawyers are an essential part of the equation.
We should stop confusing families seeking asylum with “security threats.” Indeed, the obsession with those who present no real threat to our country actually detracts from efforts to combat real threats — drug smugglers and human traffickers. Those require undercover and anti-smuggling investigative techniques that have little to do with individuals and families turning themselves in at or near the border to apply for asylum or building physical barriers (although a modest building program could be part of a rational border security package).
True “Border Security” doesn’t require harsh, demeaning, or unfair treatment of asylum seekers, nor does it involve huge walls or more immigration prisons. A fairly administered asylum system along with targeting of smugglers and other criminals and more attention to the root causes of the migration would actually enhance real border security along with Due Process and adherence to the rule of law.
The Trump administration has manufactured and exacerbated an immigration “crisis” to further the president’s most consistent goal: to Make America White Again.
Tens of thousands of Central American asylum seekers, even hundreds of thousands, do not constitute a serious crisis — not for a continent-spanning nation of 330 million, a nation built through successive waves of immigration. The migrants have severely taxed and at times overwhelmed the systems at the border that must process and adjudicate their claims for refuge, but this is a simple matter of resources. We need more border agents, more immigration judges, more housing.
President Trump, however, treats the migrant surge like an existential threat. “We can’t take you anymore. We can’t take you. Our country is full,” he said this month at the border in California. But, of course, our vast nation is anything but full. Instead of “can’t,” what Trump really means is “won’t.”
On almost any issue you can think of, Trump is all over the map. But there is one position on which he has never wavered: antipathy toward nonwhite immigration. From his campaign charge that Mexican immigrants are “rapists,” to his fruitless quest to get funding for a border wall, to his gratuitously cruel policy of family separations, to his declaration of a national emergency, Trump has left not an iota of doubt about how he feels.
To be sure, sometimes the president uses anti-immigration rhetoric to inflame his base. But unlike with other issues, Trump seems actually to believe his demagoguery about would-be Latino migrants.
The administration acts as if it considers the asylum seekers to be less than human. What other conclusion can be drawn, after thousands of young children were taken from their parents and shipped to detention centers far away, as a deterrent to others who might seek entry? How else can anyone characterize the notion — now under active consideration, according to the White House — of transporting migrants hundreds or thousands of miles, not out of necessity but simply so they can be released in “sanctuary cities” and the districts of Trump’s political opponents?
Trump threatened to close the border. Here’s what could happen if he did
President Trump has pivoted from closing the southern border to imposing new tariffs on Mexico. But who will be the most affected?(Luis Velarde/The Washington Post)
That last Bond-villain idea is apparently the brainchild of White House adviser Stephen Miller, who seems to be the closest thing Trump has to an operational chief of staff — someone who shares his vision, however warped, and will move heaven and earth to bring it to life.
Miller’s history as an anti-immigration zealot goes back to his time as an aide to then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) , who became Trump’s first attorney general. It is no exaggeration to say that Sessions, both in the Senate and in the Cabinet, was obsessed with reducing immigration, legal as well as illegal. Sessions is gone from the administration, but Miller remains, and clearly he has Trump’s ear.
Trump has said that the countries from which asylum seekers and economic migrants are fleeing are not sending “their best” people, and that entry should be based on “merit,” not on family connections. That would be a complete departure from the immigration policies that allowed Trump’s and Miller’s forebears to come to this country, but it sounds debatable — until you take into account Trump’s other remarks. He has reportedly disparaged nonwhite countries with a vulgar epithet and expressed a preference for immigrants from places like Norway, which happens to be one of the whitest countries on the planet. In the context of immigration policy, he has regaled crowds with the story — likely apocryphal — of his friend “Jim,” who used to go to Paris all the time but doesn’t anymore because “Paris is no longer Paris.”
Trump isn’t talking about gridlocked traffic on the Boulevard Peripherique. He’s talking about the black and brown immigrants who are changing the city’s complexion.
Does Trump seek political gain by stoking white Americans’ fears of the “browning” of the United States due to Latino immigration? Absolutely. But if his racism were purely situational — like his professed commitment to fiscal responsibility, or his supposed social conservatism — he would depart from it occasionally. And he doesn’t.
He might at least feign compassion for men, women and children who risk their lives to flee deadly violence at home. Instead, Trump cut off aid to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, the countries from which most of the asylum seekers are coming. He does not comfort or embrace. He seeks only to punish.
The real crisis is that we have a president who wants to put up a “No Vacancies” sign for nonwhite immigrants — just like the “No Coloreds” signs I used to see in the Jim Crow South.
*****************************************
Yup!
MAWA can’t possibly work. But, it could destroy America!
Lisa Speckhard Pasque writes in the Madison Capital Times:
Erin Barbato is the director of the Immigrant Justice Clinic at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School.MICHELLE STOCKER
In October 2018, law professor Erin Barbato and her students represented a Cuban man in a political asylum case.
He was “beaten, detained (and) threatened with disappearance by the Cuban authorities twice,” said Barbato, director of the Immigrant Justice Clinic at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. He fled when his wife was eight months pregnant because he was accused of a crime he didn’t commit and knew he didn’t have any other options. He traveled to South America and walked all the way to the border.
He was granted asylum.
Barbato and her students want to help with even more cases like this, but due to shifting asylum policies at the border, they haven’t been able to, Barbato said. She’s also seen firsthand how these changes have limited access to justice and due process for asylum seekers.
“These policies are really affecting the work I do, and the way we teach and the way that we can serve,” she said.
Arriving undocumented immigrants used to present themselves at the southern border and tell a customs and border patrol officer they’d like to apply for asylum, Barbato said. They needed to then pass a “credible fear” interview, giving the reasons they believed they would qualify for asylum.
Those who passed the interview could be released on bond or transported to detention centers throughout the U.S., like Dodge Correctional Institution in Waupun, to await their court hearing.
That’s where Barbato and her students found them. They regularly represented clients from Dodge seeking asylum like the Cuban man. It’s a great chance for students to learn and participate in a humanitarian effort, Barbato said.
After the Cuban man was granted asylum, the judge said he would allow IJC to defend asylum cases in Chicago via telephonic appearance, which would let IJC take more cases.
“I think it’s easier for (the judge) when the individual seeking asylum is represented and the government’s represented,” Barbato said. “And so we left there and we’re like, ‘Wow, maybe we can do more.’”
So when they went back to Dodge a few weeks after that successful case, they prepared to take two asylum cases. But there weren’t any asylum seekers at Dodge, which was “really curious,” Barbato said.
And there haven’t been any since, Barbato said. That’s because many asylum seekers aren’t being allowed into the U.S. after passing a credible fear interview. Instead, even after passing the interview, they have to wait in Mexico for their court hearing, she said.
Barbato witnessed this in action this March when she went to Tijuana to serve with a binational legal services organization called Al Otro Lado. While there, she saw several other immigration trends she considers troubling.
Asylum seekers in Tijuana go through a process called “metering,” which began several years ago. Even if a migrant makes it to customs and border patrol, they are directed back to Mexico, where they are then put on a list in a notebook reportedly managed by another asylum seeker, and given a number. They wait in Tijuana for 30 to 40 days for their number to come up before they can present themselves to CBP, Barbato said. A Mexican immigration organization called Grupos Beta is thought to be responsible for managing the number of migrants who can present themselves for asylum on any day.
And the migrants don’t necessarily have anywhere to stay in Tijuana while they wait to present themselves for asylum, Barbato said.
“Many of the shelters are full, and they’re not very safe because most of these people are fleeing gang violence,” Barbato said.
Once a person’s number comes up a month later, the migrant gets in line once again, where humanitarian volunteers hand out sweaters and socks because the person is headed into a holding facility (called “hielera” or “ice box,” for its frigid temperatures) for seven to 10 days as they await their credible fear interview.
“There’s effectively no way for unaccompanied minors to present themselves lawfully for asylum,” Barbarto said.
Barbato met with a 16-year-old girl who fled after her father sold her to a 25-year-old gang leader, and she was beaten, raped and falsely imprisoned for two years.
Now in Tijuana, the girl’s options were all bad: to wait at the one children’s shelter in Tijuana, where she “felt really alone and unsafe,” try to enter illegally where she would be subject to trafficking or the elements, or present herself to Grupos Beta and risk deportation, in which case she would “be most likely murdered because she fled the gang and disobeyed her husband.”
Barbato encouraged those who are concerned to go volunteer themselves in Tijuana, and “speak out on behalf of these children that are stranded in Tijuana.”
“The bottom line is, we can’t save everybody. Not everyone is going to qualify for asylum, that’s just not it. But at least how our laws stand right now, everyone has the right to at least seek those protections,” Barbato said. “And if our government wants to change those laws, they have to go through Congress to do so, they can’t just change these laws through policies.”
*****************************************
Thanks, Erin, for all that you and your “band of Due Process heroes” do for the New Due Process Army and the never-ending battle to bring Due Process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all to the U.S. Immigration Courts. You make me proud to be a U.W. Law alum! And thanks so much for giving us a slice of what’s “really” happening at the border as opposed to the Administration’s fictionalized version:
\“There’s effectively no way for unaccompanied minors to present themselves lawfully for asylum,” Barbarto said.
Barbato met with a 16-year-old girl who fled after her father sold her to a 25-year-old gang leader, and she was beaten, raped and falsely imprisoned for two years.
Now in Tijuana, the girl’s options were all bad: to wait at the one children’s shelter in Tijuana, where she “felt really alone and unsafe,” try to enter illegally where she would be subject to trafficking or the elements, or present herself to Grupos Beta and risk deportation, in which case she would “be most likely murdered because she fled the gang and disobeyed her husband.
Yes, this is what our country is doing to our fellow human beings who seek nothing more than to apply for legal protection supposedly guaranteed by international treaties, our statutes, and our Constitution. Is the Trump Administration’s dishonesty, cruelty, and scofflaw behavior really the way we want to be remembered by future generations? Actions have consequences, and failing to stand up for the legal, Constitutional, and human rights of “the most vulnerable among us” will have adversely affect the future of our nation and of humanity. At the same time, Erin and her courageous students are setting examples that will uplift and inspire future generations.
Like most law school clinics and pro bono organizations, Erin and her clinic operate on a “shoestring budget.” Compare that with the waste, fraud, and abuse of the Administration’s squandering of huge sums money on walls, prisons, and defense of patently illegal programs to strip migrants of their few remaining rights. Think what we could do as a nation if we devoted just a modest amount of additional resources to making the laws and the immigration adjudication system work, rather than funding “built to fail” schemes and gimmicks to evade and violate the laws?
So much for the disingenuously named “Migrant Protection Protocols” (a/k/a/ “Stay in Mexico”). As I had predicted, they are actually “Migrant Rejection Protocols,” which was the intent all along.
A federal court dealt a major blow to the Guantanamo Bay military commissions Tuesday, throwing out more than three years of proceedings in the case against the alleged mastermind of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole.
In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that former military judge Vance Spath “created a disqualifying appearance of partiality” by pursuing a position as an immigration judge while also overseeing the case.
The judges also voided an order issued by Spath that sought to require two defense attorneys for the defendant, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, to return to the case against their will.
The ruling is the latest blemish for the troubled commissions set up in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to try prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Of a once-vast detainee population there, only 40 inmates remain. Nearly two decades after the attacks, the start of the trial of 9/11 suspects remains far off amid seemingly endless legal wrangling and procedural delays.
The decision also suggests that federal courts may no longer be as deferential to the war courts and to the larger Guantanamo system as they have been in the past, as commission proceedings drag on for years and some two dozen other detainees languish without the suggestion of a trial.
Nashiri, a Saudi national in his 50s, faces a possible death penalty for his alleged orchestration of a string of plots to bomb Western vessels, including the Cole attack, which killed 17 Americans. After his capture, Nashiri was subject to extensive torture in CIA custody.
“Many years ago, when Abd al-Rahim first heard he was being handed over to the Americans, he was actually happy because he thought the United States was a country of laws and rights and that he’d at least be treated fairly,” said Navy Lt. Alaric Piette, a member of Nashiri’s defense team. “Finally, after 16 years, with this ruling, that has actually happened. Which is to say that this will mean a lot to him.”
Spath, who recently retired as an Air Force colonel, suspended Nashiri’s case in early 2018 over a dispute with defense lawyers who resigned after finding a microphone in a room used for attorney-client discussions. The judge’s order that the attorneys remain on the case kicked off a complex controversy involving several legal bodies and resulted in the house arrest of a brigadier general tasked with overseeing commission defense teams.
A year into his involvement in the case, Spath meanwhile quietly applied to the Justice Department for a position as an immigration judge. Such judges are appointed by the attorney general.
The D.C. Circuit judges, in a stinging rebuke, responded this week by throwing out rulings in the case from the commission and at least some from its appeals body, beginning at the moment when Spath initiated his job application in November 2015.
“Although a principle so basic to our system of laws should go without saying, we nonetheless feel compelled to restate it plainly here: criminal justice is a shared responsibility,” Judge David Tatel wrote in the panel’s ruling. “Yet in this case, save for Al-Nashiri’s defense counsel, all elements of the military commission system — from the prosecution team to the Justice Department to the CMCR [U.S. Court of Military Commission Review] to the judge himself — failed to live up to that responsibility.”
“This much is clear: whenever and however military judges are assigned, rehired, and reviewed, they must always maintain the appearance of impartiality,” Tatel wrote.
The CMCR is the Guantanamo appeals body. Tatel was joined on the panel by Judges Judith Rogers and Thomas Griffith.
Michael Paradis, an attorney who represented Nashiri in the D.C. Circuit case, said the opinion revealed the judges’ frustration “that the system is cavalier about such basic roles and so broken as a consequence. The whole thing has become so shambolic.”
In a striking insight into the court’s thinking, the decision appeared to suggest that the judges considered what Tatel described as a “powerful case for dissolving the current military commission entirely” — that is, they examined the possibility of voiding the entire Nashiri case to date. Such a move would strike an even more massive blow to the military justice architecture of the post-9/11 era.
The government could appeal the ruling. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department declined to comment on pending litigation.
Spath’s successor on the military court also left to become an immigration judge.
Devlin Barrett, Maria Sacchetti and Nick Miroff contributed to this report.
**************************************
Legislative reform establishing an independent Article I Immigration Court outside the Executive Branch should be a bipartisan “no-brainer.”
Instead, while Congress diddles, the misdirected and mismanaged U.S. Immigration Courts under the DOJ continue full steam toward operational and legal disaster. Without a timely Congressional remedy, that could eventually leave the entire removal system in the hands of the Article IIIs.
Notably, the “precipitating event” here was the Military Judge applying to the DOJ to become an Immigration Judge while handling a case in which the DOJ had an interest.
How about Attorneys General who have taken “point position” on the Administration’s harsh and often illegal immigration enforcement initiatives intervening in individual cases (sometimes over the objection of both parties) to change results to give DHS Enforcement, a party, a victory? Or, that all Immigration Judges are selected, evaluated, assigned, and directed by the Attorney General, a non-quasi-judicial official who is the “chief enforcer” and “chief prosecutor?”
Time for the U.S. Immigration Courts to be required to comply with Due Process!
(1) Matter of X-K-, 23 I&N Dec. 731 (BIA 2005), was wrongly decided and is overruled.
(2) An alien who is transferred from expedited removal proceedings to full removal proceedings after establishing a credible fear of persecution or torture is ineligible for release on bond. Such an alien must be detained until his removal proceedings conclude, unless he is granted parole.
KEY QUOTE:
Because Matter of X-K- declared a sizable population of aliens to be eligible for bond, DHS indicates that my overruling that decision will have “an immediate and significant impact on [its] detention operations.” DHS Br. 23 n.16. DHS accordingly requests that I delay the effective date of this decision “so that DHS may conduct necessary operational planning.” Id. Federal circuit courts have discretion to delay the effective dates of their decisions, see Fed. R. App. P. 41(b), and I conclude that I have similar discretion. I will delay the effective date of this decision for 90 days so that DHS may conduct the necessary operational planning for additional detention and parole decisions.
************************************
Short Takes:
An increase in mandatory detention is sure to mean more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”); as more detained cases are moved to the front of the docket, they will displace lower priority (but “ready to try”) non-detained cases which will be “shuffled off to Buffalo” thus increasing the already overwhelming backlog; as more Immigration Judges are sent to detention facilities near the border, they will “leave behind” already full dockets creating even more chaos in an already dysfunctional system;
CORQUÍN, Honduras — The farmer stood in his patch of forlorn coffee plants, their leaves sick and wilted, the next harvest in doubt.
Last year, two of his brothers and a sister, desperate to find a better way to survive, abandoned their small coffee farms in this mountainous part of Honduras and migrated north, eventually sneaking into the United States.
Then in February, the farmer’s 16-year-old son also headed north, ignoring the family’s pleas to stay.
The challenges of agricultural life in Honduras have always been mighty, from poverty and a neglectful government to the swings of international commodity prices.
But farmers, agricultural scientists and industry officials say a new threat has been ruining harvests, upending lives and adding to the surge of families migrating to the United States: climate change.
And their worries are increasingly shared by climate scientists as well.
Gradually rising temperatures, more extreme weather events and increasingly unpredictable patterns — like rain not falling when it should, or pouring when it shouldn’t — have disrupted growing cycles and promoted the relentless spread of pests.
Guatemalans harvesting coffee in Honduras, where there is a shortage of workers.CreditCésar Rodríguez for The New York Times
Image
Guatemalans harvesting coffee in Honduras, where there is a shortage of workers.CreditCésar Rodríguez for The New York Times
The obstacles have cut crop production or wiped out entire harvests, leaving already poor families destitute.
Central America is among the regions most vulnerable to climate change, scientists say. And because agriculture employs much of the labor force — about 28 percent in Honduras alone, according to the World Bank — the livelihoods of millions of people are at stake.
Last year, the bank reported that climate change could lead at least 1.4 million people to flee their homes in Mexico and Central America and migrate during the next three decades.
The United States has allocated tens of millions of dollars in aid in recent years for farmers across Central America, including efforts to help them adapt to the changing climate.
But President Trump has vowed to cut off all foreign aid to Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador because of what he calls their failure to curb the flow of migrants north.
Critics contend the punishment is misguided, though, because it could undermine efforts to address the very problems that are driving people to abandon their farms and head to the United States.
“If Donald Trump withdraws all the funds for Honduras, it’s going to generate more unemployment, and that’s going to generate more migration,” said María Esperanza López, the general manager of Copranil, a coffee-growers cooperative here in western Honduras. “And that’s going to result in more abandoned farms.”
Image
“Climate change is destroying some farms,” said a coffee farmer, Fredi Onan Vicen Peña, right, shown with his father, Juan José Vicen.CreditCésar Rodríguez for The New York Times
Coffee cultivators in the region are at particular risk of disruption because the crop is highly sensitive to weather variations.
Fredi Onan Vicen Peña, the coffee farmer whose brothers, sister and teenage son have already given up and joined the exodus north, reached over and tore a leaf off one of his plants.
It was a mottled yellow and brown: signs of coffee rust, a disease whose spread has been influenced by climate variability. As much as 70 percent of his crop, planted across five acres in a pine forest, had been affected, he estimated, and there was little chance he could salvage it.
“Climate change is destroying some farms,” said Mr. Vicen, 41.
Beyond that, some of his healthier plants had begun to blossom nearly two months ahead of schedule because of a heavy unseasonable downpour, throwing the entire growing cycle into doubt.
“This is not something we predicted,” Mr. Vicen said.
Average temperatures have risen by about two degrees Fahrenheit in Central America over the past several decades, making the cultivation of coffee difficult, if not untenable, at lower altitudes that were once suitable.
That has forced some farmers to search for land at higher altitudes, switch to other crops, change professions — or migrate.
“Some very fine families that have been producing quality coffee for a long time are now facing the decision of whether to stay in coffee,” said Catherine M. Tucker, a professor of anthropology at the University of Florida who has done research in Honduras for more than two decades.
Signs of coffee rust, a disease that devastated Honduran crops in 2012-13 and whose recent outbreaks may have been influenced by climate change.CreditCésar Rodríguez for The New York Times
Image
Signs of coffee rust, a disease that devastated Honduran crops in 2012-13 and whose recent outbreaks may have been influenced by climate change.CreditCésar Rodríguez for The New York Times
Some climate scientists say that in the absence of long-term meteorological data, it is hard for them to say with certainty whether the increasing variability is caused by long-term changes in the region’s climate. But, they say, they are leaning in that direction.
“It’s becoming so unusual, it’s almost certainly climate change,” said Dr. Edwin J. Castellanos, dean of the Research Institute at the Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, a university in Guatemala City, and one of Central America’s leading scientists in the field of climate change.
Climate change is rarely the sole factor in the decision to migrate. Violence and poverty are prime drivers, but climate change can be a tipping point, farmers and experts say.
“Small farmers are already living in poverty; they’re already at the threshold of not being able to survive,” Mr. Castellanos said. “So any changes in the situation may push them to have enough incentives to leave.”
The outlook for the region seems bleak. Reduced yields of coffee and subsistence crops like corn and beans could significantly increase food insecurity and malnutrition. By some predictions, the amount of land suitable for growing coffee in Central America could drop by more than 40 percent by 2050.
The number of coffee producers in the area where Mr. Vicen lives has dropped by a quarter in the past decade — to about 9,000 from about 12,000 — partly because of pressure from climate change, said Marlon Danilo Mejía, the regional coordinator for the Honduran Coffee Institute, an industry trade group.
A vast majority are small producers, managing less than about nine acres each, he said.
José Edgardo Vicen, 37, one of Mr. Vicen’s brothers, had weighed migrating for years. He had worked in the coffee fields since he was a boy, continuing the family tradition. In this part of Honduras, coffee is a major crop, with an increasing amount bound for North America, Europe and Asia.
Analyzing coffee samples at a cooperative in Las Capucas, Honduras. Cooperatives provide support to farmers and can negotiate better international contracts.CreditCésar Rodríguez for The New York Times
Image
Analyzing coffee samples at a cooperative in Las Capucas, Honduras. Cooperatives provide support to farmers and can negotiate better international contracts.CreditCésar Rodríguez for The New York Times
But after a rust outbreak and other pressures in recent years, including plunging commodity prices, the younger Mr. Vicen said he could no longer earn enough from his harvest to cover production costs.
He headed north with his 14-year-old son last August, crossed the border illegally and settled in Texas. A brother and a sister, driven by similar circumstances, left Honduras soon afterward and also sneaked into the United States.
“For the small producer, I promise you, there’s no way to get ahead,” said Mr. Vicen, who now works in construction and sends remittances home to support his wife and daughter.
When he was younger, harvest time “was like a party,” he recalled. Now, “there are only losses, no profits.”
Fifteen producers from the Vicens’ coffee cooperative — more than 10 percent of its members — have migrated to the United States in the past year, said Ms. Esperanza López, the general manager of the cooperative. They have joined thousands of others from villages in Honduras’s western highlands.
Stephanie Leutert, director of the Mexico Security Initiative at the University of Texas at Austin, said that government statistics on apprehension of migrants at the southwest border of the United States in recent years reflect a sharp increase in people from western Honduras.
After large caravans of migrants arrived last fall in Tijuana, Mexico, a United Nations survey found that 72 percent of those surveyed were from Honduras — and 28 percent of the respondents had worked in the agricultural sector.
Carlos Peña Orellana growing greenhouse tomatoes, which he produces to supplement his income from coffee crops.CreditCésar Rodríguez for The New York Times
Image
Carlos Peña Orellana growing greenhouse tomatoes, which he produces to supplement his income from coffee crops.CreditCésar Rodríguez for The New York Times
The exodus of farm workers has worsened already serious labor shortages in western Honduras. Some industry leaders in the region joke that if the caravans in recent months were “the laborer caravans,” the next wave will be “the grower caravans.”
Coffee farmers have been scrambling to adjust to the changes, learning which species are more resistant to plague and drought, and branching out into other crops — like cacao, avocados or trees that produce construction-grade wood.
Nongovernmental and public-private initiatives have also taken root in coffee-growing regions of Central America and around the world to help guide farmers. Some have received the backing of the world’s biggest coffee sellers — like Starbucks, Tim Horton’s and Lavazza — trying to ensure their future supply.
Yet even the application of best practices is no guarantee that everything will be fine.
“The weather is crazy,” said Carlos Peña Orellana, 58, a farmer and member of a local coffee cooperative. “Everything’s out of control.”
He owns 12 acres of land but can afford to farm only about five. He gets by with income from a tomato greenhouse he built with the cooperative’s help, and with remittances from two sons who migrated to the United States after struggling through the rust crisis of 2012-13.
“They’re helping to revive the farm,” he said at his ramshackle ranch one recent afternoon. “It’s really difficult now.”
He turned to his youngest son, Carlos, 12, and saw a future migrant. Pointing a leathery finger, he said: “You’re next, right?” Mr. Peña chuckled. The boy squirmed, saying nothing.
**********************************************
Can the “good guys” oust the Trump Kakistocracy at the ballot box before it’s too late? I was optimistic after my two-week Scarff Distinguished Professorship at Lawrence University that the upcoming generation understands these issues and is committed to action, not just talk, and certainly will work hard to undo the damage done by the current Administration’s intentionally ignorant and ill-intended approaches to both migration and climate issues.
Eileen Sullivan and Michael D. Shear report for the NY Times
WASHINGTON — Stephen Miller was furious — again.
The architect of President Trump’s immigration agenda, Mr. Miller was presiding last month over a meeting in the White House Situation Room when he demanded to know why the administration officials gathered there were taking so long to carry out his plans.
A regulation to deny welfare benefits to legal immigrants — a change Mr. Miller repeatedly predicted would be “transformative” — was still plodding through the approval process after more than two years, he complained. So were the new rules that would overturn court-ordered protections for migrant children. They were still not finished, he added, berating Ronald D. Vitiello, the acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
“You ought to be working on this regulation all day every day,” he shouted, as recounted by two participants at the meeting. “It should be the first thought you have when you wake up. And it should be the last thought you have before you go to bed. And sometimes you shouldn’t go to bed.”
A few weeks after that meeting, the consequences of Mr. Miller’s frustration and the president he was channeling have played out in striking fashion.
Mr. Trump has withdrawn Mr. Vitiello’s nomination to permanently lead ICE and pushed out Kirstjen Nielsen, his homeland security secretary. The department’s acting deputy secretary, Claire Grady, and the Secret Service director, Randolph D. Alles, are departing as well. And the White House has made it clear that others, including L. Francis Cissna, the head of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and John Mitnick, the department’s general counsel, are likely to go soon.
Mr. Trump insisted in a tweet on Saturday that he was “not frustrated” by the situation at the border, where for months he has said there is a crisis that threatens the nation’s security. But unable to deliver on his central promise of the 2016 campaign, he has targeted his administration’s highest-ranking immigration officials.
And behind that purge is Mr. Miller, the 33-year-old White House senior adviser. While immigration is the issue that has dominated Mr. Trump’s time in office, the president has little interest or understanding about how to turn his gut instincts into reality. So it is Mr. Miller, a fierce ideologue who was a congressional spokesman before joining the Trump campaign, who has shaped policy, infuriated civil liberties groups and provoked a bitter struggle within the administration.
White House officials insisted to reporters last week that they had no choice but to move against administration officials unwilling or unable to make their agencies produce results. One senior administration official at the White House, who requested anonymity to discuss what he called a sensitive topic, said many of the administration’s core priorities have been “either moving too slowly or moving in the wrong direction.”
But current and former officials from those agencies, who also requested anonymity to discuss contentious relations with the White House, describe a different reality.
The purge, they said, was the culmination of months of clashes with Mr. Miller and others around the president who have repeatedly demanded implementation of policies that were legally questionable, impractical, unethical or unreasonable. And when officials explained why, it further infuriated a White House set on making quick, sweeping changes to decades-old laws.
In a twist, many of the officials who have clashed with the White House were the president’s own political appointees, who share his broad goal of limiting immigration into the United States. To that end, they have already succeeded in lowering the number of refugees allowed into the United States, imposing a travel ban on entry from mostly Muslim nations, speeding up denaturalization proceedings, slowing asylum processing at ports of entry and developing proposals to limit work permits for spouses of high-tech workers.
“I don’t think the president’s really cleaning house,” said Thomas D. Homan, a former acting ICE director and strong supporter of the president’s immigration agenda. “I think he’s setting the reset button.”
A White House spokesman declined a request for comment. But even several of the most right-wing, anti-immigration groups have had a mixed reaction to the treatment of the immigration officials Mr. Trump and Mr. Miller have targeted.
The Center for Immigration Studies tweeted that “Nielsen got tough at the end of her tenure, but it was largely too little, too late.” The Federation for American Immigration Reform wrote: “Under Francis Cissna’s leadership, USCIS has issued a steady stream of policy changes and regulations that are firmly in line with President Trump’s immigration agenda. Removing him would be a huge mistake.”
But it has not been enough for Mr. Miller and his allies in the White House feeling the constant pressure from Mr. Trump.
Perhaps the greatest point of contention within the administration has been the asylum laws that are the root cause of the most vivid manifestation of the immigration issue: the hundreds of thousands of migrant families from Central America who have surged toward the southwestern border, fleeing violence and poverty.
In a Tuesday afternoon “deputies” conference call last year with about 50 or 60 officials from across government, Mr. Miller demanded to know why nearly all of the families seeking asylum were passing the first hurdle — a screening interview to determine whether they have a “credible fear” of persecution if they were returned to their home countries.
Mr. Miller and others in the White House were outraged that 90 percent or more of the applicants passed the first screening, a concern during the Bush administration, as well. Immigration judges ultimately deny all but about 20 percent of the asylum requests, but because of a backlog of hundreds of thousands of cases, many asylum seekers wait years for their case to be heard for the second time, giving them the chance to gain work permits, build roots and disappear in the United States.
To Mr. Miller, the asylum process was a giant loophole that needed to be plugged. And he faulted the asylum officers at Citizenship and Immigration Services who were conducting the screenings for having a cultural bias that made them overly sympathetic to the asylum seekers. “You need to tighten up,” Miller insisted.
Immigration officials on the conference call did not disagree that too many migrants were granted asylum in the initial “credible fear” screening. But the rules for conducting the screenings were written into law by Congress and designed to be generous so that persecuted people had a real opportunity to seek asylum. It was unclear, the officials said, what else the agency could do.
A Border Patrol vehicle near the border fence in Sunland Park, N.M. White House officials recently pushed to have Border Patrol agents, instead of asylum officers, conduct initial screenings of asylum seekers.CreditJose Luis Gonzalez/Reuters
Image
A Border Patrol vehicle near the border fence in Sunland Park, N.M. White House officials recently pushed to have Border Patrol agents, instead of asylum officers, conduct initial screenings of asylum seekers.CreditJose Luis Gonzalez/Reuters
Listening to Mr. Miller continue to hammer the issue, two people on the call recalled, it was almost as if Mr. Miller wanted asylum officers to ignore the law. At one point during the call, Mr. Cissna erupted in frustration.
“Enough. Enough. Stand down!” he said.
But such pressure from the White House was hardly unique, according to officials from multiple agencies.
For instance, a federal judge last week ruled that the White House early in the administration had improperly pressured officials at Citizenship and Immigration Services to terminate an immigration program for Haiti called Temporary Protected Status.
The judge said the decision in 2017 to end the program was contrary to the statute and indicated that the White House had strongly influenced the department.
More recently, White House officials pushed during one of the Tuesday afternoon conference calls to have Border Patrol agents, instead of asylum officers, conduct “credible fear” interviews. The notion, they said, was that the Border Patrol agents could process interviews quickly and cut out the several-day wait to schedule a meeting with an asylum officer.
Many of the immigration officials recoiled at the idea. Assigning agents to interview duty would pull them from their primary roles at the ports and along the border. Even worse, asylum laws require interviewers to undergo up to two months of training that would strain the already understaffed Border Patrol stations.
But even if they could be trained, officials told the White House, the logistics would be a nightmare. Cramped Border Patrol stations — many of which look like small, rural police stations — were not set up to conduct scores of two-hour interviews with hundreds of migrants flooding into border communities each day.
When the idea leaked out in early April, immigrant rights advocates accused the Trump administration of trying to prevent migrants from having a real chance at asylum.
“Border Patrol officers are simply not qualified to do this,” said Eleanor Acer, the director of the refugee program at Human Rights First. “This will put unfit, untrained and unqualified agents in charge of determining who warrants potentially lifesaving protection in the United States.”
To Mr. Miller and other White House officials, it was another instance in which the law and machinations of government were getting in the way of needed changes. And they think there are many others.
In November, as Mr. Trump railed publicly about the dangers of migrant caravans from Central America, a top White House domestic policy adviser floated the idea of taking migrants who had been apprehended to so-called sanctuary cities represented by Democrats. Homeland security officials, who saw the idea as political retribution, resisted.
In an email, Matthew Albence, the acting deputy director of ICE, said that it would create “an unnecessary operational burden” and that transporting the migrants to a different location was not “a justified expenditure.” Lawyers at the Department of Homeland Security, including Mr. Mitnick, also questioned the idea’s legality.
Mr. Trump has also not given up on the idea of shutting down the southern border, a move economists have said would be catastrophic and halt nearly $1.7 billion of goods and services that flow across the border each day.
Even as Mr. Trump retreated publicly and said he would give Mexico a year to do more to prevent migrants from reaching the southern border of the United States, he has made it clear to his advisers privately that the closing was still on the table.
His insistence increased the friction with his top immigration officials, especially Ms. Nielsen, who tried to talk him out of closing the ports of entry and refusing to grant asylum. Ms. Nielsen explained why she could not do that, citing economic and legal issues — banning migrants from seeking asylum would be against the law.
When Ms. Nielsen did not give the president the answer he sought, he turned to Kevin McAleenan, the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, and asked him to stop migrants from entering the country. Mr. Trump told Mr. McAleenan that he would pardon him if he ran into any legal problems, according to officials familiar with the conversation — though he denied it in a tweet Saturday night.
Ms. Nielsen’s refusal to shut down the southern border appeared to be the final straw for Mr. Trump. After forcing her resignation, he named Mr. McAleenan the acting secretary of the department.
But Mr. Miller remains unsatisfied. Lately, he has made clear to immigration officials and others in the White House that he remains frustrated with the still-pending regulation on welfare benefits for immigrants. After nearly two years of painstaking work and more than 200,000 public comments, the 447-page rule is on track to eventually be published.
And it is not clear that the political bloodletting is over. Mr. Cissna and Mr. Mitnick remain in bureaucratic limbo, having received neither their walking papers nor an explicit stay of execution. While Mr. McAleenan is now the acting secretary of homeland security, rumors persist that Mr. Trump may want someone else to be the permanent head of the department.
Inside the immigration agencies, there is a persistent rumor that Mr. Trump may yet name an immigration czar to better coordinate — or, some believe, control — the sprawling immigration bureaucracy.
***********************************************
Good thing we have the New Due Process Army to fight against Miller and his forces of evil out to destroy American democracy.
Hon. Dana Leigh Marks writes in the Center for Migration Studies Tribute to the late Juan P. Osuna:
On November 15, 2018, CMS hosted an event on access to justice, due process and the rule of law to honor the legacy of Juan Osuna, a close colleague and friend who held high-level immigration positions in four administrations over a 17-year period. Prior to his government service, Mr. Osuna served as a respected editor and publisher and a close collaborator with many civil society organizations. As a follow-up to its November 15th gathering, CMS will be posting and publishing a series of blogs, essays, talks, and papers on the values and issues to which Mr. Osuna devoted his professional life, and ultimately compiling them as part of a CMS special collection in his memory.
I found immigration law quite by accident in 1976, the summer between my second and third years of law school. I responded to an ad for a part-time law clerk. The small law office was near school, paid well, and had nice support staff, so I took the job, barely knowing what the daily work would be. The field of immigration law was so small at that time that my law school only offered one, semester-long immigration law course every other year. It was not offered in the one year I had left before graduation. I have never taken an academic immigration law class, but rather learned my trade from generous practitioners who gave up their Saturdays once a month to teach free seminars to new practitioners. It was from that perspective that I developed a profound respect for immigration lawyers, so many of whom freely shared their knowledge in the hope of ensuring that quality legal services were offered to the immigrant community.
For me, the daily practice of immigration law was akin to love at first sight. It was the perfect mix of frequent client contact with fascinating people from all walks of life and all socioeconomic backgrounds that made me feel as if I was travelling the world; and a combination of social work and complex legal puzzles that intellectually intrigued me. As I became immersed in the field, I became totally hooked by the compelling stories behind my cases, as well as the complicated legal strategies that many cases required. At the time I began my career, I did not understand why immigration lawyers were generally ranked only slightly above ambulance chasers. My experience allowed me to interact with brilliant lawyers dedicated to helping their clients, often with little acknowledgement and meager remuneration.
When I began to practice and tried to explain the basics of immigration law to interested legal friends, it became clear to me that the statutory structure of this field of law was quite unique, but fairly sensibly built on general parameters of who would be a benefit to our country and thus should be allowed to find a way to legalize their status; and who were the bad actors who should not be allowed into the country or allowed to stay even if their initial entry had been legal. It struck a balance between family reunification and business and labor needs. There was even a category for industrious, pioneering individuals to come without sponsorship so long as they were able to support themselves financially. In short, it seemed to me to be a logical balance, with fair criteria to limit legal status to deserving, law-abiding people. Some of the hurdles that had to be overcome — for example, to test the labor market to protect US workers where one wanted to immigrate as an employee, or lengthy quotas that resulted in separation of families of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) — were clunky and cumbersome, but on the whole the system seemed to work fairly rationally.
While some aspects were frustrating and individual immigration officers sometimes seemed inflexible or even a bit irrational, I do not remember the legal community who helped immigrants being tormented by draconian twists and turns in the law on a daily basis, which is how it has seemed lately. When someone was in deportation proceedings, there was the possibility of showing that, after having lived in the United States for more than seven years as a person of good moral character, if one’s deportation would cause oneself or a qualifying US citizen (or LPR) spouse, parent, or child extreme hardship, one could qualify for suspension of removal and eventual permanent resident status. There was also the possibility of qualifying for withholding of deportation if one was more likely than not to suffer persecution if returned to one’s homeland if one had fled a communist country or certain specified geographic areas. Yes, the preference quotas could be problematic, but all in all, it seemed to me at that time that most people who wanted to regularize their status could carve out a reasonably achievable path towards their goal, while the bad actors who were sent home deserved that fate. Every so often there were sad cases of nice people who could not find a category that allowed them to stay, but somehow it just did not seem as harsh a result for so many people as it does lately.
The codification of the Refugee Act in 1980 ushered in a particularly exciting time. A large portion of my client base was from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua, and the civil wars raging in the late 1970s were generating an influx of refugees. The stories I began to hear were exceedingly disturbing accounts of war and the cruelty which all too often accompanies it, but the horror was counterbalanced by the satisfaction of finding a way to protect people from further victimization by helping them secure safe haven in the United States. From an academic perspective, seeing how a statute evolved, through real-time interpretation and application, was a fascinating process — something many lawyers do not experience in their entire career. Then, to top it off, the Ninth Circuit set the stage to allow me to present oral argument in a case before the US Supreme Court in 1986. I am very proud that I, along with colleagues Kip Steinberg, Bill Hing, and Susan Lydon, were able to establish lasting precedent through our representation of Luz Marina Cardoza-Fonseca, making it clear that the use of the term “well-founded fear” was a significant change in the law and assuring that the adherence of the United States to the UN Protocol on Refugees was intended by Congress to guide our interpretation of US asylum law.[1]
Just as the briefs were being submitted, I learned that there was an opening for a judge at the immigration court in San Francisco, a location I had vowed never to leave. I struggled with the decision of whether or not to leave a practice with partners I truly loved, or to dive into a new adventure, in the hope that I could lead by example and prove that a former private practitioner could be viewed as an impartial and fair judge, respected by both the prosecution and defense bars. It was an exciting time at the immigration court because only a few years earlier, in 1983, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) was created as a separate agency outside the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) as a component in the Department of Justice (DOJ). That step was a vital step forward, acknowledging the important distinction which must exist between the prosecutor and the judge in deportation hearings. I went for it and became a member of a corps of 68 immigration judges working for EOIR at that time.
I found the transition to the bench challenging. There was far less interaction and discussion among peers as to how thorny legal issues might be resolved. In addition, because of the need to remain distant from the lawyers who appeared before me, I was much lonelier than I had been in private practice. While I found the interactions in the courtroom just as fascinating as in the first days of my legal career, there was a part of me that was unfulfilled. The stories I heard were riveting and the ability to resolve a conflict in a fair way extremely satisfying. However, I soon realized just how large a part advocacy played in my personality and path to personal satisfaction. This was quite a dilemma for a neutral arbiter who was determined to show the world that a former private practitioner could give both the government and the respondent a fair day in court! I searched to find an appropriate outlet for that aspect of my character, and the answer came in the form of my volunteer work for the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ).
The NAIJ was formed in 1979 as a professional association of immigration judges to promote independence and enhance the professionalism, dignity, and efficiency of the immigration courts. Through my membership and eventually leadership at NAIJ, I was able to help my colleagues as a traditional labor union steward, as well as to educate the public about the important role played by the immigration court and the reality which exists behind the cloak of obscurity the DOJ favors. Many people, lawyers included, are surprised to learn that the DOJ insists on categorizing immigration judges as attorney employees, which gives rise to a host of problems for both the parties and for judges themselves.
While the creation of EOIR was a huge step forward, there was still considerable influence wielded by the INS. From courtrooms to management offices, ex parte communications occurred at all levels, and our relatively small system remained dwarfed by the behemoth immigration enforcement structure. My NAIJ colleagues and I worked hard to elevate the professionalism of our corps, to adhere to the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Code of Judicial Ethics, and to insulate our courts from political or ideological driven agendas, with the goal of assuring that all who appeared before us had a fair day in court. But we have always faced the headwinds of our classification as attorneys in an enforcement-oriented agency and the tension caused by enforcement goals that run counter to calm, dispassionate deliberation and decisional independence.
Despite the creation of EOIR and its early promise that we would benefit from enhanced equality with those who enforced our nation’s immigration laws, we remained “legal Cinderellas,” mistreated stepchildren who seemed to be doomed to endless hard work without adequate resources or recognition for our efforts. From the time I became an immigration judge, we have never received the resources we needed in a timely or well-studied manner, but instead for decades we have played catch-up, had to make do with less, and have faced constant pressure to do our work faster with no loss of quality. Immigration judges scored a legislative victory when our lobbying efforts codified the position of immigration judge in the mid-1990s, and again in 2003 when we succeeded, quite against the odds, to remain outside the enforcement umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) when it was created. Those accomplishments were quite sweet, but unfortunately, they did not go far enough — a fact predicted by my NAIJ colleagues and me.
When I fast-forward to today, I see a substantive law which has spiraled out of control and a court system on the brink of implosion. The law has become so misshapen by unrelated, sometimes conflicting or overly repetitive congressional tweaks that it has become an almost unnavigable labyrinth, where many are lost on the way to their ultimate goal because of unanticipated interactions by the various incarnations of the statute. For example, the myriad criminal provisions interact illogically and conflict in ways that allow some clever lawyers to navigate a path for their clients, while pro se respondents become blocked from status with far less serious criminal histories because of an inability to parse nuances and wage creative legal battles.
And many provisions of the statute would surprise, or even shock, members of the public. Many people do not know that there is no such thing as “anchor babies” because US citizens cannot sponsor a parent until they are over 21 years of age, and even then, the parent’s years of unlawful presence in the United States often present a virtually insurmountable bar to legal status. Many do not realize that US citizen children are routinely de facto deportees when their parents are removed, or that parental rights can be terminated for responsible, loving parents who are held in immigration detention and thus are prevented from appearing in family court to exercise their parental rights. Nor does someone become a US citizen (or even lawful resident) just because of marriage to a US citizen. But perhaps the most sobering fact that is little known by the public is the fact that there is no statute of limitations for crimes under the immigration laws. Therefore, LPRs can be deported decades after a conviction for a relatively minor drug crime because there is no mechanism in the law which allows them to remain, despite deep roots in the community and sometimes being barely able to speak the language of the country of their birth.
I am deeply concerned that decisions on immigration legislation so often seem to be based on sound bites or knee-jerk reactions to individual horror stories rather than careful and unbiased analysis of documented facts and trends. I fear the public is deprived of the ability to form a well-reasoned opinion of what the law should provide because the rhetoric has become so heated and the facts so obscured. The immigration law has grown away from allowing decision-makers, especially immigration judges, to make carefully balanced decisions which weigh nuanced positive and negative considerations of someone’s situation. Instead, rigid, broad categories severely limit the ability of those of us who look an immigrant in the eye and see the courtroom filled with supporters from carefully tailoring a remedy, which can make our decisions inhumane and disproportionate. Such rigidity reflects poorly on our legacy as a country that welcomes immigrants and refugees and leads to results which can be cruel and not in the public’s interest.
In the rush to reduce the backlog that was decades in the making, our immigration courts are once again in the hot seat, and individual judges are being intensely pressured to push cases through quickly. Immigration judges are placed in the untenable position of having to answer to their boss because of their classification as DOJ attorneys who risk loss of their jobs if they do not follow instructions, and yet we judges are the ones who are thrown under the bus (and rightfully so) if the corner we cut to satisfy that unrealistic production demand ends up adversely impacting due process. That pressure is intense and the delicate balance is one that often must be struck in an instant through a courtroom ruling — made all the more difficult because of the dire stakes in the cases before us. But, just to make it abundantly clear to immigration judges that productivity is paramount, last October our personnel evaluations were changed so that an immigration judge risks a less than satisfactory performance rating if s/he fails to complete 700 merits cases in a year. The DOJ’s focus and priority in making that change is not subtle at all, and the fact that our corps has recently expanded so fast that dozens, if not hundreds, of our current judges are still on probation, makes this shift an even more ominous threat to due process. The very integrity of the judicial process that the immigration courts are charged by statute to provide are compromised by actions such as this. Production quotas are anathema to dispassionate, case-by-case deliberation. One size does not fit all, and quantity can take a toll on quality. Perhaps most important, no judge should have his or her personal job security pitted against the due process concerns of the parties before them.
I know I am not alone in feeling the weight that this constellation of circumstances of an out-of-date law and political pressure on immigration judges has created. All around me, I see frustration, disillusionment, and even despair among immigration law practitioners who are also suffering the consequences that the speed-up of adjudications places on their ability to prepare fully their cases to the highest standards. I see many colleagues leaving the bench with that same mix of emotions, a sad note upon which to end one’s career. Yet I can completely relate to the need to leave these pressures behind. I have witnessed several judges leave the bench prematurely after very short terms in office because they felt these constraints prevented them from being able to do the job they signed up to perform.
It is supremely discouraging and, frankly, quite a challenge to remain behind in that climate. But as I write these reflections, I know I am not ready to leave quite yet. We must learn from history. We must do better for ourselves and the public we serve. Our American ideal of justice demands no less. When we canaries in the immigration courtrooms began to sing of our need for independence decades ago, we were seen as paranoid and accused of reacting to shadows in the mirrors of our cages. Finally now, we are seen as prescient by thousands of lawyers, judges, and legislators across the country, as reflected by proposals by the ABA, Federal Bar Association, National Association of Women Judges, Appleseed Foundation, and American Immigration Lawyers Association. There are signs that these calls are being heeded by lawmakers, although the legislative process seems both glacial and mercurial at best. The creation of an Article I Immigration Court is no longer a fringe view, but rather the solution to the persistent diminution of essential safeguards our system must have, clearly acknowledged by experts and stakeholders alike.
The challenges our nation faces as we struggle to reform our immigration law to meet modern needs are many, but a single solution for a dramatic step towards justice has become crystal clear: we must immediately create an Article I Immigration Court. We cannot afford to wait another 40 years to do it. Besides, I want to see it happen in my professional lifetime so that the chapter can be complete and the clock is ticking…
[1] See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 US 421 (1987).
DISCLAIMER: The author is President Emeritus of the National Association of Immigration Judges and a sitting judge in San Francisco, California. The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the official position of the US Department of Justice, the Attorney General, or the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The views represent the author’s personal opinions, which were formed after extensive consultation with the membership of NAIJ.
*******************************************
Here’s a somewhat abbreviated version by
Dana published as an op-ed in the Washington Post:
Thanks, Dana, my friend and colleague, for the memories.
Because she successfully argued INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca before the Supremes, establishing the generous “well-founded fear” standard for asylum, I often refer to Dana as one of the “Founding Mothers” of U.S Asylum Law. *
One thing is for certain: The current immigration mess can’t be resolved until we have an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court.
Given the inappropriate, unethical, and frankly idiotic, regulatory proposals just made by the DOJ under Barr, guaranteed to further screw up appellate review at EOIR, the Article III Courts of Appeals are soon going to be bearing the brunt of more sloppy, unprofessional, biased decision-making by EOIR on a widespread, never before seen, scale. Unless the Article III’s completely tank on their oaths of office, there will have to be “massive pushback” that will eventually bring the removal system close to a halt until Congress does its job and restores Due Process under our Constitution.
Last time a similarly overt attack on Due Process in the appellate system happened under Ashcroft, the results at the Article III level weren’t pretty. But, guys like Barr are too dense, biased, and committed to the White Nationalist restrictionist program to do anything constructive.
Given the increased volume and the “malicious incompetence” of this Administration, as well as a much better prepared and even more talented and highly motivated private bar and NGO community (the “New Due Process Army”), the DOJ should continue to set new records for court losses and squandering of taxpayer funds on what would be deemed “frivolous litigation” if brought by any private party.
That’s not to say, however, that thousands of human beings won’t have their rights denied and be screwed over by the Trump Administration in the process. Some will die, some will be tortured, some will be maimed, some disfigured, some damaged for life. That’s the human toll of the Trump scofflaws and their malicious incompetence.
* HISTORICAL FOOTNOTE: At the time of Cardozoa-Fonseca, I was the Deputy General Counsel and then Acting General Counsel of the “Legacy INS.” I helped the Solicitor General develop the agency’s (ultimately losing) position and was present in Court the day of the oral argument sitting with the SG’s Office.
So, I was an “eyewitness to history” being made by Dana’s argument! We went on to become great friends and worked together on NAIJ issues and
“negotiating teams” during my time as an Immigration Judge.
Bizarro world: Pelosi angry over Trump plan to send illegal crossers to sanctuary cities. By Nolan Rappaport
Apparently, President Donald Trump is about to make life much easier for aliens with children who are apprehended after making an illegal entry.
The Flores Settlement Agreement prevents him from detaining, for more than 20 days, children apprehended after making an illegal crossing into the United States. And because all Hell broke loose when he separated the children from their parents, he is now releasing their parents, too.
But according to his tweets on Friday, that isn’t all he is going to do for them.
I’m sure he was being sarcastic when he said this should make them very happy, but it really should make the Democrats very happy. The government would be providing these families with free transportation to places that are welcoming undocumented aliens, i.e. the sanctuary cities.
In fact, many of them are headed for sanctuary cities anyway. In 2014, California, which is a sanctuary state, was home to between 2.35 million and 2.6 million undocumented immigrants. Nearly a quarter of the nation’s undocumented immigrants lived there. Roughly one in ten California workers was an undocumented immigrant. And the population of undocumented aliens in California has gotten even largersince then.
But it turns out that Trump was right: The Democrats are upset.
I was astonished to see an article entitled, “Pelosi fumes over White House plan to release immigrant detainees in sanctuary cities.”
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.
*************************************
It’s always difficult to take anything Trump says seriously, particularly about immigration.
I think Pelosi was reacting to 1) the tone of Trump’s threat; 2) his use of human lives as pawns and bargaining chips (something he has done before with the Dreamers); 3) his continuing threats to misuse Presidential power to “punish enemies;” and 4) the lack of any serious coordination that would accompany a good faith plan.
On the other hand, as shown in this article by Tal Kopan of the SF Chronicle, California and San Francisco officials appear ready to welcome and help any migrants sent their way or who are released and choose to settle in California.
