🤮👎🏻CONTEMPT FOR COURT: Trump Regime Continues To Drag Feet On DACA Compliance As U.S. Judge Finally Mulls Contempt For Scofflaw Officials — Human Lives “Held In A Bucket” ☠️🤮

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/trump-administration-has-put-daca-applications-on-hold-despite-supreme-court-ruling-restoring-program/2020/07/24/59f20f48-cdcf-11ea-b0e3-d55bda07d66a_story.html

Emily Davies
Local Reporter
Washington Post

By Emily Davies

July 24 at 7:33 PM ET

Trump administration officials said during a federal court hearing Friday that they have not “granted nor rejected” any applications for a program designed to protect young undocumented immigrants from deportation, but rather have put them “on hold” as the government discusses the future of the program.

The virtual hearing in the U.S. District Court in Maryland was the first time the administration addressed reports that the Department of Homeland Security was not accepting applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program — despite a recent Supreme Court ruling and a federal judge’s order requiring the government to resume accepting applications.

“Although the applications will be received by the department, they will be neither granted nor rejected, and instead will be held, placed into a bucket pending a policy consideration that takes place and that now I can tell you is still ongoing at the department,” said Stephen Pezzi, a lawyer with the Justice Department.

Pezzi also said that “some or all” of the applications from DACA beneficiaries looking to leave the country and return lawfully had been wrongly rejected when they should have been held.

“Going forward, in just the last few hours, it has been straightened out at least prospectively such that any request for DACA-based advance parole will also be held in the pending bucket,” Pezzi said.

[[Supreme Court blocks Trump’s bid to end DACA, a win for undocumented ‘dreamers’]]

U.S. District Judge Paul Grimm, who ordered last week that the government comply with court directives to restore the DACA program, ruled Friday that the Trump administration must clarify the program’s status to the public within 30 days. He instructed Pezzi to confirm by next Friday whether the government could commit to updating its U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website and sending receipts to DACA applicants who are confused about whether their applications have been processed.

Grimm also instructed the plaintiffs and defendants to propose a schedule for a briefing on whether the government should be held in contempt.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Emily’s article at the link.

Emily, a former Post intern, is a relatively new addition to the reporting staff, but already showing “superstar potential.” She has shared in a Pulitzer Prize as part of a Team for Breaking News Reporting. Let’s hope that she keeps reporting on immigration issues as part of her local news beat!

Time to start taking names and throwing the criminals on the DHS payroll in jail! Their overall performance on DACA — a highly beneficial program favored by the vast majority of Americans that is actually helping us get through the pandemic — would have been a “no brainer” for a competent Administration. Instead, the “malicious incompetents” at DHS are showing why under their rancid leadership USCIS has become morally as well as fiscally bankrupt.

“Humanity in a bucket” is a very accurate description of the Trump regime’s racist, xenophobic, intentionally cruel, and, perhaps most of all, dehumanizing immigration polices. They diminish the humanity of every American every day they remain in office.

Due Process Forever! Kakistocracy, Never!

PWS

07-25-20

🏴‍☠️☠️🤮⚰️🤡FRIDAY SPECIAL: COMBINED KAKISTICROCY KORNER ☠️ & CLOWN COURT 🤡 REPORT — EOIR GOES TOTAL FUBAR! — Local Chief Federal Prosecutors To Decide If, How, & When So-Called Immigration “Courts” (More Accurately, “Star Chambers”) Will Reopen!

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

Star Chamber Justice — “Justice”
Star Chamber
Style

Subject: Re: [fedcourtlitigation] immigration court reopening in the hands of us attorney offices?

It was confirmed by EOIR Director McHenry today during the EOIR forum during the AILA conference.

Sabrina [Damast]

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 2:31 PM Jorjani, Raha; Public Defender wrote:

It was announced yesterday at an IJ townhall that the decision of whether, when, and how to reopen Immigration Courts across the nation was in the hands of local U.S. Attorney offices. Has anyone seen any official support for this suggestion? I can’t seem to find a memo or other policy directive about it.

RAHA JORJANI| Supervising Immigration Defense Attorney, [Alameda County Public Defenders]

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

The solution seems pretty obvious. With a coronavirus stimulus package coming up, the Dems should insist on:

Defunding of EOIR;
Transfer of all EOIR responsibilities and remaining funding for this fiscal year and any future fiscal years until an Article I or Article III Immigration Court is established to U.S. Magistrate Judges and the Administrative Office for U.S. Courts;
Absolute prohibition on any contact with the transferred functions by any employee of the Executive Branch except 1) a Government Attorney appearing in a particular matter; and 2) attendance at a meeting including representative members of the public to discuss fair and efficient Immigration Court administration.

Problem would be solved, for now. Moreover, this would provide the necessary “incentives” for the Article III Courts to establish a fair and efficient due process framework for Immigration Court proceedings that could be a model for the eventual Article I or Article III legislation. Put an immediate end to “malicious incompetence” by the DOJ and the Trump regime!

Due Process Forever! America’s Star Chambers,☠️⚰️ Never!

PWS

07-24-20

BIA SHOOTS UNREPRESENTED RESPONDENT ON “DIVISIBILITY” ANALYSIS — MATTER OF P-B-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 43 (BIA 2020) — Like Shooting Fish 🐟 In A Barrel 🛢!

MATTER OF P-B-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 43 (BIA 2020)

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1296956/download

BIA HEADNOTE:

Section 13-3407 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, which criminalizes possession of a dangerous drug, is divisible with regard to the specific “dangerous drug” involved in a violation of that statute.

PANEL: Board Panel: GREER and O’CONNOR, Appellate Immigration Judges; SWANWICK, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge.

OPINION: O’CONNOR, Appellate Immigration Judge

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

You think this isn’t “Theater of The Absurd?” Let’s check out Fns 5 & 6 from the opinion:

5 We recognize that the Ninth Circuit, in whose jurisdiction this case arises, utilized a modified categorical inquiry in Alvarado, 759 F.3d at 1130–33, to discern whether an alien’s conviction under section 13-3407 involved a federally controlled substance and was therefore a predicate for removal under section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. However, the Ninth Circuit did not expressly analyze the divisibility of section 13-3407 in that decision, nor did the court have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s articulation of divisibility in Mathis. Moreover, the circuit recently certified a similar issue to the Arizona Supreme Court. See Romero-Millan v. Barr, 958 F.3d 844, 849 (9th Cir. 2020) (asking the court to resolve whether Arizona statutes proscribing possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of a narcotic drug under sections 13-3415 and 13-3408 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, respectively, are divisible with respect to the identity of the drug involved in each offense). For these reasons, we do not consider Alvarado to be persuasive authority regarding the divisibility of section 13-3407, which, in light of Romero-Millan, we view as an unsettled issue in the Ninth Circuit.

6 We acknowledge that State v. Prescott, No. 1 CA-CR 15-0188, 2016 WL 611656, at *2 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2016), and State v. Castorina, No. 1 CA-CR 08-0816, 2010 WL 2450117, at *4 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 17, 2010), suggest that the identity of the “dangerous drug” involved in a violation of section 13-3407 is not an element of the statute. However, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona recently reviewed both cases, found that their reasoning was flawed, and concluded that Arizona case law fails to provide a “clear answer[] as to the divisibility” of section 13-3407. United States v. Sanchez-Murillo, No. CR-19-00795-PHX-SPL, 2019 WL 3858606, at *2–3 (D. Ariz. Aug. 16, 2019) (alteration in original) (citation omitted). Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Prescott or Castorina “definitively answer[s] whether the dangerous drug requirement of [section] 13-3407[] is divisible.” Gonzalez-Dominguez v. Sessions, 743 F. App’x 808, 811 (9th Cir. 2018).

So, how do you think that the unrepresented, almost certainly detained, respondent did on these issues, assuming that he even can read the BIA’s decision or have someone accurately read It to him?

The whole Immigration Court System has become a judicially and Congressionally-enabled “Due Process Farce” befitting a third word failed state that our country now resembles under the Trump kakistocracy.

NO, those who say our democratic institutions are “holding up” under Trump are living in a parallel universe!

PWS

07-24-20

🎥🎞📺NEW NETFLIX DOCUMENTARY SERIES SHOWS DHS’S CRUEL, MISGUIDED, WASTEFUL ENFORCEMENT UNDER TRUMP — Not Surprisingly, The Regime Wants To Suppress The Truth — At Least Until After The Election — Caitlin Dickerson @ NY Times Reports

Caitlin Dickerson
National Immigration Reporter
NY Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/trump-immigration-nation-netflix.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuonUktbfq4hkT1UZACbIRp87tACDnb3Oxbk9iWX3MCmST3NExvgUBI7F_UrRa65id50zwzGfDpdnAYMYecZTnKVZLlA_DE6huIeFk5AIZC4_-Ni-B21ompyQB-x9rG6wYCywI-khgeXkskqLPTO-XaCM1WYzZ1ow-esTfl-h2nQJz6bBA7Q1joE4haF9c8g8ETQQZyCKvu3qDQF-PbiFbRLc7woxXYJJSG2Z3I7cu_9bLlIkWR-RR2h_4G0-9NpWJNoSWa7_JBUmc8b06q4DCJCm1elPvSY5zqibk_nysQ&smid=em-share

Caitlin reports:

In early 2017, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement prepared to carry out the hard-line agenda on which President Trump had campaigned, agency leaders jumped at the chance to let two filmmakers give a behind-the-scenes look at the process.

But as the documentary neared completion in recent months, the administration fought mightily to keep it from being released until after the 2020 election. After granting rare access to parts of the country’s powerful immigration enforcement machinery that are usually invisible to the public, administration officials threatened legal action and sought to block parts of it from seeing the light of day.

Some of the contentious scenes include ICE officers lying to immigrants to gain access to their homes and mocking them after taking them into custody. One shows an officer illegally picking the lock to an apartment building during a raid.

At town hall meetings captured on camera, agency spokesmen reassured the public that the organization’s focus was on arresting and deporting immigrants who had committed serious crimes. But the filmmakers observed numerous occasions in which officers expressed satisfaction after being told by supervisors to arrest as many people as possible, even those without criminal records.

“Start taking collaterals, man,” a supervisor in New York said over a speakerphone to an officer who was making street arrests as the filmmakers listened in. “I don’t care what you do, but bring at least two people,” he said.

The filmmakers, Christina Clusiau and Shaul Schwarz, who are a couple, turned drafts of their six-part project called “Immigration Nation” over to ICE leadership in keeping with a contract they had signed with the agency. What they encountered next resembled what happened to Mary L. Trump, the president’s niece, who was eventually sued in an unsuccessful attempt to stop her from publishing a memoir that revealed embarrassing details about the president and his associates.

Suddenly, Ms. Clusiau and Mr. Schwarz say, the official who oversaw the agency’s television and film department, with whom they had worked closely over nearly three years of filming, became combative.

The filmmakers discussed their conversations on the condition that the officials they dealt with not be named out of fear that it would escalate their conflict with the agency.

. . . .

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

Read Caitlin’s full article at the link.

The multi-part documentary begins airing on Netflix on August 3. You can watch the trailer at this link:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjj05eA9eXqAhXagnIEHR5UBd4QwqsBMAJ6BAgKEAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DX_xVKy58Yuw&usg=AOvVaw3B6_C_v-0f__UPQyLHJ-fy

See firsthand how your tax dollars are being largely wasted on cruel, unnecessary terrorizing of ethnic communities and populating the “New American Gulag” — “enforcement” that in too many cases actually harms our economy and our society and certainly diminishes both our integrity and humanity as a nation.

Catlin’s concluding paragraphs are worth keeping in mind:

The filmmakers said they came away with some empathy for the ICE officers, but became convinced that the entire system was harmful to immigrants and their families.

The problem, they said, was summarized in the first episode by Becca Heller, the director of the International Refugee Assistance Project.

“Is a government agency evil? No. Is every single person inside ICE evil? No,” Ms. Heller told the filmmakers. “The brilliance of the system is that their job has been siphoned off in such a way that maybe what they see day to day seems justified, but when you add it up, all of the people just doing their job, it becomes this crazy terrorizing system.”

We have all been harmed by Trump’s racist-driven “weaponization” of DHS and the Immigration Courts, and that includes the DHS employees and the Immigration Court employees who are caught up in this grotesque, often illegal, and overall immoral abuse of government authority and resources.

We should also be concerned about the First Amendment implications of Trump’s attempts to misuse Government authority to manipulate the election in his favor by, once again, suppressing truth in reporting. Thank goodness we have courageous journalists like Caitlin and these filmmakers to keep exposing the ugly truth about the Trump/Miller/Wolf/Barr ongoing White Nationalist immigration charade.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-24-20

🤮☠️⚰️👎THE UGLY ROLE OF RACISM IN THE AMERICAN “RULE OF LAW” FICTION — Administrative Law & The Administrative State Deeply Rooted In Racism — When You Hear Racists Like Trump, Miller, Barr, Wolf, & Cotton Refer To The “Rule Of Law” They Actually Mean The Rule Of White Supremacy!

🏴‍☠️

https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/the-racial-roots-of-the-federal-administrative-state-by-jonathan-weinberg/

The Racial Roots of the Federal Administrative State, by Jonathan Weinberg

July 20, 2020

Symposium on Racism in Administrative Law

SHARE:

Federal administrative agencies have existed since this nation’s founding – the First Congress created the Patent Office, the Departments of War, Foreign Affairs, and Treasury, and more. But in the century that followed, Congress rarely tasked any of those agencies with adjudicating the status of individuals so as to hand out benefits and burdens.[1]  The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, to be sure, broke that pattern. It established a set of federal commissioners to make the most consequential determination of individual status possible – a ruling that a person was or was not an escaped slave, to be handed over to a purported owner or his agent. The procedure established for that determination bore no relation to anything we would think of as modern administrative law. Slaveholders provided testimony ex parte, and the alleged slaves could say nothing; commissioners received higher fees for ruling in slaveholders’ favor than for ruling against them.

The next important time the federal government set up an agency to adjudicate the legal status of individuals, its methods were different. Like the Fugitive Slave Act, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 enabled a system of racial oppression. But in contrast to the Fugitive Slave Act, which covered freewheeling lawlessness with the barest fig leaf of administrative legality, the Chinese Exclusion Act gave rise to a body of administrative law, and a body of administrative mechanisms and methods, that survived and lie at the root of today’s administrative state.[2]

The Chinese Exclusion Act reflected deep racial prejudice. U.S. Congress members and others attacked Chinese people as disease-ridden, dishonest, degraded, and incapable of self-government; “a race of people,” in the words of the California Supreme Court, “whom nature has marked as inferior.” Legislatures enacted legal attacks including state laws (many struck down in court) forbidding them from securing business licenses, working for corporations, fishing in public waters, owning real estate, working mining claims, or indeed entering the state. Mobs engaged in anti-Chinese mass violence, such as the burning of Seattle’s Chinatown in 1885.

The 1882 federal statute forbade the entry of most Chinese into the United States, and directed the deportation of any Chinese person who had entered in violation of its requirements. This performance of racism, though, required a new bureaucracy facing new challenges.  The U.S. had never before enacted a large-scale restriction on entry of free persons. It had no passport or visa infrastructure; the law would not require white noncitizens arriving on our shores to present passports for another 35 years. So the bureaucracy had to break new ground in enforcing the statute and the fine distinctions it drew.

How were officers to adjudicate whether a person seeking to enter the U.S. was a forbidden Chinese laborer or a permitted upper-class “merchant”? a forbidden new entrant or a permitted returning resident?[3] or, indeed, whether the person was a U.S. citizen, since lower courts had ruled as early as 1884 that anyone born in the U.S. was a citizen with full rights to leave the U.S. and return?

For that matter, how were federal officers to know whether any ethnically Chinese person living in the U.S. had legal status? The system’s underlying assumptions, repeated over and over by policy-makers, were first, that Chinese people would routinely lie to gain immigration benefits; and second, that they were physically nearly indistinguishable from one another. What sort of bureaucracy could be put in place to make their status visible?

To answer those questions, Congress and the agency (first the Customs Bureau, then the Bureau of Immigration in the Treasury Department, then the same Bureau in the Department of Commerce and Labor) developed new techniques of bureaucratic investigation and control.  They provided for initial adjudications by line personnel with the possibility of internal administrative appeal. They provided for agency rulemaking and federal-state partnerships.  Their targets brought challenges in sometimes-sympathetic courts, leading to battles over the availability of judicial review, exhaustion, the “jurisdictional fact” doctrine, burdens of proof, standards of review, and the demands of due process. There were controversies over the scope of government’s enforcement discretion in light of resource constraints.

We can see, in other words, the seeds of nearly all of modern administrative law in the administration of Chinese exclusion. To bolster that system, Congress mandated that every Chinese migrant in the U.S. carry federally-issued identification papers with his or her photograph and identifying information. The Bureau put in place increasingly elaborate, searchable and cross-referenced, databases of information about Chinese individuals, to be used in connection with systematic and standardized interviews of would-be entrants and applicants for immigration benefits. For a time, it mandated that some Chinese individuals be subject to a system of precise body measurement developed for identifying criminals.

The Chinese exclusion regime worked badly, and was never very good at achieving its stated goals. It was effective in enforcing racial domination.  If you were an ethnically Chinese person in the U.S. in that time period, you lived subject to the possibility of arrest on suspicion of illegal presence. The exclusion laws enabled, on a broad scale, the humiliation, labelling, and arbitrary detention of individual Chinese.

But the system of Chinese exclusion was not just an exercise in domination and humiliation. It was conceived, rather, as embedding racial hierarchy within the rule of law. Its framers hoped to achieve accurate determinations, within a legal structure, regarding the racially-motivated categories into which individuals should be sorted. That legal structure incorporated the possibility of judicial review. It required a functioning system of federal administrative law. To that end, racial exclusion laid the groundwork for much of modern public administration and administrative law. That’s our heritage. Our current system grew from that soil.

Jon Weinberg is Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development and Professor of Law at Wayne State University Law School. Follow him on Twitter here.

[1]           One exception: the U.S. military pension system: Congress as early as 1776 legislated pensions for disabled Revolutionary War veterans. In 1818, it extended pension eligibility to anyone who had served in the Continental Army and needed public assistance. This required it to develop procedures for determining whether claimants were disabled, whether their injuries were incurred as part of their service, whether they were indigent, and more. Most of that work, though, was done by local judges sitting as benefits adjudicators.

[2]           Gabriel (Jack) Chin first made this point in his pioneering Regulating Race: Asian Exclusion and the Administrative State, 37 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 1 (2002).

[3]           Initially, the law allowed Chinese people already resident in the U.S. to leave here and return; the government would close that door in 1888 (stranding many U.S. residents outside the country), and then partially reopen it in 1894.

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

Obvious solutions:

All Administrative “Courts” are inherently unconstitutional and should be abolished forthwith;
An expanded Article I independent judiciary;
Demonstrated commitment to equal justice under law and rejecting racism in all forms as an absolute requirement for future Article III Judicial appointments.

PWS

07-24-20

🤮👎🏻☠️CHILD ABUSERS ON THE LOOSE — Rosenstein & Sessions Still At Large Even As Those Whose Lives Were Destroyed By Their Unconstitutional Actions Continue To Suffer Irreparable Harm — A Complete Institutional Meltdown Across All Three Branches Leaves U.S. As A Major Human Rights Abuser! — How Low Will We Go Before We Finally Say “No” To Racist Abuses! — “The family separations that followed are seen today by experts as one of the gravest domestic human rights violations to have occurred under the Trump administration.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/23/child-separation-migrants-prosecutors-rod-rosenstein?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

From The Guardian:

Revealed: Rod Rosenstein advised there was no age limit on child separations

Former deputy attorney general’s 2018 conference call with US prosecutors in border states shocked some participants, Guardian learns

Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington

Published:

06:00 Thursday, 23 July 2020

Follow Stephanie Kirchgaessner

Rod Rosenstein, the former deputy attorney general, advised US attorneys implementing the 2018 zero-tolerance policy that there could be no blanket ban on prosecuting migrant parents who had children under the age of five, the Guardian has learned.

The comments on a conference call in May 2018 privately shocked some border state prosecutors because, in effect, it meant that no child was too young to be separated from its parents under the policy, which called for all migrants entering the US illegally to face criminal prosecution.

‘Suddenly they started gassing us’: Cuban migrants tell of shocking attack at Ice prison

The family separations that followed are seen today by experts as one of the gravest domestic human rights violations to have occurred under the Trump administration.

The policy was in place for six weeks and resulted in the separation of 2,814 children from their parents and guardians, about 105 of whom were under the age of five and 1,033 under 10.

Rosenstein issued his guidance to US attorneys from states on the Mexican border about two weeks after the then attorney general, Jeff Sessions, issued an order that there would be an “escalated effort” to prosecute all illegal entries into the US along the southern border, according to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to the Guardian under the condition of anonymity.

Previously, under the Obama administration, most families who crossed the border illegally were detained together if they were arrested or were released pending an immigration trial, but were only separated if authorities deemed children to be in danger.

There were questions among the border state US attorneys at that time about how the zero-tolerance policy would be implemented and the conference call with Rosenstein sought to address those issues.

On the call, one US attorney, John Bash of the western district of Texas, said he had declined to prosecute several cases that had been referred to him by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that involved children under the age of five.

In response, sources familiar with the matter said Rosenstein told the US attorneys that they could not decline to prosecute cases based on the age of the children who would be separated from their parents because there was “no categorical exemption” under the order.

During the call, Rosenstein was also asked whether prosecutors could decline to prosecute parents with children who only spoke indigenous languages, meaning they were unable to communicate in English or Spanish, or those whose children had intellectual disabilities. Rosenstein said that prosecutors could opt to decline to prosecute individuals with children under those two circumstances on a case-by-case basis, sources said.

The comments were met with shock by some of the US attorneys, sources said, because there was concern that children who were under the age of five would not know their own names or their parents’ names and that it posed a risk of children potentially getting lost in the system.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link.

What does this say about firms like King & Spaulding who offer employment and “cover” to human rights abusers like Rosenstein? Why is serving a racist, neo-Nazi, would-be authoritarian regime considered “OK” by “big law” and other supposedly “legitimate” employers? Where’s the outrage?

If human lives and human dignity matter, why is Rosenstein on anyone’s payroll? Why is he still licensed to practice law?

On the bright side: Unapologetic White Nationalist racist “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions is finally off the public dole, hopefully for good.

PWS

07-23-20

PWS

07-23-20

👍IT’S A START, BUT STILL A LONG, LONG WAY TO GO: House-Passed Bill To Begin Removing The Stain Of Trump’s White Nationalism Is Also A Long-Overdue Exposure & Put Down Of Roberts’ Court’s Abject Failure To Stand For Equal Justice For All & Against Trump’s Overtly Unconstitutional Bigotry & “Dred Scottificaton” Of The Other!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/23/house-votes-remove-moral-stain-trumps-immigration-policies/

Jason Rezaian writes in WashPost:

In 2016, presidential candidate Donald Trump pledged sweeping changes to immigration policy. As president, Trump has succeeded — despite a broad public outcry and many legal roadblocks — in implementing many of his proposed restrictions through a series of executive orders.

Now Congress is pushing back. On Wednesday the House passed the No Ban Act, legislation introduced last year by Sen Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.). The act aims to repeal Trump’s ban on arrivals from majority-Muslim countries and prevent future presidents from issuing discriminatory bans on foreign nationals or followers of specific religions.

“Throughout the history of the U.S., we’ve had a series of tragic nativist chapters in our history,” Coons told me this week. “Did I think we’d be facing another one? No. But when Donald Trump announced his candidacy, I remember thinking I am so glad I live in a country where a man like this couldn’t be president. I was wrong, and we’ve seen how damaging that has been.”

In recent months, the novel coronavirus pandemic, the associated economic downturn, and protests over police killings of African Americans have diverted public attention from Trump’s immigration policies. But they must not be forgotten.

Trump’s plans for an immigration ban have inspired widespread outrage. Some dismissed Trump’s words as empty threats, noting that they were probably unconstitutional. But Trump pressed ahead as soon as he took office.

The first iteration of what became known as the Muslim ban halted entry into the United States of citizens from seven countries, five of which are majority-Muslim.

Since then we’ve watched as immigration officials have separated kids from their parents in detention centers, with at least one of them dying in custody. The images of children in cages provoked an intense backlash and could end up costing Trump at the polls — to the extent that his policies have led his own voters, especially college-educated white Republican women, to question his xenophobic and racist policies.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Jason’s op-ed at the above link.

Somewhat like Sen. Coons, I originally thought that there would be some institutional integrity and moral courage even among the more conservative members of our Judiciary, particularly among the Supremes. After all, there have been at least a few times in our history when judges across the ideological and political spectrum have stood together against the evils of racism, religious bigotry, and hate.

It’s not like Trump, Miller, Bannon, Sessions, Ross, and their hate-mongering cronies were ever particularly subtle about their invidious intent (although, to be fair, I was at the very beginning willing to give Sessions “the benefit of the doubt,” until I saw that his assurances to the Senate were lies under oath in the face of the deep moral corruption and bigotry that infected his whole being).

Boy was I wrong! Right from the git go, even with the advantage of clear evidence of invidious intent, ridiculously transparent and overtly dishonest “pretexts,” (some publicly contradicted by Trump in mid-stream) and the vast majority of lower Federal Court Judges pointing the way with cogent opinions standing up to the Trump charade and endless parade of hate, the Supremes majority tanked. Where the rights of “the other” particularly Muslims and persons color are concerned, they fully embraced Trump’s unconstitutional and tyrannical program of hate and bias thinly disguised as legitimate exercises of Executive Power. They became willing “Dred Scottifiers!”

Perhaps just as seriously, the Supremes’ “normalized” demonstrable lies, false narratives, and dishonesty as attributes that were to be expected and tolerated from our Chief Executive. What a crock! Ordinary persons are held to basic standards of honesty and candor when dealing with the Government and with Government tribunals. But the President is above it all. While, later on, the Supremes fecklessly claimed that “nobody is above the law,” their actions have shown a disturbing and intellectually dishonest unwillingness to require Trump and his regime to comply with the basics of the rule of law and to act with even a minimal level of candor and honesty.

We can’t vote the “JR Five” out of their lifetime sinecures. But, our democracy does enable us to take the actions necessary to insure that folks like the “JR Five” and other Federal Judges who embrace racism, bigotry, and political corruption over the “equal justice and real due process for all persons” required by our Constitution are not selected to serve in the future in positions requiring legal experiences and moral qualifications that they so obviously lack.

Better judges for a better America. This November, vote like the future of humanity depends on it. Because it does!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-23-20

🤮👎☠️SCREWED: ICE, Advocates, Judge Conspiring To Sell Out Refugee Kids & Families To Illegal Racist Scheme Called “Binary Choice” To Disguise Invidious Intent!

Michelle Hackman
Immigration Reporter
Wall Street Journal

Alicia A. Caldwell
Immigration Reporter
Wall Street Journal

https://apple.news/A4SQ_qG_DSme90hH0KK4C4g

Michelle Hackman and Alicia Caldwell report for the WSJ:

WASHINGTON—The Trump administration is nearing a deal with some immigrant advocates that would present a choice to jailed parents fighting denial of asylum: let their children be released without them or remain detained together indefinitely, according to federal court filings and lawyers for the children.

The deal is being negotiated between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and attorneys representing roughly 100 children in detention, a development that has divided the pro-immigrant advocacy community.

If enacted, the “binary choice” plan, as it is known, would realize a long-sought goal by the Trump administration not to release immigrant families seeking asylum together in the U.S. Many of these families report fleeing gang violence, poverty or corruption in Central American countries. The plan would allow parents to choose between releasing their children to relatives in the U.S. or long-term foster care, or keeping their families in detention, waiving rights given to the children under a 23-year-old court settlement.

That settlement, known as the Flores agreement, requires ICE to release migrant children in its custody, not entire families, though past administrations, including the Trump administration until last year, largely complied with it by releasing children together with their parents.

Most immigrant advocates oppose “binary choice,” arguing it is tantamount to a new family separation policy, akin to a policy the administration adopted briefly in 2018 to prosecute all adults crossing the border illegally. The policy resulted in children being taken away from those adults. The government halted those family separations after a broad bipartisan outcry, though it has been looking for other ways to deter migrant families from seeking asylum ever since.

“Asking a parent to choose between indefinite detention in a place where there is already a Covid outbreak and being separated from your child for an undetermined length of time, that is a coercive situation,” said Stephanie Alvarez-Jones, a staff attorney with Proyecto Dilley, which provides legal representation to families at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas.

The lawyers working with ICE, who represent the children in continuing enforcement of the Flores agreement, say they are left with little choice and aim to protect the best interests of the migrant children.

“By negotiating, we’ve been able to substantially lessen the harshness of ICE’s proposal,” said Peter Schey, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, which has managed the Flores Agreement.

ICE declined to comment on the details of the case, citing the pending litigation.

. . . .

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

Those with full WSJ access can read the complete article at the link.

It’s not rocket science. “Binary choice” is nothing but a racist scam designed by Stephen Miller and other White Nationalists in the regime primarily to punish asylum seekers of color and their children for seeking legal protection, to traumatize and duress them into giving up potentially valid claims, to inflict lasting psychological harm on non-white populations, and to serve as an example and deterrent to others who might dare to exercise their legal rights in the face of tyranny by a racist Executive. All of the foregoing are in clear violation of the 5^th, 8^th, and 14^th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, not to mention our asylum statutes and international instruments to which we supposedly are party. You don’t need a law degree to figure that out.

Those who have engineered, furthered, and gone along to get along with these gross abuses of children and betrayals of the human rights and dignity of the most vulnerable among us will not escape the judgment of history. Sadly, that will be small consolation for the multitude of broken bodies, traumatized minds, and damaged souls that they leave in their ugly wake!

⁴²For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

⁴³I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

⁴⁴Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

⁴⁵Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

—— Matthew 25

Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-23-20

🏴‍☠️AFFIRMATIVE MISCONDUCT — 2d Cir. Calls Out DHS Misconduct, Reacts To DOJ’s Questionable Litigating “Strategy” In Equitable Estoppel Case — Schwebel v. Crandall

Jeffrey Feinbloom
Partner
Feinbloom Bertisch LLP
NY, NY

Schwebel v. Crandall, 18-3391 (2d Cir. July 22, 2020)

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1950544751001345123&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Attorney Jeffrey Feinbloom reports:

I am pleased to announce a big win today before the Second Circuit. The Opinion is attached.

The Court held that the government is equitably estopped from denying an application for adjustment of status where: (1) it commits “affirmative misconduct” by failing to comply with an affirmatively required procedure – in this case, the failure to issue a Receipt or Rejection Notice in response to an attempted filing; (2) the applicant reasonably relies on the agency’s misconduct/inaction; and (3) the applicant is prejudiced thereby.

The interesting twist in this case is that the Court declined to reach the underlying statutory issue – concerning the CSPA – on which the District Court ruled in our favor. My take, having litigated and argued the case in both courts, is that the panel was genuinely flabbergasted that the government was pursuing the appeal and took the opportunity to stick it to DHS and issue a ruling on estoppel. The District Court did not even address estoppel, which was my alternative argument and occupied less than 5% of my briefing. My understanding is that the District Court decision – affirmed on other grounds – can still be cited for the substantive/legal conclusions it made regarding the CSPA. (Please correct me if I am wrong).

__________________________________

Jeffrey A. Feinbloom

FEINBLOOM BERTISCH LLP

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

Thanks, Jeffrey. The term “Affirmative Misconduct” could be used to describe the overall conduct of DHS and the entire immigraton kakistocracy under the Trump regime.

Historical Footnote: I worked on Corniel-Rodriguez v. INS, 532 F.2d 301, 306-07 (2d Cir. 1976) (holding that government official’s “noncompliance with an affirmatively required procedure” constituted “severe” misconduct, and reversing Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order of deportation without remanding to agency for fact-finding or further proceedings) when I was a young attorney in the “Legacy INS” Office of General Counsel, then headed by the legendary immigration guru Sam Bernsen, in 1976.

The Corniel-Rodriguez case led directly to the eventual creation of the section 212(k) waiver for innocent misrepresentations on visa applications as part of a larger “INS Efficiency Bill” proposed by our Office and eventually enacted by Congress. Just shows that there was a time when those running the U.S. immigration system actually “did the right thing,” at least on some occasions. Perhaps not surprisingly, “doing the right thing” often also proved to be the “efficient thing” by promoting justice and avoiding unnecessary, and often losing, litigation.

Those days, of course, are long gone. The Government immigration system is now run by hacks lacking both expertise and values and who, with the assistance of the DOJ, intentionally clog the Federal Courts with litigation that likely would have been deemed frivolous, unethical, or at least not in the best interests of the public in earlier times.

It also highlights a severe deterioration in the performance of the Solicitor General’s Office in the DOJ. That office used to encourage all Federal agencies to develop administrative solutions in cases where, after review of the Article III Courts’ “adverse decisions,” the agency position below appeared to be indefensible in future litigation.

Now, the Solicitor General is actually a “cheerleader” for some racially motivated appeals against lower court decisions correctly favoring immigrants and asylum seekers. These appeals are often “supported” by very obvious pretexts for invidious actions by the regime. Given the lack of integrity, courage, and commitment to racial justice on the current Supremes’ majority, the “bad guys” sometimes improperly prevail.

But, it’s actually no more mystery to outgoing Solicitor General Noel Francisco what motivates Stephen Miller & co. than it is to the rest of us. It’s just that Francisco has consciously chosen to be “part of the problem,” something that should be remembered when the history of his disgraceful tenure in office is written.

It also shows that whenever we finally get a return to “Good Government,” a “cleanout” of EOIR and creation of an Article I Immigration Court needs to be the first thing on the list; but, a thorough re-examination of the role of every part of a corrupt DOJ that has failed to act independently and has furthered a program of overt racism, inequality, and injustice, and often argued disingenuously for “worst practices and worst interpretations,” is also an absolute necessity.

To state the obvious, the fairness and efficiency of our immigration system as well as our entire U.S. Justice system is actually in full throttle reverse under the Trump kakistocracy.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-23-20

🤡CLOWN COURT REPORT: “Judging Lite” — Squeezed By A Bigoted AG Who Usurped Their Role While Driving Them To Rubber Stamp More Mindless Denials, The Bigger (Not Better) BIA’s Intellectual Output Shrinks To The Size Of A Pea, According To “The Asylumist,” Jason Dzubow

https://www.asylumist.com/2020/07/15/the-unbearable-lightness-of-bia-ing-ten-year-anniversary-edition/

Way back in 2010, I did a blog post about the Board of Immigration Appeals, where I complained that the Board issues too few decisions and does not provide enough guidance to Immigration Judges. Ten years later, things are no better. In fact, based on the available data, the Board is publishing even fewer decisions these days than it did back in the late aughts. Here, we’ll take a look at the situation in 2010, and then review where things stand now.

Before we get to that, we have to answer a preliminary question: What is the Board of Immigration Appeals? According to the BIA Practice Manual—

The Board of Immigration Appeals is the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws. The Board is responsible for applying the immigration and nationality laws uniformly throughout the United States. Accordingly, the Board has been given nationwide jurisdiction to review the orders of Immigration Judges and certain decisions made by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and to provide guidance to the Immigration Judges, DHS, and others, through published decisions. The Board is tasked with resolving the questions before it in a manner that is timely, impartial, and consistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act and regulations, and to provide clear and uniform guidance to Immigration Judges, DHS, and the general public on the proper interpretation and administration of the Immigration and Nationality Act and its implementing regulations.

Having completed their one published decision for the year, some BIA Board Members take a well-earned rest.

In essence, the BIA is supposed to be the Supreme Court of immigration law. But because the Board issues so few published decisions, it is not fulfilling its duties to provide guidance or ensure that laws are applied uniformly throughout the country. This is not a recent problem.

If you look back at the data from a decade ago, you will see that in 2007, the BIA decide a total of 35,394 cases and had 45 published decisions. In 2008, it decided 38,369 cases and published 33 decisions, and in 2009, it decided 33,103 cases and published 34 decisions. This means that for every 1,000 cases the Board decides, it publishes about 1 case. Looked at another way, during 2007, 2008, and 2009, the Board had about 15 Members (judges on the BIA are called Board Members). This means that in its most prolific year (2007), each Board Member would have had to publish three cases. I’m told that publishing a case is a real production, but even so, three cases per year? That seems pretty weak. The not-very-surprising result is that the Board is not providing the guidance that Immigration Judges need, and this contributes to a situation where different adjudicators are interpreting the law in widely inconsistent ways.

Fast forward 10 year and the situation is no better. In FY2016, the Board decided 33,241 cases and in FY2017, it decided 31,820 cases. In each year, the Board published just 27 decisions. In FY2018, the Board decided 29,788 cases and published 38 decisions, and in FY2019, the BIA published 22 decisions (EOIR has not released data about the number of cases adjudicated by the Board in FY2019). Indeed, in 2018 and 2019, the situation is even worse than these numbers suggest. That’s because in 2018, of the 38 published BIA decisions, 15 were actually decided by the Attorney General (meaning only 23 were decided by the BIA). In 2019, the AG published six cases, meaning that the Board itself published a paltry 16 decision, or–given the expanded number of Board Members–less than one published decision per Member.

Let’s digress for one moment to discuss the difference between an Attorney General decision and a BIA decision. The BIA derives its decision-making authority from the Attorney General. This means that the AG has power to decide immigration appeals, but he has given that authority to the specialists on the Board, who presumably know more about immigration law than their boss. However, because decision-making power ultimately comes from the AG, he can “certify” a case to himself and then issue a decision, which has precedential authority over Immigration Judges and over the Board itself. This means that if the Board issues a decision that the AG does not like, he can change it. Prior to the Trump Administration, AGs generally deferred to the Board and rarely certified cases to themselves for decisions. In the last two years of the Obama Administration, for example, the AG issued a total of three published decisions, two in 2015 and one in 2016, as compared to 21 AG decisions in 2018 and 2019 (to be fair, the Trump Administration did not issue any AG decisions in 2017). The main reason for the AG to issue decisions is to more forcefully implement the current Administration’s immigration agenda. Many who work in the field oppose this type of politicization of the immigration law, and organizations such as the National Association of Immigration Judges (the judges’ union) have been pushing for an independent court system.

Aside from politicization of the law, one result of the AG’s more active role in issuing decisions has been to sideline the BIA. I imagine this is not good for morale. Essentially, the “Supreme Court of Immigration Law” has been relegated to deciding unpublished decisions, which contribute little to improving the overall practice of law.

In any event, it has always surprised me how few decisions the BIA publishes. Chapter 1 of the BIA Practice Manual provides: “Decisions selected for publication meet one or more of several criteria, including but not limited to: the resolution of an issue of first impression; alteration, modification, or clarification of an existing rule of law; reaffirmation of an existing rule of law; resolution of a conflict of authority; and discussion of an issue of significant public interest.” Frankly, it is difficult to believe that fewer than one case in one thousand satisfies these criteria. As I wrote in 2010–

Although it might be more work over the short term, if the Board published more frequently, Immigration Judge decisions would become more consistent–creating less work for the BIA over the long term. It would also make life easier for the federal courts of appeals, saving government resources. Finally–and most important from my point of view–it would create more certainty and predictability for immigrants and their families.

All this remains true. But after three years of the Trump Administration appointing Board Members, many of whom are considered hostile to immigrants, perhaps now is not the time to complain about too few published decisions. Maybe. But I still think there exists a desperate need for guidance and consistency, and even the “unfriendly” Board Members are more inclined to follow the law than our current AG. In addition, there are many mundane, non-political issues that simply need deciding (such as this recent BIA decision). Despite the more hostile make-up of the Board, I still believe–as I believed ten years ago–that the BIA should embrace its role as “the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws” and publish more decisions.

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

Careful what you ask for, Jason! While you might see some difference between Billy the Bigot and the current BIA, I haven’t been able to find one. When, indeed, was the last time that a respondent “won” a case in a BIA precedent that wasn’t then certified to the AG for reversal?

On the other hand, I do run across some correctly decided “winners” among the eclectic mix of unpublished BIA decisions that comes across my “Courtside e-desk.” Therefore, I go with Mies van der Rohe on this one: the less frequently we hear from the BIA on precedents the more justice there will be for respondents.

That’s particularly true because the famous “BIA Single-Judge Panel” will sometimes issue inconsistent decisions, one of which actually gets it right and favors the respondent. Inevitably, these days, when such “conflicts” go into the precedent making machine, the respondent always loses. Faced with the choice of consistently sentencing respondents to death or saving a few lives now and then, I’d definitely go with the latter.

Actually, I’d argue that the only legitimate purpose of the Immigration Courts, including the BIA, is to save some lives that need saving. If, as Barr seems to think, it’s just a device to insure everyone gets removed and the decisions are “teed up” for OIL to best defend them on review, who needs it? Spend the money on something more useful — like cemetery plots for all the refugees and asylum seekers we wrongfully turn away.

It’s hardly surprising to me that a “maliciously incompetent” (originally your term, I believe) regime that has more than doubled the number of Immigration Judges while tripling the backlog would produce fewer precedents with more BIA judges. With the Trump/Sessions/Barr DOJ/EOIR kakistocracy, more judges clearly produce more backlog and fewer precedents.

There was a time, my friend, in the “ancient past,” more than two decades ago, when a supposedly “too big to function” BIA issued more than fifty (50) precedents in a year. Not only that, but many were hotly contested, “cutting edge” issues that the BIA took on without being “ordered” by the Courts of Appeals or the DOJ to do so.

The vast majority of those decisions were issued by the full en banc BIA with each judge actually recording a vote so they public knew exactly who stood where on each issue. There also were plenty of separate dissenting and concurring opinions.

Lo and behold, some of those dissents in favor of a fairer assessment of credibility, a more faithfully generous interpretation of asylum law, per Cardoza-Fonseca and Mogharrabi, and a better framework for “categorical analysis” of criminal provisions, eventually found favor with the reviewing Courts of Appeals.

When I taught Refugee Law & Policy at Georgetown Law, I used Aleinikoff & Martin, et al, Forced Migration as a text. A remarkable number of the BIA precedents from that particular era found their way into the book. I, of course, had to “get over” the fact that my buddies, Alex and David, had edited out some of my best dissents from the textbook versions. No matter, I insisted that my students read the “full text” so they could see what a “better answer” to the issue might have been! Many of those former students, in turn, have formed the nucleus of the “New Due Process Army!”

Due Process Forever! “BIA Lite,” Never!

PWS

07-22-20

MORE DEADLY ☠️ MISTAKES: 6th Cir. Finds BIA Ignored Relevant Evidence In Trying To Deny Asylum To Russian Whistleblower — Skripkov v. Barr

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca6-on-asylum-russia-corruption-skripkov-v-barr#

CA6 on Asylum, Russia, Corruption: Skripkov v. Barr

Skripkov v. Barr

“Andrei Skripkov, a citizen of Russia, seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for asylum and the withholding of removal. Skripkov asserted in his application that he was persecuted in his home country on account of his political opinion. He specifically contended that his anticorruption whistleblowing activities motivated Russian officials to persecute him. The IJ and the BIA, on the other hand, found that the officials were motivated solely by their pecuniary interest in furthering a corrupt scheme disrupted by Skripkov. In his petition for review, Skripkov argues that the BIA erred in disregarding evidence that he would be criminally prosecuted for his political opinion if he is returned to Russia. For the reasons set forth below, we GRANT Skripkov’s petition for review and REMAND the case to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Brenna D. Duncan!]

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

When the objective is to reject, not protect, mistakes are inevitable. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Most folks whose lives are being chewed up and spit out by the “designed to be unjust” Immigration Court system don’t have the good fortune to be represented by Brenna D. Duncan or someone of her caliber.

Indeed, under the ongoing illegal travesty that now passes for “justice” in America, most legal asylum seekers are turned away at the border without any hearing or meaningful process at all.

Interestingly, Brenna D. Duncan, a rising superstar at the international commercial law firm of Perkins Coie appears to have practiced primarily in the area of commercial litigation. Yet, she clearly understands immigration and human rights law better than the Immigration Judge and the BIA Appellate Immigration Judges involved in this case.

That’s why actual experience representing immigrants and asylum seekers is such a critical qualification for good Immigration Judges at both the trial and appellate levels as well as being something that should be a factor in appointing future Article III Judges at all levels right up to and particularly including the Supremes. Years of one-sided prosecutorial or law enforcement experience is often no substitute for the “real deal” of experience understanding immigrants and asylum seekers from their perspective.

The current Immigration Court system is intentionally and fatally skewed against asylum seekers, immigrants, due process, and fundamental fairness. Until that changes, equal justice under law will continue to be a cruel, unachieved illusion in our American justice system.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-22-20

🏴‍☠️☠️👎🏻🤮CONSTITUTION IN RUINS: Egged On By Feckless Supremes, Trump Rolls Out Another Racist Attack On Our Constitution & Our Nation By Declaring Undocumented Residents “Non-Persons!” — The “Dred Scottification” Of People Of Color By Trump & His Supremes Continues To Bear Ugly Fruit!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-executive-order-immigrants-redistricting_n_5f1709e0c5b615860bb7f415

The Constitution says the congressional apportionment should be based on the “whole number of persons” in each state. But the president wants to change that.

Reuters, By Alexandra Alper & Nick Brown

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed a memorandum that would prevent migrants who are in the United States illegally from being counted when U.S. congressional voting districts are redrawn in the next round of redistricting.

U.S. Census experts and lawyers say the action is legally dubious. In theory, it would benefit Trump’s Republican Party by eliminating the largely non-white population of migrants in the U.S. illegally, creating voting districts that skew more Caucasian.

. . . .

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

Read the full article at the link.

The Supremes allowed Trump to rewrite the immigration and refugee laws without benefit of legislation.

They allowed him to abrogate the due process clause of our Constitution for persons of color who had the bad fortune to be asylum seekers or immigrants.

They allowed the GOP to revise the Constitution and abrogate the Voting Rights Act to make it more difficult for minorities to vote and to insure that their votes counted for less than their White counterparts.

Now, empowered by Supreme complicity, Trump is going for yet another “do it yourself” Constitutional rewrite.

We have only ourselves to blame for allowing unqualified Justices like the “JR Five” to gain control of our highest Court — what was supposed to be our “final bastion” against Executive tyranny, but has instead become an enabler of “Dred Scottification” — that is “de-humanization” of large segments of our population — disproportionately people of color. Another term used for the Supremes’ majority’s defective performance in the face of Trump’s lawlessness is “Constitutional Castration” (assuming, arguendo, that the Constitution is “male”). Either way, it’s an ugly process.

It’s worth noting that enslaved Africans Americans, those originally subjected to “Dred Scottification,” and still feeling the adverse effects of the Supremes “renewal” of the concept, were counted for “3/5 of a person” under the original Constitution. Undocumented individuals, according to Trump, count for zero, even though they have consistently been counted in the past.

Of course the difference is that the original “3/5 rule” was designed to benefit the racists of the post-colonial South. The “new zero rule” is intended to benefit GOP racists of today.

The “Census case” actually went to the Supremes once. It’s the one where Wilbur Ross perjured himself. Rather than earning disbarment for the DOJ Attorneys who brought that mess before the Court and sanctions against the Administration, Trump got only a mild rebuke from Roberts. Heck, some Justices actually voted in favor of the regime’s racist inspired fraud!

In the process of soft-peddling the Administration’s gross misconduct and intellectual dishonesty, the Supremes’ majority also engaged in a largely fictional “historical analysis” deemed by commentators from the Brennan Center to be “preposterous.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/citizenship-questions-are-not-historically-normal/593014/

That’s strong language. But, actually, it comes to mind frequently with respect to the Roberts’ Court’s various attempts to defeat equal justice and diminish the humanity of non-white -populations under our laws.

This latest Trump memo makes it crystal clear that the original subterfuge for the “citizenship question” — that it was necessary to enforce civil rights laws — utterly laughable — was a complete fraud on the Court. But, don’t expect that exercise of bad faith (“death” to any private party before the Supremes) to make any difference to Trumpian Justices who long ago sold out nation and our Constitution along with their own humanity and integrity.

This latest systemic failure by all three branches could well leave future Congressional apportionments and elections in chaos.

A better America for all requires better, more intellectually honest and morally courageous Justices who stand for the Constitution and against racism in all forms, be it promoted by the Executive, Congress, or their fellow judges. Unhappily, we’re a long way from there right now!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-21-20

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️👎🤮KAKISTOCRACY KORNER: Chase, Schmidt Rip Billy The Bigot’s Appointment Of Hate Grouper To Arlington “Bench” – Failed System Drops All Pretenses Of Fairness & Due Process As Feckless Congress & Complicit Article IIIs Flunk Constitutional Duties! –

https://www.law360.com/immigration/articles/1293543/ex-fair-research-director-among-46-new-immigration-judges

Hannah Albarazi
Federal Courts
Reporter
Law360

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration Judges

Ex-FAIR Research Director Among 46 New Immigration Judges

By Hannah Albarazi

. . . .

“It would be impossible for one to receive a fair hearing before Matthew O’Brien,” Jeffrey Chase, a New York City immigration lawyer and former immigration judge, told Law360. Chase said O’Brien has expressed a view of asylum law that is at odds with the controlling circuit case law that he would be tasked with applying from the bench.

Chase said O’Brien has “basically spouted propaganda for an organization openly hostile to immigration.”

His appointment, Chase said, shows that the Trump administration doesn’t want a fair and independent immigration court and is proof that the Executive Office for Immigration Review needs to be taken out of the control of the Department of Justice, an enforcement agency.

The administration “has repeatedly emphasized to classes of new immigration judges that they are above all employees of the attorney general, who does not believe most asylum seekers are deserving of protection,” Chase said.

These appointments could negatively impact the immigration courts for decades, Chase said.

Paul Wickham Schmidt, a retired U.S. immigration judge who chaired the Board of Immigration Appeals in the Clinton administration, also slammed the recent wave of appointments.

“The idea that these are the 46 best qualified individuals in America to discharge these awesome responsibilities in a fair, impartial and expert manner, in furtherance of due process of law and with recognition of the human rights and human dignity of the individuals whose lives are at stake, is beyond preposterous. It’s a fraud on American justice,” Schmidt told Law360.

Schmidt didn’t mince his words about O’Brien’s appointment either.

“As someone who has helped FAIR spread its racially biased, anti-immigrant, and anti-asylum propaganda and false narratives, O’Brien is not qualified to be a fair and impartial quasi-judicial decision maker as required by the due process clause of our Constitution,” Schmidt said.

. . . .

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

Those with Law360 access can read Hannah’s complete article at the link.

The U.S. Justice system, once the envy of free nations throughout the world, is disintegrating before our eyes. If there is no justice for those whose lives are at stake, there will be no justice for any of us in the Trump/Barr Third World kakistocracy.

Due Process Forever! Corrupt & Feckless Institutions Parodying Justice, Never!

PWS

07-21-20

DRED SCOTTIFICATION OF “THE OTHER” — Supremes’ Anti-Constitutional “De-Personification” Of Asylum Applicants of Color With Lives At Stake Shows Why America Is In A Constitutional & Racial Mess Right Now — Analysis of Thuraissigiam By Professor Elliott Young!

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/176454

Elliott Young is a professor of History at Lewis & Clark College and the author of a forthcoming book Forever Prisoners: How the United States Made the Largest Immigrant Detention System in the World (Oxford University Press).

. . . .

For more than one hundred years, the entry fiction has enabled the US government to deny immigrants due process protections that the 14th Amendment clearly indicates apply “to any person within its jurisdiction.” Although Justice Alito seems to restrict the ruling to people who entered the country within the previous 24 hours and within 25 yards of the border, the logic of the decision poses a more ominous threat to all immigrants who were not lawfully admitted.

As Justice Sotomayor writes in her dissent, “Taken to its extreme, a rule conditioning due process rights on lawful entry would permit Congress to constitutionally eliminate all procedural protections for any noncitizen the Government deems unlawfully admitted and summarily deport them no matter how many decades they have lived here, how settled and integrated they are in their communities, or how many members of their family are U. S. citizens or residents.”

It is this threat to more than 10 million immigrants living in the United States without authorization that makes the Thuraissigiam decision such a blow to the basic principles of freedom and justice. It would be odd for a country that imagines itself to be a beacon of hope for people around the world to deny basic constitutional protections to asylum seekers when they finally cross our threshold.

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

Read the full article at the link.

It’s not rocket science. The Constitution is clear. The “fog” here has to do with the disingenuous “reasoning” and legal gobbledygook cooked up by the majority Justices to deny Constitutional rights to people of color. Better judges for a better America! From voting rights to immigration, the current Supremes’ majority has too often undermined the right of all persons in America to equal justice under law. That’s exactly what institutionalized racism looks like.

Without major changes in all three branches of our failing Federal Government, equal justice for all in America will remain as much of an illusion as it has been since the inception of our nation. We have the power to do more than talk about equal justice — to start taking the necessary political action that will make it a reality. But, do we have the will and the moral courage to make it happen?

This November vote like your life and the life of our nation depend on it! Because they do!

PWS

07-21-20

THE GIBSON REPORT — 07-20-20 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group

COVID-19

Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify the latest policies on the relevant government websites and with colleagues on listservs as best you can.

New

Opening dates for some non-detained courts: Hearings in non-detained cases at courts without an announced date are postponed through, and including, August 7, 2020.

Phased Resumption of Routine Visa Services

NYC Certificate of Conduct and Non-Criminal Fingerprint Section: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to limit the number of people gathered in one place, ALL fingerprinting services will now require an appointment. Walk-ins WILL NOT be accepted. Applicants will be fingerprinted and/or photographed. Please call 646-610-5541 to schedule an appointment.

Closures

EOIR Operational Status & Standing Orders

EOIR Case Status

ICE Updates (Including ERO and Detention)

USCIS Updates

Consular Updates

NY Courts Updates

Guidance:

IJ Email Filings

BIA Email Filings

EOIR Standing Orders

EOIR Electronic Signature Guidance

EOIR Update Regarding EOIR Practices Related to the COVID-19 Outbreak

USCIS Announces Flexibility for Requests for Evidence, Notices of Intent to Deny

Electronic database of COVID-19 related materials

TOP NEWS

EOIR Announces 46 New Immigration Judges

Including:

J. Thomas Bartleson, Immigration Judge, New York – Broadway Immigration Court

Andrew M. Calvelli, Immigration Judge, New York – Broadway Immigration Court

Lorianne M. Campanella, Immigration Judge, New York – Federal Plaza Immigration Court

David A. Fraiden, Immigration Judge, New York – Federal Plaza Immigration Court

Robert J. Gundlach, Immigration Judge, New York – Broadway Immigration Court

Andrea Koppenhofer, Immigration Judge, New York – Broadway Immigration Court

Carolyn L. Krasinski, Immigration Judge, New York – Broadway Immigration Court

Michael W. Lloyd, Immigration Judge, New York – Broadway Immigration Court

Dara F. Reid, Immigration Judge, New York – Varick Immigration Court

Scott E. Thomsen, Immigration Judge, New York – Federal Plaza Immigration Court

More Immigration Judges Leaving the Bench

TRAC: The latest judge-by-judge data from the Immigration Courts indicate that more judges are resigning and retiring. Turnover is the highest since records began in FY 1997 over two decades ago.

Trump administration drops restrictions on online-only instruction for foreign students

CNN: One person familiar with the matter told CNN the White House has felt the blowback to the proposal and that some inside the West Wing believe it was poorly conceived and executed. See also Foreign students still in danger of losing visas, despite settlement.

Trump expected to exclude undocumented migrants from U.S. census

Reuters: President Donald Trump is expected to soon issue an executive order that would ban undocumented immigrants from being included in the 2020 census count of every person living in the United States, a source familiar with the matter said on Friday.

U.S. Weighs Sweeping Travel Ban on Chinese Communist Party Members

NYT: The presidential order under consideration would be based on the same statute in the Immigration and Nationality Act used in a 2017 travel ban on several predominantly Muslim countries.

Trump Administration Rejects New DACA Applications

Inside Higher Ed: The Trump administration is refusing to process new applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program despite a Supreme Court ruling that required reinstatement of the program, the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday.

Trump is considering a loophole, which he found in a conservative magazine article, to bypass Congress to impose new immigration policies

Business Insider: President Donald Trump is interested in a new National Review article arguing that a recent Supreme Court decision enables him to bypass Congress to impose policies, Axios reported.

The Border Patrol Was Responsible for an Arrest in Portland

The Nation: For days, federal agents in unmarked cars have reportedly been snatching Portland protesters off the streets…. A memo consisting of internal talking points for the federal agency responsible for the arrest, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and obtained exclusively by The Nation provides some answers—and raises even more questions.

Four States Are Sharing Driver’s License Info To Help Find Out Who’s A Citizen

NPR: To help figure out the U.S. citizenship status of every adult living in the country, the Trump administration has made agreements to accumulate driver’s license and state identification card information from states including Iowa, Nebraska, South Carolina and South Dakota, NPR has learned.

Border agency fires 4 for secret Facebook groups with violent, bigoted posts

LA Times: More than a year after launching an internal investigation into 138 employees for “inappropriate social media activity,” Customs and Border Protection — the parent agency of the Border Patrol — has removed four employees, suspended 38 without pay and disciplined an additional 27 “with reprimands or counseling,” according to data provided to The Times by the agency.

Elizabeth Detention Center Property Owner Announces Plans to Cut Ties with For-Profit Detention Company CoreCivic

InsiderNJ: After months of action by immigrant rights organizers, the Elberon Development Group has decided to cut ties with their tenant, CoreCivic and their property, the Elizabeth Detention Center (EDC), a private immigration detention center that has a long history of inhumane conditions.

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

USCIS Issues Policy Alert on Applying Discretion in USCIS Adjudications

USCIS is consolidating existing policy guidance in its Policy Manual regarding officers’ application of discretion in adjudications. The new guidance, among other things, provides an overview of the discretionary analysis and provides lists of discretionary factors that officers should consider. AILA Doc. No. 20071531

Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Trump Policies Restricting Asylum for Immigrants Fleeing Domestic and Gang Violence

ACLU: The American Civil Liberties Union and Center for Gender & Refugee Studies challenged the policies that sought to speedily send women and children and other asylum seekers back to countries where they faced brutal violence and death. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., today upheld key aspects of a lower court ruling against the administration. The case is Grace v. Barr.

Class Action Lawsuit in Minnesota Challenges Matter of Castro-Tum

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of certain individuals in Minnesota who are ineligible to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver because their removal proceedings are not administratively closed. (Lopez, et al. v. Barr, et al., 7/13/20) AILA Doc. No. 20071790

Individuals, Employers, and Organizations Join to File First Lawsuit Challenging Entirety of Trump’s Immigration Ban

AILA, Justice Action Center, and Innovation Law Lab, with pro bono support from Mayer Brown LLP, sued the Trump Administration on behalf of 23 individual and organizational plaintiffs to prevent the devastating effects of President’s Trump’s unlawful and unconstitutional immigration ban. AILA Doc. No. 20071701

U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Orders DHS to Restore DACA

Judge Paul W. Grimm in the Maryland District Court vacated DACA’s rescission and enjoined DHS from implementing or enforcing the rescission and from taking any other action to rescind DACA that is not in compliance with applicable law. (Casa de Maryland, et al., v. DHS, et.al., 7/17/20) AILA Doc. No. 20071741

Attorney General Vacates BIA’s Decision in Matter of O-F-A-S-

Clarifying the proper approach for determining “official capacity” for the purpose of deciding CAT protection, the AG vacated the BIA’s decision in Matter of O-F-A-S-, 27 I&N Dec. 709 (BIA 2019), and remanded the case for review. Matter of O-F-A-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 35 (A.G. 2020) AILA Doc. No. 20071433

BIA Rules On DHS’s Authority to Return Individuals to a Contiguous Foreign Territory Under MPP

BIA ruled that under INA §235(b)2(c), an individual who is arriving on land from a contiguous foreign territory may be returned by DHS to that country pursuant to MPP, regardless of whether the individual arrives at or between a designated POE. Matter of M-D-C-V-, 28 I&N Dec. 18 (BIA 2020) AILA Doc. No. 20071400

CA2 Finds BIA Erred in Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Suppress Evidence of Her Alienage Without an Evidentiary Hearing

Applying the standard set in Cotzojay v. Holder to petitioner’s motion to suppress evidence, the court concluded that the petitioner had submitted sufficient evidence of an egregious Fourth Amendment violation to warrant an evidentiary hearing. (Millan-Hernandez v. Barr, 7/13/20) AILA Doc. No. 20071738

CA2 Holds That Changed Circumstances Under INA §208(a)(2)(D) Need Not Arise Prior to the Filing of an Asylum Application

Granting the petition for review, the court held that pursuant to INA §208(a)(2)(D), changed circumstances presenting an exception to the one-year deadline for filing an asylum application need not arise prior to the filing of the application. (Ordonez Azmen v. Barr, 7/13/20) AILA Doc. No. 20071732

CA2 Upholds BIA’s Denial of Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen Based on “Intervening” Case Law in Obeya and Mellouli

The court found that “intervening” decisions in Obeya v. Sessions and Mellouli v. Lynch did not compel the conclusion that criminal possession of stolen property was not a crime involving moral turpitude at the time of the petitioner’s conviction. (Ottey v. Barr, 7/7/20) AILA Doc. No. 20071731

DHS/DOJ Announce Plan to Restart MPP Hearings “As Expeditiously As Possible”

DHS and DOJ provide the criteria they will use to determine when they will resume MPP hearings. Once the criteria is met, they will provide public notification at least 15 calendar days prior to resumption of hearings with location-specific details AILA Doc. No. 20072000

RESOURCES

A Rockier Road to U.S. Citizenship? Findings of a Survey on Changing Naturalization Procedures

Practice Alert: Delayed Production of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) and Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) Cards

Practice Alert: Update on U.S. Consular Operations and Implementation of Presidential Proclamations Restricting Travel and Visa Issuance

Practice Alert: Temporary Changes to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in Response to COVID-19

DHS Extends Flexibility in Requirements Related to Form I-9 Compliance

GAO Says CBP Needs to Increase Oversight of Funds, Medical Care, and Reporting of Deaths

Avoiding Disciplinary Action for Requesting Multiple Continuances in Immigration Court

Practice Advisory on Filing DACA Applications In Light of Recent Court Rulings

COVID-19 IN IMMIGRATION DETENTION Monthly Analysis & Update

Asylum Denied, Families Divided: Trump Administration’s Illegal Third-Country Transit Ban

EVENTS

Note: Check with organizers regarding cancellations/changes

7/20/20 2020 AILA Virtual Annual Conference on Immigration Law

7/20-30/20 NYIC Immigration Court Practice

7/20/20 Entry Denied: Trump’s Migration Policy and the Road Ahead

7/21/20 Registration for I-ARC DACA Training

7/22/20 National Association of Immigration Judges Stakeholder Town Hall

7/22/20 Tax Issues in Immigration Cases

7/23/20 New Restrictions on Employment Authorization for Asylum Applicants: Implications and Strategies

7/23/20 Reviewing the June 2020 Presidential Proclamation’s Impact on Nonimmigrant Visa Holders

7/23/20 Defending Immigration Removal Proceedings 2020

7/28/20 Immigrant Youth vs. The State: Strategic Litigation in the Trump Era

7/30/20 How to File a Successful Travel Ban Waiver

8/3/20 From RFEs to Federal Court: Latest Strategies in Defending Survivors During the Time of COVID

8/5/20 Unraveling Aggravated Felonies and Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude

8/18/20 Strategies for I-601 Waivers in Adjustment of Status Cases

6/20/20 2020 AILA Virtual Immigration Court Conference

8/26/20 Immigration Legal Services in Rural America

8/27/20 Crafting a Winning Particular Social Group for an Asylum Case

9/14/20 Working with Domestic Violence Immigrant Survivors: The Intersection of Basic Family Law, Immigration, Benefits, and Housing Issues in California 2020

9/22/20 Defenses to Denaturalization

9/23/20-10/7/20 3-Part Webinar Series: Integrating Technology to Improve Your Immigration Legal Services

10/1/20 Representing Children in Immigration Matters 2020: Effective Advocacy and Best Practices

ImmProf

Monday, July 20, 2020

AILA Annual Conference (July 20-23, 2020)

Welcome, Professor Ingrid V. Eagly, to the ImmigrationProf Blog!

President Trump’s Promised Executive Action on Immigration

How the coronavirus spread through one immigration facility

Immigration Article of the Day: The ICCPR, Non-Self-Execution, and DACA Recipients’ Right to Remain in the United States by Timothy E. Lynch

Sunday, July 19, 2020

WTF is Happening in Portland?

Saturday, July 18, 2020

The Total Shafting of Au Pairs

RIP Congressman John Lewis, Civil Rights Hero

Friday, July 17, 2020

Border Spotlight: Jardin de las Mariposas

U.S. embassies resume some immigration services

Guest Post: Minyao Wang, A Partial Defense of a Travel Ban on Chinese Communist Party Members and Their Families

The Libertarian Case for Immigration

Fighting the Law? Trump Administration Rejects New DACA Applications

Thursday, July 16, 2020

Pandemic Challenges Refugees in US

The Day That ICE Came: How Worksite Raids Are Once Again Harming Children and Families

Nolan Rappaport: Foreign students still in danger of losing visas, despite settlement

A Rockier Road to U.S. Citizenship? MPI Survey on Changing Naturalization Procedures

INSIGHT: Reversal on Trump’s Student Visa Curbs Exposes Flawed Policy Efforts

A Sign of the Times? Ivanka Trump defends Goya post that watchdogs call unethical

Trump Attacks Biden on Immigration

Trump Administration Reportedly Considers Travel Ban on Communist Party Members from China

Wednesday, July 15, 2020

Guest Post: Undoing Asylum by Raquel Aldana

More Thoughts On The Future Of International Students

The Fourth Largest Group of Immigrants in the United States: Filipino Immigrants in the United States in 2018

Presidential Executive Actions Halting High Skilled Immigration Hurt the U.S. Economy

A Sudanese Refugee: One Meat Plant, One Thousand Infections:…

Trump Strict Student Visa Restrictions Abandononed: Will International Students Still Come to the United States?

Tuesday, July 14, 2020

From The Bookshelves: Exit West by Mohsin Hamid

Gov’t Agrees to Rescind Policies Re: International Students & Online Ed during COVID

Center for American Progress: The Trump Administration Must Immediately Resume Processing New DACA Applications

Private Detention CEOs Tell Congress They Had No Clue Guards Pepper-Sprayed Hundreds of Immigration Detainees

Ninth Circuit and Second Circuit Conflict on Sanctuary Jurisdiction Funding

A Wave of States Challenge Trump New International Student Visa Requirements

Monday, July 13, 2020

TRAC Immigration: More Immigration Judges Leaving the Bench

Yale JREG Online Symposium on Racism in Administrative Law

U.S. Refugee Admissions at Forty Year Low

How ICE Exported the Coronavirus

Democrats see immigration reform as topping Biden agenda

Immigration Article of the Day: The Thirteenth Amendment and Human Trafficking: Lessons and Limitations by Kathleen Kim

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

Thanks, Elizabeth, for all you do!

PWS

07-21-20

Due Process Forever! Kakistocracy, Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! America’s Star Chambers,☠️⚰️ Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🏴‍☠️

Related posts:

Related posts:

Better judges for a better America. This November, vote like the future of humanity depends on it. Because it does!

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

—— Matthew 25

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! “BIA Lite,” Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Ex-FAIR Research Director Among 46 New Immigration Judges

Due Process Forever! Corrupt & Feckless Institutions Parodying Justice, Never!

Related posts:

This November vote like your life and the life of our nation depend on it! Because they do!

Related posts:

Related posts: