🇺🇸 REMEMBERING THE CARTER YEARS

The Carter Years

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

President Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter
1924-2024
39th President of the U.S.
Official White House Photo
Public Realm

President With An “Afterlife”

Jimmy Carter (1924-2024), the 39th President of the United States is an anomaly among modern U.S. Presidents. He is probably better known and more widely respected for his post-Presidency achievements and work than for his accomplishments during his single four-year term (1977-81). 

After losing the 1980 election to Ronald Reagan in a landslide, Carter devoted himself to humanitarian work on a national and international scale. He founded the Carter Institute. He and his wife Rosalynn (1927-2023) were famous for their never-ending work personally of building housing for communities in need for Habitat for Humanity. 

Carter wasn’t just a “mouthpiece,” promoter, or financial supporter. He and Rosalynn could often be found with their sleeves rolled up digging, pounding, sawing, and painting with the rest of the crews. Individuals in the District of Colombia fondly remember him working side-by-side with community members to build housing that they still proudly reside in!

Carter is generally regarded as one of the most intelligent and fundamentally decent Presidents. However, his term was largely viewed as unsuccessful at the time. Economic woes, an energy shortage, the Iranian hostage crisis, tensions with the Soviet Union, and the Cuban boatlift overshadowed his meaningful achievements such as the Camp David Peace Accords and creation of the Department of Education.

As a career civil servant, I worked for the Carter Administration in several senior positions at the “Legacy” Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”). Although I never met the President in person, I certainly saw his facsimile signature on many official documents. 

One of the first of these was a Presidential Pardon for Vietnam Era Draft Evaders that he issued shortly after taking office. As the then legislative and regulations expert in the INS Office of General Counsel, I was charged with figuring out the practical effect of the somewhat vague language of the pardon on cases of former U.S. citizens who had renounced their citizenship abroad, primarily in Canada, during the war years.

Human Rights Focus

The Carter Administration was the only one in my lifetime that made human rights around the world a key focus of policy. While it was a great and noble idea in theory, it often clashed with the political and international realities of governing during the waning stages of the Cold War. 

From my “deep in the bureaucracy” perspective, the Carter Administration also too often exhibited a “tone deafness” when it came to dealing with the “old line Democrats” and Committee Chairs who then controlled Congress. For example, I was asked to draft a comprehensive legalization and employer sanctions immigration bill, but instructed not to consult with any Committee staff. Needless to say, the final product went over like a lead balloon. As I remember, the Dem Committee Chairs balked at even introducing the bill and it got a “DOA reception” from both Dems and the GOP. 

Leonel Castillo
Leonel Castillo
1939-2013
Commissioner of Immigration (1977-1979)
USCIS Archives
Public Realm

INS Commissioner Leonel Castillo: The Fall of a Rising Star

It probably didn’t help that Carter’s Commissioner of Immigration was Leonel Castillo. Immediately prior to appointment, Castillo was the City Controller of Houston, the first Hispanic-American to hold the job, and was considered a “rising young star” in Texas Democratic politics. (Yes, there was such an animal in those days.)

Unfortunately, it wasn’t a very good fit. Perhaps, it was simply “mission impossible” for an Hispanic leader then. Leonel was mostly interested in getting out, pressing some flesh, and the “big picture” of immigration. But, many of INS’s problems and challenges involved “nitty gritty” technical issues, fending off interference from a small army of “whiz kid” special assistants at the DOJ, and dealing with the always prickly Congressional Committees who controlled agency funding. 

This wasn’t Leonel’s strong suit. He surrounded himself with his own group of young special assistants, executive assistants, and analysts, many from Texas, who didn’t “mesh well” with the career bureaucrats in the INS Central Office, the largely “good old boy” field management structure, the egos in the DOJ, and the “Kings of the Hill.” 

Leonel never established rapport with Sen. Ted Kennedy, then the most recognizable Democrat in Congress and, beginning in 1978, Chair of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, which exercised INS oversight. Kennedy later went on to unsuccessfully challenge President Carter for the 1980 Democratic Presidential nomination. Nor did he have a good working relationship with powerful Chair Peter Rodino (D-NJ) of the House Judiciary Committee, who had been deeply involved in INS issues for many years.

Additionally, Leonel had a rocky relationship with the formidable Rep. Elizabeth Holtzmann (D-NY), the Chair of the House Immigration Subcommittee. Holtzmann was “all over INS” for what she deemed to be inadequate efforts to locate, investigate, and denaturalize former Nazi war criminals living in the U.S. who had been erroneously admitted as refugees following World War II. 

At the time, I was responsible for drafting Leonel’s congressional testimony and accompanying him to congressional hearings. As he was struggling through one contentious hearing with Chairperson Holtzmann, Leonel inadvertently knocked over the water pitcher, soaking the witness table. Holtzmann reached under her dais, grabbed a towel, and unceremoniously threw it at the hapless Commissioner with an implicit admonishment to “clean up his mess.” Committee staff later quipped that perhaps it was time for INS to “throw in the towel.” 

Needless to say, that wasn’t one of the “high points” in the Carter Administration’s dealings with Congress. Chairperson Holtzmann eventually succeeded in wresting control of all Nazi immigration investigations and prosecutions away from the INS and vesting it in a newly-created Office of Special Investigations (“OSI”) in the DOJ’s Criminal Division. 

While my “political bosses” tended to view this as a “bureaucratic defeat,” I told them it was anything but. Not having to deal with the Chairperson on Nazi investigations on a daily basis turned out to be a huge “plus” for INS, particularly the OGC, where the “Nazi Unit” was then located. It was well worth the “loss” of the half-dozen positions to the Criminal Division, which then greatly expanded the OSI. 

David Crosland
Hon. David Crosland
American Jurist, Senior Executive, Lawyer, Teacher
1937 – 2022
PHOTO: Alabama Law

General Counsel/Acting Commissioner David Crosland

At the end of the Ford Administration, INS General Counsel Sam Bernsen was serving in the position as a “rehired annuitant.” That meant technically he had already retired and was continuing to serve on a special arrangement. The new Administration “finalized” Sam’s retirement and appointed a new General Counsel, David Crosland, a civil rights attorney from Atlanta, Georgia with ties to the “Georgia Mafia” that surrounded Carter and his first Attorney General, former Fifth Circuit Judge Griffin Bell. 

Dave had once worked in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ under then AG Ramsey Clark. After Carter left office, Dave remained in the immigration field for the rest of his life. Indeed, we were both Immigration Judges at the Arlington Immigration Court, and he was still on the bench at the Baltimore Immigration Court at the time of his death in 2022.

Shortly after Dave’s appointment as General Counsel, the then Deputy General Counsel, Ralph Farb was elevated to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). I became Dave Crosland’s Deputy.

Sam Bernsen, however, landed on his feet. Although he had 40+ years of Government service, he was relatively young, perhaps 57, having begun his career as a messenger at Ellis Island in his late teens. After a short period of private practice with Larry Latif (who later was my law partner at Jones Day), he became a name and managing partner of the Washington, D.C. Office of Fragomen, Del Rey, and Bernsen, a leading immigration “boutique.” I later succeeded him in that position in 1992. Immigration is a small world!

There was an old anecdote (perhaps apocryphal) that Judge Bell once said that at INS, “Castillo represented the White House, Deputy Commissioner Mario Noto represented House Judiciary Chair Peter Rodino, Special Assistant to the Commissioner David Dixon represented Senate Judiciary Chair Jim Eastland, and Crosland represents me!”

Ben Civiletti Succeeds Judge Griffin Bell as AG

Judge Bell eventually gave way to Attorney General Ben Civiletti in 1979. Among the many “Special Assistants” working for AG Civiletti was young Harvard Law grad, Merrick Garland. His meteoric career trajectory occasionally crossed paths with my role at INS. I remember him from those days as a smart, serious, ambitious, earnest guy. 

Civilewti & Staff
Attorney General Ben Civiletti (1979-81) with top DOJ staff including current AG Merrick Garland (5th from left)
PHOTO: NT Times

Also in 1979, Leonel Castillo resigned as Commissioner and returned to Houston to run for Mayor. But, his tenure at INS proved no help. He finished third in that race and was unsuccessful in three additional bids for local elective office. INS proved to be a political “career killer” rather than a “career enhancer.” 

Meanwhile, no successor to Castillo as Commissioner was ever nominated and confirmed during the Carter Administration. My “boss,” David Crosland became the Acting Commissioner of INS, and I became the Acting General Counsel, a situation that continued for the balance of the Carter Administration. 

For me, the Carter Administration was one of the formative periods of my legal career. At 31, I became the top legal official at INS which involved running the nationwide legal program, advising the Acting Commissioner and other senior managers at INS, and also being the “point person” for Immigration litigation, legislation, and other issues with the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and heads of other DOJ divisions and offices. 

I remember once returning to my office after a long day of meetings to be handed a stack of yellow message slips (no voice mail or e-mail in those days) by our receptionist. One thing that I always did at the OGC and that served me well thereafter was to faithfully return all phone calls and answer all my personal correspondence. 

The receptionist told me in an excited voice that  “Mr. Letti’s” office had been trying to get ahold of me all day, and that I had to return that call first! I puzzled over who “Mr. Letti” was, because it didn’t ring a bell, offhand. “You know Mr. Letti,” said the receptionist, “Mr. Benson Letti, (as she had written on the message slip), said it was very important.” Finally, the light bulb went off, “Ah, you mean Ben Civiletti, the Attorney General,” said I. Yes, said the receptionist, “THAT Mr. Letti.” 

Lyudmila Vlasova
Russian ballerina Lyudmila Vlasova was one of the more interesting cases I worked on.
PICTURE: Wikipedia

During 1979, I was involved in a notable incident involving Lyudmila Vlasova , a star Russian ballerina, in a plane halted on the tarmac at JFK. The issue was whether she was leaving the U.S. of her own volition, as her husband, Aleksandr Godunov, also a dancer with the Bolshoi Ballet, had defected and sought asylum in the U.S. (In a strange time warp, in those days a Dem Administration was actually more concerned about individuals being denied their right to seek asylum here than in “deterring” legal asylum seekers from “darkening our doors!”)

Part of the “Plan B” hatched for determining her situation was to designate AG Civiletti as an “Immigration Officer” authorized to detain and examine foreign nationals. I duly drafted up a legal document so designating the A.G. Fortunately, the situation was resolved (she voluntarily departed the U.S.) without resorting to Plan B. Several weeks later, I received the “appointment document” back by mail with a handwritten note by AG Civiletti that said something like: “With thanks and great relief it wasn’t needed!” The 1985 movie “Flight 222” was loosely based upon this incident.

Four Issues That Changed U.S. Immigration: The Refugee Act of 1980; The Cuban Boatlift; The Iranian Hostage Crisis; The INS Attorney Reorganization

Four issues stand out for me from the Carter years. The first was the enactment of the Refugee of 1980. It was the first codification and legal affirmation of our International obligations to refugees and asylum seekers under the United Nations Convention and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. 

It gave me a chance to work closely with two of my contemporaries in the Administration who later went on to become “intellectual giants” in the field of human rights. One was David A. Martin, then Special Assistant to Patt Derian, the Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs at the State Department. David went on to become a famous Professor at UVA Law, co-author of leading textbooks, the General Counsel of INS in the Clinton Administration, and Principal Deputy General Counsel of DHS during the Obama Administration (then DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano was his student at UVA Law).

The other was Alex Aleinikoff, then an attorney in the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel. Alex also went on to become a professor, co-author (with David Martin) of textbooks, an INS Senior Executive, Dean of Georgetown Law, and Deputy UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

I also worked closely with Committee staff in Congress, particularly the late Jerry Tinker who was Senator Kennedy’s staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I can still remember getting a phone call one evening from Jerry saying “Schmidt, I’m in a jam. Could you draft me some legislative history for the Refugee Bill and send it over. You know what the Senator wants.” It was sort of a “hinky” request, given the state of relations between the Carter White House and Senator Kennedy. But, I figured it would be “career preserving” to give Jerry a  hand, without mentioning it to anyone else. 

A second major event, unfortunately coinciding the the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, was the so-called Mariel Boatlift. INS hadn’t had time to fully implement that Act before we were confronted with another in a long line of “refugee crises.” This one involved Castro’s unexpectedly and temporarily “opening” some ports in Cuba and a flotilla of small boats going from Florida to pick up friends and relatives. 

Cuban Boatlift
The 1980 Cuban Boat lift was a crisis for the Carter Administration that has had lasting impact on U.s. immigration policy, not necessarily for the better.
Official USG Photo
Public Realm

We had to call upon FEMA — who famously introduced themselves as the “Masters of Disaster” — and the Orange Bowl became the initial “processing center” for new arrivals. The vast majority of those who came were quickly screened and released into the community. They eventually were able to get green cards, without applying under the Refugee Act, under the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966.

However, there was a proportionately small, yet highly visible, group of individuals who had been released from Cuban jails, obviously without documentation of the crimes for which they had been imprisoned. They were processed for possible exclusion and deportation, which invoked the asylum and withholding of removal provisions of the new Refugee Act.

Since INS had no suitable housing for “high risk” criminals, we had to enter agreements with the Bureau of Prisons to reopen some “dormant, high-security facilities” — like the Atlanta Penitentiary and McNeil Island Penitentiary in the State of Washington. Additionally, we were allowed to use military bases such as Fort Chaffee, Arkansas; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin; Fort Drum, New York, and Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania to detain those suspected of criminal activity who required Immigration Court hearings. The then “Boy Governor” of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, blamed well-publicized escapes from Fort Chaffee as a factor leading to his re-election defeat.

We also lacked sufficient Immigration Judges in those locations to hear the cases. That required an emergency effort to assemble and train a corps of “Temporary Immigration Judges” from the ranks of active and retired Administrative Law Judges and DOJ Attorneys.

The Cuban Boatlift got the Refugee Act of 1980 off to a rocky start. Many of the initial “precedents” on asylum issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) involved Cuban applicants with criminal records, not the most sympathetic group. That, combined with some sensationalist dramatic portrayals of criminals among the arrivals, such as the movie “Scarface,” starring Al Pacino, hardened attitudes towards refugees generally, while also producing some relatively restrictive initial interpretations of the Act. 

Additionally, the Boatlift ushered in an era of mass long-term immigration detention. While the Boatlift eventually subsided, the phenomenon of large-scale immigration detention has continued to grow over the years. It has become a controversial “staple” of U.S. immigration enforcement and “deterrence.” It has been used, in some form or another, by all Administrations since Carter.

The “Carter experience” also hardened views toward large-scale migration in the Executive Branch, as both politicos and bureaucrats vowed “never again!” During the Reagan Administration, the new and oft-criticized device of “high seas interdiction” was used to stop further vessels from Cuba and Haiti from even reaching the U.S. and invoking the Refugee Act protections. Some individuals were brought to the U.S. after preliminary screening onboard Coast Guard vessels. But, most were returned without hearings (Haitians) or sent to the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Cubans).  

A third pivotal event, which also played a role in the demise of President Carter, was the so-called “Iranian Hostage Crisis.” Most of the “action and drama” took place in and around the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. But, there was also a “domestic component.”

Then Attorney General Griffin Bell was shocked to learn that the INS at that time had no national database on the number, location, and status of Iranian students studying in the U.S. This led to new efforts and regulations to require all such Iranian students to “register” with the INS and imposed penalties, including deportation, on those who failed to do so or committed crimes in the U.S. — even if those crimes in and of themselves were not specified as grounds of deportation.

While the frustration and outrage of Administration officials was quite understandable, the whole exercise was was somewhat like “kicking the cat after a bad day at the office.” Almost all the Iranians studying in the U.S. at that time were supporters of the deposed Shah’s U.S.-backed government. The “radicals” who were holding hostages in the Embassy weren’t anywhere near the U.S. 

Most of the enforcement efforts against Iranians in the U.S. became embroiled in never-ending litigation. However, the concept of “special registrations” for groups of non-immigrants, particularly from Middle Eastern countries, became part of the “immigration regulation toolbox.” It was repeated after “9-11” and is also one of the antecedents to Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban.”

Finally, my fourth main event  from the Carter Administration was “phase one” of the INS attorney reorganization, which created the Chief Legal Officer for each INS district in the U.S. Started under General Counsel/Acting Commissioner Dave Crosland, the second phase of the reorganization was completed during the Reagan Administration under the leadership of General Counsel Maurice C. “Iron Mike” Inman, Jr. Along the way, Mike changed the name from “Chief Legal Officer” to “District Counsel.” They were the forerunners of today’s “full service” Offices of Chief Counsel at ICE, an integral part of DHS’s operations.

Prior to Crosland and me, the INS Trial Attorneys, although selected by and under the “program management” of the General Counsel, worked for the District Directors, their clients, and were supervised and evaluated by them. Additionally, an even larger group of INS attorneys, Naturalization Examiners, also worked for the District Director, although they were selected and under the program direction of the Assistant Commissioner for Naturalization in the Central Office.

Using a plan developed by then Regional Counsel for the West, Bill Odencrantz, we reorganized the program along the DOJ’s traditional “attorney-client” model to place assignment, supervision, and evaluation of all INS attorneys under the General Counsel. This also gave the General Counsel, in consultation with the Assistant Commissioner, authority to use legal resources in any district “across programs” when needs dictated. 

As you might expect, this move was met with fierce opposition from District Directors, Regional Commissioners, and some naturalization attorneys. As the “point person” for the reorganization, I became the recipient of some of the most vehement and vocal objections.

During “phase two,” completed during Mike Inman’s tenure, the attorneys were moved out of the naturalization program into the Offices of District Counsel and replaced with non-attorney examiners in the naturalization program, which, in turn, merged with the overall adjudications program. 

This is much the way these programs operate today within DHS, with the legal program being part of ICE and the naturalization function part of USCIS. It would have been hard to create the DHS, with all its legal issues, litigation, and complexities, without the “groundwork” being laid during the Carter Administration, and later the Reagan Administration, for a modern, quasi-independent legal program reporting to the ICE Principal Legal Advisor.   

Those Were The Days, My Friend

Looking back, I appreciate the seriousness and integrity with which President Carter and those around him took governing. (I also got frequent calls from Vice President Mondale’s office about immigration issues.) I will always remember the Carter years as a time of both excitement and professional growth. I started as one of a handful of attorneys on the staff of the INS General Counsel and ended up running the INS’s nationwide legal program and being the agency’s top lawyer, albeit in an acting capacity while Dave Crosland was the Acting Commissioner. 

I appreciated and learned from the opportunities that came my way. I particularly enjoyed helping to select, form, organize, and work with the many outstanding attorneys, agents, and staff at INS and DOJ, a number of whom remained my friends and sometimes became colleagues again as my career continued into the Reagan Administration and eventually, beyond INS. The “team approach” to the law and problem-solving that I developed and honed during the Carter years stayed with me and became key to the rest of my career.

(12-29-24)

 
 

🎄🗽🎅🏽🧑‍🎄CHRISTMAS 2024 — Greetings From Courtside!

Christmas 2024


Grateful for my colleagues on the Round Table, AYUDA, and all the other wonderful, dedicated fighters for due process and American values in the New Due Process Army!

Due Process Forever!⚖️

PWS

12-24-24

 

⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️QUOTED BY SUZANNE MONYAK IN LAW360 ON COURTROOM SECURITY

Paul Wickham Schmidt, a former immigration judge at the Arlington, Virginia courthouse, described immigration courts as the “Wild West” when it comes to security. While federal court judges typically have separate entrances, Schmidt said he’s shared an elevator with attorneys and immigrants who appeared before him.

“The courtrooms are so small. The whole atmosphere, I think, is a stress builder,” Schmidt said. “I did have the thought of, you know, it’s just a matter of time before there is some disaster.”

Left-Out Judges Eye Protection

Suzanne Monyak
Suzanne Monyak
Senior Reporter, Immigration
Law360

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

Reminded me of one of the first pieces I published on Courtside back in December 2016 (republished in 2023).  Although I’ve been retired from the bench for more than eight years, it appears that not much has changed.  And, certainly, our political leaders have failed to learn and just keep making the same horrible mistakes, over and over.🤬

https://wp.me/p8eeJm-8fI

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-23-24

Dr. Triche Blog #2: Stare Decisis, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the Attorney’s General’s “Certification” Power: Strategies for Preservation of the Rule of Law (When and if the Deluge Ensues)

Dr. Alicia Triche
Superlawyer, Co-Editor, immigrationcourtside.com
Memphis, TN

Dr. Triche Blog #2: Stare Decisis, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the Attorney’s General’s “Certification” Power: Strategies for Preservation of the Rule of Law (When and if the Deluge Ensues)

Featured authority:

8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h) (ecfr.gov) (accessed Dec. 21, 2024)[i]

Hon. Alberto R. Gonzalez & Patrick Glen, Advancing Executive Branch Immigration Policy Through the Attorney General’s Review Authority, 101 Iowa L. Rev. 841 (2016)[ii]

 

Overruling precedent is never a small matter. Stare decisis—in English, the idea that today’s Court should stand by yesterday’s decisions—is “a foundation stone of the rule of law.”   Justice Elena Kagan, Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. 446, 455 (2015).[iii]

Under current immigration law, the Attorney General has independent and direct power to set national precedent.  8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i) says the “Board shall refer to the Attorney General …all cases… [t]he Attorney General directs the Board to refer to him.”  This is commonly referred to as “certification” power.  It means that precedential decisions carry an equally binding effect, whether or not they are issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals itself, or by the Attorney General,[iv] personally.

What this has done, in recent years, is to set up many of the more contentious issues dealt with by the Board for a continuous game of admin-law ping pong.  For example, in the domestic violence-based asylum context, three different Attorneys General issued three different “Matter of A-B-s” between 2018 and 2021. Each of those substantively altered—or, in the last case, restored—the Board’s own decision from 2014.[v]  The substantive criteria for family-based asylum claims—meaning when and if family membership constitutes a “particular social group”—underwent similar oscillation during the same short period.[vi]  The ball has also gone back and forth on the Immigration Judge’s authority to terminate[vii] and to administratively close.[viii]   Finally, AG Garland vacated former AG Barr’s troubling requirement that the BIA revisit every required element of a persecution-based claim, whether or not the issue had been raised on appeal.[ix]

At the time they occurred, those above which were AG Garland decisions were viewed favorably by removal defense advocates, myself included.  Ping-pongy as they might seem at first glance, Garland’s certification decisions were actually much-needed course-corrections.  They were issued in response to what had been, at the time, an unprecedented and far-reaching activism.  The certification power had been used, for the first time, to pro-actively, substantively, restrict the rights of noncitizens.  And there is every reason to believe that, whoever the new Attorney General may be, the use of the certification power is about to be used that way again, and its frequency will increase exponentially.

This is problematic on a conceptual level, because the nature of the certification power is rooted in DHS’s power over the “administration and enforcement” of the Immigration and Nationality Act.  8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1) (2024). It is within this context that the INA provides a “ruling by the Attorney General with respect to all questions of law shall be controlling.”  8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1).[x]  In other words, the Department of Justice, as a whole, is supposed to be enforcing immigration laws set by Congress.  It is solely within the purview of Congress to decide the substantive criteria for who is to be let into (or deported out of) the country—including, for example, the legal criteria for asylum and refugee status.  The “executive” branch, which includes, of course, the Department of Justice, is meant to be just that–the executor of Congressional intent.

In 2016, however, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez advocated that the certification power should be used to advance “policy” preferences of a presidential administration.  Citing Obama’s creation of the DACA program, Gonzalez stated that certification, like DACA, was also within “the executive branch’s scope of action in advancing its conception of immigration policy in the face of a recalcitrant Congress.”[xi]  He went on to state, “the referral authority is unquestionably an appropriate and efficacious mechanism for advancing a wide variety of legal interpretations and policy initiatives.”[xii]

To the extent that certification is divorced from the enforcement authorized at INA § 101(a)(3), it is ultra vires—and should be challenged as such.  But, setting that aside, using certification power as an instrument of policy raises even larger concerns, for it constitutes an existential threat to the legitimacy of the BIA as a legal body.  The BIA is an institution that issues legal precedent, and purports to derive legitimacy through the basic legal principles of due process and stare decisis.  Stare decisis is not just an aspirational principle; it is a judicial necessity, “because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.”  Payne v. Tennessee, 505 U.S. 808, 827 (1991) (citations omitted).  If the BIA endlessly flip-flops, it becomes increasingly difficult to discern the content of the law, substantively; and even when that can be done, it detracts from the institution’s authority.  It shreds the “rule of law,” because decisions of the BIA are not based in agreed-upon words passed by Congress or regulation, but by people (i.e., the Attorneys General).  It shreds due process, because neither the IJs making the decisions, or the non-citizens fighting against removal, have any settled expectation of the standards which are to apply in each case.

Nonetheless, it seems almost inevitable that, if the BIA remains intact, certification is coming—and coming fast.  And, this begs the question, can anything be done, at the individual level, to defend basic concepts of due process and the rule of law?  I do have several suggestions.  The first one is to hold fast to the concept that there is a “rule of law,” even at the BIA, and that it is discernible.  The basic requirements for legal briefing have not changed, and foremost among those is the duty to find—and accurately represent—the complete landscape of binding legal authority that is relevant to a given issue.  Certification zig-zags are not the only reason that the sheer amount of words that comprise US immigration law are increasing to a degree we have never before seen in legal history.

In short, without a good head-start, it is growing beyond the capacity of any one lawyer to discern the complete legal landscape on a given subject.  In such an environment, practice advisories, legal treatises, CLE panels and webinars are now essential resources.  It is now the duty of every appellate writer to keep apprised of these resources.  Some of my own go-tos are the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, the American Immigration Council, the Anker/Chase treatise (The Law of Asylum in the United States), and the National Immigration Project; I also (at this time) keep up with LinkedIn, stay on Dan Kowalski’s e-mail list, listen (when I can) to Kevin A. Gregg’s “Immigration Review” podcast.  To keep on top of which resources are out there; and, more importantly, what is happening overall, I participate in AILA and FBA committees, where I am apprised of who is doing the latest research and/or litigation on important ongoing issues as they arise.

My second suggestion is less of a strategy, and more of an observation.  The AG’s future certifications are now subject to Loper-Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S.Ct. 2244, 2273 (2024), which of course held:  “Chevron is overruled.  Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires.”  Part of the reasoning behind Loper-Bright is specifically to discourage agency flip-flopping.  Id. at 2288 (Thomas, J., concurring).  My hope is that, especially in light of Loper-Bright, when a Court of Appeals has spoken directly on an issue, the BIA is unlikely to get away with invoking Brand X in the end.  (I’m thinking, for example, of the recent Sixth Circuit decisions mandating a version of the but-for nexus test, directly rejecting Matter of M-R-M-S-).[xiii]

My final thought is simple; perhaps deceptively so. Just don’t stop appealing.  Keep using the system, keep insisting that the BIA be “legal,” not political; keep discerning and asserting the state of the law and the contents of jurisprudence; keep insisting upon due process and the basic rule of law.  As Judge Schmidt said in his keynote to FBA-National in 2019—“take your appeals to the BIA and the Circuit Courts of Appeals”.[xiv]

 

 

 

 

 

[i] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/chapter-V/subchapter-A/part-1003/subpart-A/section-1003.1 (accessed Dec. 23, 2024).

[ii] Available at https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-101-issue-3/advancing-executive-branch-immigration-policy-through-the-attorney-generals-review-authority (accessed Dec. 21, 2024).

[iii] Citations omitted.

[iv] Such decisions appear side in the “Immigration and Nationality” reporter, but they are labeled as “A.G.”, rather than BIA, in the parentheticals.

[v] Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018) [A-B- I], Matter of A-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 199 (A.G. 2021) [A-B- II], Matter of A-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021) [A-B- III], Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014).

[vi] Matter of L‑E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017) [L-E-A- I], Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019) [L-E-A- II], Matter of L-E-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 304, 05 (2021) [L‑E-A- III].

[vii] Matter of Coronado-Acevedo, 28 I&N Dec. 648 (A.G. 2021), overruling Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 462 (A.G. 2018).

[viii] Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021), overruling Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018).

[ix] Matter of A-C-A-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 351 (A.G. 2021) [A-C-A-A-II-], vacating 28 I&N Dec. 84 (A.G. 2020) [A-C-A-A-I].

[x] In full, paragraph (1)(a) provides: “The Secretary of Homeland Security shall be charged with the administration and enforcement of this chapter and all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens, except insofar as this chapter or such laws relate to the powers, functions, and duties conferred upon the President, Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the officers of the Department of State, or diplomatic or consular officers: Provided, however, That determination and ruling by the Attorney General with respect to all questions of law shall be controlling.”

[xi] Hon. Alberto R. Gonzales & Patrick Glen, Advancing Executive Branch Immigration Policy Through the Attorney General’s Review Authority, 101 Iowa L. Rev. 841, 846 (2016).

[xii] Id. at 897.

[xiii] Mazariegos-Rodas v. Garland, 117 F.4th 860 (6th Cir. 2024) (rejecting the dicta in Matter of M-R-M-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 757 (BIA 2023), and essentially adopting the “but-for” nexus standard, 17 F.4th at 876–78).

[xiv] https://immigrationcourtside.com/appellate-litigation-in-todays-broken-and-biased-immigration-court-system-four-steps-to-a-winning-counterattack-by-the-relentless-new-due-process-army/ (accessed Dec. 21, 2024).

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🦸🏻‍♀️😇 NDPA SUPERSTAR 🌟 & VIISTA VILLANOVA GRAD COURTNEY GREENE INSPIRES OTHERS BY “PUTTING THE BALL 🏀 IN THE BASKET⛹🏻‍♀️!”😎

Courtney Greene
Courtney Greene
Accredited Representative
Catholic Charities of Central Texas
VIISTA Villanova Grad
PHOTO: Linkedin

Courtney writes:

 I went to my first merits hearing with a client yesterday in San Antonio and she was granted asylum!! Thank you for your continued advocacy for due process and your participation in my training as a VIISTA student. I feel so thankful that there are people like you, ensuring that people experience justice after so much suffering!

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

Thanks, Courtney. It’s YOU, and others like you, getting the job done. Saving individual lives every day!

As my friend and former partner at Fragomen Cynthia Lange pointed out at a recent PLI conference, if every attorney or accredited representative who cares about justice saves just one life over the next four years, that’s thousands of lives saved, including family members! And, that will inspire others to do the same. Eventually, it can be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of lives saved!

As I’ve previously observed:

Rather than looking for expensive ways to diminish asylum-seekers’ rights and inflict more cruelty, Congress and the Administration should be investing in cost-effective programs like VIISTA that actually work, protect rights, and have promise for the future!

Building hope rather than intentionally causing despair!😎 Why don’t our public officials “get it?”

So much of the suffering that Courtney references is unnecessarily caused, compounded, or aggravated by our own nation’s lousy, inhumane, and often scofflaw asylum policies and procedures!   

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

Due Process Forever!

PWS😎

 

 

⚖ 👩🎓 THE GRADES ARE IN: U OF MN LAW CLINIC STUDENTS = 🅰 + — MERRICK GARLAND = F 😩 — Huge “Post-Chevron Victory” In CA 8 For The NDPA Youth Brigade!

Dunce
How did he get through Harvard Law?
Public Realm

 

  1. https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca8-law-student-victory-quito-guachichulca-v-garland-agg-fel-deference

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

“What the government is essentially asking us to do is agree that certain ‘analogous’ state crimes must count as rape and then reverse engineer a definition to make sure they do.”

Sure sounds like the kind of “any reason to deny” (non) logic that has been allowed to flourish at EOIR under Garland. And the 8th Circuit actually sounded pleased to be freed from the necessity under Chevron of inevitably “rubber stamping” the least reasonable, most “pro enforcement” interpretations offered up by the Government under Chevron. Garland could and should have changed that, but chose not to!

Many congrats to the “Youth Brigade” of the NDPA!

Some consider Garland’s failure to hold Trump accountable for January 6 to be his greatest failure. That’s a complex issue clouded by his decision to basically distance himself from the process. Undoubtedly, he was an overly cautious and weak leader!

But, I think history ultimately will see his failure to reform the Immigration Courts and to stand up for the legal and human rights of asylum seekers and other immigrants as his worst shortcomings. It actually continues to cost lives, squander resources, allow lies and negative attitudes toward vulnerable legal asylum seekers to be “normalized,” and help pave the way for Trump 2.0.

Due Process Forever!⚖️

PWS

12-10-24

 

 

 

🇺🇸💡👍🏼🥰⚽️ BETTER IDEAS FOR A BETTER AMERICA: ALEXANDRIA COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS USE SOCCER TO CONNECT WITH IMMIGRANT CLASSMATES! — In an age of national hate and rage, these young folks model better values to build community!😎🦸🏻‍♀️

How an ACHS girls soccer team connects immigrant students

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

If only our national leaders were paying attention! 🤯 The best answers are out here, and they don’t involve expensive and counterproductive “mass deportations,” more inhumane detention facilities, or spreading fear among communities! Never too young to become a member of the “New Due Process Army!”

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-07-24

🇺🇸⚖️🗽 “REVISITED: U.S. Immigration & Asylum Policies In The Twilight Of The Biden Administration”

Twilight
Twilight
Near Sedona, AZ
Paul Wickham Schmidt
June 13, 2024

In September 2024, I was invited to address a group of prospective social workers  on immigration policy in the Biden Administration. They had read my previous published article “An Overview and Critique of US Immigration and  Asylum Policies In The Trump Era” (2018). They requested an “update” on that article to cover significant developments during the Biden Administration.

While, obviously, things have changed since the election, I believe this speech still has relevance. Therefore, I publish it in a revised and updated version.

REVISITED VERSION 3

REVISITED:  U.S. Immigration & Asylum Policies In The Twilight Of The Biden Administration

 

Originally Delivered in September 2024

 

Edited and Revised, Nov. 4, 2024

 

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

 

I call on you to join our NDPA, use your skills, commitment, and power to resist the haters, oppose the wobbly enablers, expose political bullies who trade away lives and rights that aren’t theirs, and fight to finally deliver on our nation’s yet-unfulfilled promise of due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all in America!

 

 

 

  1. INTRODUCTION

 

Good evening, and thanks for inviting me.  Please listen very carefully to the following important announcement.

 

In the next hour, you will hear no party line, no bureaucratic doublespeak, no sugar coating, no BS, or other such nonsense. Just the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, of course as I define truth and see it through the lens of my five decades of work with and in the American immigration system.

 

The views expressed herein are mine, and mine alone. They also do not represent the position of any group, organization, individual, or other entity with which I am presently associated, have associated with in the past, or might become associated with in the future. 

 

But, that’s not all folks! Because today is Wednesday and you are such a wonderful audience, I give you my famous, “industry best,” absolute, unconditional, money back guarantee that the following presentation will be free of power points, split screens, and all other forms of distracting modern technology that might interfere with your comprehension and total listening enjoyment. For the next hour, I will be your “power point.”

 

Congratulations and my deep appreciation for your noble choice of social work as a career. Your skills and talents are desperately needed in our society. As you might imagine, as an Immigration Judge I heard and relied upon expert testimony from professional social workers, among others.

 

I am also well aware of the important behind the scenes efforts of social workers to get individuals and families beyond their often-traumatic situations here and abroad, to adjust to and be able to function in our society, and thereby to have the confidence and devote the necessary attention to working with their legal representatives to present the best cases possible in court. As a decision-maker, sound information cogently presented is the key to getting it right and doing justice.

 

You are fortunate to have some great, inspirational examples to guide you.

 

Three of my personal heroes come to mind. First, Aimee Miller who owns and operates a group practice called Interconnect: Counseling and Consulting, LLC, dedicated to conducting psychosocial and mental health evaluations and providing expert testimony and reports for immigration proceedings. She also teaches at the University of Michigan, School of Social Work.

 

My friend Joan Hodges Wu, a licensed social worker, is the founder and CEO of AsylumWorks in Washington, D.C. Her organization is devoted to helping newly arrived asylum seekers and their families navigate the legal, language, employment, educational, and other potential hurdles of adjusting to a new life while facing the uncertainties of the future.

 

Another friend, Hanna Cartwright, received dual degrees in social work and law from Catholic University in D.C. She was an intern at the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court and a “charter member” of what I call the “New Due Process Army,” or “NDPA.” This is a group of outstanding professionals, many of them former students of mine at Georgetown Law, interns, and judicial law clerks at the Arlington Court, who are committed to social justice and “fighting the good fight” to force our nation to deliver on its promise of due process for immigrants. Hannah has had a varied career and has risen to become the co-founder and Director of Mariposa Legal in Indianapolis, Indiana.

 

Additionally, I am proud to be on the Advisory Council of
AYUDA, a community group serving the needs of asylum seekers and other immigrants in the D.C. metro area. AYUDA attorneys appeared before me pro bono when I was on the bench. Social work is one of the major service divisions of AYUDA, in addition to legal and language services. 

 

These are all great and inspiring examples of individuals and organizations that “put it all on the line,” every day, to make their communities, America, and the world better places.  And certainly, as you will find, there are many more of these throughout America.

 

I recently read an article in the Washington Post about the struggles and divisions in a small community in Massachusetts with resettling, on a temporary basis, a limited number of pregnant women, children, and families. Most of those at issue are recent arrivals to the U.S., many camping in a concourse at Logan Airport for weeks or even months.  [1]

 

We need better resettlement programs. For some inexplicable reason, the Biden Administration thought that it would be a good idea to essentially “outsource” resettlement to restrictionist GOP governors like Abbott and DeSantis. They, in turn, bussed, or in some cases even flew, recently-arrived asylum seekers to locations in so-called “blue states,” where they believed they would overload local resources and cause problems, thereby inflaming xenophobic resentment.

 

Instead of such inexcusable nonsense, we need asylum resettlement programs that are “dressed for success” – some type of “national clearing house” to match asylees in an orderly fashion with locations across the U.S. where their skills are needed and they would be welcomed. Then, these communities and the asylum seekers must have support services to insure a mutually beneficial transition and reduce misunderstandings and resentments on both parts.

 

These organized programs should concentrate on preparing, supporting, informing, educating, and communicating with communities and migrants, requirements that are often overlooked or inadequate today. Change is an inevitable part of life, but that doesn’t mean everybody will like or accept it. We need better ways of “getting over the hump together.”

 

Tragically, neither political party appears interested in investing in the successful resettlement efforts that will benefit our nation and those seeking refuge through asylum. Therefore, it is likely to fall to the private/NGO sector to “model success” and innovative thinking. Certainly, social work services are an important part of this multi-disciplinary approach.  

 

Now, to the main part of my presentation. You have read my 2019 article “An Overview and Critique of US Immigration and Asylum Policies in the Trump Era.” You have asked me to update you on the current status of the four “membership categories” that I posited in that article: full members; associate members, friends, and outcasts. So, here goes.

 

  1. FULL MEMBERS

 

With respect to full members, essentially U.S. citizens, I’m pleased to report that naturalizations are up under the Biden Administration. As of this summer, more than 3.3 million new citizens had been naturalized as opposed to a little under 3 million during the entire Trump Administration. [2]

 

I think this is the result of ending the misallocation of resources and intimidation tactics used by the bureaucracy under Trump to discourage naturalization. The end of COVID also played a role. Plus, the Trump Administration’s message of hate, lies, and overt xenophobia probably convinced many lawful permanent residents that they would be safer with the protections of U.S. citizenship and the ability to vote on their political leaders.

 

Of course, you have probably heard of Trump’s outrageous threat to mess with birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Since this is a constitutional right, it legally can’t be abridged by either executive action or legislation. The intent here appears to be to harass, dehumanize, and spread fear among our ethic communities and to basically cast doubt on the status of many loyal Americans, mostly of color, who obtained citizenship in this manner notwithstanding the immigration status of their parents.  

 

  • ASSOCIATE MEMBERS

 

Turning to “associate members,” basically green card holders, refugees, and asylees, admissions and adjustments to lawful permanent residence are up. Again, this probably stems largely from the end of COVID and the elimination of some bureaucratic hurdles, as well as some efforts to address backlogs at USCIS.

 

There has been a significant improvement and revival of U.S. overseas refugee programs. They are now on target to exceed 100,000 refugee admissions, although probably falling a bit short of the 125,000 announced target number. Compare that with the paltry fewer than 12,000 admissions in the final fiscal year of the Trump Administration.[3]

 

Still, refugee programs are underutilized and not targeting all our real needs. For example, while the Administration has significantly improved refugee admissions from Latin America and the Caribbean, they are still well below the number necessary to meet actual demand. Of the top five refugee admission countries, DRC, Syria, Afghanistan, Burma, and Guatemala, only the latter is in the Western Hemisphere.

 

Worse yet, has been the cowardly bipartisan attack on our legal asylum system at the Southern Border. This culminated in some of the most draconian anti-asylum executive actions ever in relatively recent regulations issued over the strenuous, well-founded objections of experts, advocates, and NGOs with actual experience in the plight of asylum seekers.

 

Disgracefully, the Biden Administration is considering extending these legally questionable provisions, now under attack in litigation. At the same time, V.P. Harris has pledged that if elected she would attempt to resurrect a horrible, anti-asylum “Bipartisan Border Bill” aimed at accomplishing much of the same damage. For his part, Trump has long demeaned and dehumanized legal asylum seekers and would happily seek to eliminate or further restrict their admission.

 

Neither party seems interested in “doing the right, and obvious, thing” – building an asylum screening and adjudication system that actually works in a fair, generous, and timely manner. The Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), an agency of the USDOJ that contains the Immigration Courts, where I once worked, is a particularly dysfunctional mess, with out-of-control backlogs burgeoning to nearly 4 million cases. It also produces wildly inconsistent results with asylum grant rates ranging from approximately 0% to 100% among nearly 700 Immigration Judges.

 

Essentially, both parties seek to improperly punish and demean legal asylum seekers for their bipartisan failure to fix the asylum adjudication system across more than two decades. That’s what “bipartisanship” has come to mean in immigration: Basically, a race to the bottom to find the lowest common denominator!

 

  1. FRIENDS

 

With respect to so called-friends, those with limited permission to be here, but no clear path to permanent residence or citizenship, nonimmigrant visas have rebounded with the lifting of COVID restrictions.

 

However, so-called “Dreamers” remain in limbo. There is no foreseeable prospect for legislative relief and a “red-state” challenge to the legality of their DACA status is in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, likely headed for the Supremes.

 

The Biden Administration used executive actions to create some new “legal pathways” programs allowing up to 30,000 per month pre-screened individuals with U.S. sponsors to be “paroled” into the U.S. for an initial two-year period. This program has proved somewhat successful in reducing pressure at the Southern Border.

 

However, it is limited to nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. That plus the numerical limitations diminish its ameliorative effect. In addition, the program had to be temporarily paused to look into allegations of sponsorship fraud.

 

Moreover, unlike those admitted in refugee or asylum status, those paroled have no statutory path to green cards and eventual U.S. citizenship. They would need special legislation to gain lawful permanent status.

 

But, given strong GOP opposition to these humanitarian programs, these individuals are likely to remain in “limbo,” and become “political footballs” subject to the whims of the next Administration. Many have been, or will be, forced into the already backlogged asylum adjudication system, thereby defeating part of the original purpose of these parole programs.[4]

 

Remarkably, the Administration also chose to use parole, rather than the refugee system, to allow large numbers of our Afghan allies to come to the United States following the Taliban takeover. These also remain in limbo, in the absence of a legislative path to permanent status.

 

Unlike Trump, who tried to restrict and eliminate so-called
Temporary Protected Status, or “TPS” wherever possible, the Biden Administration has made relatively robust use of TPS. The Administration has also made some improvements in the timely issuance and renewal of important “Employment Authorization Documents” (“EADs”) for those awaiting adjudication of applications filed with USCIS and EOIR.

 

  1. OUTCASTS

 

With respect to those “outcasts” who don’t fit within any of the three foregoing categories, sometimes called “undocumented,” their numbers are probably around 10 to 12 million. [5]It is certainly not the bogus 20 million figure that GOP politicos and the right-wing media like to throw around. It’s also unclear to me whether this figure subsumes the many asylum applicants who actually are neither “undocumented” nor “illegal,” but here with Government permission to pursue their legal asylum applications before the USCIS Asylum Office and/or EOIR.

 

The Biden Administration tried to help noncitizen spouses and stepchildren of USCs regularize their status with a widely-hailed practical, humanitarian program called “Parole in Place” (“PIP”). However, perhaps predictably, a Trump-appointed Federal Judge blocked the PIP Program, at least temporarily. He acted at the request of “red states” with anti-immigrant agendas. So, while PIP registrations are still taking place, the fate of the program is unclear at this juncture.

 

Perhaps, worst of all, as I mentioned earlier, the Immigration Courts remain a dismal mess, with nearly 4 million case backlog that has grown exponentially under A.G. Garland. Instead of fixing EOIR and standing up for the legal and human rights of asylum seekers, Garland has instituted “built to fail” gimmicks like “expedited dockets” and approved regulations barring most asylum claims at southern border in violation of the statutory right, not to mention human right, to seek asylum “regardless of status.”

 

NGOs, practical experts, and advocates who, unlike Garland and his lieutenants, actually work with asylum seekers at the border and elsewhere, have documented how these tone-deaf policies increase deaths and abuses of asylum seekers in Mexico and beyond. However, truth has been to no avail in this appalling situation. I’d argue that most of the Administration’s misguided “maximum enforcement/no due process” at the border has been in response to their abject failure to bring long-overdue reforms to EOIR and the AO. They now seek to “cover-up” this massive failure by scheming to avoid the system entirely, rather than fixing it.

 

Trump outrageously threatens mass deportations. These would not only violate laws guaranteeing due process, but also sow fear and terror in many ethnic communities, which is, of course, the real point of such threats: essentially “dehumanization” or “de-personification” of wide swarths of our society going far beyond immigrants. At the same time, he would waste money, misdirect law enforcement resources, and likely tank our economy, which depends heavily on the labor of immigrants, both legal and undocumented. Not a pretty picture.

 

  1. CONCLUSION

 

In conclusion, the Biden Administration has been a “mixed bag” on immigration, human rights, civil rights, and the rule of law. Basically, it has been “one step forward, and two steps back.”

 

A number of the Administration’s ameliorative programs for immigrants, like retention of DACA, humanitarian parole, increased refugee admissions, and “Parole in Place” have been too timid, limited, or blocked by restrictionist litigation.

 

On the other hand, bad border policies and largely ignoring the due process crisis in the Immigration Courts have undermined the rule of law, promoted the “bipartisan demonization and dehumanization of asylum seekers and other migrants at the border,” squandered scarce resources in the private/NGO sector, and wrecked death, despair, and untold misery on some of our most vulnerable fellow humans.

 

In extremely unfortunate ways, we are now replicating the very pre-1980 programs and disorganized, ad hoc, often-biased approaches that the Refugee Act of 1980 and the creation of EOIR were intended to solve.

 

Refugee provisions are avoided when dealing with so-called “emergencies,” leading to the mass parole of Afghans, limbo status, and the need for Congressional action for permanent status. Asylum determinations are basically reverting to ad hoc, often arbitrary and capricious, decisions that favor some nationalities and ethnicities over others based on US internal politics and foreign policy concerns. Humanitarian parole programs, while potentially a step in the right direction, deny individuals the stability and clear route to green cards and citizenship as well as some of the protections that come with refugee, asylum, and other types of legal admissions.  It also makes them “political footballs” for the restrictionist right.

 

Making EOIR an independent entity within DOJ, back in 1983, a process I was involved in, was supposed to advance quasi-judicial independence and professionalism. Instead, after decades of bipartisan misdirection and mismanagement, the Immigration Courts have essentially resumed some of their pre-EOIR characteristics of being perceived, and often acting, as politicized arms of DHS enforcement, too often lacking professionalism, expertise, consistency, practical problem-solving abilities, and compassion.

 

I recently posted on Linkedin an article by Eduardo Porter that summarized the current gloomy and disturbing state of our national non-debate on immigration:

 

Consider immigration, the epicenter of zero-sum thinking in voters’ minds. It’s an issue that is critical to the United States’ future and a topic that is easily demagogued as a struggle between endangered Americans and some predatory “other.” Harris, like Biden, has worked to distance herself from Trump’s most implausible ideas (such as expelling 11 million people). Still, she leads a Democratic Party that believes one of its paramount challenges is stopping immigrants from coming to the United States.
[6]

 

That’s a rather sad, yet fundamentally true, commentary on how our nation of immigrants now thinks and acts. The GOP demonizes, dehumanizes, and lies about immigrants; the Dems roll over and want to change the subject. As you witnessed in the Presidential “debate,” actually more of an exercise in “performative entertainment” than a serious discussion of issues, we don’t know November’s winners, but we already know the losers: Immigrants, due process, and social justice advocates.

 

Few, if any, politicos on the national level have the moral courage and clear vision to mount a well-justified, evidence-based defense of asylum seekers and other migrants. Likewise, few of them advocate for investing in achievable improvements in the system. Instead, they seek partisan political advantage, on the backs of the desperate and disenfranchised, by eagerly and cynically pouring money and manpower into cruel, ultimately ineffective, enforcement and “deterrence” gimmicks.

 

The latter, not incidentally, have spawned a highly profitable and politically potent industry that benefits from every deadly, failed border deterrence “enhancement.” No wonder positive change and creative problem solving are so elusive, and so many of our politicos lack the guts effectively to protect immigrants’ lives, human dignity, and rights at the border and beyond!

 

More than 50 years of experience working in our immigration systems, at different levels, and from many angles, tell me the following inalienable truths:

 

  • Human migration is real;
  • Forced migration is exactly that;
  • It won’t be stopped by walls, prisons, deterrents, or other cruelty;
  • Asylum is a human and legal right;
  • Immigrants are good for America; and
  • Due process for all persons in the U.S. is essential.

 

My time on the stage is winding down. But, yours, my friends, is just beginning. I call on you to join our NDPA, use your skills, commitment, and power to resist the haters, oppose the wobbly enablers, expose political bullies who trade away lives and rights that aren’t theirs, and fight to finally deliver on our nation’s yet-unfulfilled promise of due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all in America!

 

Thank you for listening, and due process forever!

 

(11-04-24)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2024/migrant-shelter-norfolk-massachusetts-immigration-debate/.

[2] https://truthout.org/articles/trump-backlogged-citizenship-process-biden-has-halved-the-time-it-takes/

[3] https://www.wrapsnet.org/admissions-and-arrivals/

[4] Indeed, after this speech was delivered, but before the election, the Biden Administration announced plans to abandon more than 530,000 individuals paroled into the U.S. under these “lawful pathways” programs. Upon expiration of their current parole, they will be forced to either leave the U.S. or apply for some type of relief, the primary one being the asylum adjudication system which is already absurdly backlogged. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.nyic.org/2024/10/advocates-outraged-by-president-bidens-refusal-to-extend-humanitarian-parole-for-immigrants-in-the-u-s/&ved=2ahUKEwjdx-jssoyKAxU-F1kFHd_XGCYQFnoECB4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1D3gxxQl0uOawGZ7HkwLBT

[5] https://ssri.psu.edu/news/mpi-issues-latest-estimates-size-and-origins-us-unauthorized-immigrant-population

[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/09/03/politics-trump-biden-trade-immigration/