Alabama – Page 81 – immigrationcourtside.com

NIELSEN FINDS BEING A SPINELESS SYCOPHANT NOT ENOUGH TO PROTECT HER FROM TRUMP’S WRATH – “Don The Con” Blames Hapless DHS Sec. For Thousands Of Years Of Human Migration Patterns, US Constitution, US Code, Rule Of Law, & Judeo Christian Teachings On Compassion & Kindness To Strangers & The Vulnerable!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-unloads-on-homeland-security-secretary-in-lengthy-immigration-tirade/2018/05/10/f0ded152-54a0-11e8-9c91-7dab596e8252_story.html?utm_term=.8616d78d08fa

Josh Dawsey & Nick Miroff report for WashPost:

President Trump berated Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in a dispiriting Cabinet meeting on immigration Wednesday, according to three administration officials, but her colleagues denied reports that she has threatened to quit.

Trump lashed out at his Cabinet, and Nielsen in particular, when told that the number of people arrested for illegally crossing the Mexico border topped 50,000 for the second consecutive month. The blowup lasted more than 30 minutes, according to a person with knowledge of what transpired, as Trump’s face reddened and he raised his voice, saying Nielsen needed to “close down” the border.

“Why don’t you have solutions? How is this still happening?” he said, adding later, “We need to shut it down. We’re closed.”

Administration officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide a candid account of the private meeting.

Trump’s tirade went on so long that many present began fidgeting in their seats and flashing grimaces, White House aides said. Eventually, the topic moved on to health care, bringing relief to many in the room.

Trump’s outburst at Nielsen was first reported Thursday by the New York Times.

The president’s eruption was witnessed by Cabinet members plus a number of senior White House officials — including counselor Kellyanne Conway, advisers Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, immigration adviser Stephen Miller and chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow.

Nielsen battled back, one person said, telling Trump that laws limit some of what she could do to block the flow of undocumented immigrants. Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended her, saying the administration was looking for new ways to deter illegal crossings.

Mostly, though, Nielsen struggled to get a word in, said one senior official.

The New York Times and Politico reported that Nielsen, who began the job in December, drafted a resignation letter. In a statement Thursday, a spokesman for the agency said that was false. Two senior White House officials described Nielsen as upset after the meeting, but said they were unaware of such a letter or threats to resign.

One White House official said Nielsen was in the building again Thursday. Hogan Gidley, a White House spokesman, did not respond to emails and phone calls seeking comment.

One person close to Nielsen said she is unlikely to resign. “She feels like she’s doing the best she can and doing a good job on immigration, but she also has to follow the law,” this person said. “It’s frustrating to have your boss unhappy about that.”

Homeland Security’s deputy secretary position is vacant, so there would be no immediate replacement if Nielsen were to step down.

Trump has never viewed Nielsen favorably, and complains to colleagues that she is “not tough enough,” according to a senior White House official. He reminds staff that she was a “George W. Bush person” because of her previous tenure as a White House Homeland Security adviser.

In recent weeks, Nielsen has announced measures aimed at deterring illegal migration, including criminal prosecutions for parents who cross the border illegally with their children. Families are typically broken up in those circumstances, as federal immigration agents send children to government shelters while their mothers and fathers remain in custody awaiting court dates.

Trump has asked for frequent updates about the number of people attempting to cross the border illegally and has grown increasingly irritated at the recent trends.

A caravan of Central American migrants traveling through Mexico seized the president’s attention this spring, and in the weeks that followed he frequently asked Homeland Security for updates, administration officials said.

Illegal crossings plunged in the early phase of Trump’s presidency, but have since returned to levels consistent with the last several years of the Obama administration. Arrests along the border with Mexico typically rise during springtime, when migrants seeking jobs on U.S. farms and ranches return for the summer growing season.

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

Spinelessness usually isn’t the best policy. Ask “Speaker Paul” how it worked out for him. Cabinet Members are only along for the short ride in any event; why not “do the right thing,” speak “truth to power,” and let the chips fall where they may? Just ask the ghost of Elliott Richardson who “Just said no” to Nixon’s lawless demand to fire the Special Prosecutor!
Immigration and border control are well within normal levels — actually the border is under somewhat better control. Instead of just noting that and moving on to more important issues, Trump unwisely claimed “miraculous powers” of deterrence stemming from his bombastic, anti-immigrant, racist statements last year. Most experts said that was stupid. Now that it has, in fact, proved to be stupid, Trump, as usual, needs to blame someone else. And, the lightweight sycophant Nielsen is the perfect “punching bag” for “Don the Con.”
The story of “The Good Samaritan” reimagined with “Don the Con:” He would have head stomped the helpless victim to death and left the body in the middle of the dusty road as a deterrent.

PWS

05-13-18

GONZO’S WORLD: GONZO DISSES FIRST LADY’S KINDNESS TO KIDS PROGRAM AT ROLLOUT! — His Official Policy Of Child Abuse Will Have Long Term Adverse Effects – US Will Go Down In Infamy As Nation That Enabled Traumatization Of Vulnerable Children!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/melania-trump-and-jeff-sessions-need-a-heart-to-heart/2018/05/09/3b6547b2-53be-11e8-abd8-265bd07a9859_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cd4e5d47d2ee

Irwin Redlener writes in the Washington Post:

. . . .

It is hard to imagine a more stressful situation for a young child than to be forcibly taken from his or her parents and detained with strangers. Sometimes this unfortunate outcome is necessary when children are the victims of parental violence or severe neglect. But in the case of current U.S. policy as articulated by the attorney general, the “abuser” is the federal government.

Forced separation of children and their parents is “child abuse by government.” And in this case, knowing what we now know about the consequences of severe stress in children, it is no stretch to assert that these new federal policies are not just cruel but also can have lifelong consequences for their child victims.

If Melania Trump meant what she said about children, she might want to organize a heart-to-heart meeting with the attorney general — and with her husband. Maybe the first lady could advocate for policies that reflect the spirit of her new agenda and a commitment to protect vulnerable families seeking safety and opportunity in the United States.

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

Read the complete, very disturbing, article at the link. What kind of country with what kind of values puts a child abuser in charge of its legal system? Under Trump & Sessions, America has gone from a defender to an abuser of human rights. Sessions is a refutation of human decency every day that he is allowed to remain in the office for which he was so spectacularly unqualified in the first place.

Senator Liz Warren was right. Remember McConnell and the other smug Republicans who put this horrible individual in place to damage our youth and our reputation as a nation of laws, decency, and human compassion.

PWS

05-12-18

UPDATE FROM THE KAKISTOCRACY: GEORGE WILL: Mike Pence Is Even More Disgusting Than Trump – And, That’s A Hard Standard To Beat! — “The oleaginous Mike Pence, with his talent for toadyism and appetite for obsequiousness, could, Trump knew, become America’s most repulsive public figure. “

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-no-longer-the-worst-person-in-government/2018/05/09/10e59eba-52f1-11e8-a551-5b648abe29ef_story.html?utm_term=.11896a71cffb

Will writes in the WashPost:

Donald Trump, with his feral cunning, knew. The oleaginous Mike Pence, with his talent for toadyism and appetite for obsequiousness, could, Trump knew, become America’s most repulsive public figure. And Pence, who has reached this pinnacle by dethroning his benefactor, is augmenting the public stock of useful knowledge. Because his is the authentic voice of today’s lickspittle Republican Party, he clarifies this year’s elections: Vote Republican to ratify groveling as governing.

Last June, a Trump Cabinet meeting featured testimonials offered to Dear Leader by his forelock-tugging colleagues. His chief of staff, Reince Priebus, caught the spirit of the worship service by thanking Trump for the “blessing” of being allowed to serve him. The hosannas poured forth from around the table, unredeemed by even a scintilla of insincerity. Priebus was soon deprived of his blessing, as was Tom Price. Before Price’s ecstasy of public service was truncated because of his incontinent enthusiasm for charter flights, he was the secretary of health and human services who at the Cabinet meeting said, “I can’t thank you enough for the privileges you’ve given me.” The vice president chimed in but saved his best riff for a December Cabinet meeting when, as The Post’s Aaron Blake calculated, Pence praised Trump once every 12 seconds for three minutes: “I’m deeply humbled. . . . ” Judging by the number of times Pence announces himself “humbled,” he might seem proud of his humility, but that is impossible because he is conspicuously devout and pride is a sin.

Between those two Cabinet meetings, Pence and his retinue flew to Indiana for the purpose of walking out of an Indianapolis Colts football game, thereby demonstrating that football players kneeling during the national anthem are intolerable to someone of Pence’s refined sense of right and wrong. Which brings us to his Arizona salute last week to Joe Arpaio, who was sheriff of Maricopa County until in 2016 voters wearied of his act.

[Jennifer Rubin: This is why Pence’s sickening embrace of Arpaio is so important]

Noting that Arpaio was in his Tempe audience, Pence, oozing unctuousness from every pore, called Arpaio “another favorite,” professed himself “honored” by Arpaio’s presence, and praisedhim as “a tireless champion of . . . the rule of law.” Arpaio, a grandstanding, camera-chasing bully and darling of the thuggish right, is also a criminal, convicted of contempt of court for ignoring a federal judge’s order to desist from certain illegal law enforcement practices. Pence’s performance occurred eight miles from the home of Sen. John McCain, who could teach Pence — or perhaps not — something about honor.

. . . .

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

Read the full op-ed at the link.

Yup! Courtside readers please remember that I beat Ol’ Georgie to the punch on this one. https://wp.me/p8eeJm-2vv

Usually, it’s better to just deal with the “real one,” rather than the one who has his nose wedged 12 inches up the real one.

Interesting: “Mikey the Immoral Sycophant” is Trump’s best insurance policy. And Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions is all that stands between Mikey and the “Most Disgusting ‘Whatever’ In Washington” Award!

“Swamp Dwellers,” each and every one!

PWS

05-12-18

ERIC LEVITZ @ NY MAGGIE & THE DAILY INTELLIGENCER: WHAT A “GREAT WEEK” IN TRUMPISM LOOKS LIKE: “[H]e has implemented an immigration policy that serves white nationalist aims to a degree without modern precedent; elevated corruption into a philosophy of government; and prioritized spectacle over substance in his approach to foreign affairs to the point that America’s geopolitical strategy is now less neoconservative or isolationist or realist than it is nihilistic.”

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/trump-has-never-been-more-racist-corrupt-or-belligerent.html?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Intelligencer%20-%20May%2010%2C%202018&utm_term=Subscription%20List%20-%20Daily%20Intelligencer%20%281%20Year%29

Eric Levitz writes in The Intellingencer and NY Maggie:

In certain respects, Donald Trump has been a far more “normal” Republican president than many pundits had predicted (or are willing to admit). Upon taking office, the mogul left his most heretical deviations from GOP dogma at the White House gates: The “populist” insurgent’s welfare chauvinism gave way to Paul Ryanism; his neo-isolationism, to something resembling conventional right-wing hawkery; his gestures of tolerance toward “the LGBT community,” to the pious persecution of transgender Americans.

On other fronts, the president’s apparent abnormality has had less to do with his ingenuity than with our collective amnesia: There is nothing abnormal about a Republican administration launching a crusade against voter fraud that is, in reality, a crusade against Democratic voter participation; or about one imposing tariffs on foreign steel; or running up the deficit; or sabotaging regulatory agencies; or even politicizing federal law enforcement.

And yet, it would be a mistake to suggest that Trump’s innovations have been purely stylistic, that he’s merely stamped his garish branding on the GOP’s classic product. Beyond the unprecedented illiberalism of the president’s rhetoric, his approach to governance has been substantively distinctive enough to warrant its own title. Trumpism is real.

True, the president hasn’t converted his party to the populist paleoconservatism he preached on the campaign trail. But he hasimplemented an immigration policy that serves white nationalist aims to a degree without modern precedent; elevated corruption into a philosophy of government; and prioritized spectacle over substance in his approach to foreign affairs to the point that America’s geopolitical strategy is now less neoconservative or isolationist or realist than it is nihilistic.

Taken together, these innovations amount to a novel variation on the conservatism Trump inherited — one that truly came into its own this past week. To see why this is the case, consider three developments from the past five days:

(1) The White House stripped legal status from 57,000 Honduran immigrants — who had been residing in the United States for decades — over the fervent objections of the State Department.

American immigration policy has long been cruel, and shaped by nativist fears. Donald Trump’s approach to policing undocumented immigration is less distinct from Barack Obama’s than many of the latter’s admirers would like to believe.

Nevertheless, the current administration’s overall immigration agenda is markedly different from those of its predecessors. Racist cruelty is not merely a feature of Trumpist immigration policy, but its first principle: The White House’s overriding goal is to inflict terror and suffering on America’s nonwhite noncitizens, as a means of combating “the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty” — as former White House national security adviser Michael Anton once described America’s status quo immigration regime. (The president gave less eloquent expression to this same worldview, when he insisted that America did need not any more immigrants from “shithole countries.”)

This reality is best illustrated by Trump’s treatment of immigrants with temporary protected status (TPS). Established by Congress in 1990, TPS allows migrants whose home countries have been destabilized by natural disasters or civil strife to live and work in the U.S. legally, on a temporary basis. In practice, it has provided hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the developing world with de facto permanent residency in the U.S. Over the past two decades, various earthquakes and hurricanes led the United States to give large numbers of Salvadorans, Haitians, and Hondurans TPS; then, the resiliently adverse political and economic conditions in those countries led our government to allow those migrants to keep their protected status, indefinitely.

Many of these immigrants have now lived the majority of their adult lives in the United States. Some have started families here — TPS recipients are the fathers and mothers of an estimated 273,000 U.S.-born children, all of whom are entitled to American citizenship. In a different political era, Congress might have passed legislation providing this population with permanent legal status by now. But with comprehensive immigration reform paralyzed on Capitol Hill, previous administrations — Democratic and Republican — have simply allowed TPS recipients to renew their protected status every 18 months. After all, what good would be served by deporting hardworking, longtime U.S. residents, who are raising American citizens, back to countries plagued by poverty and violence?

The Trump White House refuses to answer that question.

Instead, it has moved to deport 300,000 Central American and Haitian TPS recipients without providing any justification beyond a transparently fraudulent appeal to legal necessity: Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has insisted that her hands are tied — the administration is legally obligated to withdraw these immigrants’ protections once the conditions that prompted them subside. Honduras has recovered from Hurricane Mitch; “temporary” means temporary. If Congress wishes to give these people permanent status, it can do so.

But this narrative is patently false: U.S. law requires the Executive branch to consider whether the TPS recipients’ home countries are stable enough to accept a large number of deportees before it terminates their protected status. And as the Washington Postrevealed this week, career officials in the departments of State and Homeland Security concluded that those countries weren’t. In fact, U.S. diplomats warned the White House that deporting TPS recipients en masse was likely to produce a “bonanza for smuggling networks and gangs,” as many of those longtime U.S. residents would seek extralegal means of returning to this country.

The administration ignored this advice. When Acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke extended protections for Hondurans last fall, John Kelly called her from Asia “to convey his frustration,” while Stephen Miller hectored other DHS staff. Duke resigned in February; last Friday, the administration moved to expel the 57,000 Honduran recipients of TPS, despite the fact that their home country is suffering from an epidemic of gang violence so severe, many of its citizens joined the caravan that marched from Central America to the U.S. border just last month.

Between the 300,000 immigrants stripped of TPS and the 700,000 Dreamers denied DACA, the Trump administration has attempted to revoke the legal status of roughly 1 million longtime U.S. residents; all while offering no explanation for its actions beyond the bogus claim that they were legally required.

The reason that the White House has neglected to disclose the actual rationale behind these policies is simple: Its true motivation is too incendiary to formally acknowledge.

You cannot expel immigrants who have been thriving in the U.S. for two decades, out of concern that they might prove unable to assimilate. You can’t deport a population that has a higher labor-force participation rate than native-born Americans on the grounds that it will be a burden on the U.S. economy. You cannot claim that your immigration policy is motivated by concern for public safety, when you move to deport law-abiding longtime residents — even though your diplomats warn that doing so will benefit criminal gangs and smugglers. And you certainly can’t claim that your hard-line immigration agenda puts the interests of all American citizens first, when you’re trying to separate hundreds of thousands of American citizens from their mothers and fathers. None of the polite restrictionist arguments apply.

But an impolite argument does: If the Trump administration’s goal is to combat the demographic threat posed by America’s rising population of “Third World foreigners,” then its TPS policy makes perfect sense. Trump can’t stem the tide of new, nonwhite immigrants without Congress’s help. But he can expel those with only a temporary claim to legal residence. And so that is what he has done. Which is to say: A mild form of ethnic cleansing is now a cornerstone of American immigration policy.

Protecting the racial character of the United States was an explicit goal of American immigration law until 1965 — and has been an implicit one since January 2017.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Eric’s very perceptive analysis at the above link.

Yup. It’s all about racism! That’s what Trump, Sessions, Miller, Cotton, Perdue, Goodlatte, & Co. have always been about. Essentially turning America back to the pre-1965 days of “national origins” immigration.

And, I’m pleased that someone OTM (“other than me”) finally has pinpointed the willfully false narrative behind the bogus claim that termination of TPS was “legally required.” Complete BS:

But this narrative is patently false: U.S. law requires the Executive branch to consider whether the TPS recipients’ home countries are stable enough to accept a large number of deportees before it terminates their protected status. And as the Washington Post revealed this week, career officials in the departments of State and Homeland Security concluded that those countries weren’t. In fact, U.S. diplomats warned the White House that deporting TPS recipients en masse was likely to produce a “bonanza for smuggling networks and gangs,” as many of those longtime U.S. residents would seek extralegal means of returning to this country.

Trump/Sessions racist immigration policies hurt the “good guys,” help the “bad guys,” and insure that American immigration “policies” will be a mess for decades to come. As Eric states, “A mild form of ethnic cleansing is now a cornerstone of American immigration policy.”

The only thing I’d dispute is the term “mild.” This is just the beginning. Trump, Sessions, & Co. have non-White populations of Americans, primarily Hispanics but also including African-Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc., squarely within their sights.

Yes, there’s strength in diversity and in immigration! I’ve seen it in my courtroom and in my life. Don’t let Trump, Sessions, and their racist cronies destroy the greatness of America!

“Normalizing” Donald Trump is morally wrong and politically suicidal. Look what happened in the 1930s when the Western Powers tried to “normalize” Hitler and the Nazis. There’s nothing “normal” about White Nationalism and White Supremacy!

Join the New Due Process Army. Fight to Keep America Great!

PWS

05-11-18

HON. BRUCE J. EINHORN IN THE HILL: SCOFFLAW AG JEFF SESSIONS PERVERTS RULE OF LAW, “PERSECUTES THE PERSECUTED,” AND UNDERMINES THE FUNDAMENTAL PROTECTION PURPOSES OF THE REFUGEE ACT OF 1980

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/386956-persecuting-the-persecuted-in-asylum-cases-is-not-the-answer

Judge Einhorn writes:

As a young Justice Department lawyer, I was present at the creation of the Refugee Act of 1980, which together with its amendments and implementing regulations constitute the regime of asylum and refugee protection in the United States. During the Carter administration, I had a hand in the final drafting of the 1980 asylum law. As a U.S. immigration judge in Los Angeles from 1990 through 2007, I heard and decided thousands of cases in which citizens and stateless persons from foreign countries sought asylum in our nation. As a law professor both in California and in England, I have lectured on asylum and refugee law.

The asylum law was intended as a humanitarian measure to defend the defenseless by offering them the possibility of a new and secure life in the United States. But that will no longer be the case if Attorney General Jeff Sessions has his way. The Refugee Act of 1980 grants asylum status in the United States for any foreign-born individual who demonstrates past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution for reasons of “race, religion, nationality” as well as “membership in a particular social group” and “political opinion.”

Additionally, under precedent set over the course of decades by federal courts across the country, the persecution that triggers asylum protection must be committed or attempted by a foreign government, or by forces that the government is unable or unwilling to control. That the persecution may be official or private recognizes the fact that in many countries, civil society and the rule of law are nowhere to be found. In their place, governments often unofficially depend on ad hoc private parties and organizations to aid in the torture, persecution and murder of those deemed “enemies of the state.” The use of nongovernmental persecutors provides plausible deniability to regimes that deny complicity in the mistreatment of those they seek to eliminate.

Now the attorney general is attempting to undermine if not eliminate the “unable or unwilling” standard applied in asylum cases for decades. In 2016, in a case entitled “Matter of A-B-,” the Board of Immigration Appeals, the administrative court that reviews decisions of immigration judges, ruled that based on prevailing precedent, an asylum applicant seeking refugee status based on her membership in a particular social group” that led to her gross domestic abuse, had demonstrated that the government of her native El Salvador was unwilling or unable to protect her from her abusive ex-husband. The board remanded the case to the trial judge so that he might apply the correct “unwilling or unable” standard.

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

Go on over to The Hill to read Judge Einhorn’s complete article!

Judge Bruce J. Einhorn has spent his career advancing the true rule of law and seeking to rectify the wrongs of the past: first as a prosecutor in the Office of Special Investigations at the U.S. DOJ bringing Nazi war criminals to justice (where I first came in contact with him); then as a U.S. Immigration Judge; and finally as a law professor. (Yes, folks, there was a time long ago when the USDOJ actually was on the side of seeking and guaranteeing justice for the persecuted, rather than engaging in child abuse, spreading false scenarios about immigrants and crime, promoting xenophobic myths about refugees, building the “New American Gulag,” and mis-using the US Immigration Court system as a tool of DHS enforcement to discourage refugees from seeking protection under our laws and international treaties to which we are party.)

By contrast, Jeff Sessions has spent his entire legal & “public service” career on the wrong side of history: trying to “turn back the clock” to the era of Jim Crow; promoting intolerance, unequal treatment, and hate directed at African-Americans, Hispanics, immigrants, and the LGBTQ community; perverting the rule of law and the Constitutional guarantee of individual rights and fairness for everyone in America; and denying the massive contributions to the success of the United States made by non-White, non-Christian, and non-U.S. citizen individuals.

Jeff Sessions is a much bigger threat to the security, welfare, and future of the United States than are desperate women and children from the Northern Triangle seeking to save their lives by exercising their lawful rights under U.S. and international law to apply for asylum.

PWS

05-10-18

NO, IT’S NOT “NORMAL DEVIATION:” U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGE V. STUART COUCH’S RECORD ON CENTRAL AMERICAN WOMEN CLAIMING ASYLUM BASED ON A-R-C-G- SHOWS DEVIANT JUDICIAL BEHAVIOR, BIAS, & INSUFFICIENT CONTROL BY THE BIA – These Are The Glaring Problems Demeaning Due Process In Today’s U.S. Immigration Courts!– Yet, Jeff Sessions Appears Determined To Reinforce Bias and Denial Of Due Process Rather Than Solving The REAL Problems!

FOIA results: evidence of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch’s shocking prejudgment of all domestic violence asylum claims

by Bryan Johnson on April 20, 2018

At the bottom, readers will find the all of the decisions of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch that resulted in BIA remands for the Fiscal Year of 2017.

Time and time again, IJ Couch’s decisions denying victims of domestic violence asylum contain carbon copy language.

Thus, it is clear that IJ Couch’s has been prejudging all claims that have a history of domestic violence, and quite literally copying and pasting language he used to deny other domestic violence victims asylum. The following is one of his favorite passages to copy and paste.

The respondent’s evidence reflects that [the] physical and verbal abuse of her was related to his violent and jealous nature…The evidence in this case is more consistent with acts of general violence and therefore does not constitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily protected ground.

Immediately below, I have excerpted key parts of the BIA & IJ Couch decisions. A clear pattern has emerged: IJ Couch does not grant asylum to women who are victims of domestic violence, despite clear instructions to the contrary from the BIA.

Pages 31-48:

Immigration Judge’s decision:

“As noted in the particularity analysis supra, Guatemala has significant and troubling

issues related to domestic violence and crimes against women. However, unlike the married

alien in Matter of A-R-C-G-, the respondent lacks an identifiable trait like marriage or

inability to seek assistance from authority that distinguishes her from other women in

Guatemalan society. Similar to the particularity analysis supra, the Court finds the

respondent is an unfortunate victim of violence against women like far too many women in

Guatemala, and thereby renders her past harm indistinct by comparison.”

BIA’s holding:

The respondent’s testimony reflects that people in the community knew them as a couple and

made comments reflecting their notions that the respondent could not escape the relationship (Tr. 232 at 66).

The respondent also testified that her parents did not help her leave the

relationship because of ingrained views that women are the property of men (Tr. at 33-35).

Under these circumstances, we conclude under the same reasoning as Matter of A-R-C-G-,

supra, that the proffered social group here is “immutable,” “particular” and “socially distinct.”

To the extent that the Immigration Judge determined that the respondent is not a member of this

particular social group, that determination is clearly erroneous. See Matter of A-R-C-G-, supra,

at 3 91 (the question whether a person is a member of a particular social group is a finding of fact

that we review for clear error).”

Pages 65-80:

Immigration Judge’s decision:

“As noted in the particularity analysis supra, El Salvador has significant and troubling

issues related to domestic violence and crimes against women. However, unlike the married

alien in Matter of A-R-C-G-, the respondent lacks an identifiable trait like marriage or

inability to seek assistance from authority that distinguishes her from other women in

Salvadoran society. Similar to the particularity analysis supra, the Court finds the

respondent is an unfortunate victim of violence against women like far too many women in

El Salvador, and thereby renders her past harm indistinct by comparison.”

BIA decision:

Finally, the record does not support the Immigration Judge’s determination that the past harm

the respondent suffered is “consistent with acts of general violence” which undermines her claim

for asylum (l.J. at 10). Further, even assuming her former partner’s “criminal tendencies and

substance abuse” played a role in his conduct (/d.), the appropriate inquiry is whether the

asserted protected ground was or would be “at least one central reason” for the claimed or feared

harm. See section 208(b)(l)(B)(i) of the Act; Matter of C-T-L-, 25 I&N Dec. 341, 349 (BIA

2010)

Pages 81-96:

Immigration Judge Decision:

The respondent testified that when was drunk, he would physically and

verbally abuse her. She further testified “he was fine” when he was not under the influence

of alcohol. Thus, ‘s abuse appears related to his own criminal tendencies and

substance abuse, rather than conclusive evidence he targeted the respondent on account of

her proposed particular social group. The evidence in this case is more consistent with acts of

general violence and therefore does not constitute evidence of persecution based on a

statutorily protected ground.

BIA decision:

Upon review of the record, we conclude that a remand is necessary for the Immigration

Judge to further assess whether the respondent established that she is a member of a cognizable

particular social group. The Immigration Judge found that the respondent’s case is factually

distinguishable from Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), because she was not in

a marital relationship with her former partner and did not seek assistance from authorities

(I.J. at 7-9). While relevant, the distinguishing factors identified do not preclude the respondent

from establishing that her proposed particular social group is cognizable under the Act, and we

find that further fact-finding regarding the respondent’s experiences in El Salvador is necessary

to determine whether she satisfied the elements required to establish a valid particular social

group. See Matter of A-R-C-G-, supra, at 393 (stating that “adjudicators must consider a

respondent’s own experiences, as well as more objective evidence, such as background country

information”).

Pages 102-120:

BIA decision:

We find clear error in the Immigration Judge’s determination that the respondent was not

abused by her former partner on account of her particular social group. See l.J. at 12; 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.l (d)(3)(i); Matter of N-M-, 25 l&N Dec. 526, 532 (BIA 2011) (a persecutor’s actual

motive is a matter of fact to be determined by the Immigration Judge and reviewed by this Board

for clear error). The respondent testified that her former partner told her that a woman is not

more intelligent than he is and that the respondent has no value, comments which indicate that he

harmed her because of her perceived lesser status in the relationship (Tr. at 46).

Immigration Judge Decision:

The respondent’s evidence reflects that [the] physical and verbal abuse of her

was related to his violent and jealous nature, sometimes accompanied by his use of alcohol.

Thus, ‘s abuse appears related to his own criminal tendencies or substance abuse,

rather than conclusive evidence he targeted the respondent on account of her proposed

particular social group. The evidence in this case is more consistent with acts of general

violence and therefore does not co nstitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily

protected ground. Huaman-Cornelio v. BIA, 979 F.2d 9 at l 000; Ruiz v. US. Att’y Gen., 440

F.3d 1247, 1258 (11th Cir. 2006).

Pages 137-155

BIA decision:

We disagree with the Immigration Judge that the respondent’s proposed social group, consisting of Honduran women

who are viewed as property and whose domestic partners refuse to allow them to leave their

relationship lacks the requisite immutability, particularity, and social distinction (l.J. at 7-10).

See Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 l&N Dec. 227, 236-43 (BIA 2014) (outlining factors to be

considered when discerning whether a social group is cognizable under the Act); Matter of

W-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 208, 213-18 (BIA 2014) (same).

Immigration Judge Decision:

The respondent’s evidence reflects that ‘s physical and verbal abuse of her

was related to his violent and jealous nature, heavy use of drugs and alcohol, and association

with drug traffickers. Exhibit 3, tab C at 17-19. Thus, ‘s abuse appears related to his

own criminal tendencies or substance abuse, rather than conclusive evidence he targeted the

respondent on account of her proposed particular social group. The evidence in this case is

more consistent with acts of general violence and therefore does not constitute evidence of

persecution based on a statutorily protected ground. Huaman-Cornelio v. BIA, 979 F.2d at

1000; Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159, 164-65 (4th Cir. 2009). The Court finds

that the respondent has not established targeted her due to her particular social group,

which is required to prove the requisite nexus for asylum relief. INA§ 208(b)(l)(B)(i).

Pages 157-173

Immigration Judge decision:

The respondent’s evidence reflects that Mr. ‘ physical, verbal, and sexual abuse

of her was related to his violent and jealous nature. The respondent testified Mr. ‘

motivation to harm her was anger when she would ask him for money so she could buy food

for her family. She recalled the final argument that led to their separation occurred when the

respondent confronted Mr. regarding his affair with her sister-in-law. Thus, Mr. ‘

abuse of the respondent appears related to his own violent and criminal tendencies, rather than

conclusive evidence he targeted her on account of her membership in a particular social group.

The evidence in this case is more consistent with acts of general violence and therefore does

not constitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily protected ground.

Consistent with its immutability and particularity analysis supra, the Court finds the

respondent is an unfortunate victim of violence against women like far too many women in

Guatemala, and thereby renders her past harm indistinct by comparison. For these reasons, the

Court finds the respondent has not met her burden to show the requisite social distinction

necessary for membership in a particular social group.

BIA decision:

The Immigration Judge further concluded that the respondent did not meet the immutability,

particularity and social distinction requirements for a cognizable particular social group (I.J. at 9-

12). We have held that depending on the facts and evidence in an individual case, victims of

domestic violence can establish membership in a cognizable particular social group that forms the

basis of a claim for asylum or withholding of removal. Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N

Dec. 388 (BIA 2014).

Pages 228-243

Immigration Judge decision:

The respondent’s evidence reflects that Mr. ‘s physical, verbal, and sexual

abuse of her was related to his violent and jealous nature. The respondent testified Mr.

‘s motivation to harm her was anger after she reported his abuse to government

authorities. Thus, Mr. ‘s abuse of the respondent appears related to his own

violent and criminal tendencies, rather than conclusive evidence he targeted her on account of

her membership in a particular social group. The evidence in this case is more consistent with

acts of general violence and therefore does not constitute evidence of persecution based on a

statutorily protected ground. Huaman-Cornelio v. BIA, 979 F.2d at 1000; Quinteros-Mendoza

v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159, 164-65 (4th Cir. 2009). The Court finds that the respondent has not

established Mr. targeted her due to her membership in a particular social group,

which is required to prove the requisite nexus for asylum relief. INA§ 208(b)(l)(B)(i).

BIA decision:

There appears to be no dispute that the verbal, physical and sexual abuse suffered by the

respondent at the hands of her stepfather, which occurred several times per week over a period of

years, rises to the level of past persecution. See, e.g., Barahon v. Holder, 588 F.3d 228, 232,

(4th Cir. 2009) (observing that “[a] key difference between persecution and less-severe

mistreatment is that the former is ‘systematic’ while the latter consists of isolated incidents”).

However, the Immigration Judge rejected as invalid the respondent’s proposed particular social

group of”Mexican children who are perceived as property and lack effective familial protection,”

finding that it lacked the requisite immutability, particularity, and social distinction (I.J. at 7-9).

The question whether a group is a “particular social group” within the meaning of the Act is a

question of law that we review de novo. Matter of A-R-C-G-, supra, at 390. On review, we find

that the particular social group posited by the respondent, under the circumstances of this case, is

valid under the reasoning of our recent decisions clarifying the approach to particular social

groups. See Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 227 (BIA 2014); Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I&N

Dec. 208 (BIA 2014).

Pages 264-283

Immigration Judge decision:

The respondent’s evidence reflects that her former spouse’s physical, sexual, verbal,

and psychological abuse of her was related to his violent and jealous nature, and frequent

intoxication from alcohol. The respondent testified that is an alcoholic whose

motivation to harm her stemmed from his anger, dislike for her, jealous nature, and infidelity

with other women. Exhibit 2, tab C at 12-13. Based upon the respondent’s testimony, it

appears the threats, assault and rape she suffered at the hands of was intended to

intimidate and threaten her to comply his own selfish and criminal demands for sex.

Thus, the abuse suffered by the respondent appears related to the violent and criminal

tendencies of her abusive former spouse, rather than conclusive evidence she was targeted on

account of her membership in a particular social group. The evidence in this case is more

consistent with acts of general violence and therefore does not constitute evidence of

persecution based on a statutorily protected ground. Huaman-Cornelio v. BIA, 979 F.2d at

1000; Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159, 164-65 (4th Cir. 2009). The Court fmds

that the respondent has not established her former spouse targeted her due to her membership

in a particular social group, which is required to prove the requisite nexus for asylum relief.

INA§ 208(b)( l)(B)(i).

BIA decision:

We additionally conclude that the Immigration Judge’s finding that the respondent was able

to leave her ex-husband is clearly erroneous (l.J. at 10-11).

However, the record reflects that the respondent’s ex-husband continued to threaten and physically abuse the respondent after -their separation,

despite her move to a town over 2 hours away from him, and that he raped her in…2014, after their divorce.

Pages 315-334

Immigration Judge decision:

The respondent’s evidence reflects that Mr. ‘ physical, verbal, and sexual abuse

of her was related to his violent and jealous nature, often fueled by his use of alcohol and

drugs. Exhibit 2, tab H at 1-2. Mr. ‘ motivation to harm her appears to be based upon his

own criminal tendencies and substance abuse, rather than conclusive evidence he targeted

her on account of her membership in a particular social group.

BIA decision:

We also note that even if the evidence and testimony support a finding that the

respondent’s husband has a “violent and jealous nature” (I.J. at 12), this is not clearly separate

from a motive to persecute his wife based on feelings of domination and control, the hallmarks

of domestic violence.

Pages 373-393

Immigration Judge decision:

The respondent’s evidence reflects that her husband’s physical, verbal, and

psychological abuse of her was related to his violent and jealous nature, at times affected by his

use of alcohol. The respondent testimony suggests her husband’s motivation to harm her was

his dislike for her and suspicion she was being unfaithful to him. His motivation also appears

related to the respondent’s desire to leave him because of his infidelity, and his demands for

custody of their son. Based upon the respondent’s testimony, it appears the threats, assaults

and psychological abuse she suffered at the hands of her husband was intended to intimidate

her to obtain some unclear result.

BIA decision:

We conclude, based on the particular facts presented on this record that the respondent

established that she was a member of the particular social group she articulated. We further

conclude that the Immigration Judge erred in concluding that this case is distinguishable from

Matter of A-R-C-G-, supra, based principally on the fact that the respondent was able to separate

and live apart from her husband after he moved out of their home in 2013 (l.J. at I 0-l l ).

The respondent’s ability to live apart from her husband in Honduras is not a distinguishing factor

from the social group rationale articulated in Matter of A-R-C-G-, supra, where the respondent

credibly testified that her husband refused to consent to a divorce and showed up unannounced

and uninvited at her home on several occasions, once touching her in a sexual manner and telling

her that he has a “right” to her as his wife. Additionally, the respondent testified that she was

unable to leave the relationship in Honduras for numerous cultural reasons, including her fear that

would take their son away from her and her belief that she was unable to obtain a divorce

because of ‘s ties to local government officials (l.J. at 3-4; Tr. at 51, 56, 64-73, 99, 105).

See Matter of A-R-C-G-, supra, at 393 (recognizing that “a married woman’s inability to leave the

relationship may be informed by societal expectations about gender and subordination, as well as

legal constraints regarding divorce and separation.”). Further, that domestic violence is prevalent

in Honduras does not mean that the respondent’s proposed particular social group lacks discrete

boundaries, as the Immigration Judge determined (l.J. at 11).

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

EOIR has been known to pass off this type of judicial misconduct as “normal deviations” in judging. But, there is a difference between honest variances in judicial philosophies and approach, which are present to some extent in all diverse judicial systems and might produce differing results, and clearly biased and unfair judging. Judge Couch’s performance clearly fits within the latter.

To state the obvious:

All of these incidents were “specifically targeted.” Therefore, Judge Couch’s determination that they were part of “generalized violence” is clearly fiction.
Asylum applicants are not required to demonstrate “conclusive evidence” of anything. “Conclusive evidence” is not a legal standard in any part of asylum adjudication.

What should have happened:

Judge Couch should have been removed from each of these cases for bias;
Like U.S. Courts of Appeals, the BIA should have “outed” Judge Couch, by name, in published opinions to give both applicants and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals notice of his problematic adjudication of asylum cases.
If Judge Couch continued his biased and unfair judging he should have been 1) ordered by the BIA not to hear any asylum cases involving women from the Northern Triangle, and 2) told that if his performance in asylum cases did not improve, he would be referred to the EOIR disciplinary system for Immigration Judges based on actual bias against asylum applicants.

There is simply no room in a true Due Process system, particularly one where many respondents are unrepresented, for a biased, anti-asylum judge like Judge Couch. Is this “being the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and Due Process for all?” No Way! Jeff Sessions, who often enunciates biased, anti-asylum positions, is part of the problem, not the solution! Due Process can’t be restored to the U.S. Immigration court system until Jeff Sessions and the USDOJ are removed from the process.

We need an independent judiciary capable of telling judges who perform like Judge Couch to correct their behavior immediately — in other words, “shape up or ship out.”

PWS

05-09-18

HON. JEFFREY CHASE: EVERYONE IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS/WOMEN’S RIGHTS ADVOCACY COMMUNITY NEEDS TO UNITE AND TAKE AGGRESSIVE ACTION AGAINST JEFF SESSIONS’S PLAN TO PASS DEATH SENTENCE ON FEMALE REFUGEES FLEEING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE –Many Will Be Killed, Raped, Maimed, Disfigured, Or Sentenced To A “Life Worse Than Death” If Sessions Has His Way!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/5/6/7r3izq486dxxtzlrsythpmr2kg35j3

May 6 Briefs Filed in Matter of A-B-

Briefs of the parties and amici have now been filed with the Attorney General in Matter of A-B-. Once again, a group of former immigration judges and BIA members, which this time numbered 16 (including myself) filed an amicus brief (which can be viewed here: http://www.aila.org/infonet/amicus-brief-matter-of-a-b- ).* The respondent’s brief was submitted by the outstanding legal team of Ben Winograd of IRAC; Karen Musalo, Blaine Bookey, and Eunice Lee of CGRS, and Charlotte attorney Andres Lopez. DHS’s brief was submitted by Michael P. Davis of ICE, whose reasoned positions are to be commended.

The issue in the case below involved the actions of immigration judge V. Stuart Couch in failing to abide by the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which reversed Couch’s denial of asylum in a particularly strong claim involving a victim of severe domestic violence. The BIA reversed the judge’s decision, and remanded with instructions to grant asylum following the required updated security clearance by DHS. However, Couch took some nine months to schedule the case for a hearing. When at that hearing, DHS stated that the clearances had been completed, Judge Couch did not issue a new decision (as he was directed to do by the BIA). Instead, he stated that he was recertifying the case to the BIA, something that he lacked the authority to do without first issuing a new decision.

The case sat for another seven months, during which time it is not clear whether the record actually made its way back to the BIA. But before the Board could rule on the propriety of Judge Couch’s actions, the case was somehow plucked from wherever it had been by AG Jeff Sessions, who on his own transformed the case into a vehicle to answer a question that no one but himself seems to understand, namely, whether being the victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable particular social group for asylum purposes. (There is an interesting question of how Sessions even knew that this case existed.)

In response, the Department of Homeland Security appealed to reason. It requested the AG to hold off until the BIA ruled on the propriety of Couch’s attempted recertification. DHS also requested Sessions to provide further clarification of his question, and noted that “this question has already been answered, at least in part, by the Board and its prior precedent.” Sessions denied both requests, adding that he is not bound by BIA precedent, nor is he required to allow briefing on an issue before him on certification. It seems as if Sessions might be saying that as he’s bestowing the privilege of allowing briefs, he doesn’t further need to let everyone know what it is they are being asked to brief.

Depending on how Sessions is choosing to interpret the question, his decision might impact not only domestic violence claims, but any asylum claim based on a particular social group involving private criminal activity (which could include claims based on sexual orientation or sexual identity; as well as victims of female genital cutting, human trafficking, gang violence, blood feuds and honor killings). Or then again, maybe not. Because if Sessions is asking whether a particular social group delineated as “victims of private criminal activity” is cognizable, his answer wouldn’t impact the outcome of this case, as the respondent never claimed to be a member of such group. Nor would it matter to the outcome if Sessions is asking whether a group which includes the element of victimization by a criminal acting in a private capacity is cognizable, as no element of victimization is included in the respondent’s delineated group of “El Salvadoran women who are unable to leave their domestic relationships where they have children in common.” Nowhere in the wording of such group is there a mention of being the victim of private criminal activity, nor is the respondent claiming that she was targeted for abuse because of her being a victim of private criminal activity.

But could Sessions be questioning whether any particular social group merits asylum where its members fear persecutors who are not government officials? If that’s his question, a decision in the negative would run counter to not only more than a half century of BIA precedent, but also to decisions of all eleven Federal circuit courts, and to international law, all of which universally agree that for asylum purposes, persecution may be by private actors that the government is unable or unwilling to control.

Does Sessions himself understand the question he is asking? Let’s just assume that since this case involves a credible victim of severe domestic violence, and that her particular social group was found by the BIA to be substantially similar to the one it recognized as cognizable in its 2014 precedent decision in Matter of A-R-C-G-, that Sessions is considering invalidating that decision.

The purpose of courts and tribunals is to resolve disputes between the parties. The issue that Sessions now wishes to address has been settled, and is not being contested by either party. The Department of Homeland Security itself made this point to Sessions. Had this case been allowed to run its course and result in a grant of asylum, it is far from clear that such result would have been contested or appealed by DHS. In its brief to Sessions, DHS states more than once that it “generally supports the legal framework set out by the Board in Matter of A-R-C-G-.” DHS continued that the group in that case of “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” was not defined by the respondent’s being subject to domestic violence. DHS specifically stated that like the BIA, it “understands ‘unable to leave a relationship’ to signify an inability to do so based on a potential range of ‘religious, cultural, or legal constraints…’” DHS continued that neither the PSG in A-R-C-G- nor the group offered by A-B- herself violate the principle that such group “must exist independently of the persecution suffered and/or feared.”

In refusing DHS’s request for clarification, Sessions claimed that “several Federal Article III courts have recently questioned whether victims of private violence may qualify for asylum” based on their membership in a particular social group. However, in responding to such statement in its subsequent brief, DHS noted that “none of the circuit court decision cited by the Immigration Judge questioned the underlying validity of A-R-C-G-.” In response to Sessions’ statement that he is not bound by the BIA’s precedent decisions, DHS recognized this, but “avers that the Attorney General should not directly or indirectly abrogate A-R-C-G-,” but should “rather…emphasize the importance of case and society-specific analysis.”

There is thus agreement between the parties of the validity of the Board’s holding in A-R-C-G-. In revisiting the issue, Sessions is not attempting to resolve a dispute, as no such dispute exists.

To me, the most shocking aspect of Sessions’ action is its timing. Case law concerning human rights (including the law of asylum) and civil rights does not develop in a vacuum. Much as courts have extended civil rights protections based on race, gender, and sexual orientation throughout the history of this country, the idea of what constitutes persecution and which of its victims are deserving of protection evolves along with the views of society. Sessions is choosing, unprompted, to challenge whether victims of domestic violence are deserving of asylum just as our society has undertaken a powerful, long-overdue, and much needed correction in the form of the #metoo movement. Many hundreds of thousands of us (“us” of course referring to people regardless of gender, as women’s rights are human rights) have filled the streets of cities all over America (and the world) the past two Januarys in a powerful, emotional rebuke to sexual assault and all forms of sexism. Powerful men who for years had engaged in all forms of sexual abuse and harassment are for the first time experiencing the consequences of their actions. And it is at this particular time that Sessions seeks to revoke protection to women who are domestic violence victims?

Briefs are good, but more is needed. The wonderful Tahirih Justice Center collected 60,000 signatures on a petition which it delivered to Sessions in March calling on him to uphold asylum protection for survivors of domestic violence: https://www.tahirih.org/news/tahirih-delivers-petition-on-asylum-for-domestic-violence-survivors-to-the-attorney-general/. More organizations need to follow Tahirih’s example. In addition to the briefs submitted, there needs to be a true public outcry addressed to Sessions on this issue. Asylum protection for victims of domestic violence is not just an immigration issue or a women’s issue. It is a human right, on which all of us should make ourselves heard.

*Heartfelt thanks to the law firm of Gibson Dunn (Megan Kiernan, Ronald Kirk, Chelsea Glover, Lalitha Madduri, and Amer Ahmed) for drafting the brief, and to former BIA member Lory D. Rosenberg for organizing and coordinating the effort.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

JEFF CHASE

DAVID G. SAVAGE @ LA TIMES: REFUGEE ROULETTE CONTINUES – But, It’s Not What You Might Think – The “Outliers “ Are All On The Anti-Asylum Side In A System Systematically Biased Against Asylum Seekers From The Northern Triangle!

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=73fad225-44bc-4757-97fa-b9369552de1e

By David G. Savage

WASHINGTON — Central Americans who travel north to plead for entry at the U.S. border are taking their chances on an immigration system that is deeply divided on whether they can qualify for asylum if they are fleeing domestic violence or street crime, rather than persecution from the government.

The law in this area remains unclear, and the outcome of an asylum claim depends to a remarkable degree on the immigration judge who decides it.

And sitting atop the immigration court system is Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions, a longtime advocate of much stricter limits on immigration who has recently taken an interest in reviewing asylum cases.

Lawyers say they are troubled by a legal system in which decisions turn so much on the views of individual judges.

Among the 34 immigration judges in Los Angeles, two granted fewer than 3% of the hundreds of asylum claims that came before them in the last five years, while another judge granted 71% of them. The disparity is even greater in San Francisco, where the judge’s rate of granting asylum claims ranged from 3% to 91%.

Overall, asylum seekers would do much better in San Francisco, where 32% were denied between 2012 and 2017, compared with a 68% denial rate in Los Angeles during the same period, according to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

This is not news to immigration lawyers. A decade ago, several law professors published a study called “Refugee Roulette” that revealed how asylum cases depend heavily on the views of individual judges. “The level of variation was shocking. And it hasn’t changed,” said Georgetown University professor Philip Schrag.

Judge Ashley Tabaddor from Los Angeles, president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges, discounts the statistics. “They’re not reliable,” she said, since judges may have very different caseloads. Some judges hear claims from people who have been detained for crimes, while others hear mostly claims from juveniles, she said.

“We are human. Different people can have different views about the same set of facts,” she said.

Several Los Angeles lawyers who have won or lost asylum cases in recent months said the identity of the judges played an important role. “It’s astounding how much variation there is from judge to judge. The system is in need of repair. It’s an embarrassment,” said Joseph D. Lee, a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson.

He represented an El Salvador mother who fled north with her three children after gang members shot and killed her husband’s brother in front of her family and then threatened to do the same to her relatives.

“The Central American cases can be difficult to win. Some judges are pretty hostile to gang-related claims,” he said. His client’s claim was denied, and he plans to appeal. “Your chance of winning an asylum claim shouldn’t turn on the luck of the draw on which judge you get. But that is exactly how it works,” he said.

It may soon become much harder to win such claims. Under an unusual feature of the law, the attorney general, as the nation’s top law enforcement officer, also oversees the immigration courts. He can overrule their decisions and announce new rules that are binding on them.

In March, Sessions announced he would review the question of whether women fleeing domestic violence or other “private criminal activity” can rely on this to win asylum.

Last fall, Sessions spoke to a meeting of immigration judges and complained America’s “generous asylum” system has become “overloaded with fake claims.… The credible fear process was intended to be a lifeline for persons facing serious persecution. But it has become an easy ticket to illegal entry into the United States.”

In the last week, the American Bar Assn., faith-based groups and a coalition of immigration law professors have submitted “friend of the court” briefs to Sessions urging him not to reverse years of precedent involving women fleeing abuse and terror.

But veteran immigration judges are not optimistic. Sessions “just wants more people to be removed,” said Paul W. Schmidt, a retired immigration judge from Virginia and an outspoken critic of the attorney general. “He will make it a lot harder for Central Americans to get asylum.”

The dispute begins with the words of the asylum law. In the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress adopted the United Nations standard and said people may seek asylum if they are “unable or unwilling to return” to their home country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

Under the law, asylum seekers are treated differently than, for example, refugees from a war-torn nation or immigrants seeking work.

Four of those terms in the asylum law are clear enough: race, religion, nationality and political opinion. But lawyers and judges have struggled to decide what counts as “membership in a particular social group.”

Courts have agreed that gays and lesbians can count as a social group, since they have suffered persecution in many societies. Some judges have also said women and girls fleeing sexual abuse and violence can seek asylum because their society views women as the property of men — and with no hope for protection from their government.

But the question becomes harder when considering the gang violence that has spread through some Central American countries. For example, people who testified against violent gangs or resisted them in other ways have sought asylum on the grounds they are members of a particularly endangered social group.

“These cases are challenging,” said Nareeneh Sohbatian, a Los Angeles lawyer at Winston & Strawn who supervises asylum claims. “We talk a lot about this. If they are targeted because of a gang, it can be difficult to show it was caused by their membership in a particular social group.”

Jenna Gilbert, managing attorney for Human Rights First in Los Angeles, said it is clear the asylum law does not protect people fleeing “generalized violence.” A claim “needs to be tied to the one of the protected categories,” she said. “The cases are very fact-dependent.”

But the odds of winning asylum are not good for Central Americans. In the last five years, China had the largest number of asylum seekers in the U.S. immigration courts, and only 20% of their claims were denied. Ethiopians did even better, with only 17% denied. By contrast, the highest denial rates arose from claims brought by natives of Jamaica (91%), the Philippines (90%), Mexico (88%), El Salvador (79%), Honduras (78%) and Guatemala (75%).

Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge who works at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors stricter enforcement, said it is not surprising that Sessions will reconsider rulings on asylum in cases of domestic violence. “Right now, the law is very unclear. The phrase ‘particular social group’ is vague. A lot of these claims are compelling, but that doesn’t mean it is ‘persecution’ under the law. If a gang wants to recruit me, that’s not persecution.”

Last month, Sessions criticized a caravan of Central American asylum seekers approaching the border as a “deliberate attempt to undermine our laws and overwhelm our system. There is no right to demand entry without justification. Smugglers and traffickers and those who lie or commit fraud will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

People who present an asylum claim at the border must only show they have a “credible fear” of persecution if they were to return home. Most asylum seekers are allowed to stay and make their claim.

Sessions said he would send more prosecutors and judges to the border area to resolve these claims quickly, rather than let them linger for many months or years.

Meanwhile, lawyers are also rushing to represent the asylum seekers. “Unfortunately, the Trump administration has waged a yearlong campaign to undermine asylum seekers and demonize those who only wish to live in safety with the families,” said Gilbert of Human Rights First. “We’re proud to assist these individuals who are fleeing unspeakable horror as they try to rebuild their lives.”

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

It’s really not that complex.

Under the BIA’s seminal precedent decision in Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 1985) resisting gang recruitment is undoubtedly a characteristic that is “fundamental to identity” therefore making an individual a member of a “particular social group” (“PSG”) for asylum purposes.
- Undoubtedly, this conduct is threatening to a gang’s existence and power and is “at least one central reason” why forced recruitment and other forms of harm are used, among other things, to overcome this fundamental characteristic of the PSG.
- Therefore, the vast majority of those fleeing the Northern Triangle over the years because of various forms of resistance to gangs should have qualified for asylum under the Acosta test.
- However granting most of these cases might have been perceived as “opening the floodgates” and therefore career threatening to the BIA.
Following the “Ashcroft Purge,” which removed almost all of the Appellate Judges on the BIA who consistently stood up for the rights of migrants and asylum seekers, the BIA came up with bogus requirements of “particularity” and “social visibility/social distinction” to facilitate the denial of most asylum grants to individuals from the Northern Triangle.
- To do this, the BIA actually had to intentionally and disingenuously misapply criteria developed by the UNHCR to expand the protection available on the basis of a particular social group to instead restrict the group entitled to protection.
  - With the “due process” group of judges removed by Ashcroft, the BIA was able to get away with this with no visible internal resistance.
However even under the BIA’s new “bogus test” almost all experts agree that individuals resisting gang recruitment in countries where “go along to get along (and live)” is the norm would be both a well-defined “particularized” group and highly “socially distinct.”
- Consequently, the BIA and a number of anti-asylum Immigration Judges simply resorted to intentionally misconstruing country conditions and making biased “no nexus” findings or largely bogus “adverse credibility rulings” to keep the Northern Triangle grant rate unrealistically low.
- A great way to maximize denials is to hold individuals in detention or game the system so that they can’t obtain competent representation and/or “fail to appear” in Immigration Court thereby denying them the relief that the likely could win in a truly fair, unbiased system.
- Remarkably, the article quotes a source who espouses one of the many DHS “enforcement myths” — that forced recruitment can’t be a basis for asylum.
  - This is nonsense. Even under BIA’s intentionally restrictive precedents, the factual reasons why the respondent is being recruited (“nexus”) are important.
  - But, as a practical matter, no detained, unrepresented applicant has any realistic chance of understanding the law and developing the factual record necessary to support relief.
Also, in the Northern Triangle gangs have infiltrated the system to the extent that it is almost impossible to separate “political motives” from supposedly “criminal ones/”
- Individuals are forcibly recruited as punishment for a variety of reasons including family membership, having been witnesses against gangs, actual or imputed political opinion, and actual or imputed religious views.
- With competent lawyers, time to prepare, and an attentive Court of Appeals, most credible gang-related cases should qualify for asylum.
  - Without lawyers or the chance to develop and document a case, the chances for success are almost nil.
Even though the system is already heavily rigged against bona fide asylum applicants from the Northern Triangle, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has made it clear that he intends to further misconstrue the law to make it virtually impossible for refugees fleeing the Northern Triangle to qualify for asylum
Given the total corruption of the governments in the Northern Triangle and the serious infiltration by gangs, a fair process should result in a “blanket precedent” that would give almost everyone credibly fleeing gang threats in the Norther Triangle at least “temporary withholding of removal” under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
No, the problem is not just that different Immigration Judges have different opinions. It’s that both the composition of the Immigration Court and the administrative case-law have been consciously “rigged” to deny those seeking protection from the Northern Triangle the protection to which they should be entitled under both U.S. and international law.
- Yes, I of all people certainly agree that judges can and should have differing views and philosophies,
- But, at some point, “differences” become “biases.”
- There is no way that those judges whose grant rates are below 10% can actually be applying asylum law in the generous manner set forth by the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca or the BIA itself in Matter of Mogharrabi.
- Nor are they properly applying the “benefit of the doubt” as it’s supposed to be given according to the UNHCR in systems based on the 1952 Geneva Convention on Refugees.
- No, I wouldn’t “fire” any current Immigration Judges (although I might over time make everyone re-compete for their jobs in a true merit-based selection system). But we do need:
  - An independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court, free from the pernicious political influence that the DOJ has been applying for many years.
  - A real merit selection system for future Immigration Judges that emphasizes expertise in immigration and asylum law and proven ability to deal fairly, effectively, and objectively with the public and which utilizes panels with some members from outside the Federal Government who practice before the Immigration Courts.
  - An Appellate Division that functions like a true independent Appellate Court, with a diverse membership, that will rein in those judges who are biased against asylum seekers and not applying Cardoza-Fonseca.
  - As I’ve pointed out before, things simply can’t happen under the highly biased, xenophobic Jeff Sessions. He is the “perfect storm” of why the Immigration Judiciary must be removed from the DOJ.
- As a historical aside, an unfortunate harbinger of things to come, the BIA actually misapplied their own “immutability/fundamental to identity” test to the facts in Acosta!
  - Of course “taxi drivers in San Salvador” were a PSG! Ask any New Yorker whether being a taxi driver is “fundamental to identity!”
  - Occupational identification, at all levels of society, is one of the most powerful indicators of self-identity and one that we seldom ask individuals to involuntarily change. Think that “truck drivers” aren’t a “PSG?” Just walk into the next Pilot Truck Stop you see on the Interstate in your little black judicial robe and shout that next to the Drivers” Lounge or rest rooms. I think you would find some “strong dissenters.”
  - Or how about going before a group of judges and telling them that being a judge isn’t “fundamental to identity!” I remember when a somewhat “tone-deaf” (but in retrospect, perhaps clairvoyant) invited speaker at one of our past Annual Immigration Judges’ Conferences referred to us as “just highly paid immigration inspectors working for the Attorney General.” He barely got out alive!
  - The BIA ruling in Acosta was “doubly absurd” in the context of 1985. The U.S. was then actively engaged in supporting the Government of El Salvador against the guerrillas. The BIA suggested that the taxi drivers in San Salvador could merely quit their jobs en masse or participate in the guerrillas taxi strike called by the guerrillas. Both of which would have crippled the country of El Salvador and seriously undermined the government we were supporting!
  - In short, the BIA has a long ugly history of twisting the law and the facts against legitimate asylum seekers, particularly those from Latin America.
    - Jeff Sessions, well-known for his long history of xenophobia, racially charged attitudes and actions, and bias against nearly every non-White-male-straight-right-wing-Christian social group in America is on the cusp of making things even worse for vulnerable refugees entitled to our protection by abusing his power as AG and stripping the hard earned asylum rights from abused women — who had to labor through 15 years of wrong BIA decisions, outrageous political maneuvering at the DOJ, and task avoidance at the BIA to win their hard-earned rights in A-R-C-G- in the first place!
    - Only cowards pick on the vulnerable and the dispossessed!

Eventually, long after I’m gone, I’m sure the “truth will out.” However, that will be little help to those currently being railroaded through the travesty that passes for justice in today’s U.S. Immigration Courts or those who have been denied justice in the past.

PWS

05-06-18

BABY DONNIE THROWS TANTRUM, THREATENS TO DECLARE WAR ON AMERICA IF HE DOESN’T GET HIS WALL!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/05/politics/donald-trump-border-wall-close-country-remark/index.html

Elizabeth Landers reports for CNN:

(CNN)President Donald Trump seemed to float a new idea about border control during a tax reform roundtable in Ohio.

The President was in the midst of criticizing Democrats during a riff about border security when he slipped in the idea that people might “have to think about closing up the country.”

“They don’t want the wall, but we’re going to get the wall, even if we have to think about closing up the country for a while,” Trump said. “We’re going to get the wall. We have no choice. We have absolutely no choice. And we’re going to get tremendous security in our country.”

Trump then mentioned the notion a second time, saying, “And we may have to close up our country to get this straight, because we either have a country or we don’t. And you can’t allow people to pour into our country the way they’re doing.”

It was not immediately clear what Trump meant by the remarks. CNN has reached out to the White House for comment.

Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington said Saturday in an interview with CNN’s Ana Cabrera that Trump “is absolutely out of his mind to think that is any kind of a reasonable solution for our economy or compassionate or in line with our values.”

“This President has done everything he can every time he’s in trouble to turn around and try to turn it against immigrants, and it really deeply saddens me,” Jayapal said.

. . .

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

Read the full article at the link.

Ironically, building the wall would do nothing to stop individuals from appearing at U.S. ports of entry and applying for asylum as they are completely entitled to do under both U.S. law and international conventions to which we are party. Indeed, that’s what almost all the remaining members of the “intentionally overhyped by Trump Caravan” did. Moreover the wall is unlikely to stop professional smugglers who can easily outsmart any physical barriers. At best, it might further enrich smugglers and kill more migrants by allowing smugglers to charge more money for more dangerous crossings.

On the other hand, a robust system for granting refugee status in the Northern Triangle and a fairer and more efficient asylum system for those who apply at the port of entry would almost certainly reduce the number of unlawful border crossings, while saving lives, and allowing the Border Patrol to allocate resources more toward drug smuggling and others who might actually threaten the security of the U.S. And a larger, more robust, and more realistic legal work visa program would also dramatically decrease unlawful border crossings.

PWS

)5-06-18

BOGUS BORDER CRISIS — How Trump, Sessions, & Nielsen Ignored Reality To Create Yet Another False Narrative To Support White Nationalist, Anti-Immigrant Agenda!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/05/03/politics/immigration-border-crossings-stabilize/index.html

Border crossings steady in April after March spike

By: Tal Kopan, CN

Illegal border crossings stabilized in April after jumping substantially in March, a sign that a surge at the southern border may not be imminent, according to newly released statistics from the Trump administration.

In April, there were 38,234 apprehensions at the southern border and 12,690 people deemed “inadmissible,” or who came to a port of entry without papers that authorized them to enter the US, virtually unchanged from the month before. The number of family units and children in both categories also held roughly steady from the previous month.

The news comes as the administration has claimed a “crisis” on the southern border, a narrative largely driven by the jump in March and the comparison to the numbers last spring, when crossings were at abnormally low levels.

Administration officials have also been decrying a so-called caravan of migrants — an annual pilgrimage of mostly women and children who say they are fleeing violence and abuse in their home countries — that has arrived at the border with Mexico. More than half of the roughly 150 migrants in that group have been processed by Customs and Border Protection for their claims of asylum. Those who meet the legal threshold will be allowed to pursue their claims in court cases that could take months or years. Those that don’t will be turned away from the US.

In the midst of the caravan’s trek and the release of the March statistics, President Donald Trump has ordered the National Guard to deploy troops to the border, with roughly 1,000 having been sent so far, and with the Justice Department announcing it will send more immigration judges and prosecutors to border districts, as well.

April’s figures indicate that although there was a sharp spike in March, border crossings remain in line with historic seasonal trends. Numbers are still consistent with Obama administration years — slightly below fiscal years 2013 and 2014 but slightly above 2015 and 2016.

The crossings in April of this year were more than triple April 2017, but that comparison is distorted, as crossings last April were at levels unseen in modern history, before they started to pick up and stabilize more in line with recent years.

Crossings have been trending downward for decades and are at historic lows, prompting Homeland Security to declare last fall that the border is the most secure it has ever been.

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

Lies and false narratives are a key part of the White Nationalist agenda. Kind of like the modern version of the infamous “Reichstag Fire” that Hitler used to rally nationalist sentiment and seize power. Nice folks!

PWS

05-04-18

JRUBE @ WASHPOST: PENCE SHOWS TRUE COLORS — EMBRACES CONVICTED FELON “RACIST JOE!”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/05/03/this-is-why-pences-sickening-embrace-of-arpaio-is-so-important/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ea87af55f5bd

Rubin writes:

Vice President Pence’s recent welcome for the convicted and pardoned former sheriff Joe Arpaio, now a Senate candidate, was a new low in the sorry tale of Pence’s self-debasement. He declared at an event for America First Policies (more about that outfit in a moment): “A great friend of this president. A tireless champion of strong borders and the rule of law.” Pence gushed, “He spent a lifetime in law enforcement — Sheriff Joe Arpaio, I’m honored to have you here.”

Authors of an amicus brief challenging Arpaio’s pardon wrote for The Post:

For more than 20 years, Arpaio ran the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office with shocking cruelty and lawlessness, especially against Latinos. In 2011, a federal judge issued an injunction in a lawsuit challenging the practice of detaining and searching people for, in essence, driving while Latino. The judge found evidence that the sheriff’s office engaged in racial profiling and stopped Latinos just to determine their immigration status. He ordered it to cease detaining people without reasonable suspicion of a crime.

Arpaio flagrantly ignored the injunction, and in May 2016, the judge found him to be in civil contempt of court. In July, a second federal judge found him in criminal contempt, which can be punished by imprisonment.

Pence’s groveling before a Trump favorite — a man who personifies abuse of power, racial bigotry and rank dishonesty (Arpaio, for example, remains a birther) — provoked irate reactions from liberals and conservatives. But his eager-beaver praise of Arpaio is par for the course for Pence, whose slobbering over Trump at a Cabinet meeting last December brought on guffaws. (“I’m deeply humbled, as your Vice President, to be able to be here. Because of your leadership, Mr. President, and because of the strong support of the leadership in the Congress of the United States, you’re delivering on that middle-class miracle. . . . I’ll end where I began and just tell you, I want to thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank you for speaking on behalf of and fighting every day for the forgotten men and women of America. Because of your determination, because of your leadership, the forgotten men and women of America are forgotten no more. And we are making America great again.”) A grown man who would travel to a football game, only to walk act so as to highlight his boss’s vendetta against protesting African American football players, is not someone who is concerned about eroding his own dignity.

. . . .

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

Read the full article at the link.

Disgusting as Trump is, Pence is even worse. In a totally perverse way, Trump “is what he is” — a lifelong professional flimflam man.

Pence, by contrast, is a sycophant, a racist, a bigot, and person just as devoid of any discernible human values as Trump, while spouting a revolting bogus Christianity that Jesus would never recognize. Even worse, Pence actually appears to believe in his disgusting “holier than thou” charade.

Trump by contrast is the total con man. He believes in nothing and nobody except his own ego, the stupidity of his supporters and enablers, and the weakness and ineptness of the rest of us who somehow have allowed him to take and maintain power from a minority position.

Either Trump or Pence could well engineer the end of our American Republic or even Western Civilization. But, if we’re going to go down, I’d actually prefer it be at the hands of “straight up liar and con man” rather than a “false prophet.”

In the end, Mike Pence might be Trump’s best insurance policy against impeachment!

PWS

05-04-18

DACA MESS: GOP AGs FILE SUIT WITH “FRIENDLY” JUDGE TRYING TO FORCE SUPREME’S HAND ON DACA!

7 states sue to end DACA, potentially jumbling its legal future

By: Tal Kopan, CNN

The future of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program got murkier Tuesday when the Texas attorney general made good on a threat to challenge it in court.

The lawsuit throws a wrench in an already-complicated legal morass for the DACA program, which protects young undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children and which President Donald Trump has been blocked from ending, for the time being, by other federal courts.

The lawsuit has the potential to create a headache for the Justice Department and courts as it could potentially conflict with rulings from judges in three separate judicial regions of the country who have blocked the end of DACA and could force the government to take an awkward position in the case.

It may also potentially seal the issue’s path to the Supreme Court.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and six other states on Tuesday filed a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of DACA, arguing that former President Barack Obama’s initial creation of DACA in 2012 violated the Constitution and federal law.

The move follows through on a threat from Paxton and what was originally nine other states to challenge DACA in court as part of a lawsuit regarding a similar but broader program that expanded upon DACA to include parents. Paxton issued an ultimatum to Trump: End DACA himself or defend it in court and face the prospect it is overturned by a judge that had already rejected the program’s expansion in that other lawsuit.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2018/05/01/politics/daca-lawsuit-challenge-texas/index.html

(Bonus link: https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/01/us/border-patrol-agent-less-dangerous-than-being-police-officer-invs/index.html )

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

The DACA kids aren’t going anywhere. It’s just a question of how much unnecessary pain and suffering can be inflicted on America’s future leaders and how much enmity from the growing Hispanic electorate Paxton and his White Nationalist cronies will create for the GOP. It figures to be lots.

Hopefully, enough to eventually lead to the GOP’s demise as a viable political force in US politics and the rise of a non-racist Conservative opposition party to take its place.

No, it’s not going to happen in my lifetime! But, hopefully in my kids or grandchildren’s. That’s really what the “New Due Process Army” is all about!

On the “bonus coverage,” it’s a shame that the false narratives about immigration and crime pushed by DHS and encouraged by the Trump Administration are eclipsing truth and understanding.

I’ll testify from my work representing and training Border Patrol Agents at the “Legacy INS” that it’s a difficult, dangerous, important, and thankless job. The vast majority of Border Patrol Agents perform it with courage, dedication, and professionalism. I had friends in the Patrol. Somewhere in the dusty recesses of the Schmidt attic among the remains of my Government career is a box of Border Patrol mementos and memorabilia.

Immigration law enforcement is also being hurt by the bogus White Nationalist “scare stories,” false crime narratives, and constant overt and covert messages of racism being delivered by Trump, Sessions, and their cronies. In the end their dishonest and distorted picture of immigrant communities, the asylum system, their denial of the contributions of all migrants, and their constant over hyping of the dangers of undocumented immigration (it’s been a net gain for the US, and would be an even greater net gain had we enacted a more rational and realistic legal immigration system) hurt everybody in the US, including law enforcement.

In this, as in most situations, a Government dedicated to truth rather than lies and exaggerations designed to divide our country and “fire up” a voter base would better serve the national interest and the interests of everyone concerned.

The Border Patrol’s mission can and should stand on its own merits. It doesn’t need inflated statistics and false narratives.

PWS

05-03-18

EUGENE ROBINSON @ WASHPOST – THE ST. LOUIS DOCKS AGAIN AT OUR SOUTHERN BORDER — TRUMP, SESSIONS & CO. WANT THE US TO FAIL THE MORAL TEST AGAIN – But, This Time It’s Anti-Hispanic Racism, Rather Than Anti-Semitism Behind Our Government’s Intentional Immorality — Trump & Sessions “are sincere in their desire to stanch the flow of Latino immigration — not, I strongly suspect, because of drugs or crime, but because they loathe the demographic and cultural change that is taking place.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-immigrant-caravan-is-a-test-trump-wants-us-to-fail/2018/04/30/124b975c-4cb4-11e8-84a0-458a1aa9ac0a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.72fbc5bc8d11

The immigrant ‘caravan’ is a test. Trump wants us to fail.

By Eugene Robinson

The “caravan” of asylum-seeking migrants that has finally arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border is a test of American character and purpose — a test President Trump wants us to fail.

I put caravan in quotation marks because the group that reached Tijuana hardly qualifies for the term. Just a few dozen would-be entrants presented themselves at the Port of San Ysidro on Sunday — only to be told that U.S. immigration officials were too busy to attend to them. Another several hundred were reported to be in the general area, waiting their turn to attempt to cross the border.

Trump has spoken of these people as if they were some kind of rampaging horde. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has accused them of “a deliberate attempt to undermine our laws and overwhelm our system.” The truth is that this sort of thing happens every year: Would-be migrants seek safety in numbers as they make the long and perilous trek north through Mexico.

Sessions probably understands this context; Trump probably doesn’t. But I believe both are sincere in their desire to stanch the flow of Latino immigration — not, I strongly suspect, because of drugs or crime, but because they loathe the demographic and cultural change that is taking place.

While he and his administration were being appropriately roasted at the White House Correspondents’ Associationdinner on Saturday evening, Trump was at a rally in Michigan saying that our immigration laws are “corrupt . . . so corrupt” and that the motives of those who defend our nation’s traditional role as a haven for asylum seekers are political. “The Democrats actually feel, and they are probably right, that all of these people that are pouring across are going to vote for Democrats, they’re not going to vote for Republicans.”

They’re not going to vote for anybody, of course, since they’re not citizens. Truth doesn’t matter to Trump. But you knew that.

What seems to really drive the president crazy is that the United States remains a haven for those fleeing persecution. Trump laid out his complaint Saturday: “If a person puts their foot over the line, we have to take them into our country, we have to register them. We then have to ask them a couple of questions. Lawyers are telling them what to say. How unsafe they are. And once they say that, we have to let them go, to come back to court in like a year. Only one problem: They don’t come back, okay. That’s the end. Welcome to the United States.”

You will have noticed that missing from Trump’s rant is any sense of morality or mission.

There is a reason the law makes provision for those seeking asylum. In 1939, Congress rejected a bill that would have admitted 20,000 German Jewish children. Later that year, authorities refused to allow the St. Louis, a ship carrying about 900 German Jews, to dock in Miami; the Coast Guard sent out patrol boats to warn the ship away. The St. Louis was forced to return to Europe, and 254 of its passengers later perished during the Holocaust.

That shameful history led to changes in immigration policy that prohibit rejecting claims of asylum out of hand. The bar is high, but many of the Central American asylum seekers probably clear it.

In El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, the major threat comes from rampant gang violence. Boys are often offered a stark choice: Join a gang or be killed. Girls are threatened with rape. It is easy to say this is a problem local elected officials and police ought to solve, but government institutions are weak, and corruption is widespread. What choice does a family under imminent threat have but to flee? What would you do?

It is of course true that not every Central American who asks for asylum truly merits it. That’s why each case is examined and evaluated, with all the time needed to reach a proper determination — which is how the migrants now at the border must be handled, despite what Trump and Sessions might prefer.

To close our eyes and hearts to legitimate claims of persecution would be to repeat the shameful and tragic mistakes of the World War II era. If the subjects of Trump’s demagoguery were summarily denied entry, as he apparently would like, most would be forced to go home and some would be killed. That would be a terrible stain on the nation’s conscience.

I’m tempted to add that it would be a stain on Trump’s conscience as well, but it’s not clear that he has one.

Read more from Eugene Robinson’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook. You can also join him Tuesdays at 1 p.m. for a live Q&A.

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

I remember walking through the “St. Louis Exhibit” at the Holocaust Museum (on an EOIR-sponsored tour, no less, for a long ago and far away Annual Judges Conference — my how official racism & xenophobia have changed things) and asking myself how we could have done that to our fellow human beings.

Then, we had a “special session” explaining the catastrophic failure and cowardice of the German Judiciary during the Nazi rise to power. Judge after judge “adhered to the rule of law” even when those laws unfairly disenfranchised Jews, deprived them of their properly and lawful occupations, and eventually sentenced them to mass death!

I’ve now come to the unhappy realization that the St. Louis might have represented the norm, rather than the exception, to the reality of American democracy and its serious anti-Semitic and racially biased undertones. And, the actions of the corrupt & cowardly German judges of that era are certainly what Trump, Sessions, and their cronies are referring to when they disingenuously pontificate about “the rule of law” and looking for judges, Government officials, and lawyers who are committed to applying it in a biased and one-sided fashion

It’s their rule of law, as they consistently misconstrue it to protect only their favored political and racial groups, and misuse it “punish enemies” and to carry our their increasingly racist, White Nationalist agenda.

And yet 40% of our fellow countrymen are enthusiastically supportive of this heinous agenda. What’s wrong with them? Why ask ourselves how Nazism could have overtaken Germany when we’re in the process of trying to repeat that sordid history here? It’s pretty easy to see Hitler rallies of the 1930s in the Trump rallies of today. The same vicious disregard of both the truth and humanity, scapegoating, and an attacks on the true rule of law and on those who stand up for democracy, all wrapped in an appeal to false religious nationalism!

We’re failing as a nation on both a moral and a legal basis. It remains to be seen whether the resistance to Trump, his supporters, and his enablers will be sufficient to preserve democracy and human decency in America.

PWS

05-01-18

CHILD ABUSE: COWARDLY ADMINISTRATION USES FALSE NARRATIVES & DISTORTED FACTS TO ATTACK PROTECTIONS FOR REFUGEE CHILDREN — Our National Morality & Human Decency In Free-fall Under Trump! — “It has been national law and policy that as adults we look out for children …. No longer.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/01/us/immigration-minors-children.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Eli Hager of The Marshall Project in the NY Times:

On April 4, the White House posted a fact sheet on its website warning that legal “loopholes” were allowing tens of thousands of immigrant children who entered the country on their own to remain in the United States.

The next day, another post went up: “Loopholes in Child Trafficking Laws Put Victims — and American Citizens — At Risk.”

And the same week, the Administration for Children and Families, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services not normally known for its politics, announced that it “joins the President in calling for Congress to close dangerous loopholes.”

Over the past month, the Trump administration has taken aim at a set of child protection laws created to protect young people who cross into the United States without a parent or guardian, perhaps aided by smugglers. The administration now sees some of these same youths as a threat, and is portraying the laws as “loopholes” that are preventing the quick deportation of teenagers involved in gangs.

The campaign is aimed at Capitol Hill, but the Trump administration is not waiting for legislation: In a series of at least a dozen moves across multiple federal agencies, it has begun to curtail legal protections for unaccompanied children who cross the border. Many of these safeguards were created by a 2008 law that provided protections for children who might otherwise be forced into labor or prostitution.

The young people affected by the administration’s measures have been fleeing deadly gang violence in Central America since 2014, when civil strife erupted in the region. They are a less politically shielded group of young people than the so-called “Dreamers,” most of whom came to this country as toddlers with their parents.

The new directives appear aimed at detaining more of these youths after their arrival and speeding deportation back to their home countries — where they may face violent reprisals from gangs or other forms of abuse.

“It has been national law and policy that as adults we look out for children,” said Eve Stotland, director of legal services for The Door, a youth advocacy organization in New York. “No longer.”

Endangered Central American Children

Among the many new directives, the State Department in November gave just 24 hours’ notice to endangered children in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador before canceling a program through which they could apply for asylum in the United States before getting to the border. About 2,700 of them who had already been approved and were awaiting travel arrangements were forced to stay behind in the troubled region.

The Department of Homeland Security, meanwhile, has sharply cut back on granting a special legal status for immigrant juveniles who have been abused, neglected or abandoned; the program dropped from a 78 percent approval rate in 2016 to 54 percent last year, according to statistics compiled by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. In New York, Texas and elsewhere, the agency in recent months has also begun revoking this protection for children who had already won it, according to legal aid organizations in the states.

The Justice Department has also issued legal clarification for courts and prosecutors about revoking “unaccompanied child” status, which allows minors to have their cases heard in a non-adversarial setting rather than in immigration court with a prosecutor contesting them. (The White House has said that it intends to remove this protection altogether, but has not yet done so.)

And the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which provides social services to vulnerable immigrant youth, is now placing all children with any gang-related history in secure detention instead of foster care, whether or not they have ever been arrested or charged with a crime, according to an August memo to the President’s Domestic Policy Council.

“It’s law enforcement mission creep, and our office is ill-prepared for it,” said Robert Carey, who was director of the refugee agency under President Barack Obama.

A Focus on Gangs

The Trump administration has said that its actions are necessary to stem the tide of violent crime. It has focused on teenagers belonging to or associated with the Salvadoran-American street gang MS-13, which has been linked by the police since 2016 to at least 25 homicides on Long Island — a testing ground for many of the president’s new policies.

About 99 of the more than 475 people arrested in the New York City area during ICE raids for gang members had come to the U.S. as unaccompanied children, a representative for the agency said.

To fortify the “loophole” narrative, official announcements of these ICE actions often point out that a number of those arrested were in the process of applying for various forms of child protection.

Yet 30 of 35 teenagers rounded up during these ICE raids last year and who later filed a class-action lawsuit have subsequently been released because the gang allegations against them were thin, according to the ACLU. And the Sacramento Bee reported that a juvenile detention center in California recently cut back its contract with the federal government and complained that too many immigrant teens were being sent there with no evidence of gang affiliation.

The refugee agency acknowledged in its August memo to the White House that only 1.6 percent of all children in its care have any gang history.

“The arguments they’re making are just really challenging to basic logic,” said Elissa Steglich, a law professor at the University of Texas who teaches a clinic for immigrant families.

“The arguments they’re making are just really challenging to basic logic,” said Elissa Steglich, a law professor at the University of Texas who teaches a clinic for immigrant families.

. . . .

“**************************************

Read the complete article at the link.

Yes, folks, it’s way past time to use the correct term for the Trump Administration’s outrageous, and in many cases illegal, policies directed against primarily Hispanic migrant children: “Child Abuse!”

I met many of these kids and families coming through my court over the years. While there were a tiny number of “bad actors” (which the DHS did a good job of discovering) the vast, vast majority were nothing like what Trump, Sessions and others are describing. They actually much better represented “true American values,” courage, and the “American work ethic” than do Trump and his valueless cronies.

That’s right folks! OUR U.S. Government is using racist-inspired lies to conduct a war against Hispanic children and to illegally return many of them to deadly and life threatening situations! Bad things happen to nations that let bullies and cowards bully, demean, and harm children!

The Trump Administration’s abuse of migrant children and their legal and Constitutional rights could be taken right out of a State Department Country Report on human rights abuses in a Third World Dictatorship. Is this they way YOU want to be remembered by history?

No, Constitutional and statutory protections for children are NOT “loopholes.” What kind of human beings speak such trash? The Trump Administration’s response to the “rule of law” when, as is often the case, it doesn’t fit their White Nationalist agenda is always to tell lies, rail against it, and look for ways around it.

Stand up against the lawless behavior and immoral actions of Trump, Sessions, and the rest of their “hate crew!” Join the “New Due Process Army” and fight against the Trump Administration’s erosion of our national values, morality, and the true “rule of law” (which is there to protect migrants and the rest of us from abuse at the hands of our Government).

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all!

PWS

05-01-18

POST EDITORIAL SLAMS INSTITUTIONALIZED CHILD ABUSE BY TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION KAKISTOCRACY! — Human Rights Abuses “Business As Usual” Under Anti-Values Administration!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trump-administration-traumatizes-children-in-the-name-of-scaring-migrants-away/2018/04/29/fe779b50-4a5a-11e8-827e-190efaf1f1ee_story.html?utm_term=.f866c5f999d8

The WashPost Editorial Board writes:

By Editorial Board April 29 at 7:46 PM

INFANTS, TODDLERS, tweens, teens — Trump administration officials are less interested in the age of an unauthorized child migrant than they are in removing the child from his or her parents as a means of deterring illegal border-crossers. That plan, first floated by White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly last year when he was homeland security secretary, was widely regarded as so callous and such a radical departure from historical practice that it was unthinkable for any U.S. government.

If only.

In fact, not only has the idea of systematically separating undocumented children and parents gained currency among top officials determined to turn the tide on illegal entry, it’s already happening with increasing frequency. The Department of Homeland Security insists it has not adopted the practice as a matter of official policy — despite White House pressure to do so — but administration officials acknowledge that hundreds of children, including scores younger than 4, have been taken from their parents in the past few months.

By now it’s clear that there are few red lines President Trump is unwilling to cross in his crusade to rid the United States of undocumented immigrants. For Mr. Trump, having washed his hands of the “dreamers” — young migrants, most in their 20s, raised and educated in the United States after being brought here as children — it’s hardly a moral leap to inflict lasting psychological damage on younger children by taking them from their parents if it will further his goal of combating illegal immigration.

As reported by The Post’s Maria Sacchetti, top immigration and border officials have recommended that all parents who enter the country illegally with their children be detained and prosecuted, meaning the automatic separation of minors, who cannot legally be held in jails or detention centers designed for adults. Until recently, that was extremely uncommon; most parents who crossed the border with children would be released pending an immigration court hearing, or, in some cases, detained together in a facility designed for families. Prosecuting parents for illegal entry, a misdemeanor under federal law, has been exceedingly rare — specifically because of the harm it would cause blameless children.

In addition, many of the parents who would be prosecuted are eligible under U.S. law to seek and be granted asylum. That’s hardly a stretch for migrants from El Salvador and Honduras, beset by drug cartels, gang violence, domestic abuse and some of the world’s highest homicide rates. In the last three months of 2017, more than two-thirds of the 30,000 asylum seekers crossed into the country illegally — and it is far-fetched to exempt from prosecution only those who announce themselves as asylum seekers at legal ports of entry, as Homeland Security officials propose. Are desperate, impoverished people fleeing violence to be penalized because they enter the United States in the wrong place?

The United States has a legitimate interest in deterring illegal border-crossing. It is within its rights to detain and deport individuals and families who fail to make a persuasive case for asylum. But to splinter families and traumatize children in the name of frightening away migrants, many of whom may have a legitimate asylum claim, is not just heartless. It is beyond the pale for a civilized country.

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

Pretty ugly! Eventually our country, particularly future generations, will pay a high price for abandoning civilized values and human decency. The world is watching and the historical record is being made of the Trump Administration’s cowardly response to humanitarian tragedies and the folks who are enabling him and his White Nationalist cronies.

Get on the “right side of history!” Join the New ‘Due Process Army!”

PWS

04-30-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

FOIA results: evidence of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch’s shocking prejudgment of all domestic violence asylum claims

Related posts:

May 6 Briefs Filed in Matter of A-B-

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

The immigrant ‘caravan’ is a test. Trump wants us to fail.

Related posts:

Endangered Central American Children

A Focus on Gangs

Yes, folks, it’s way past time to use the correct term for the Trump Administration’s outrageous, and in many cases illegal, policies directed against primarily Hispanic migrant children: “Child Abuse!”

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all!

PWS

Related posts:

Related posts: