Credible Fear – Page 18 – immigrationcourtside.com

SESSIONS’S TOXIC WHITE NATIONALIST LEGACY OF BIAS AND MISMANAGEMENT CONTINUES TO HAUNT U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS – Inappropriate “Certifications” & Skewed Precedents Denied Asylum To Legitimate Refugees While Improperly Limiting Authority of Immigration Judges To Control & Manage Their Dockets – “Gonzo” Actions Diverted Attention & Resources From Pursuing Long-Overdue Improvements In Delivery of Due Process!

https://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/article/Jeff-Sessions-unfinished-legacy-of-reversing-13420329.php

Bob Egelko reports for the SF Chronicle:

In 21 months as the nation’s attorney general, Jeff Sessions affected no area of public policy more than immigration, from his “zero tolerance” orders to arrest and prosecute all unauthorized border crossers to establishing new rules speeding up deportations and limiting legal challenges.

But with his dismissal by President Trump the day after the Nov. 6 election, one part of Sessions’ immigration agenda remained unfinished: his reconsideration, and often reversal, of pro-immigrant rulings by the immigration courts, particularly on the rights of migrants seeking political asylum in the United States.

Because immigration courts are a branch of the Justice Department, the attorney general has the authority to review and overturn their rulings. Sessions used that authority at an unprecedented pace, reversing decisions that had allowed immigration judges to delay or postpone hearings to give immigrants time to apply for legal status, and eliminating grounds for asylum that were commonly invoked by migrants from Central America.

In October, he announced plans to reconsider a ruling that, if repealed, would keep thousands of asylum-seekers locked up even after they convinced hearing officers that they had a case for fearing persecution in their homeland.

A 2005 ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals allowed immigrants seeking asylum to be freed on bond after an immigration officer ruled that they have a “credible fear” of persecution if deported. They remain free until the immigration courts decide whether their fear of persecution is “well founded,” entitling them to asylum, a work permit and legal residence. If not, they can be deported.

That determination sometimes takes a year or longer. Immigration rights advocates and legal commentators say tens of thousands of asylum-seekers would be locked up for that period if the attorney general overturned the 2005 decision.

“It’s a dramatic change in policy … part of a pattern of efforts to implement the ‘zero-tolerance’ policy” that Sessions declared in April for unauthorized border-crossing, said Kevin Johnson, UC Davis law school dean and an immigration law expert.

This was “Sessions, on his own initiative, trying to rewrite immigration law,” said Paul Wickham Schmidt, a retired immigration judge, former chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals and publisher of the ImmigrationCourtside blog.

Now the decision will be left to Sessions’ successor. Or maybe not.

, , , ,

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

Go to the above link to read the rest of the story.

Sessions’s biased jurisprudence and his intentional mismanagement resulted in a largely artificial “backlog” of 1.1 million cases and a group of demoralized judges who are treated as assembly line workers on a deportation conveyor belt. This preventable disaster is a major contributor to the bogus crisis on the Southern Border.

Sessions admittedly built on and intentionally aggravated pre-existing problems left by the Bush II and Obama Administrations. Nearly two decades of abuse and misuse of the U.S. Immigration Court System by the DOJ for political aims often unrelated to due process and fairness won’t be resolved “overnight.”

But competent court administration combined with a return to an exclusive focus on delivering full due process with maximum achievable efficiency would certainly make an immediate difference and put the Immigration Courts back on track to fulfilling their noble (now abandoned) vision of “being the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” No rational observer would say that these courts are moving in that direction under Trump and his toadies at the DOJ and DHS.

PWS

11-26-18

BUZZFEED NEWS: Two Years Of Trump’s Bad Immigration Policies Predictably Culminate In Border Gassings!

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/adolfoflores/trump-blame-crisis-border-asylum

Adolfo Flores, Hamed Aleaziz, & Karla Zabludovsky for BuzzFeed News:

TIJUANA, Mexico — For Trump administration officials, an unprecedented confrontation at the US-Mexico border on Sunday invited an assessment that their policies have only exacerbated the problems of an overwhelmed immigration system whose court backlog has grown larger since Trump’s inauguration 22 months ago.

León Rodriguez, who headed the US Citizenship and Immigration Services agency from 2014 to 2016, didn’t want to comment on the events on the ground, but said what happened at the border seemed to be “a foreseeable result of the US policy of placing every conceivable obstacle in the way of orderly legal migration and of not having a policy that [recognizes] the desperate circumstances driving migration.”

Mexican officials shared that negative assessment. Héctor Gandini, who will take over as spokesperson for Mexico’s Interior Ministry when Mexico swears in a new president on Saturday, said that the US use of tear gas on migrants attempting to cross illegally into the country was “not correct. We don’t want them to hound migrants.”

“You have to respect migrants’ human rights,” Gandini added.

For Josué Rosales, one of the migrants who took part in the ill-fated march to the border, what began as a journey of hope had turned into one of despair, one that promised weeks of more nights inside the tent he’s now sharing with his girlfriend on the grounds of the Benito Juarez stadium, where the caravan has been camped for days. He said he’s not ready to give up.

“I’m waiting to see if Trump comes to some type of agreement that allows us to cross,” Rosales said. “If he says no we’ll figure out another way to cross.”

The Trump administration faces a situation its best efforts have failed to control.

Administration officials have imposed a number of policies to discourage migrants from seeking to enter the United States. Then Attorney General Jeff Sessions personally rewrote key immigration court decisions to eliminate domestic violence and fear of gang violence as reasons for asylum to be granted. The administration imposed a controversial family separation policy that was intended to discourage parents from crossing the border with their children. Trump dispatched 5,800 US active-duty soldiers to the border in a show of force that many critics also claim was a blatant political ploy ahead of the midterm elections earlier this month.

Kim Kyung-hoon / Reuter

And yet border apprehensions are at the highest level yet of the Trump administration (though still at historically low levels), family detentions are at record levels, and the number of people granted asylum actually rose in the fiscal year that just ended, to the highest level in two decades.

In Tijuana, where the number of would-be asylum seekers is growing by the day, immigration attorneys and advocates describe a bottleneck system that makes asylum seekers wait weeks before they can seek to enter the US for refuge. That’s created an enormous backlog.

And the situation promises only to get worse as more people seeking to reach the US arrive in Baja California, the Mexican state that abuts California. Mexico’s interior ministry said there are 8,247 people now in Mexico who are traveling as part of so-called caravans from Central America. The vast majority of migrants — 7,417 — are in the cities of Mexicali and Tijuana. The other 424 are in a Mexico City shelter, 253 are in the Mexican state of Sinaloa, and another 153 are making their way north on their own. It’s unclear how many of them will ask for asylum.

Caring for the migrants is costing about $27,000 daily — money Tijuana’s mayor says the city does not have.

Sunday’s march to the border was intended to be peaceful, but it devolved into a frantic rush toward the border fence after the group, which numbered about 500, according to the Mexican interior ministry, was blocked from reaching the San Ysidro port of entry by a line of Mexican federal police.

The crowd skirted the police line and rushed across the Tijuana River’s small stream that runs next to the walkway leading to the port of entry.

Then after being blocked on the street in front of the Chaparral border crossing by metal barriers and another line of federal police with shields, a group walked to a train border crossing a few minutes away.

Several members of the group told BuzzFeed News they wanted to negotiate some type of agreement with the Trump administration that would let them enter the United States. Others said they hoped to be able to cross into the US as a group.

Instead, US border officers met them with tear gas and pepper balls, according to a statement from Customs and Border Protection, the agency responsible for border law enforcement.

CBP said its officers deployed the tear gas and pepper balls after some members of the group threw objects, including rocks, at agents while others tried to enter the United States illegally, some through a gap in the metal barrier along the railroad tracks.

Kim Kyung-hoon / Reuters

But not all immigration officers were willing to defend the US actions. One US asylum officer, who could not talk about policy publicly, said the confrontation likely was the result of the US’s inability or unwillingness to process asylum claims at the border daily. The officer said USCIS recently had told staff to be on standby to be sent to San Diego to help hear asylum claims.

“I’m just glad nothing worse happened,” the officer said. “I think it’s illegal that they closed the border. We cannot decide when we can close the border if there’s no state of emergency. For a couple dozen asylum seekers? That was not an emergency that should justify closing the border. I’m just relieved it wasn’t worse.”

Another government official, who works on the issue but does not make policy, blamed the Trump administration for the tensions at the border.

“Trump has broken the law by not having people at the border processed for months and months and creating a bottleneck there,” the official said. “Tear gassing children because maybe they’ll get into the US? Heaven forbid.”

Mexican authorities late Sunday were contemplating what to do next. In a press release, the interior ministry said Mexican police had retaken control of the area leading to the San Ysidro port of entry and that Mexican troops would not be deployed “despite the magnitude of the situation.”

A government official who requested anonymity because they were not allowed to talk to reporters told BuzzFeed News that 30 migrants had breached the border and were promptly detained by CBP. The National Migration Institute said that it planned to deport as many as 500 others who attempted to cross into the US illegally but were unsuccessful. Since the first caravan entered Mexico on October 19, 11,000 migrants from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua have been deported.

The escalation at the border comes at a complicated time — the country’s embattled president, Enrique Peña Nieto, will conclude his mandate in less than a week.

BuzzFeed News revealed earlier this month that the Trump administration was attempting to broker a deal that would force people to wait in Mexico while their asylum cases were processed. The Washington Post reported that incoming Mexican president Andres Manuel López Obrador’s transition team had agreed to this plan, but that report was disputed by the same officials it cited; they pointed out that López Obrador’s government would not take office for several more days. “There is no agreement of any sort between the future government of Mexico and the US government,” said a press release from López Obrador’s transition team.

Immigration promises to be a major challenge for López Obrador, who has pledged to give work permits and offer jobs to Central American migrants in Mexico. Detentions and deportations of migrants have increased steadily since 2014, when the government launched the Southern Border Program, shortly after a large wave of unaccompanied minors surged across the US-Mexico border.

Lucy Nicholson / Reuters

Sunday’s events were much different from the results of a spring caravan that arrived in Tijuana in late April with hundreds of asylum seekers. The group camped out on the grounds of the Chaparral border crossing for days after being turned away by CBP agents because the port of entry was at capacity. Over several days, small groups of asylum seekers were allowed into the US to make their claim, 93% of whom passed what’s known as a credible fear interview, a crucial first step in the asylum application process.

But that caravan was much smaller, at most 1,500 at its start in southern Mexico, than the thousands now waiting in Tijuana, and its members had been vetted by the NGO that led it, Pueblo Sin Fronteras, to weed out those whose asylum claims were likely to be found without merit by the time it reached the border. In the end, only 228 people sought asylum in a process that took just five days. Separately, other members of the caravan asked for asylum before and after those five days, putting the total number of asylum seekers at 401.

This time around, asylum seekers have been told they would likely have to wait weeks in Tijuana before they could ask the US for refuge because of a backlog at the border. The current expected wait to begin the process is now up to six weeks.

Delay at the border for requesting asylum is nothing new, but it’s been getting worse under Trump. The Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general found recently that US immigration authorities’ inability to handle the number of people seeking asylum at ports of entry had forced migrants to cross illegally. But there’s little sign that US officials are planning to take steps to improve the wait times.

And the likelihood is great that those who must wait in Tijuana will find only that their frustration will grow in the coming months.

“It’s difficult because we came as one peaceful caravan and now we’re just waiting here without any results,” Rosales, the march participant, told BuzzFeed News. “We’re sitting in the sun, thirsty, hungry, with no resolution to our situation.”

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

The Trump Administration created this artificial mess. The solution is hardly “rocket science:”

More USCIS Asylum Officers;
More pro bono private attorneys;
More U.S. Immigration Judges and staff;
Restoring authority to Immigration Judges to work with both parties before their courts to close and remove hundreds of thousands of “low priority” cases from the courts’ dockets, thus freeing up judicial time to work on asylum cases of more recent arrivals;
Restoring precedents that would allow refugees with documented cases of persecution on the basis for domestic violence and family relationships to be expeditiously granted, thus freeing up docket space for other types of cases.

No chance that the Trump Administration will do this voluntarily. But, there might be an opening for House Democrats to condition further immigration enforcement funding on improvements in the foregoing areas and an end to the Trump-created “border backups.”

PWS

11-26-18

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION REACHES “REMAIN IN MEXICO” AGREEMENT WITH MEXICO!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/deal-with-mexico-paves-way-for-asylum-overhaul-at-us-border/2018/11/24/87b9570a-ef74-11e8-9236-bb94154151d2_story.html

By Joshua Partlow and

Nick Miroff

November 24 at 12:09 PM

MEXICO CITY — The Trump administration has won the support of Mexico’s incoming government for a plan to remake U.S. border policy by requiringasylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their claims move through U.S. courts, according to Mexican officials and senior members of president-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s transition team.

The agreement would break with long-standing asylum rules and place a formidable new barrier in the path of Central American migrants attempting to reach the United States and escape poverty and violence. By reaching the accord, the Trump administration has also overcome Mexico’s historic reticence to deepen cooperation with the United States on an issue widely seen here as America’s problem.

The White House had no immediate comment.

. . . .

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

Go to the WashPost at the link to read the rest of the story!

Will the UNHCR & the US help Mexico establish humane accommodations for those awaiting asylum decisions?
Will Mexico allow free access to US lawyers to assist asylum seekers in preparing their claims?
Will US Immigration Courts be established at Ports of Entry to conduct hearings for those who pass “credible fear?”

If properly staffed and run in good faith by both the US and Mexico, with the assistance of the UNHCR and various NGOs, this potentially could be a reasonable way to process asylum seekers at the border.

But, it’s difficult to imagine the Trump Administration conducting any immigration related program fairly and in accordance with the law.

Stay tuned!

PWS

11-24-18

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SCOFFLAWS’ LATEST PLOT AGINST ASYLUM SEEKERS SURE TO CAUSE INTERNATIONAL CHAOS & DRAW NEW LEGAL CHALLENGES – No Wonder These Immoral Cowards Have Such Fear Of Truly Independent Judges (Not To Be Confused With EOIR’s “Captive Judges”)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-plan-would-force-asylum-seekers-to-wait-in-mexico-as-cases-are-processed-a-major-break-with-current-policy/2018/11/21/5ad47e82-ede8-11e8-9236-bb94154151d2_story.html?utm_term=.4059c5192c0c

Nick MIroff, Joshua Partlow, and Josh Dawsey report for the WashPost:

November 21 at 10:18 PM

Central Americans who arrive at U.S. border crossings seeking asylum in the United States will have to wait in Mexico while their claims are processed under sweeping new measures the Trump administration is preparing to implement, according to internal planning documents and three Department of Homeland Security officials familiar with the initiative.

According to DHS memos obtained by The Washington Post on Wednesday, Central American asylum seekers who cannot establish a “reasonable fear” of persecution in Mexico will not be allowed to enter the United States and would be turned around at the border.

The plan, called “Remain in Mexico,” amounts to a major break with current screening procedures, which generally allow those who establish a fear of return to their home countries to avoid immediate deportation and remain in the United States until they can get a hearing with an immigration judge. Trump despises this system, which he calls “catch and release,” and has vowed to end it.

Among the thousands of Central American migrants traveling by caravan across Mexico, many hope to apply for asylum due to threats of gang violence or other persecution in their home countries. They had expected to be able to stay in the United States while their claims move through immigration court. The new rules would disrupt those plans, and the hopes of other Central Americans who seek asylum in the United States each year.

[Trump lashes out at judge after order to allow illegal border crossers to seek asylum]

Trump remains furious about the caravan and the legal setbacks his administration has suffered in federal court, demanding hard-line policy ideas from aides. Senior adviser Stephen Miller has pushed to implement the Remain in Mexico plan immediately, though other senior officials have expressed concern about implementing it amid sensitive negotiations with the Mexican government, according to two DHS officials and a White House adviser with knowledge of the plan, which was discussed at the White House on Tuesday, people familiar with the matter said.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

According to the administration’s new plan, if a migrant does not specifically fear persecution in Mexico, that is where they will stay. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is sending teams of asylum officers from field offices in San Francisco, Washington, and Los Angeles to the ports of entry in the San Diego area to implement the new screening procedures, according to a USCIS official.

To cross into the United States, asylum seekers would have to meet a relatively higher bar in the screening procedure to establish that their fears of being in Mexico are enough to require immediate admission, the documents say.

“If you are determined to have a reasonable fear of remaining in Mexico, you will be permitted to remain in the United States while you await your hearing before an immigration judge,” the asylum officers will now tell those who arrive seeking humanitarian refuge, according to the DHS memos. “If you are not determined to have a reasonable fear of remaining in Mexico, you will remain in Mexico.”

Mexican border cities are among the most violent in the country, as drug cartels battle over access to smuggling routes into the United States. In the state of Baja California, which includes Tijuana, the State Department warns that “criminal activity and violence, including homicide, remain a primary concern throughout the state.”

The new rules will take effect as soon as Friday, according to two DHS officials familiar with the plans.

Katie Waldman, a spokeswoman for DHS, issued a statement late Wednesday saying there are no immediate plans to implement these new measures.

“The President has made clear — every single legal option is on the table to secure our nation and to deal with the flood of illegal immigrants at our borders,” the statement says. “DHS is not implementing such a new enforcement program this week. Reporting on policies that do not exist creates uncertainty and confusion along our borders and has a negative real world impact. We will ensure — as always — that any new program or policy will comply with humanitarian obligations, uphold our national security and sovereignty, and is implemented with notice to the public and well coordinated with partners.”

A Mexican official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that current Mexican immigration law does not allow those seeking asylum in another country to stay in Mexico.

On Dec. 1, a new Mexican president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, will be sworn in, and it’s also unclear whether his transition team was consulted on the new asylum screening procedures.

The possibility that thousands of U.S.-bound asylum seekers would have to wait in Mexico for months, even years, could produce a significant financial burden for the government there, especially if the migrants remain in camps and shelters on a long-term basis.

[At the U.S. border, migrant caravan will slow to a crawl]

There are currently 6,000 migrants in the Tijuana area, many of them camped at a baseball field along the border, seeking to enter the United States. Several thousand more are en route to the city as part of caravan groups, according to Homeland Security estimates.

U.S. border officials have allowed about 60 to 100 asylum seekers to approach the San Ysidro port of entry each day for processing.

Last week, BuzzFeed News reported that U.S. and Mexican officials were discussing such a plan.

Mexico also appears to be taking a less-permissive attitude toward the new migrant caravans now entering the country.

Authorities detained more than 200 people, or nearly all of the latest caravan, who recently crossed Mexico’s southern border on their way to the United States. This is at least the fourth large group of migrants to cross into Mexico and attempt to walk to the U.S. border. They were picked up not long after crossing. The vast majority of the migrants were from El Salvador, according to Mexico’s National Immigration Institute.

After the first caravan this fall entered Mexico, President Enrique Peña Nieto’s administration offered migrants the chance to live and work in Mexico as long as they stayed in the southern states of Chiapas and Oaxaca. Most chose not to accept this deal, because they wanted to travel to the United States.

nick.miroff@washpost.com

joshua.partlow@washpost.com

josh.dawsey@washpost.com

Partlow reported from Mexico City. Dawsey reported from West Palm Beach, Fla.

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

Let’s see, Trump shrugs off the murder of a Washington Post journalist by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, downplays Putin’s overt interference in our elections, promotes mindless nationalism of the exact type responsible for two World Wars and tens of millions of avoidable deaths, and praises massive human rights violator and murderer Kim even as the latter is duping him on nukes. So, he’s scared to stand up to anyone powerful or for ideals and values that take courage to promote and advance.

But, when it comes to bullying, demonizing, and beating up on harmless but extremely vulnerable and desperate refugees, many of them women, children, and families fleeing for their lives, he excels. What does that tell us about the lack of character of the “man,” and the total lack of judgement and regard for American values of those in the minority who put him in office and continue to prop him up?

This appears to be a reaction to: 1) Federal Courts requiring Trump to follow the law; 2) Mexico’s refusal to be bullied into signing an absurdly inappropriate and totally one-sided “safe third country” agreement; 3) Congresses failure to fund the wasteful “Wall;” and 4) the near total, yet highly predictable, failure of Trump’s racist, White Nationalist inspired “get tough” immigration enforcement policies.

The Federal Courts are likely to permanently enjoin Trump from ignoring the law that specifically allows anyone in the U.S., legally or not, to apply for asylum. Additionally, Trump encourages violence against refugees and creates unsafe, inhumane conditions on the Mexican side of the border. Consequently, the end result of Trump’s intentional “making folks wait in Mexico” policy is likely to be encouraging individuals seeking asylum to enter illegally and then turn themselves in to the authorities to apply for asylum in the U.S.

Meanwhile, the better options of working with the UNHCR and Mexico to promote a multinational approach to protection and to solve the problems in the Northern Triangle causing this humanitarian flow remain unaddressed by the Trumpsters.

Also, when will the “Face of Evil,” Stephen Miller, finally be held accountable for his consistently cowardly and racist attacks on the law and the American legal system?

PWS

11-22-18

SCOFFLAWS OUTED AGAIN: U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP’S ILLEGAL ATTACK ON ASYLUM LAW: ORDERS PROCESSING OF ALL WHO APPLY TO RESUME! — “Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden!”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/judge-denies-trump-asylum-policy.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Miriam Jordan reports for the NY Times:

LOS ANGELES — A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants no matter where or how they entered the United States, dealing at least a temporary setback to the president’s attempt to clamp down on a huge wave of Central Americans crossing the border.

Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the government from carrying out a new rule that denies protections to people who enter the country illegally. The order, which suspends the rule until the case is decided by the court, applies nationally.

“Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Mr. Tigar wrote in his order.

As a caravan of several thousand people journeyed toward the Southwest border, President Trump signed a proclamation on Nov. 9 that banned migrants from applying for asylum if they failed to make the request at a legal checkpoint. Only those who entered the country through a port of entry would be eligible, he said, invoking national security powers to protect the integrity of the United States borders.

Within days, the administration submitted a rule to the federal registry, letting it go into effect immediately and without the customary period for public comment.

But the rule overhauled longstanding asylum laws that ensure people fleeing persecution can seek safety in the United States, regardless of how they entered the country. Advocacy groups, including the Southern Poverty Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union, swiftly sued the administration for effectively introducing what they deemed an asylum ban.

The advocacy groups accused the government of “violating Congress’s clear command that manner of entry cannot constitute a categorical asylum bar” in their complaint. They also said the administration had violated federal guidelines by not allowing public comment on the rule.

But Trump administration officials defended the regulatory change, arguing that the president was responding to a surge in migrants seeking asylum based on frivolous claims, which ultimately lead their cases to be denied by an immigration judge. The migrants then ignore any orders to leave, and remain unlawfully in the country.

”The president has sought to halt this dangerous and illegal practice and regain control of the border,” government lawyers said in court filings.

Mr. Trump, who had made stanching illegal immigration a top priority since his days on the campaign trail, has made no secret of his frustration over the swelling number of migrants heading to the United States. The president ordered more than 5,000 active-duty troops to the border to prevent the migrants from entering.

The new rule was widely regarded as an effort to deter Central Americans, many of whom request asylum once they reach the United States, often without inspection, from making the journey over land from their countries to the border.

United States immigration laws stipulate that foreigners who touch American soil are eligible to apply for asylum. They cannot be deported immediately. They are eligible to have a so-called credible fear interview with an asylum officer, a cursory screening that the overwhelming majority of applicants pass. As result, most of the migrants are released with a date to appear in court.

In recent years, more and more migrants have availed of the asylum process, often after entering the United States illegally. A record 23,121 migrants traveling as families were detained at the border in October. Many of the families turn themselves in to the Border Patrol rather than queue up to request asylum at a port of entry.

The Trump administration believes the migrants are exploiting asylum laws to immigrate illegally to the United States. Soaring arrivals have exacerbated a huge backlog of pending cases in the immigration courts, which recently broke the one-million mark. Many migrants skip their court dates, only to remain illegally in the country, which Mr. Trump derides as “catch and release.”

But advocates argue that many migrants are victims of violence or persecution and are entitled to seek sanctuary. Gangs are ubiquitous across El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, where lawlessness and corruption enable them to kill with impunity.

Daniel Victor contributed reporting from Hong Kong.

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

Entirely predictable. “Many of the families turn themselves in to the Border Patrol rather than queue up to request asylum at a port of entry.”

Why aren’t ethical requirements being enforced on Government lawyers who present and defend these clearly frivolous positions in court? Knowingly and intentionally depriving individuals of statutory, civil, and constitutional rights, while tying up Federal Judges and other “officers of the court” on frivolous political stunts directed at harming individuals on the basis of race and nationality must, at some point, be deterred!

These are not criminal proceedings, and the Administration is not entitled to a “presumption of innocence” for its lawless actions. At some point, ethical lawyers have an obligation “not to serve” a lawless Administration and to publicly disclose and oppose the Administration’s intentionally illegal actions and intentional wrongdoing aimed at migrants and communities of color in the U.S. “Job security” doesn’t entitle Government employees, let alone those who also are members of the bar, to violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

And no, no matter how much the GOP appointees might want to do so, the Supremes can’t authorize the President to rewrite the clear terms of the law at his whim.

PWS

11-20-18

MEXICO A “SAFE THIRD COUNTRY?” — No Way! — “‘It’s a Crisis of Civilization in Mexico.’ 250,000 Dead. 37,400 Missing.“

https://www.wsj.com/articles/its-a-crisis-of-civilization-in-mexico-250-000-dead-37-400-missing-1542213374?emailToken=b782c4822fa5027d9168b45cd695195eFqzrxRlC5OCkGVY8Z0EA4pb8VXl6RHkHREQ1AmaH8yMyeAlVb6MpXqPHHsAocieCxuQWuPDERMwhcxLvXsFRFQsRI5WkHZo3DKDR+cMb5uAd8bNn8ryiZ5q4Nt0344LX&reflink=article_email_share

José de Córdoba and Juan Montes report for the WSJ:

That day, the mothers scoured the site outside El Fuerte, a town in Sinaloa state, on Mexico’s northern Pacific Coast, looking for one of two men presumably kidnapped by cartel gunmen in recent weeks. One body had already been found in a field. The women believed the other may be nearby. In the end, they came up empty.

“This is my life,” said Mirna Medina, a forceful woman who holds the group together. “Digging up holes.”

Her son, who sold CDs by a gas station, was kidnapped in 2014. Three years later to the day, she and the other mothers of the search group dug up his remains. “I felt his presence,” she said, remembering the day and breaking out in tears. “I wanted to find him alive, but at least I found him.”

Some 37,000 people in Mexico are categorized as “missing” by the government. The vast majority are believed to be dead, victims of the country’s spiraling violence that has claimed more than 250,000 lives since 2006. The country’s murder rate has more than doubled to 26 per 100,000 residents, five times the U.S. figure.

Because the missing aren’t counted as part of the country’s official murder tally, it is likely Mexico’s rate itself is higher.

The killing and the number of missing grow each year. Last year, 5,500 people disappeared, up from 3,400 in 2015. Mexico’s murders are up another 18% through September this year.

Victims’ families, mostly mothers, organize search parties, climbing down ravines or scouring trash dumps. Their technique is crude. Sometimes they hire laborers to hammer steel rods into the soil and haul them up to see if they smell like decomposition. Other times, they simply look for an exposed body part or shallow grave.

The sheer numbers of the disappeared now rival more famous cases of missing people in Latin American history.

The Disappeared, or Desaparecidos, became a chilling part of Latin America’s vocabulary during the Cold War, when security forces kidnapped, killed and disposed of the bodies of tens of thousands of leftist guerrillas as well as civilian sympathizers. The most infamous case is Argentina’s “Dirty War,” where at least 10,000 people vanished from 1976 to 1983. In Buenos Aires, mothers of the missing organized weekly vigils in front of Argentina’s presidential palace, gaining world-wide prominence.

Mexico fought its own far-smaller war against Marxist guerrillas during the 1970s. According to the government human-rights commission, 532 people went missing, and at least 275 people were summarily executed by security forces.

This time around, the horror in Mexico is bigger and its causes more complex. Many of the disappeared in recent years are believed to be the victims of violence unleashed by criminal gangs fighting to control drug routes and other lucrative businesses such as extortion, kidnapping and the theft of gasoline from pipelines, often with the complicity of police forces, government officials say.

“It’s a crisis of civilization in Mexico,” said Javier Sicilia, a poet and victims’ advocate whose son was murdered in 2011. “It’s diabolical—an unprecedented perversity to disappear human beings and erase any trace of them from the world.”

The trauma of Mexico’s missing is an open wound in the nation’s psyche. Families who can’t grieve for their loved ones spend the day alternating between doubt and despair, praying for, and dreading, the blessing of certainty.

“We don’t sleep nights, we have nightmares wondering what happened, where can he be,” said Maria Lugo, 62, whose son disappeared in 2015.

. . . .

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

Those with WSJ access can get the rest of the gruesome story at the link, along with pictures and graphs illustrating the extent of the problem.

Obviously, by no stretch of the imagination is Mexico a “Safe Third Country” for purposes of U.S. asylum law. The brazen attempt by the Trump Administration and GOP Senators led by Chuck Grassley and Mike Lee to force such an agreement down the throat of Mexico is as disingenuous as it is immoral.

It also is appalling the number of Trump Administration senior immigration officials who parrot the bogus claim that “refugees from Central America are required to apply for asylum in Mexico.” Neither international law nor U.S. law imposes such a requirement, for good reasons. Actually, the single “Safe Third Country Agreement” that we have negotiated with Canada in compliance with our immigration laws is quite circumscribed and very limited in scope. And, there are ongoing efforts in Canada to force Canada to withdraw from this agreement because of the Trump Administration’s mistreatment of asylum applicants.

Nevertheless, as I have previously pointed out, given conditions in the Northern Triangle, while Mexico isn’t a “Safe Third Country” for purposes of our law, it might well be a “safer third country,” in practical terms, for many Central American refugees and their families. It’s bigger than the Northern Triangle countries, somewhat better governed than the “failed states” of the Northern Triangle, easier and less dangerous to reach, has more economic opportunities and resettlement options, and is generally (although, sadly, not always) not as overtly hostile to refugees as is the U.S. under Trump.

To encourage (rather than attempt to force) more individuals to apply for asylum in Mexico, our Government should:

Publicly acknowledge and treat the migration from Central America as a “humanitarian situation,” rather than a law enforcement issue;
Work with the UNHCR and Mexican authorities to improve asylum processing, adjudication, and resettlement in Mexico;
Provide financial aid and incentives for Mexico to improve its asylum system (rather than law enforcement money or threats to cut off funding);
Emphasize to Central American refugees the possible benefits of applying for asylum in Mexico (or elsewhere), rather than threatening them and trying to intimidate them from coming to the U.S.
Finally, and most important, the U.S. should be taking a leadership role with the UNHCR and other countries in our hemisphere to address the endemic problems in the Northern Triangle that are creating these refugee flows.

Refugee situations are complex, on a number of levels. They won’t be solved by the simplistic approaches (a/k/a political stunts) currently being taken by the Trump Administration, including the ridiculous “Wall.” Indeed, they can’t be solved by any single country. It takes the countries of the world working together to resolve them. That’s exactly what the mechanisms set up under the U.N. Convention on Refugees were intended to do. It’s beyond foolish for our Government to ignore them.

PWS

11-16-18

DC SUPERLAWYERS LINDSAY M. HARRIS AND DREE K. COLLOPY COMPLETELY DEBUNK TRUMP’S BOGUS CLAIMS ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS IN WASHPOST OP-ED! Immigration lawyers like us know the truth about the people whom Trump calls an “invasion.” These asylum-seeking families, most fleeing horrific violence in Central America, where their own governments cannot protect them, are doing what is most human — trying to survive and protect their children.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/13/trumps-attack-asylum-is-based-entirely-false-claims/

President Trump’s recent action to limit asylum claims at the U.S.-Mexico border is just his latest attempt to scare Americans about asylum seekers, undercutting long-standing principles of decency and humanity.

And like most of what Trump says about immigrants, the rationale the administration is using to keep out asylum seekers is based on myths and deliberate obfuscations.

Trump may not like it, but seeking asylum from persecution is a core human right. This right was recognized by the world and enshrined in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It has also been recognized by the United States and enshrined in our own domestic laws. Specifically, anyone “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival . . .), irrespective of [their] status, may apply for asylum.” The Trump administration’s order will curtail this fundamental right and inevitably prompt strong legal challenges and protracted, resource-intensive litigation in our courts.

[Trump administration tightens immigration asylum rules as caravans continue to push for U.S. border]

Immigration lawyers like us know the truth about the people whom Trump calls an “invasion.” These asylum-seeking families, most fleeing horrific violence in Central America, where their own governments cannot protect them, are doing what is most human — trying to survive and protect their children.

We are asylum attorneys, but like many of our asylum-seeking clients, we are also mothers — of children ages 1 and 4, and one of us is nine months pregnant. Like most parents, we would do anything to keep our children safe. This is, indeed, the primary reason mothers decide to flee, sometimes pregnant, sometimes with small children, and take what they know and understand is the dangerous journey north — because they determine that is their best option for safety. This very human act of seeking protection for one’s children should be met with humanity, not hate-driven policies.

And the idea of an invasion isn’t the only false claim the administration is making to justify its new policy.

[Trump isn’t trying to solve border problems. He’s trying to make them look worse.]

The administration alleges that most individuals who file asylum claims don’t return to court to adjudicate them. In his Nov. 1 speech, Trump himself claimed that only 3 percent of asylum seekers show up in court. In reality, the Justice Department’s own statistics recognize that 60 percent to 75 percent of non-detained individuals show up to court, while a recent study showed that 96 percent of families with legal representation seeking asylum showed up to court.

The administration seems to assume that those seeking asylum between ports of entry are less worthy, genuine or credible than those who seek entry at the border. In reality, there are totally valid reasons people enter between ports of entry — first and foremost, the U.S. government has a track record of unlawfully turning away asylum seekers from ports of entry.

The administration assumes that asylum seekers from Central America will be safe in Mexico. Trump said in his speech earlier this month that Mexico had offered asylum to members of a large refugee caravan traveling from Central America, and that if they did not accept it, they must not be genuine asylum seekers.

[How to organize a 5,000-person migrant caravan]

Trump gets two facts wrong here. First, the United States does not have a “safe third country agreement” with Mexico (as we do have in place with Canada), which would make it a requirement for any asylum seeker who set foot on Mexican soil to seek asylum in Mexico first or be barred from pursuing asylum in the United States.

And second, the reason we don’t have such an agreement with Mexico is because Mexico is not capable of providing adequate protection for many migrants. For example, last year, the University of the District of Columbia law school’s immigration clinic handled the case of a Honduran woman who fled severe harm and targeting by a powerful transnational gang and was then attacked by Los Zetas in Mexico as she traveled with her two young children to the United States. She dutifully sought asylum in Mexico, only to be told by Mexican officials that they could not protect her from the Zetas or the gang who had targeted her in Honduras. They advised her to continue to the United States to seek meaningful protection. She was granted asylum.

[Border arrests surged to highest levels of Trump presidency in October]

The Trump administration’s rule and proclamation are grounded in rhetoric about the need to cut down on government resources devoted to asylum seekers at the southern border. However, the changes are unlikely to save government resources; while they will bar individuals who enter between ports of entry from gaining asylum, making them eligible only for withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), withholding and CAT still require a court hearing, which will continue to be delayed given the backlog of now more than 1 million cases in our immigration courts.

Moreover, granting withholding or CAT relief, as opposed to asylum, will add to the creation of a permanent underclass of refugees. These refugees will be barred from a path to permanent residence, family reunification and full inclusion as members of our society. Instead, they will live in limbo.

For example, take one of the UDC law school clinic’s clients from last year. Her persecutor kidnapped her at age 17 and then kept her in a hut for six months, raping her repeatedly. After six months, he said she was his wife and warned that if she left him, he would kill her younger siblings. For the next 20 years, she endured horrific abuse at his hands, eventually escaping and making it to the United States on her third attempt. She was barred from asylum because of her unsuccessful prior attempts to enter but eventually granted withholding of removal. While she works hard legally as a nanny in the D.C. metro area, she has no right to ever sponsor her children for immigration; nor can she leave the United States without losing her status. She will live in permanent limbo and never see her children again. This rule will create the same situation for many more people like her.

This move is just the latest in a string of efforts by the Trump administration to dehumanize asylum seekers, to create an “us vs. them” mentality. The fearmongering has already contributed to the massacre of 11 Jewish Americans at a synagogue in Pittsburgh because the suspect allegedly believed the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and all Jews were assisting the “invasion” of America.

But it is not “us vs. them.” We are all human. We all breathe the same air. We all want to be free. And above all else, we want our children to be safe. We implore the Trump administration and our fellow Americans to recognize our common humanity and start treating asylum seekers like fellow human beings, rather than demons to blame, criminals to punish and monsters to detain and fear. It is our common humanity that should guide our policy. Only then can the United States begin to return to its position of moral leadership.

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

The problem is that the Trump Administration doesn’t recognize a “common humanity.” Only its own, self-interested, White Nationalist, exclusive agenda. So, there’s no “core of decency” to which one might appeal.

What if we had a different “leader?” One who paid attention to facts, respected experts, sought different views, possessed values and human compassion, and, most of all, sought to solve problems rather than using lies, slander, and slurs to dehumanize individuals and promote an essentially racist agenda!

PWS

12-15-18

THE HILL: NOLAN SAYS TRUMP’S BORDER ORDER IS NQRFPT!

“NQRFPT” = “Not Quite Ready for Prime Time” (as some might remember from my days on the bench)

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/416195-trump-should-withdraw-his-asylum-proclamation

Nolan writes:

. . . .

Detention will continue to be a major problem, regardless.

Under the proclamation, DHS would not have to screen aliens to determine whether they have a credible fear of persecution for asylum purposes, but it would have to screen them to determine if they have a reasonable fear of persecution.

The United States is a signatory to the Refugee Convention, which prohibits expelling a refugee to a country where it is likely that he will be persecuted. Asylum just requires a well-founded fear of persecution.

This condition is met with the withholding of deportation provision in the INA for aliens who establish that it is more likely than not that they will be persecuted.

America also is a signatory to the Convention Against Torture (CAT), which provides that, “No State Party shall expel … a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”

Relief under these provisions is limited to sending the alien to a country where he would not be persecuted or tortured.

The proclamation should be withdrawn until these problems can be resolved.

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

Go on over to The Hill at the link to read Nolan’s complete article (I have just reprinted the concluding section above). It also was a “headliner” at ImmigrationProf Blog: https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2018/11/president-trump-should-withdraw-his-asylum-proclamation.html

Nolan’s conclusion ties in nicely to my preceding posts that confirm, as Nolan points out, that CBP, the Asylum Office, the Immigration Courts, and probably the Federal Courts are woefully unprepared for the additional chaos and workload that is likely to be created by Trump’s shortsighted actions. Like most of what Trump does in the immigration areas it demonstrates a chronic misunderstanding of the laws, how the system operates, the reality of what happens at the border, and ignores the views of career civil servants and experts in the area. In other words, a totally unprofessional performance. But, that’s what “kakistocracy” is all about.

We’ll see what happens next. I expect a U.S. District court ruling on the ACLU’s suit to stop implementation of the Executive Order and the “Interim Regs” to be issued in the near future.

PWS

11-13-18

HOW MANY RIDICULOUS “TRUMP TROOPS” & ARMED BORDER PATROL OFFICERS IS IT GOING TO TAKE TO STOP THESE TWO FOOTSORE LITTLE GIRLS AND THEIR EXHAUSTED MOTHER? — What Kind Of A Nation Rolls Out A Bogus Military Display & Announces Plans To Trash Its Own Laws & International Norms In Response To A Non-Threatening Humanitarian Situation That It Helped Cause & Aggravate?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/11/07/story-behind-photo-little-girl-crying-migrant-caravan/?utm_term=.518223da78ac

Michael E. Miller reports for WashPost:

SAN PEDRO TAPANATEPEC, Mexico — The migrant caravan came alive one morning last week with a rustle of plastic tarps being taken down and packed. A crowd gathered well before dawn.

Near the back of that crowd stood Keila Savioll Mejia. Two weeks earlier, the shy 21-year-old had left home in Honduras to join the caravan with her 2-year-old and 4-year-old daughters. She listened as organizers announced that two trucks were available to take women and children from Tapanatepec to the next stop, 33 miles away.

Mejia thought about rushing forward to claim the last spot. Both of her daughters were sick and Camila, the oldest, was tired of walking. But she said she worried they would be crushed or suffocated in the throng. So she let others climb into the back of the truck, which soon overflowed with about three dozen people.

“There are no more trucks,” an organizer said over a loudspeaker. “Let’s go.”

And with that, Mejia and her daughters set off on foot.

President Trump has portrayed the migrant caravan as a monolithic threat, a mass of “terrorists” intent on “invading” the United States. In reality, the caravan is a collection of individuals and families, each with their own story. And few were worse off than Mejia.

As she carried 2-year-old Samantha through the streets of Tapanatepec, she saw several families with sturdy strollers they had bought for 900 pesos — around $45 — at the Mexico-Guatemala border. Others were flimsy, held together with tape or twine. One father pushed his 5-year-old son in a donated wheelchair.

Mejia had nothing, not even a baby carrier.

Keila Savioll Mejia, 21, holds her daughter Samantha, 2, left, as Johana Hernandez, 16, center, watches 4-year-old Camila. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)

By the time the caravan reached the edge of town, Mejia’s thin arms already ached from carrying her toddler. So mother and daughters rested under a tree.

Mejia wore pink plastic slippers so thin they were like walking in bare feet. The girls wore sandals that were hardly any better. Besides a few donated diapers friends carried for them, all their belongings fit into a tiny “Mafalda” bag on Mejia’s back.

Soon, they were back on their feet, Samantha on Mejia’s shoulders and Camila holding hands with Bessi Zelaya, a friend from Peña Blanca.

As they walked through the pre-dawn darkness, the silence was broken every few minutes by the buzz of approaching motorcycle taxis. The tiny three-wheel vehicles would pull up, and half a dozen migrants would pile in, paying a few Mexican pesos to get a little closer to the next stop.

But Mejia didn’t have a few pesos.

In Peña Blanca she had made 100 lempiras — about $4 — a day selling tortillas. The girls’ father had left them long ago, so they lived with Mejia’s mother and siblings in a small cinder block house.

When she heard of the caravan forming in San Pedro Sula just 50 miles away, Mejia borrowed 500 lempiras from a friend, packed her daughter’s backpack and boarded a bus to the capital. By the time they caught up to the caravan a few days later, Mejia had spent half her money on bus fare. She quickly used the rest to buy food for the girls.

“We’ve had to walk ever since,” she said.

As young men strode past and another overloaded mototaxi sped away, an organizer in a yellow traffic vest issued a warning to those falling behind.

“Hurry up,” he said, “or immigration will grab you.”

The fear was real. The sheer size of the caravan made it difficult for Mexican authorities to stop. But small groups that had split off had reportedly been detained and deported. The same could happen to stragglers.

Camila, her tiny legs already exhausted, collapsed to the ground. The girl closed her eyes.

An exhausted Camila collapses to the ground. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)

“Camila!” Mejia said sharply.

“Arriba,” said Zelaya, lifting her onto the shoulders of Fernando Reyes Enamorado, a neighbor from Peña Blanca. Camila drooped over the 19-year-old’s head.

They continued walking, but when they stopped at a house where the owners had brought out a jug of water for the migrants, Camila refused to get up. Mejia splashed the girl in the face with water, but she just sat on the ground, kicking off her sandals and beginning to cry.

“Levántate,” Mejia told her. “Get up.”

A family with a stroller went past. Then another, and another. Flashing lights in the distance behind them were a reminder that if they fell far enough behind, their journey could be over in an instant.

Strangers stopped to offer to carry Camila, but the girl refused to let anyone touch her.

Keila Savioll Mejia carries her two daughters during the caravan. If they fell too far behind, they risked being detained and deported. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)

Minutes passed as Samantha cried and Camila screamed and the caravan kept going without them. Friends disappeared into the distance. Dawn began to break. Soon the sun would rise, and the temperature would climb to nearly 100 degrees.

So Mejia did the only thing she could: She lifted both girls — one over each shoulder — and started walking.

Within a few minutes, she had caught up with the others where the road met a highway. Migrants slept in the ditch as they waited for trucks on which to catch a ride.

Mejia set the girls down and handed them candy to keep them awake.

But as vehicles approached, it was the young men who always reacted first. They climbed atop oil tankers and leaped aboard moving container trucks.

So Mejia started walking again, Samantha in her arms and Camila flailing unhappily at her side.

But then their luck suddenly changed. As she passed a red car belonging to a Televisa news crew, the cameraman recognized her.

Paco Santana, a TV anchorman, had interviewed Mejia a few days earlier and had given her a lift. Now he offered to do so again.

Keila Savioll Mejia and her daughters receive a much needed lift when a local television reporter offers them a ride. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)

“I wish I could take you all like last time, but I have a woman who is very pregnant,” he told Zelaya and Mejia’s other friends.

“No, no, no,” said Ana Velazquez, 36, who was traveling with her 16-year-old daughter. “What we want is for her to get a ride because the little girl doesn’t like to walk.”

“Well,” Santana said, turning to Mejia. “What do you think?”

She looked at her friends. Then she looked at her daughters.

“Do you want to go in the car, like the other day?” Santana asked Camila and Samantha.

With shouts of excitement, her daughters made the decision for her.

“I don’t have cookies this time,” Santana said, opening the door of his car, where the pregnant woman and her partner were already waiting for a ride. “Should we go get some?”

And then it was on to the next town, the single mother’s odyssey over — at least for another day.

Samantha Savioll Mejia, 2, peaks out the window of a car belonging to the Televisa news crew while sitting on her mother’s lap. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)

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

At some point, there will be an accounting for Trump’s cowardly actions and his misuse of our military in this wasteful and immoral political stunt.

PWS

11-11-18

EXPOSING THE REAL ASYLUM FRAUD: The Administration’s Knowingly False Narratives About Central American Asylum Seekers & The Way DOJ & EOIR Have Intentionally Distorted The Law & The Process To Deny Asylum To Real Refugees! — “The truth about these migrants comes down to the most basic of human needs: survival. Those who have joined the caravan have done so because their reality is simple. In the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, where violence is endemic and justice is illusory, it’s a question of life or death.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-migrant-caravan-trump-central-america-trauma_us_5be31bc6e4b0769d24c8353d

Stephanie Carnes writes in HuffPost:

UPDATE: On Friday, President Trump signed a presidential proclamation denying asylum for immigrants who request it after crossing the border illegally rather than at a port of entry.

In a pre-midterms television ad deemed too racist for CNN, NBC and even Fox News, the White House described members of the large group of Central American migrants making their way through Mexico as “dangerous illegal criminals.” Ominous music played in the background of the ad as images of a convicted Mexican criminal were spliced with footage of the caravan.

This description was inaccurate, not to mention illogical ― aren’t hardened criminals and narco-traffickers wily enough to avoid such an arduous and physically taxing journey, and one that has captured such public attention and scrutiny?

The truth about these migrants comes down to the most basic of human needs: survival. Those who have joined the caravan have done so because their reality is simple. In the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, where violence is endemic and justice is illusory, it’s a question of life or death.

The truth about these migrants comes down to the most basic of human needs: survival. Those who have joined the caravan have done so because their reality is simple. In the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, where violence is endemic and justice is illusory, it’s a question of life or death.

Trump, in his roiling pre-midterm elections hate-speech tour, painted the caravan as an “invasion,” even though it’s a common occurrence that hasn’t disrupted the peace before. Traveling in a large group is far safer than traveling alone, with a human smuggler or in a small group, and migrant advocacy groups have organized large caravans for at least a decade. But beyond the president and his party’s racist rhetoric, there’s a broad assumption that such an influx of immigrants will both threaten American values and weigh heavily on the American taxpayer.

Like previous waves of immigrants, this group of new arrivals may need help to acclimate to this complex country of ours. Some will need medical care, thanks to years of living in countries with limited medical infrastructure. Others will need counseling to heal from layers of traumatic experiences against the backdrop of horrible violence ― which, lest we forget, the United States played a significant role in creating.

But they won’t need much. If I’ve learned one thing during my tenure as a trauma-focused clinician, it is this: Central American immigrants are resilient. They are driven and strong. They persevere. Despite the staggering hardships and suffering they have endured, they are defined by their ability to “seguir adelante” ― to move forward.

It’s a phrase that I’ve heard hundreds of times ― perhaps thousands ― in my therapy office. Nearly all my young clients have voiced their desire to “seguir adelante.” The 17-year-old boy who witnessed his father’s murder, finding himself alone and in grave danger; the 15-year-old girl who was kidnapped by the Zetas cartel in Mexico and held for ransom for weeks; the 18-year-old boy who served as a lookout for the MS-13 gang in exchange for his sister’s life before fleeing his country.

“Tengo que seguir adelante,” they tell me. I must continue moving forward.

The 13-year-old indigenous child who recounted months of eating “grass soup” when tortillas became too expensive. The 16-year-old who mourns the loss of her brothers ― all three of them, murdered while crossing gang-controlled territory. The 20-year-old working through the night at a bakery, then coming to school filled with energy and endless questions about the workings of American bicameral government.

Tengo que seguir adelante.

While their experiences are varied and diverse, my clients have two things in common. They have been exposed to multiple horrifying traumatic events, and they have an indefatigable desire to heal, grow stronger and move forward.

Trauma is never a desirable experience, or a deserved one. Many Central Americans have seen, experienced and survived more suffering and loss than any human should be asked to bear. But part of the “seguir adelante” mentality is the idea of being a metaphorical phoenix. Instead of allowing repeated traumatic events to crush them, many of the Central American clients with whom I work rise again as stronger, more resilient versions of themselves. While they may suffer from trauma-related symptoms like flashbacks, many are simultaneously able to devote their energy to finding a new sense of purpose in ways that I have not observed as universally in my work with American-born clients.

This phenomenon is illustrative of the positive psychology concept of post-traumatic growth, which posits that those who are exposed to trauma discover or develop new capabilities: closer social and familial bonds, increased resilience, stronger motivation and deepened spirituality.

So if the resilience of the “adelante” mentality drives these immigrants forward in spirit, what compels them to move forward physically? Perhaps they were unable to pay last month’s “impuestos de guerra,” or war taxes, to the local gang as rent for their space in the market. Maybe they refused to join the controlling gang in their neighborhood, despite the near-certainty of death if they stayed. Instead of remaining in Guatemala City, or Santa Tecla, or Tegucigalpa, they wagered it all, picked up and left.

They leave behind their families, their friends, their rich cultures, their language, their homeland. They understand the risks of the journey. They have heard the horror stories of kidnapping, rape, extortion and abandonment in the desert. Despite all this, they have decided to “seguir adelante,” fueled by hope for a brighter, safer future, to be achieved through hard work, determination and unwavering courage. Don’t those values sound reminiscent of those upon which our patchwork nation was founded?

In the end, all the migrant caravan really wants is to move forward. And as a democratic country founded on ideals of egalitarianism, isn’t it time for us to move forward, too?

Stephanie L. Carnes is a bilingual licensed clinical social worker at a large public high school in New York’s Hudson Valley. She was previously a clinician in a federally funded shelter program. She specializes in trauma treatment with Central American immigrant students and culturally competent mental health care.

The real scandal here is that although the vast majority of arrivals pass “credible fear” screening, so few them ever receive asylum. That strongly suggests that there are real problems in the “intentionally overly restrictive unduly legalistic” approach and the often dishonest ways that “in absentia orders” are used at EOIR. A better approach would probably be to allow those who have already been determined by the Asylum Office to have a “credible fear” present their initial asylum applications to those offices, rather than being forced immediately into the Immigration Courts, particularly given the current court backlogs.

The system has become far too restrictive and legalistic. Nobody has any realistic chance of winning a case without a lawyer. But, under Trump and Sessions, EOIR has abandoned efforts to insure that individuals are given reasonable access to pro bono lawyers before their cases are heard on the merits. Indeed, Sessions conducted a remarkably unethical, inappropriate, false, and vicious campaign against lawyers — right now about the only folks actually trying to make the system work and insure that our Constitution is complied with.

Of course, not every migrant from the Northern Triangle is a refugee as our law defines that term. But, we should recognize that almost all of them are decent people with good reasons for coming, even when those reasons don’t fit within our legal system. Even when they are not entitled to protection or to remain here, they deserve to be treated humanely, fairly, respectfully, and impartially, and have a full opportunity to present their claims.

The intentional demonization and dehumanization of asylum applicants, advanced by immoral and unethical folks like Trump, Sessions, Miller, and Nielsen, has now been picked up by lower level bureaucrats, who are spreading lies, promoting knowingly false narratives, and generally “taking a dive” to preserve their jobs (or, in a few cases, to gratify their own biases which match those of the Trump Administration.)

If we don’t figure out a way to stop their assault on humanity and human decency, eventually all of us will be splattered with the slime that is the Trump Administration’s approach to immigration! History will not judge us kindly for our subservience to evil.

PWS

11-10-18

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

Blocking those Seeking Entry PolicyFinal

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

Updated November 9, 2018

What are these new policies?

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

What are these policies intended to do?

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

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

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

recommendation on whether the suspension should be extended or renewed.

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

presidential proclamation?

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

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

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

● INA § 208(d)(5)(B)● INA §
●

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

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

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

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

What are the legal concerns with these executive actions?

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

ated port of arrival.

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

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

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

inconsistent with this Act.”

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

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

INA

§

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because

the plain language of the INA is clear that

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

present at a design

2

Why is the administration issuing these policies?

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

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

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

refugee advocates and scholars?

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

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

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

What is an “Interim Final Rule”?

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

What is a presidential proclamation?

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

What comes next?

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

Where can I find more resources?

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

● Department of Homeland Security

● American Immigration Lawyers Association

● American Immigration Council

● Human Rights FirstThe goal of this document is to provide general information and is not meant to act as a substitute to legal advice from an attorney.
3

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

It’s critically important to the future of our nation and the world that the actions of Trump and his White Nationalist scofflaws be resisted in the courts and in our political system.

In the meantime, since virtually everything the Administration says on this topic is a false narrative or obfuscation of their real racist agenda, an honest expert analysis like this is a “gold mine.”

We can (and are) diminishing ourselves as a nation, but it won’t stop human migration!

PWS

11-09-18

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

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

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

Here’s “Tal’s Take:”

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

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

Tal Kopan Nov. 8, 2018

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

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

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

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

Related Stories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay tuned!

PWS

11-08-18

WASHPOST: DON’T SEND TROOPS, GUNS, & MONEY – SEND JUDGES!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-send-troops-to-the-border-send-judges/2018/11/02/cd54d0f0-deda-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html

The Post Editorial Board writes:

PRESIDENT TRUMP has based his midterm election campaign on the specter of an “invasion” by immigrants marching from Central America to the southern border. His demagoguery is disgusting and irresponsible. But there is a real problem of migrants — one that his administration is failing to address.

Many people are crossing the border with their children and applying for asylum, overwhelming existing mechanisms for dealing with asylum seekers. They are feeding what the president calls a “catch-and-release” revolving door for migrants freed as they await hearings to adjudicate their cases, and contributing to a backlog of some 750,000 cases in immigration courts.

A rational response would be to add substantially to the approximately 350 immigration judges, who cannot handle the tens of thousands of asylum claims flooding the immigration courts annually. The administration this year hired a few dozen new judges, a fraction of what is required. As the caseload has more than quadrupled since 2006, the number of judges has not even doubled, according to congressional testimony in April by Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.

Despite that, Mr. Trump has sneered at the idea of hiring more, even after aides pressed him to do so. “Who are these people?” he raged, before suggesting darkly that adding many new judges would somehow corrupt the system. “Now can you imagine the graft that must take place?” he said.

Granted, the hiring could be challenging, in vetting and cost. But any major challenge involves scaling up resources and personnel, and it’s hard to see why that’s beyond the government’s capabilities.

On the other hand, maybe Mr. Trump prefers having an issue to a solution. He has made it clear he believes the immigration question propelled him into the White House. Now, by ramping up his inflammatory rhetoric, and by advancing over-the-top measures such as sending thousands of troops to the border to fulfill a mission for which they are not trained — Congress has barred troops from law enforcement duties — it seems apparent Mr. Trump has opted for crisis instead of constructive improvements to what he rightly calls a broken system. Instead of deploying thousands of troops, why not hire hundreds of judges?

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

Certainly on the right track here!

But here’s what really needs to happen to address the issue in a rational way:

Send more Asylum Officers to do credible fear interviews at the border;
Send enough private attorneys to represent all arriving migrants before both the Asylum Office and the Immigration Courts;
Allow Asylum Officers to grant temporary withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) to the many applicants who have a probability of torture upon return, which clearly happens with “government acquiescence” — or in many cases actual participation or connivance — in the Northern Triangle;
Put the asylum claims of those granted CAT withholding on the “back burner” (thus keeping them from clogging the Immigration Courts) while working with the UNHCR and other counties in the Hemisphere (including, of course Mexico and Canada) on a more durable solution for those currently fleeing the Northern Triangle;
Otherwise, individuals who pass credible fear should be released on minimal bonds and allowed to go to locations where they will be represented by pro bono lawyers (thus avoiding the money wasted on “tent cities” and other types of expensive and arguably illegal detention) — contrary to the Trump Administration lies, almost all represented asylum applicants show up faithfully for their Immigration Court Hearings;
If the Administration wants to “prioritize” the cases of recent arrivals before the Immigration Courts, this can and should be done without creating more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.” Not “rocket science.” Here’s how:
- Hundreds of thousands of those now unnecessarily clogging the Immigration Court dockets are long-time residents eligible to apply for “Cancellation of Removal for Non-Lawful Permanent Residents.” Take those with no serious criminal records off the Immigration Court docket and send them to USCIS Adjudications for initial processing. No rush, since only 4,000 “numbers” are available each year for grants;
- Those granted can be put in a line for green card numbers maintained by USCIS;
- Those denied who have committed serious crimes should be referred back to the Immigration Courts;
- For others who don’t qualify for cancellation of removal, the Administration should sponsor bipartisan legislation to provide legal status to such long-term residents. With Administration support, such legislation clearly could pass both Houses and be enacted into law.
The Immigration Courts could then return to real priorities: detained cases; cases of recently arrived individuals with or without asylum claims; cases of immigrants who have committed crimes; and cases of other individuals who don’t fit within our legal system, as properly administered.
Sure, this doesn’t match the “White Nationalist game plan.” But, it’s a practical, legal solution that would be good for immigration enforcement, the legal system, and the country as a whole. And, until the final step of legalization of long-term residents, it can be achieved under the current law.
And, I’ll bet you the overall cost would be much less than some of the “designed to fail” and perhaps illegal schemes now being pursued by the Administration. That’s particularly true because applications to USCIS and legalization programs actually “pay their own way” through application fees — perhaps even turning a slight profit for the Government.

PWS

11-03-18

THE GIBSON REPORT – 10-29-18 – Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esq., NY Legal Assistance Group

TOP UPDATES

Suspected synagogue shooter appears to have railed against Jews, refugees online

WaPo: The most recent postings on the Gab account believed to belong to Bowers specifically targeted the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, known as HIAS, which is one of nine organizations that works with the federal government to resettle refugees in American communities.

Trump administration considers travel ban-like order for Mexican border

Politico: Under the plan, the Trump administration would publish fast-track regulation that would restrict certain migrants’ ability to seek asylum. The regulation would be paired with a related proclamation from President Donald Trump.

Pentagon to deploy 5,000 active-duty troops to southern border to halt migrant caravan

USA Today: The Pentagon will deploy up to 5,000 active-duty troops to the U.S.-Mexico border in an effort to prevent members of a migrant caravan from illegally entering the country, a U.S. official said Monday. About 2,100 National Guard troops are already fanned out across the border under an order from President Donald Trump earlier this year.

Migrant caravan: Mexico offers temporary work permits

BBC: Mexico has offered temporary work permits to migrants who register for asylum, as a big caravan of Central American migrants makes its way through the country toward the US.

New Poll Shows Voters Support Access to Asylum for Refugees

WRC: As President Donald J. Trump pursues new separation and detention policies for families fleeing violence and danger in their home countries, and threatens to arm the southern border, a new poll released today shows that the majority of likely voters—up to 70%—support allowing refugees to seek asylum in the U.S.

Counties Where ICE Arrests Concentrate

TRAC: More than a quarter (28%) of recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests of immigrants living and working in communities across America took place in just ten counties in the United States, along with their immediate surrounding locales…The county with the most arrests was San Bernardino County, California. In second place was DeKalb County, Georgia, where Atlanta is located. New York County, New York, and surrounding locales was in third place.

Asylum claims are soaring as migrant families take an administrative path, buckling the immigration system.

WaPo: The migrants coming today are increasingly Central Americans seeking asylum or some form of humanitarian protection, bearing stories of torture, gang recruitment, abusive spouses, extortionists and crooked police. They know the quickest path to a better life in the United States is now an administrative one — not through mountains or canyons but through the front gates of the country’s immigration bureaucracy.

55% Of America’s Billion-Dollar Startups Have An Immigrant Founder

Forbes: A new study from the National Foundation for American Policy finds that 55%, or 50 of 91, of the country’s $1 billion startup companies had at least one immigrant founder.

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

Supreme Court Asks for SG’s Views on Cross-Border Shooting Case

ImmProf: Amy Howe on SCOTUSBlog reports that the Supreme Court today “called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in Swartz v. Rodriguez, a petition for review filed by Lonnie Swartz, a U.S. Border Patrol agent alleged to have shot and killed a 16-year-old Mexican boy who was walking on the Mexican side of that country’s border with the United States.

ACLU Calls for Moratorium and Files FOIA Request to DHS on Facial Recognition

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called for a moratorium, and filed a FOIA request with DHS, on the use of facial recognition technology for immigration enforcement and law enforcement purposes until Congress and the public debate, what, if any, uses of this technology should be permitted. AILA Doc. No. 18102500

USCIS Efforts Lead to Guilty Plea in Case of Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law

USCIS announced that it helped initiate an investigation that led to guilty pleas from Veronica Perdomo, 43, for fraudulently practicing immigration law and impersonating an immigration officer. A USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security immigration officer in Charlotte received the original tip. AILA Doc. No. 18102240

AILA Submits Comments In Response to Comment Request Concerning UAC Sponsorship Review Procedures

In response to a comment request concerning UAC sponsorship review procedures, AILA noted its opposition to the proposed changes. Rather than improve the efficiently placement of unaccompanied children in suitable environments with safe caregivers, the proposed changes would impede such placement. AILA Doc. No. 18102633

RESOURCES

EVENTS

11/8/18 Protecting Migrant Children: In Search of Best Practice
11/8/18 NYIC Tour of JFK Port
11/13/18 CGRS best practices for working with medical and mental health professionals who provide expert testimony in asylum cases
11/26-28/18 CLINIC & NITA “Advocacy in Immigration Matters”
11/29/18 The Ins and Outs of Lawful Admission
12/11/18 Accidental Adjustments: How to Handle Wrongly Issued Status
12/20/18 Mental Incapacity: Merging Treatment and Enforcement
2/7/19 Basic Immigration Law 2019: Business, Family, Naturalization and Related Areas
2/8/19 Asylum, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, Crime Victim, and Other Immigration Relief 2019

ImmProf

Monday, October 29, 2018

Sunday, October 28, 2018

Saturday, October 27, 2018

Friday, October 26, 2018

Thursday, October 25, 2018

Wednesday, October 24, 2018

Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Monday, October 22, 2018

AILA NEWS UPDATE

http://www.aila.org/advo-media/news/clips

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

Thanks, Elizabeth, as always!

Everyone should check out Elizabeth’s “Item 5” — New Poll Shows Voters Support Access to Asylum for Refugees.

Folks like Trump, Sessions, Nielsen, Cissna, and Kobach often falsely claim to be “speaking for the American people.” But, in reality, they aren’t, and never have been. They actually represent toxic, basically un-American views on immigration and migrants that are held by a vocal and active White Nationalist minority of Americans.

The rest of us need to take back our country at the ballot box — starting next Tuesday.

PWS

11-01-18

MOLLY HENNESSY-FISKE @ LA TIMES: Trump Administration Already Violating Law By Turning Away Asylum Applicants At Ports Of Entry: “Instead of expanding capacity to process asylum seekers at border crossings, officials have forced them to wait. The method varies from crossing to crossing.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-border-immigrants-asylum-20181031-story.html

Molly reports in the LA Times:

Migrants arriving at the U.S. border to seek asylum are routinely subjected to tactics that immigration rights advocates say are designed to drive them away in violation of their rights under federal law.

The tactics include forcing them to wait at the border indefinitely or sending them back into Mexico to join a backlogged list maintained by Mexican immigration officials.

The Trump administration says such measures are necessary because it is not equipped to deal with a large increase in the number of asylum seekers, many of them from Central America. Last year, U.S. immigration courts handled 120,000 asylum requests, a fourfold increase since 2013.

But immigrant advocates contend the government is violating the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, which says any foreigner who reaches the U.S. has the right to apply for asylum.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection “is violating the law and turning away asylum seekers on Texas bridges,” said Shaw Drake, an El Paso-based attorney with the Texas ACLU’s Border Rights Center.

He said forcing immigrants to join a long waiting list is tantamount to turning them away.

“To turn them away with some amorphous instructions is illegal,” he said.

The issue is likely to come to a head when a caravan of several thousand Central Americans now heading north through Mexico arrives at the U.S. border. Many are expected to claim asylum, which they can do based on fear of persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion.

Trump, who has vowed to close the border, said in an interview Monday with conservative TV and radio host Laura Ingraham that the U.S. would allow migrants to file asylum claims but that they would be forced to live in “tent cities” while they await court rulings, a process that can take years.

“We’re not going to build structures and spend all of this, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars,” Trump said. “We’re going to have tents. They’re going to be very nice and they’re going to wait and if they don’t get asylum, they get out… They don’t usually get asylum.”

Edgar Hernandez Gonzalez, right, his daughter Sherly and girlfriend Sofia Alvarez Favela wait to request asylum on the Santa Fe International Bridge in Ciudad Juarez. Gonzalez said he and his family were being threatened and were fleeing crime in Juarez. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Last week, after 20 immigrants from Cuba, Honduras, Mexico and Russia arrived at the border bridge in El Paso, U.S. officers stationed in the middle of the bridge — the “limit line” — told them to wait. And so they did, some for days in the cold and rain. Others stayed at a nearby shelter.

“We’ll wait and see, night and day, because I don’t have anywhere to go,” said Alexander Narzilloev, 35, who was with his wife and sons, ages 3 and 6.

Narzilloev ran a construction supply business in Moscow but fled after he was extorted by local mafia and received death threats, including one from a man who called and said he knew where Narzilloev’s son attended kindergarten, he Narzilloev said.

The family had originally gone to the crossing in Calexico, Calif., where officers told them they didn’t have space. After waiting a week and spending what remained of their $8,000 savings on a hotel, Narzilloev and his family caught a bus to Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, in hopes of entering El Paso.

“I heard in the news Trump said close all the borders. Has it happened yet?” he said. “That’s supposed to be for illegals. We are legal.”

Last week, several House Democrats sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen requesting a briefing on why and how asylum seekers were being turned away. Sen. Tom Udall, a New Mexico Democrat, issued a statement calling for “fair and orderly processing of asylum seekers.”

“Any attempts to deny these families and individuals their right to seek asylum are wrong,” he said.

The Trump administration has tried a variety of approaches to deter people from trying to reach the United States — most controversially a “zero tolerance” policy of criminally charging every adult migrant who crosses the border illegally, separating parents from their children.

The policy resulted in 2,654 children being separated and widespread outrage before Trump canceled it in June.

The administration still wants to detain families indefinitely and has been battling immigrant advocates in hopes of overturning a federal judge’s 1997 order that requires children be held for no longer than 20 days. Federal prosecutors have also fought to narrow the definition of political asylum.

But the government has been flummoxed by what Kevin McAleenan, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, calls the “asylum gap”: the inability to stop people from making false claims for asylum and living legally in the U.S. for years while their cases proceed.

Immigrant advocates say the new tactics at the border are aimed at discouraging asylum claims. The ACLU of Texas noted Tuesday that Customs and Border Protection, the largest federal law enforcement agency, with a staff and budget doubled in the last 20 years, processed 1.1 million fewer people at the southern border last year than it did in 2000.

Instead of expanding capacity to process asylum seekers at border crossings, officials have forced them to wait. The method varies from crossing to crossing.

Cuban migrant Yunier Reyes, 35, waits with other migrants from Honduras and Mexico. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

In El Paso, customs officers have told immigrants to return in a few hours, or simply “later.” The San Ysidro crossing in San Diego has been using a process called “metering,” in which asylum seekers have had to make appointments through Mexican immigration officials.

In a federal class-action lawsuit filed last year that’s still pending, Los Angeles- and Tijuana-based Al Otro Lado and other advocacy groups argued on behalf of more than a dozen immigrants that the policy violates international law and the right to due process.

The Office of Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security recently reported that the practice of metering may have increased illegal border crossings.

During a visit to San Ysidro last week, McAleenan praised metering and said it’s likely to expand to other crossings if there’s a “significant increase in arrivals” in coming weeks.

He said the process didn’t amount to turning away immigrants because “they can stay in line if they want.”

“If somebody arrives and they have a claim, we are providing access,” he said, adding that some officers have been investigated, disciplined and retrained after turning away asylum seekers.

Other allegations were unsubstantiated, he said.

Edith Tapia, a policy research analyst with the Hope Border Institute, center, talks with a Mexican couple and their children who hope to request asylum in the U.S. at the foot of an international Bridge in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Workers from the nonprofit Hope Border Institute visit El Paso bridges to document cases of asylum seekers being turned away. On Oct. 24, they found Pedro Morales, 21, and girlfriend Janet Macola, 19.

The two said they fled Cuba after authorities halted their attempt to open a beauty salon and threatened to throw Morales in jail. Now they were seeking asylum.

So was a family of four from the southern Mexican state of Guerrero. They said that their area had become a ghost town, controlled by a mayor in league with organized crime, and that they were too scared to be quoted by name.

The Cuban couple and the Mexican family approached U.S. officers at the center of the bridge and were told the same thing: “It’s full right now.”

The asylum seekers lingered on the bridge.

“What can we do?” the Mexican mother said.

Out of money and options, they would wait.

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

The Trump Administration is squandering $50 million of your money to send troops to the US border for no tactical reasons whatsoever. https://www.newsweek.com/trump-administration-migrant-caravan-border-troops-1194215

And this is just for starters — the first few months. The total tab is likely to be multiples of $50 million.

The troops are prohibited by law from enforcing US immigration and criminal laws. As one critic of the previous, much smaller, deployment stunt indicated, the soldiers were basically used to “shovel horse manure” out of the Border Patrol’s stalls!https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/392582-national-guard-soldiers-trump-sent-to-border-are-shoveling-manure

It’s all a ridiculous political stunt that Secretary Mattis has shamefully gone along with. Talk about someone forgetting his oath — allowing the US Military to be used as a “political prop” for “White Nationalist Nation.” Presumably historians and biographers will remember “Mad Dog’s” dereliction of duty at a critical point in our country’s existence.

The real point is that for much less money than Trump is wasting on his “military stunt” he could place enough USCIS Asylum Officers at or near ports of entry on the Mexican border to promptly, professionally, and humanely process applicants in accordance with our laws. That would also encourage and reward individuals for appearing for orderly processing and security screening at the proper places, rather than entering the country surreptitiously. It would also reduce the strain on the Border Patrol by reducing incentives for illegal crossings of asylum seekers between ports of entry.

But, this isn’t about sensible or lawful border and asylum policy. It’s about a White Nationalist demagogue putting on a “show” for his “base.”

PWS

10-31-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

And no, no matter how much the GOP appointees might want to do so, the Supremes can’t authorize the President to rewrite the clear terms of the law at his whim.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

“NQRFPT” = “Not Quite Ready for Prime Time” (as some might remember from my days on the bench)

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

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

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: