"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
BALTIMORE, Md. ― Aracely Martinez Yanez, 33, knows she’s one of the lucky ones. A deep scar that carves a line through her scalp, from crown to cheek, is proof of that fortune.
She got lucky when her abusive partner shot her point-blank in the head, and she survived.
She got lucky when she escaped her tiny village in Honduras. Local villagers blamed her for her partner’s death; he killed himself and their two young sons after he shot her.
She got lucky when she wasn’t harmed as she made the treacherous 2,000-mile journey to America.
And she got luckiest of all when she was granted asylum after she got here.
If she were to make her journey to America now, she would likely be turned away. Last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ruled that immigration judges generally cannot consider domestic violence as grounds for asylum. Sessions overturned a precedent set during the Obama administration that allowed certain victims to seek asylum here if they were unable to get help in their home countries.
Domestic abuse of the kind experienced by Martinez Yanez is endemic in Central America. In Honduras, few services for victims exist, and perpetrators are almost never held criminally responsible. One woman is killed every 16 hours there, according to Honduras’ Center for Women’s Rights.
For many victims, the United States is their best shot at staying alive.
While the exact numbers are not available, immigration lawyers have estimated that the Trump administration’s decision could invalidate tens of thousands of pending asylum claims from women fleeing domestic violence. Advocates warn it will be used to turn women away at the border, even if they have credible asylum claims.
“This administration is trying to close the door to refugees,” said Archi Pyati, chief of policy at Tahirih Justice Center, a nonprofit organization that works with immigrant women and girls who have survived gender-based violence. They represented Martinez Yanez in her asylum case. Travel bans, increased detention and family separation are all being used as tools to deter individuals from coming here, Pyati said.
Still, that will not stop women from coming. Because there are thousands of women just like Martinez Yanez, and their stories are just as harrowing.
CHERYL DIAZ MEYER FOR HUFFPOST
Aracely Martinez Yanez is pictured with her three daughters: Alyson, 4, Emely, 11 and Gabriela, 7. She holds her only photograph of her murdered sons: Daniel, 4, and Juancito, 6.
A Violent Start
Martinez Yanez grew up in a tiny village in Honduras with her parents and seven siblings. Her family made a living by selling homemade horchata, a sweet drink made from milky rice, and jugo de marañon, cashew juice. They also sold fresh tortillas out of their house. Her childhood was simple and happy.
But after she turned 15, a man in her village named Sorto became obsessed with her. At her cousin’s wedding, he tried to dance with her. She pushed him off: He was 15 years her senior, and gave her the creeps. A few days later, Martinez Yanez said, he waited outside her house with a gun and kidnapped her. He took her to a mountain and raped her repeatedly.
“I wanted to die,” she told HuffPost through an interpreter at her home in Baltimore on Tuesday. “I felt dirty. He said that I was his woman, and that I would not belong to anyone else.” As she told her story, she rubbed her legs up and down, physically uncomfortable as she recalled the terrible things that had happened to her.
Over the next six years, she said, Sorto went on to rape and beat her whenever he pleased. In the eyes of the village, she was his woman, just like he said. She got pregnant immediately, giving birth to her first son, Juancito, at 16, and her second son, Daniel, at 18. Sorto would come and go from the village, as he had a wife and children in El Salvador. But when he wasn’t there, she said she was watched by his family.
As for help, there were no police in her village, she said. She had seen what happened to other women who traveled to the closest city to report abuse: It made things worse. The police did nothing, and the abuser would inevitably find out.
“I felt like I was worthless, like I had no value,” she said.
A few years after her sons were born, she became friends with a local barber who cut her children’s hair. He was sweet and respectful, nothing like Sorto, she said. They began a secret relationship. Sorto had been gone from the village for a few years, and Martinez Yanez hoped she was free of him. Then she got pregnant. Scared that Sorto would find out, she fled to San Pedro Sula, a city in the north of the country. She didn’t tell anyone where she had gone.
But Sorto found her anyway. He called her on the phone and told her if she did not come back to the village within the next 24 hours, he would kill her family, she said. Martinez Yanez got on the next bus back.
A few days after she returned, she said, Sorto told her that he was taking her and their two boys to the river. He brought a hunting rifle with him. The family walked through the mountainside. Martinez Yanez recalled handing her children some sticks to play with, and crouching on the ground with them. Then she felt the rifle pressing into her head. The rest is a blank.
Sorto shot her in the back of the head, and killed her two sons, before shooting himself. Juancito was 6, Daniel was 4. Somehow, Martinez Yanez, five months pregnant, survived. She was hospitalized for months and had to relearn to walk and talk. She is still deaf in one ear, and has numbness down one side of her body.
When she returned home to the village, she said, people threw rocks at her and called her names. Someone fired a gun into her house. Someone else tried to run her over with a bicycle. The community blamed her for the killings because she had tried to leave Sorto, she explained. His family wanted to avenge his death.
“The whole village was against me,” she said. “Children, adults. I couldn’t go anywhere by myself.”
A few months later she gave birth to a girl, Emely, but she was overwhelmed with stress. On top of grieving the death of her two sons, learning to live with a traumatic brain injury, and caring for her newborn, she was constantly worried about being killed by people in her village.
It was too much. She eventually fled to Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras, but Sorto’s family found her there too, she said. In a last-ditch effort to save Martinez Yanez’s life, her family paid over $7,000, an enormous sum for the family, to a coyote, a person who helps smuggle people across the border to the U.S. Emely, who was now 2, had to stay behind. They couldn’t afford to send her, too.
Martinez Yanez made the heartbreaking decision to go alone.
The Journey To Freedom
She left in the middle of the night, traveling with a group of four or five people. They were transported in a van for part of the trip, and then in taxis.
There was very little to eat or drink, she said, and she barely slept. Her stomach was upset and she suffered from debilitating headaches. In Mexico, she almost turned back.
“I missed my parents and my daughter so much,” she said. “But the threats and the conditions that I knew were waiting for me in my village gave me the motivation to continue to the U.S. to be safe.”
It took them two weeks to get to the U.S. border. Then they waited two days before attempting to cross, she said. She was terrified that she would be caught by immigration officials and sent back. She crossed the border illegally in February 2009, and went to her uncle’s house in Houston, Texas, before traveling on to Annapolis, Maryland, where her brother lived.
Women like Aracely are saving their own lives.Kristen Strain, a lawyer who worked on Martinez Yanez’s asylum case.
Martinez Yanez didn’t know that she could apply for asylum as a domestic violence victim until a few years later, when she sought medical care for her head injury in Maryland. There, she was referred to Tahirih Justice Center.
Kristen Strain, an attorney who worked on her case, wrote the legal brief arguing that Martinez Yanez should be granted asylum.
Generally, applicants must show that the persecution they have suffered is on account of one of five grounds: race, religion, national origin, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Strain successfully argued that being a female victim of severe gender-based violence in Honduras counted as a particular social group for purposes of obtaining asylum.
“There simply aren’t laws in place that protect women like Aracely,” she said. “They have no recourse. It is accepted in their communities that women can be treated like men’s property.”
She said it took over a year to gather all the evidence for Martinez Yanez’s claim, which included a neurological evaluation, medical documents, news stories from Honduran papers about the shooting, dozens of interviews, and statements from friends and family in Honduras to corroborate her story.
“It is not as if it’s easy,” Strain said. “In addition to having to physically get here, which is harrowing and dangerous, women have to navigate a complex legal system that is difficult to understand, especially when they don’t speak the language. It’s hard for them to even know what their rights are, let alone find an attorney who can advocate for them.”
“Women like Aracely are saving their own lives,” she went on.
Martinez Yanez was granted asylum in 2013. Her daughter, Emely, was allowed to join her in 2014. While they talked on the phone regularly, the mother and daughter had not seen each other for five years.
CHERYL DIAZ MEYER FOR HUFFPOST
Martinez Yanez watches her daughters play outside the family’s Baltimore apartment.
A New Life
In her Baltimore home, more than 3,000 miles from the tiny village in Honduras where she was raised, Martinez Yanez likes to be surrounded by photos. They remind her of those she had to leave behind.
There’s one of her sister graduating college. Another of her parents beaming happily.
And then, hanging in the entrance to the kitchen, is a photograph of her with her two deceased sons. It is the only picture she owns of them. She brought it with her when she fled Honduras. When she spoke to HuffPost about her sons, she cried. She still doesn’t understand why they were killed.
Since she’s been in the U.S., Martinez Yanez has expanded her family. Emely, who is 11, now has two sisters: Gabriela, 7, and Alyson, 4.
“I’m very fortunate to be able to have my daughters with me,” she said. “I can’t ask for anything better to happen. I am so happy with my life.”
Martinez Yanez still struggles with the repercussions of being shot in the head. She is forgetful and can get confused easily. She said she has to put every appointment she has in her phone with an alarm, otherwise she’ll miss it.
She said she was grateful that she was granted asylum, and heartbroken for other women who may not have the same opportunity she did.
“I just feel so sad that other women in my situation, or even in worse situations than mine will not be allowed in the country anymore,” she said. “Here, I don’t have to hide or run away from anyone.”
********************************************
In my years at the Arlington Immigration Court, I had many well-documented, deserving cases like this. In those days, the ICE Office of Chief Counsel in Arlington followed the so-called “Martin Brief” in which DHS urged the BIA to recognize domestic violence as a proper basis for asylum under certain circumstances long before the BIA actually got around to deciding A-R-C-G-. Because the applicants were almost never held in detention, they were able to get top–flight pro bono representation from NGOs, Law School Clinics, Human Rights First, and “Big Law” Firms serving pro bono.
The cases were so well documented that they often could be “pre-tried” between counsel before the individual hearing date. The parties then often jointly asked me to set an earlier “short block hearing” (one hour or less) where the evidence could be introduced, discussed, and abbreviated testimony taken. At the end of those hearings, the parties jointly moved me for a grant of asylum.
So, without the interference of the DOJ politicos, here was an actual working system that helped get deserving cases granted and off the docket, conserved judicial resources, saved time, saved lives, and complied completely with Due Process. In other words, a smashing Immigration Court and U.S. system of justice “success story” by any rational measure!
That has all been disgracefully dismantled by Sessions. Now, following his perversion of the law in Matter of A-B-, He’s encouraging DHS and Immigration Judges to deny such cases without even hearing the testimony (even though every one of these individuals easily should qualify for the lesser relief of protection under the Convention Against Torture). That’s almost certain to result in appeals, prolonged litigation in the Courts of Appeals, and ultimately return of most cases to the Immigration Courts for full hearings and fair consideration.
At some point, not only is A-R-C-G- likely to be reinstated, but it is likely to be expanded to what is really the fundamental basis for these claims — gender as a qualifying “Particular Social Group.” It’s undeniably immutable/fundamental, particularized, socially distinct and clearly the basis for much of the persecution in today’s world!
In the meantime, however, those who don’t have the luxury of great pro bono representation, lack an attentive Circuit Court of Appeals, or who can’t get through the “credible fear interview” as it has now been “rigged for denial” by Sessions will likely be unlawfully returned to their home countries to suffer abuse, torture, and a lifetime of torment or death, along with those cute little kids in the pictures we’re seeing.
The White Nationalist, neo-Nazi regime of Trump, Sessions, and their enablers will be one of the most horrible and disgusting periods in our history. History will neither forget nor treat kindly those who failed to stand up to the racists and child abusers running and ruining our Government, and destroying many innocent lives in the process.
There is now a broad, bipartisan consensus that ripping infants from their mothers — and then putting both in (separate) cages — is not a morally acceptable way of treating families who cross our southern border. After weeks of deliberation, our nation has concluded that Central American migrants do not deserve to have their children psychologically tortured by agents of the state.
But what they do deserve remains in dispute.
The White House contends that migrants have a right to be caged with their family members (except for those who have already been separated from their children, who aren’t necessarily entitled to ever see their kids again). But the judiciary says that child migrants have a right not to be caged, at all. And progressives seem to believe that these huddled masses are entitled to something more — though few have specified precisely what or why.
In defending its “zero tolerance” policy — which is to say, a policy of jailing asylum-seekers for the misdemeanor offense of crossing the U.S. border between official points of entry — the White House has implored its critics to consider the bigger picture: Such “illegal aliens” have already undermined the rule of law in our country, and brought drugs, violent crime, and MS-13 to our streets. Locking up their families might look cruel when viewed in isolation; but when understood in the broader context of a migrant crisis that threatens the safety and sovereignty of the American people, the policy is more than justified.
In reality, however, this narrative inverts the truth: Context does not excuse the cruelty of our government’s “zero tolerance” policy, it indicts that policy even further. The United States is not suffering a crisis that justifies radical measures; the Central American families gathered at our border are. And those families aren’t bringing crime and lawlessness to our country — if anything, we brought such conditions to theirs.
After all, it was the CIA that overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954, and thereby subjected its people to decades of dictatorship and civil war. It was the streets and prisons of California that gave birth to MS-13, and American immigration authorities that deported that gang back to El Salvador. And it is America’s taste for narcotics that sustains the drug trade in Honduras — and our war on drugs that ensures such trade is conducted by immensely profitable and violent cartels.
There is no easy answer to the Central American migrant crisis. But any remotely moral policy response will need to proceed from the recognition that we are not the victims of this crisis — and asylum-seekers are not its creators.
Central American families are not a threat to the United States.
It is very hard to make a reasoned case for why our nation’s current levels of undocumented immigration — or, of low-skilled immigration more broadly — represent major threats to the safety and material well-being of the American people.
We have long known that native-born Americans commit violent crimes at far higher rates than either legal or undocumented immigrants. And newer research into immigration and criminality has proven even more devastating to the nativists’ case: States with higher concentrations of undocumented immigrants tend to have lower rates of violent crime — and this correlation persists even when controlling for a given state’s median age, level of urbanization, and rate of unemployment or incarceration.
Meanwhile, the American economy is in great need of young, unskilled workers. On the Labor Department’s list of the 15 occupations that will experience the fastest growth over the next six years, eight require no advanced education. Further, with the baby-boomers retiring — and birth rates plummeting — the future of American economic growth, and the survival of Social Security, depends on an infusion of foreign workers. It is true that there is some basis for believing that mass, low-skill immigration depresses the wages of native-born high-school dropouts (although that claim is contentious). But there is no basis for believing that restricting immigration will do more to boost such workers’ take-home pay than encouraging unionization through labor-law reform, or expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Thus, given the positive material benefits of mass low-skill immigration, it is hard to see how more of it would constitute an economic crisis, even if we stipulate that it puts downward pressure on the wages of some native-born workers.
By contrast, the crisis facing the migrants themselves is wrenching and undeniable.
Asylum-seekers are fleeing violence and disorder, not exporting it.
To seek asylum in the United States, Central American families must travel many hundreds of miles through the desert, along a route teeming with rapists, thieves, and homicidal gangs. The hazards inherent to this journey aren’t unknown to most who take it — such migrants simply find the hazards of remaining in place more intolerable.
And that calculation isn’t hard to understand. El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras endure some of the highest rates of violent crime — and levels of official corruption — of any nations in the world. As recently as 2015, El Salvador was the single-most violent country (that wasn’t at war) on planet Earth, with a homicide rate of 103 per 100,000. And the vast majority of those homicides went unpunished — according to a 2017 report from the Georgetown Security Studies Review, roughly 90 percent of murders throughout the Northern Triangle go unprosecuted. This lawlessness is both a cause and effect of widespread public distrust in state police forces, which are largely non-professionalized, frequently penetrated by criminal gangs, and historically associated with atrocities carried out in times of political unrest and civil war.
Public trust in the region’s other governing institutions is similarly, justifiably, low. Due to corruption and bureaucratic inefficacy, nations in the Northern Triangle collect less in tax revenues than most other Latin American countries (relative to the size of each nation’s gross domestic product). This fact, combined with high levels of spending on (grossly underperforming) security forces leaves the region’s governments with little funding for social services and public investment. And corruption eats into what meager funding is allocated to such purposes — in Honduras, the ruling National Party has been accused of embezzling social security funds; Guatemala’s former president and nine of his ex-ministers were arrested in February for graft connected to a public transit project.
While the region’s governments have struggled to collect taxes, its drug cartels have proven quite effective at collecting tribute. In 2015, the Honduran newspaper La Prensa revealed that citizens of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala were collectively making more than $651 million in extortion payments to criminal organizations annually. Those who fail to pay up are routinely murdered; many of the migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. claim (quite credibly) to be fleeing such homicidal extortion rackets.
So, these migrants are fleeing a genuine crisis. But that does not necessarily mean that our country has any special obligation to address their plight. The U.S. government is not forcing the Northern Triangle’s political and economic elites to engage in graft, or avoid taxes. It does not pay the region’s police to let murders go unsolved, or (directly) sell weapons to the region’s cartels. In fact, Congress has spent more than $3 billion on security aid for Central America over the past decade.
And yet, the United States still bears profound responsibility for the region’s troubles; because the Northern Triangle’s failures of governance — and wrenching security challenges — are inextricably-linked to our nation’s policy choices and consumption habits.
On the former point: The CIA subjected Guatemala to decades of authoritarian rule and civil war, for the sake of aiding a fruit company that its director was invested in.
In 1945, a revolutionary movement built a representative democracy in Guatemala. Nine years later, the United States tore it down. Officially, the Eisenhower administration orchestrated the overthrow of Jacobo Árbenz’s government to save the Guatemalan people from Communist tyranny. In reality, it did so to deny them popular sovereignty.
Árbenz had been democratically elected, and enjoyed widespread public support. He had legalized the Communist Party, but was no card-carrying member. His crime was not the suppression of dissent or the suspension of constitutional rule — but rather, an attempt to address his nation’s wrenching inequality by redistributing the United Fruit Company’s (UFC) unused land to impoverished peasants.
This was not an act of pure expropriation — the UFC had robbed the Guatemalan government of tax revenue, by vastly understating the value of its holdings. By seizing the company’s unused lands, Árbenz secured a measure of compensation for his state; and, more importantly, provided 100,000 Guatemalan families with land, and access to credit. Agricultural production increased, poverty fell. Árbenz’s constituents were pleased.
But the United Fruit Company was not. And both Secretary of State John Dulles and his brother, CIA director Allen Dulles had close ties to the UFC. So, our government took out Árbenz, and replaced him with a reactionary, former military officer — who promptly assumed dictatorial powers. Nearly four decades of civil war between authoritarian governments and left-wing guerrillas ensued — throughout which the United States provided support to the former. By the time the fighting ended in 1996, 200,000 people were dead.
It is impossible to know what life in Guatemala would be like today absent the CIA’s intervention. One can imagine Árbenz’s democracy thriving through the second half of the 20th century, and serving as a model for its neighbors in the Northern Triangle. One can also imagine less rosy counterfactuals. What we know for certain is that the United States deliberately undermined the national sovereignty of Guatemala and inadvertently triggered decades of civil war. And we know that said civil war left in its wake large groups of demobilized men with experience in killing, and access to (often, U.S.-made) military-grade weapons — and that many of those men ended up forming violent, criminal organizations that plague the Northern Triangle today.
And American drug users and policymakers sustain those criminal organizations.
Demand for narcotics is overwhelmingly concentrated in prosperous, developed countries; which means, in the Western Hemisphere, it is overwhelmingly concentrated in the United States. And the U.S. government’s Draconian (and profoundly ineffective) approach to reducing that demand has only inflated the profits that Central American criminal organizations can reap by satisfying our illicit appetites. As German Lopez reported for Vox in 2014:
These drugs cost pennies by the dose to produce, but their value is increased through the supply chain to reflect the risk of losing a harvest to drug-busting government officials or rival criminal organizations.
The inflated cost creates a huge financial incentive for criminal organizations to get into the business of drugs, no matter the risks. They might lose some of their product along the way, but any product that makes it through is immensely profitable.
Criminal groups would likely take up other activities — human trafficking, kidnapping, gun smuggling, extortion — if the drug market didn’t exist. But experts argue drugs are uniquely profitable and empower criminal organizations in a way no other market can.
One could argue that the downside risks of legalizing hard drugs justify the harms inherent to their prohibition. The fact that the United States refuses to remove marijuana from the black market — and thus, deny cartels a major profit source — is harder to justify. But either way, it remains the case that the costs of our nation’s consumption — and prohibition — of drugs fall heaviest on our neighbors to the south. In fact, some have even argued that America’s drug habit is responsible for nearly all of the violence in the Northern Triangle — among them, White House chief of staff John Kelly.
“There are some in officialdom who argue that not 100 percent of the violence [in Central America] today is due to the drug flow to the U.S.,” Kelly wrote in 2014, when he was serving as Southcom commander. “I agree, but I would say that perhaps 80 percent of it is.”
MS-13 was born in the U.S.A.
Donald Trump has accused Central American governments of “sending” their most violent and criminal residents to the United States — including the homicidal gangsters of MS-13. In truth, of course, the vast majority of migrants from Central America are self-selected and nonviolent.
But Trump’s mistake is almost understandable: After all, the U.S. government actually has sent some of its most violent and criminal residents to Central America: MS-13 was formed on the streets of Los Angeles, hardened in American prisons, and then deported back to the Northern Triangle.
True, the gang’s original members were (mostly unauthorized) Salvadoran immigrants who’d fled their nation’s civil war. But those immigrants arrived in California as troubled teenagers, not sadistic killers. Dara Lind offers a concise sketch of the competing theories for how some of them became the latter:
[The Salvadoran teens] faced hostility from other ethnic groups for being new, and from other young people for being long-haired mosher types, so they banded together and called themselves the Stoners — later Mara Salvatrucha, and eventually, once the gang had metastasized under the network of Southern California Latino gangs known as Sureños, MS-13.
When and why the “Stoners” became a hardened violent gang is up for debate. Avalos attributes it to repeated confrontations with other LA gangs, while journalist Ioan Grillo thinks it has more to do with the arrival of newer Salvadoran immigrants who were “hardened by the horrors” of civil war. Salvadoran journalists Carlos Martinez and Jose Luis Sanz, meanwhile, say that the gang’s story paralleled that of a lot of young men during the “tough on crime” era: They were minor delinquents stuffed into jails and prisons, where they had the time, opportunity, and incentive to become hardened criminals.
Whichever version of this story one accepts, our nation’s institutions remain implicated in the formation of MS-13. Salvadoran immigrants did not introduce the culture of street gangs to Los Angeles; L.A. introduced it to them. And, given the rates of recidivism in our criminal justice system, it is reasonable to assume that the failure of American prisons to rehabilitate these teenage immigrants (once they turned to violent crime) was not solely due to their inadequacies.
Regardless, the U.S. government bears unambiguous responsibility for MS-13’s evolution into an international menace. Despite the fact that El Salvador was ill-equipped to handle a massive influx of gang members, the U.S. deported roughly 20,000 convicts (including many MS-13 members) to that country between 2000 and 2004 — without telling the Salvadoran government which of the deportees being returned to them had criminal histories, and which did not.
Our debt to Central American migrants cannot be paid simply by reuniting them with their traumatized children.
Donald Trump does not deny that the migrants at our southern border hail from nations wracked by violence and instability (the brutality of Central American gangs is one of our president’s favorite topics of conversation). But Trump sees the Northern Triangle’s troubles as cause for turning away its refugees, not taking them in: In his understanding (or at least, in the one he projects to the public), Honduras is not violent and poor for complicated reasons of history, politics, and economics; it is violent and poor because Honduran people live there. Therefore, these migrants are not looking to escape their nations’ pathologies, but to export them; they’re not huddled masses yearning to breathe free, but virus-bearing insects yearning to “infest.”
These sentiments reek of racism. But like so many other prejudices that the powerful harbor against the powerless, they also betray a will to evade responsibility.
If the pathologies of impoverished black communities can be attributed to the cultural (and/or biological) flaws of black people, then the American government owes them little. If we acknowledge that their troubles are inextricable from centuries of discriminatory policy, by contrast, our collective obligation to improve their well-being becomes immense. And the same is true of migrant families. If we can call these people “animals,” then we need not ask what caused the barbarities they’re fleeing. But rejecting Trump’s racism requires us to ask that question — and answering it honestly requires grappling with our collective responsibility for the traumas that migrant children suffered before they ever crossed our border.
What we owe them can be debated (accepting a much greater number of them into our country, and increasing aid to their region would seem like two possibilities). But there is no doubt that we owe them much more than this.
***************************************
ESSAY:
SOLVING THE SOUTHERN BORDER: It’s Not Our Asylum Laws That Need Changing — It’s The Actions Of Our Leaders Who Administer Them That Must Change!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.)
Contrary to what White Nationalist liars like Trump & Sessions say, our U.S. asylum laws are not the problem. The politicos who misinterpret and misapply the law and then mal-administer the asylum adjudication system are the problem.
The current asylum laws are more than flexible enough to deal efficiently, effectively, and humanely with today’s bogus, self-created “Southern Border Crisis.” It’s actually nothing more than the normal ebb and flow, largely of refugees, from the Northern Triangle.
That has more do with conditions in those countries and seasonal factors than it does with U.S. asylum law. Forced migration is an unfortunate fact of life. Always has been, and probably always will be. That is, unless and until leaders of developed nations devote more time and resources to addressing the causation factors, not just flailing ineffectively and too often inhumanely with the inevitable results.
And the reasonable solutions are readily available under today’s U.S. legal system:
Instead of sending more law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges to the Southern Border, send more CBP Inspectors and USCIS Asylum Officers to insure that those seeking asylum are processed promptly, courteously, respectfully, and fairly.
Take those who turn themselves in to the Border Patrol to the nearest port of entry instead of sending them to criminal court (unless, of course, they are repeat offenders or real criminals).
Release those asylum seekers who pass “credible fear” on low bonds or “alternatives to detention” (primarily ankle bracelet monitoring) which have been phenomenally successful in achieving high rates of appearance at Immigration Court hearings. They are also much more humane and cheaper than long-term immigration detention.
Work with the pro bono legal community and NGOs to insure that each asylum applicant gets a competent lawyer. Legal representation also has a demonstrated correlation to near-universal rates of appearance at Immigration Court hearings. Lawyers also insure that cases will be well-presented and fairly heard, indispensable ingredients to the efficient delivery of Due Process.
Insure that address information is complete and accurate at the time of release from custody. Also, insure that asylum applicants fully understand how the process works and their reporting obligations to the Immigration Courts and to DHS, as well as their obligation to stay in touch with their attorneys.
Allow U.S. Immigration Judges in each Immigration Court to work with ICE Counsel, NGOs, and the local legal community to develop scheduling patterns that insure applications for asylum can be filed at the “First Master” and that cases are completed on the first scheduled “Individual Merits Hearing” date.
If there is a consensus that these cases merit “priority treatment,” then the ICE prosecutor should agree to remove a “lower priority case” from the current 720,000 case backlog by exercising “prosecutorial discretion.” This will end “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and insure that the prioritization of new cases does not add to the already insurmountable backlog.
Establish a robust “in-country refugee processing program” in the Northern Triangle; fund international efforts to improve conditions in the Northern Triangle; and work cooperatively with the UNHCR and other countries in the Americas to establish and fund protection programs that distribute refugees fleeing the Northern Triangle among a number of countries. That will help reduce the flow of refugees at the source, rather than at our Southern Border. And, more important, it will do so through legal humanitarian actions, not by encouraging law enforcement officials in other countries (like Mexico) to abuse refugees and deny them humane treatment (so that we don’t have to).
My proposed system would require no legislative fixes; comply with the U.S Constitution, our statutory laws, and international laws; be consistent with existing court orders and resolve some pending legal challenges; and could be carried out with less additional personnel and expenditure of taxpayer funds than the Administration’s current “cruel, inhuman, and guaranteed to fail” “deterrence only” policy.
ADDITIONAL BENEFIT: We could also all sleep better at night, while reducing the “National Stress Level.” (And, for those interested in such things, it also would be more consistent with Matthew 25:44, the rest of Christ’s teachings, and Christian social justice theology).
As Eric Levitz says in New York Magazine, the folks arriving at our border are the ones in crisis, not us! “And those families aren’t bringing crime and lawlessness to our country — if anything, we brought such conditions to theirs.”
That warrants a much more measured, empathetic, humane, respectful, and both legally and morally justifiable approach than we have seen from our Government to date.The mechanisms for achieving that are already in our law. We just need leaders with the wisdom and moral courage to use them.
“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of this Administration to rigorously enforce our immigration laws. Under our laws, the only legal way for an alien to enter this country is at a designated port of entry at an appropriate time. When an alien enters or attempts to enter the country anywhere else, that alien has committed at least the crime of improper entry and is subject to a fine or imprisonment under section 1325(a) of title 8, United States Code. This Administration will initiate proceedings to enforce this and other criminal provisions of the INA until and unless Congress directs otherwise. It is also the policy of this Administration to maintain family unity, including by detaining alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources. It is unfortunate that Congress’s failure to act and court orders have put the Administration in the position of separating alien families to effectively enforce the law.
Sec. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this order, the following definitions apply: (a) “Alien family” means
(i) any person not a citizen or national of the United States who has not been admitted into, or is not authorized to enter or remain in, the United States, who entered this country with an alien child or alien children at or between designated ports of entry and who was detained; and
(ii) that person’s alien child or alien children.
(b) “Alien child” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States who
(i) has not been admitted into, or is not authorized to enter or remain in, the United States;
(ii) is under the age of 18; and
(iii) has a legal parent-child relationship to an alien who entered the United States with the alien child at or between designated ports of entry and who was detained.
Sec. 3. Temporary Detention Policy for Families Entering this Country Illegally. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary), shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, maintain custody of alien families during the pendency of any criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their members.
(b) The Secretary shall not, however, detain an alien family together when there is a concern that detention of an alien child with the child’s alien parent would pose a risk to the child’s welfare.
(c) The Secretary of Defense shall take all legally available measures to provide to the Secretary, upon request, any existing facilities available for the housing and care of alien families, and shall construct such facilities if necessary and consistent with law. The Secretary, to the extent permitted by law, shall be responsible for reimbursement for the use of these facilities.
(d) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent consistent with law, make available to the Secretary, for the housing and care of alien families pending court proceedings for improper entry, any facilities that are appropriate for such purposes. The Secretary, to the extent permitted by law, shall be responsible for reimbursement for the use of these facilities.
(e) The Attorney General shall promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 (“Flores settlement”), in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.
Sec. 4. Prioritization of Immigration Proceedings Involving Alien Families. The Attorney General shall, to the extent practicable, prioritize the adjudication of cases involving detained families.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP”
***************************************
Section 1 maintains the abusive policy of prosecuting every misdemeanor illegal entry case (“zero-tolerance,” a/k/a “zero common sense,” a/k/a “zero humanity”). Most of those duressed into pleading guilty in assembly line Federal criminal courts are sentenced to “time served,” thus illustrating the absurd wastefulness of this policy and how it detracts from real law enforcement. Trump also throws in a gratuitous and totally disingenuous jab at Congress and the courts for causing the problem that he & Sessions actually created.
Section 3(a) directs the detention of families throughout criminal proceedings and until the end of Immigration Court proceedings (which often takes many months or even years), an abominable, costly, inhumane, unnecessary, and unsustainable policy originally developed during the Obama Administration. The Government lacks adequate family detention facilities, which are supposed to be non-secure facilities licensed by a child welfare agency. Additionally, asylum applicants in Removal Proceedings generally have a right to bond. In most cases, there would be no legitimate reason to deny bond. Contrary to the Administration’s bogus suggestions and intentionally misleading statistics, studies show that those who are represented by counsel and understand the asylum process show up for their hearings more than 90% of the time. I found it was close to 100%. This suggests that a “saner” policy would be to help individuals find lawyers and then release them.
Section 3(c) makes the Secretary of Defense, an official without any qualifications whatsoever, responsible for providing family jails on military bases. It shouldn’t take the courts too long to find these facilities unsuitable for family immigration detention.
Section 3(e) recognizes that this order is largely illegal in that it contravenes the order of the U.S. District Court in Flores v. Sessions which was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. Flores orders the release of juveniles from immigration detention within 20 days unless they present a significant public safety risk or are likely to abscond. Where juveniles don’t meet the release criteria, they must be held in the least restrictive setting appropriate to age and special needs. While Trump orders the Attorney General to seek a modification of Flores, there is no legal rationale for that action. In fact, the abusive “fake emergency” situation that Trump & Sessions have created, shows exactly why Flores is needed, now more than ever. It also makes a compelling case for Congress to enact Flores protections into law, thereby making them permanent and avoiding future abuses by the Executive.
Section 4 basically orders the Attorney General to engage in more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) in the U.S. Immigration Courts by prioritizing cases of recently arrived families, many of whom have not had a chance to obtain lawyers and document applications, at the expense of cases that are already on the docket and ready for final hearings. That’s why the Immigration Court backlog is 720,000 cases and continuing to grow. It also shows why the Immigration Courts are a facade of Due Process, totally mismanaged by politicos, and must be removed from the DOJ and become a truly independent court system that establishes court priorities and procedures without Executive interference.
The order is silent on whether it applies to those families who have already been separated and how those families might be reunited.
In summary, this “Temporary Executive Order” is not a credible attempt to solve the problem of family separation. Rather, it is another “designed to fail” charade intended to provoke litigation so that the predictable mess can be blamed on the courts, Congress, the asylum applicants and their families (“blaming the victims”), and their courageous lawyers. In other words, anyone except Trump and his cronies who are responsible for the problem.
It’s a prime example of what life in a Kakistocracy is and will continue to be until there is “regime change.”
What would a “real solution” to this issue look like. Well, I’ve said it before:
The real choices are 1) a dangerous 4,000 mile journey to a place where you might be able to save your life and that of your loved ones; or 2) the much more dangerous option of remaining in a place where you will likely be beaten, raped, extorted, tortured, impressed against your will, or killed by gangs, who are not just “street criminals” (as falsely portrayed by Sessions and other restrictionists) but who exercise quasi-governmental authority with the knowing acquiescence of the recognized governments.
Realistically, folks are going to opt for #1. We could recognize them as refugees; screen them abroad to weed out gang members and criminals and to take the danger out of the 4,000 mile journey; work with the UNHCR and other countries to distribute the flow; open more paths to legal immigration for those who want to leave but might not fit easily within the refugee definition; and encourage those who still arrive at our borders without documents seeking protection to go to a port of entry where they will be treated respectfully, humanely, and be given a prompt but full opportunity to present their cases for protection with access to counsel in a system that satisfies all the requirements of Constitutional Due Process, with the additional understanding that if they lose they will have to return to their home country.
Alternatively, we could double down on our current failed policies of detention, deterrence, and lawless and immoral Governmental behavior; send the message that folks shouldn’t bother using our legal system because it’s a fraud that has intentionally been fixed against them; encourage the use of smugglers who will charge ever higher fees for developing new and more dangerous means of entry; and send the message that if folks really want to survive, they should pay a smuggler to get them into the interior of our country where they have at least a fighting chance of blending in, hiding out from immigration enforcement, behaving themselves, and working hard until they are caught and removed, die, conditions improve and they leave voluntarily for their country of origin, or we finally give them some type of legal recognition.
My first alternative could likely be established and operated for a fraction of what we are now spending on failed immigration enforcement, useless and unnecessarily cruel detention, unnecessary criminal prosecutions, and a broken Immigration Court system.
Plus, at a time of low birth rate and low unemployment, it would give us a significant economic boost by bringing a highly motivated, hard-working, family oriented, and appreciative workforce into our society. It might also inspire other stable democratic nations to join us in an effort to save lives (which also happens to fit in well with religious values), resettle individuals, and, over time, address the horrible situation in the Northern Triangle that is creating this flow.
Alternative two, which is basically a variation on what we already are doing, will guarantee a continuing “black market flow”of migrants, some of whom will be apprehended and removed at significant financial and societal costs, while most will continue to live in an underground society, subject to exploitation by unscrupulous employers and law enforcement, underutilizing their skills, and not being given the opportunity to integrate fully into our society.
Don’t hold your breath! But, eventually the New Due Process Army will win the war and enough elections to finally bring sanity, humanity, and reality to the U.S. immigration system.
You can call it a “policy” (Jeff Sessions) or you can call it a not-policy (Kirstjen Nielsen) or you can call it a “law” (Sarah Huckabee Sanders). You can say that yes it’s a policy but nobody likes it (Kellyanne Conway) or you can say it’s a “zero-tolerance” enforcement of a Democratic law (Donald Trump) or a zero-tolerance enforcement of an amalgam of various congressional laws (Nielsen) or a zero-tolerance enforcement of the Department of Justice’s own preferences with respect to enforcing prior laws (Sessions).
You can say the purpose of the Justice Department’s family separation policy is deterrence (Stephen Miller, John Kelly) or you can claim that asking if the purpose of the policy is deterrence is “offensive” (Nielsen). You can claim in your legal pleadings that the family separation policy is wholly “discretionary” and thus unreviewable by any court, meaning that only the president can change it (Justice Department in Ms. L v. ICE). Or you can claim that only Congress can “fix loopholes” (Nielsen) or you can say that Congress as a whole can’t fix anything because congressional Democrats are entirely to blame (Trump, Mike Huckabee).
You can blame all this newfound “loophole” action on a consent decree from 1997 in a case called Flores (Sessions, Paul Ryan, Chuck Grassley) or on a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that interpreted Flores (Nielsen) or on a 2008 law called the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (Nielsen). Better yet, you can fault some magical mashup of “the law” that forces you to defend every statute to its most absurd extreme (Sanders). By this logic, you can also claim that Korematsu—the case authorizing the removal and detention of Japanese Americans during World War II—is still on the books and thus needs to be enforced because it’s also “the law,” but that would be insane. Oh, but wait. Trump proxies made that very claim during the campaign (Carl Higbie).
You can pretend that by turning every adult who crosses the border into a presumptive criminal your hands are tied, so you need to jail children to avoid jailing children (Nielsen). You can insist that the vast majority of children who cross the border are being smuggled in by gang members (Nielsen) or that all asylum-seekers are per se criminals (which they are not) or that lawful asylum-seekers should just come back at a better time (Nielsen). You can claim you never intended your policy (if it is in fact a policy) to have any impact on asylum-seekers at all (Nielsen) but of course it would turn out you were lying and this has been the plan all along (John Lafferty, Department of Homeland Security asylum division chief).
You can pretend that your hands are tied so you need to jail children to avoid jailingchildren.
You can say the Bible wants you to separate children from parents (Sessions). You can say again, incredibly, that the Bible wants you to separate children from parents (Sanders). But that would be pathetic (Stephen Colbert).
You can blame the press for the photographs they take (Nielsen) and for the photographs they don’t take (Nielsen). You can suggest that the children in cages are not real children (not linking to Ann Coulter) or that the cages are not in fact cages (Steve Doocy) even though government officials admit that they are cages. You can claim that the detention facilities are “summer camps” or “boarding schools” (Laura Ingraham). You can take umbrage that the good people of DHS and CBP and ICE are being maligned (Nielsen).
You can say that separating children from their parents is a strategic move to force an agreement on Trump’s wall, which would make the children purely instrumental (Trump). Or you could say that this is a way to protect children by deterring their parents, which would also make the children purely instrumental (Kelly). Or you can instead say you are protecting the children from all the harm that happens to children transported over borders by doing untold permanent damage to them as they scream in trauma (Nielsen). Because the best way to deter child abuse is through child abuse.
You can fight to the death about comparisons to Nazis or you can celebrate a candidate (Corey Stewart) who is a hero to Nazis or you can merely show a staggering lack of comprehension about what Nazis actually did (Sessions).
You can fact check and fact check and fact check these claims and it won’t matter that they are false. And the fact that nobody in this administration even bothers to coordinate their cover stories at this point reflects just how pointless it is to fact check them anyhow. It’s an interactive game of choose your own logic, law, facts, and victims, but every single version of this story ends with screaming children in cages, sleeping under foil blankets as strangers change their diapers. The trick is twisting and dodging and weaving until you get to that final page.
It is very sad (Melania Trump). Something should be done (Ted Cruz). If only there were some mechanism to stop torturing children. If only there were some way to stop litigating why we’re doing it and who is doing it and just stop doing it.
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump on Tuesday delivered a stream-of-consciousness-style speech on immigration as furor over his administration’s separation of families at the border reaches a fever pitch.
But his speech at a small business event in Washington contained several factual inaccuracies.
White House says family separations at the border are a ‘binary choice,’ but stats say otherwise
Here is what Trump said, and what the reality is.
False claim: Family separations are Democrats’ fault
Trump said the family separations at the border are “a result of Democrat-supported loopholes in our federal laws” that he said could be easily changed.
“These are crippling loopholes that cause family separation, which we don’t want,” Trump said.
The reality: Trump’s administration made a decision to prosecute 100% of adults caught crossing the border illegally even if they came with children, and thus are separating parents from their kids at the border with no clear plan to reunite them after the parents return from jail and court proceedings.
The administration has long wanted to roll back a law unanimously passed under President George W. Bush and a court settlement dating back decades but most recently affirmed under the Obama administration — citing those two provisions as “loopholes.” Both were designed to protect immigrant children from dangers like human trafficking and to provide minimum standards for their care, including turning them over to the Department of Health and Human Services for resettlement within three days of arrest, as opposed to being held in lengthy detention, and dictating that children with their families also cannot be held in detention or jail-like conditions longer than three weeks.
The administration has complained the laws make it harder to immediately deport or reject immigrants at the border, and that they are not able to detain families indefinitely.
False claim: Thousands of judges
Trump said his administration was hiring “thousands and thousands” of immigration judges, that the US already has “thousands” of immigration judges and that other countries don’t have immigration judges.
Trump to huddle with Republicans during crucial week on immigration
In reality, there the Justice Department’s immigration courts division has 335 judges nationwide, with more than 100 more judges budgeted for, according to a DOJ spokesman.
Because of a massive backlog in the immigration courts, it can take years for those cases to work their way to completion, and many immigrants are allowed to work and live in the US in the meantime, putting down roots. The funding for immigration courts and judges has increased only modestly over the years as funding and resources for enforcement have increased dramatically. A proposal from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to address the family separation issue would double the number of judges to 750.
Trump’s comments Tuesday echoed remarks he made last month. In a May Fox News interview, he claimed the United States was “essentially the only country that has judges” to handle immigration cases. But that is incorrect.
A number of other countries have immigration court systems or a part of the judiciary reserved for immigration and asylum cases, including Sweden, the United Kingdom and Canada.
False claim: Virtually all immigrants disappear
Trump also claimed falsely that when immigrants are let into the country to have their cases heard by a court, they virtually all go into hiding.
“And by the way, when we release the people, they never come back to the judge, anyway. They’re gone,” Trump said. “Do you know if a person comes in and puts one foot on our ground, it’s essentially, ‘Welcome to America, welcome to our country.’ You never get them out because they take their name, they bring the name down, they file it, then they let the person go. … Like 3% come back.”
In reality, the number of immigrants who don’t show up to court proceedings is far lower. And many of the immigrants released from detention are given monitoring devices such as ankle bracelets to ensure they return.
Republicans craft bill to keep detained families together
According to the annual Justice Department yearbook of immigration statistics from fiscal year 2016, the most recent year for which data is available, 25% of immigration court cases were decided “in absentia” — meaning the immigrant wasn’t present in court. In that year, there were 137,875 cases. The number of cases decided “in absentia” between fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2016 was between 11% and 28%.
When White House legislative chief Marc Short made a similarly inaccurate claim on Monday, the White House pointed to a statistic about the high percentage of deportation orders for undocumented children that were delivered in absentia, but amid total case completions for minors, the number of in absentia orders has ranged from 40% to 50% in recent years.
Advocates for immigrants attribute some of the missed hearings to often not receiving a court notice mailed to an old address or not having an attorney who can adequately explain the process to the child. Studies have shown that with legal advice and guidance, immigrants are far more likely to show up for hearings and have their claims ultimately be successful.
False claim: Countries are sending bad eggs to the US
Trump said that countries deserve to be punished for illegal immigration, and that they “send” bad eggs to the US.
“They send these people up, and they’re not sending their finest,” Trump said.
He continued: ‘When countries abuse us by sending people up — not their best — we’re not going to give any more aid to those countries.”
In fact, there is no evidence that countries “send” anyone in particular to the US — rather analyses of recent immigration flows have shown that in recent years, a much higher number of Central Americans have come to the US fleeing rampant gang violence and instability in especially the countries of El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. Experts who study the countries agree that cutting aid would only further destabilize the region, likely making illegal immigration worse, not better.
Though gang members do cross the border illegally alongside those fleeing violence, the administration has never been able to provide numbers showing that those are a large percentage of the cases. Only a handful of such prosecutions occur a year, while more than 300,000 people were apprehended trying to cross the border illegally last fiscal year. Nearly 120,000 defensive asylum applications were filed last year, according to government data, meaning those individuals believed they were fleeing violent situations back home.
False Claim: Mexico isn’t helping the US
Mexico, Trump said, “does nothing for us.”
As for Mexico’s contribution, experts say the country’s crackdown on immigrants within its borders has been a major help to the US in recent years. According to statistics from the US and Mexican governments compiled by the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute and shared with CNN, over the past three years, Mexico has deported tens of thousands more migrants back to the primary countries in Central America that drive immigration north. Each of the last three years, Mexican removals exceeded US removals to those countries.
Mexico is also apprehending tens of thousands of Central Americans before they reach the US. According to the data, Mexico intercepted 173,000 Central Americans in fiscal year 2015, 151,000 in fiscal year 2016 and just under 100,000 in fiscal year 2017.
In the past two years, Mexico has lagged behind the US in apprehensions, but Migration Policy Institute President Andrew Selee, an expert on Mexican policy, said that could be due to a number of factors including smugglers successfully changing their routes to avoid detection or relations with Trump.
CNN’s Catherine Shoichet and Kevin Liptak contributed to this report.
*****************************************
Join the New Due Process Army today!
Free the children.
Require Due Process and real justice for refugees.
Hold the lying child abusers in the kakistocracy accountable for their indefensible actions.
Remove the abusers and their enablers from office and political power.
Welcome more immigrants and refugees.
End racism masquerading as “government policy” or the “rule of law.”
Time for the decent, tolerant, majority to take back our country from the forces of darkness, evil, and dishonesty.
Last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a sweeping ruling that threatened to radically narrow the standards by which people fleeing domestic or gang violence could claim asylum in the US — or even be allowed to stay in the country to plead their case.
But an internal memo sent to the people actually responsible for implementing Sessions’s ruling at the border, and obtained exclusively by Vox, indicates that Sessions’s revolution isn’t as radical as it seemed — at least not yet.
That could be very good news for parents separated from their children, who will have to face an asylum screening to be allowed to stay in the US in immigration detention after they are criminally charged and convicted under the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy.
The memo obtained by Vox was written by John L. Lafferty, the head of the Asylum Division for US Citizenship and Immigration Services, on Wednesday, June 13, two days after Sessions’s ruling in Matter of A- B- was released. It’s labeled “Interim Guidance” for asylum officers — the people in charge of conducting interviews for asylum and “credible fear” screening interviews for migrants at the border that determine whether they’ll be allowed to stay in the US and pursue an asylum claim.
As the “Interim” label suggests, Lafferty’s memo makes it clear that USCIS will be issuing more directives to asylum officers as it continues to analyze Sessions’s ruling. But in the meantime, it doesn’t dictate sweeping changes to asylum standards.
Michael Bars, a spokesperson for USCIS, told Vox, “Asylum and credible fear claims have skyrocketed across the board in recent years largely because individuals know they can exploit a broken system to enter the U.S., avoid removal, and remain in the country. This exacerbates delays and undermines those with legitimate claims. USCIS is carefully reviewing proposed changes to asylum and credible fear processing whereby every legal means is being considered to protect the integrity of our immigration system from fraudulent claims — the Attorney General’s decision will be implemented as soon as possible.”
But the initial implementation doesn’t appear to be quite as aggressive as that rhetoric implies.
“While the Attorney General made some very sweeping assertions in Matter of A-B-, including as to what he thinks would happen to the claims of different kinds of asylum seekers under this ruling, the legal holding of this case is considerably narrower,” said Anwen Hughes, a lawyer for the advocacy group Human Rights First, when sent the text of the memo. “This guidance focuses on what the AG’s decision actually held.”
Sessions’s ruling declared, “Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum.” That language isn’t replicated in the memo — which urges officers to deal with claims on a case-by-case basis.
The only specific change the memo mandates to asylum policy is for officers to stop citing a past Board of Immigration Appeals precedent, Matter of A-R-C-G-, which found that “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” constituted a particular social group — allowing some domestic violence victims to claim asylum based on their persecution as members of that group.
But while A-R-C-G- was the only precedent Sessions explicitly overturned, his ruling also said that “any other” precedent from the Board of Immigration Appeals was also moot if it had defined “particular social group” more broadly than Sessions did last week.
The initial implementation memo from USCIS doesn’t mention any such rulings. It emphasizes that officers should make decisions based on two precedents Sessions held up as gooddecisions — both of which denied asylum claims based on gang violence — but doesn’t identify any decisions that are too broad under Sessions’s standards.
That means that for the moment, at least, asylum officers would be able to determine that a victim of domestic or gang violence still deserves asylum — or deserves to plead her asylum case — if there’s another precedent decision that they think fits the case.
The USCIS memo does emphasize that people seeking asylum based on gang violence or any other “private crime” need to demonstrate that the government in their home country “condoned the behavior or demonstrated a complete helplessness to protect the victim.”
Before Sessions’s ruling, immigrants could claim asylum if they were persecuted by a nonstate group and the government was “unable or unwilling” to prevent it. Technically, that’s still the standard. But Sessions’s formulation about condoning or “complete helplessness” could set the bar higher for what counts as unable or unwilling — especially because his ruling emphasized (in a passage quoted by the implementation memo) that police ignoring crime reports doesn’t mean they’re unable or unwilling to help the victim.
This guidance could be very good news for parents separated from children
The implementation of Sessions’s asylum ruling has real and immediate impacts for asylum seekers — including the thousands of parents who have been separated from their children at the border and prosecuted in recent weeks.
After being prosecuted and sentenced (usually to “time served”), asylum seekers are returned to the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for deportation. They face “expedited” deportation, without a full immigration court hearing, unless they can demonstrate that they have a “credible fear” of persecution and should stay in the US to pursue an asylum claim.
At the moment, the overwhelming majority of people are passing their “credible fear” screenings. Sessions sees this as a sign of widespread fraud and lax standards, and his ruling last week was explicitly written to raise the bar not only for eventual approvals or denials of asylum, but for the initial screenings as well.
If Sessions’s ruling were being interpreted as broadly as possible by USCIS, many parents would likely find it impossible to pass their screening interviews, and would find themselves deported without their children and with little time to locate or contact them. But because USCIS appears to be relatively cautious in its implementation, parents in custody — at least for the moment — appear to have a better shot of staying in the US to pursue their asylum case and reunite with their children.
Of course, asylum claims and initial screenings are both partly up to the discretion of individual asylum officers. It’s totally possible that some asylum offices will interpret this memo as an instruction to get much harsher. But the memo doesn’t force them to do that, at least in its interim form.
The text of the memo obtained by Vox is below.
From: Lafferty, John L
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:20 PM
To: [redacted by Vox]
Subject: Asylum Division Interim Guidance – Matter of A- B-, 27I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018)
Asylum Division colleagues:
I’m sure that most of you have heard and/or read about the decision issued by Attorney General Sessions on Monday in Matter of A- B-, 27I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018).
Below is our Office of Chief Counsel’s summary of the AG’s decision, which is followed by Asylum’s summaries of two 2014 decisions – Matter of M-E-V-G and Matter of W-G-R- – that were cited by the AG in support of his decision. While we continue to work with our OCC colleagues on final guidance for the field, we are issuing the following interim guidance on how to proceed with decision-making on asylum cases and CF/RF [credible fear/reasonable fear] screening determinations:
Matter of A-R-C-G- has been overruled and can no longer be cited to or relied upon as supporting your decision-making on an asylum case or in a CF/RF determination.
Effective upon issuance of this guidance, no affirmative grant of asylum or positive CF/RF screening determination should be signed off on by a supervisor as legally sufficient, or issued as a final decision/determination, that specifically cites to or relies upon Matter of A-R-C-G- as justification for the result. Instead, it should be returned to the author for reconsideration consistent with the next bullet.
All pending and future asylum decisions and CF/RF screening determinations finding that the individual has shown persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of membership in a particular social group must require that the applicant meet the relevant standard by producing evidence that establishes ALL of the following:
A cognizable particular social group that is 1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic; 2) defined with particularity, and 3) socially distinct within the society in question;
Membership in that PSG;
That membership in the PSG was or is a central reason for the past and/or future persecution; and
The harm was and/or will be inflicted by the government or by non-governmental actors that the government is unable or unwilling to control.
When the harm is at the hands of a non-governmental actor, the applicant must show that the government condoned the behavior or demonstrated a complete helplessness to protect the victim. This new decision stresses that, in applying this standard, “[t]he fact that the local police have not acted on a particular report of an individual crime does not necessarily mean that the government is unwilling or unable to control crime, any more than it would in the United States. There may be many reasons why a particular crime is not successfully investigated and prosecuted. Applicants must show not just that the crime has gone unpunished, but that the government is unwilling or unable to prevent it.” A-B- at 337-338. (See RAIO Lesson Plan – Definition of Persecution and Eligibility Based on Past Persecution, Section 4.2 “Entity the Government Is Unable or Unwilling to Control”, for further guidance).
The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim.
Every asylum decision and CF/RF screening determination must consider and analyze whether internal relocation would be reasonable, as provided for at 8 CFR 208.
If you have questions on this interim guidance, please raise them up your local chain of command so that they can be brought to the attention of HQ Asylum QA Branch.
Sure, the BIA has worked hard to reject almost every gang-related formulation in the past. But, that’s often 1) without effective representation; 2) without the respondent presenting the necessary specific and voluminous evidence; and 3) by intentionally misconstruing facts — more or less along the lines of Sessions in A-B-.
Keep it simple:
“Women in El Salvador” actually fits well within the BIA’s three PSG criteria and is “at least one central for persecution” in many cases.
“Public opponents of gangs in X Country” also should be a pretty straightforward fit with a proper factual record and specific legal arguments. It also fits the “political” ground if the accurate factual basis is presented and documented effectively.
The reality is that gender is a major reason for persecution all over the world — one of the largest, in fact — and is well within the 1952 Convention’s ambit!Likewise, in countries where all real experts say gangs have infiltrated or in many cases are actually acting in concert with the Government, public opposition represents fundamental values that are limited to a readily identifiable segment of the population for which the punishment is immediate and severe. Likewise, it’s a rather clear case of political persecution, just like “whistleblowers” and “union activists.”
For years, the advocacy community has been willing to cooperate with the Government’s highly restrictive “incremental approach” to protection, because it was showing signs of real, if slow, progress and other viable alternatives such as “prosecutorial discretion” and “Special Immigrant Juvenile Status” were often available. Now, Sessions has intentionally reversed almost all of that progress and “returned us to the Dark Ages” as one expert put it.
So, no more “Mr. Nice Guy!” If it’s war that Sessions & Co. want, why not give it to them? Now is the time to simply “blow the roof off” of the Executive’s overly restrictive, unjustifiable, often disingenuous, confusing, contradictory, and clearly biased misinterpretation of what’s really happening in the Northern Triangle and elsewhere and how international protection laws must and should be applied if they are to have any meaning in the 21st century.
And, forget the bogus “floodgates” arguments. “Christians,” Jews,” “Muslims,” “Blacks,” “Pentecostals” are all potentially huge groups that have been recognized for asylum purposes.
Sure, maybe if forced to interpret the asylum and CAT laws properly Congress with withdraw from all of our international obligations so that nobody gets in. I doubt it. But if it happens, it happens.
At least it will then be out in the open that we are a “bogus” democracy that spreads false myths about our values, but won’t actually live up to them when the going gets tough (which, incidentally and not surprisingly, is also a symptom of “False Christianity”).
Then, maybe when folks figure out that “we aren’t who we say we are,” they will stop coming! Or, we could simply set up machine gun nests along the border and gun down all the unwanted women and children before they can become a burden on our “justice” system. In the end, the results of that might not be lots different from using our asylum and “court” systems as a “deterrent” to those fleeing for their lives. Just more honest about who we really are deep down, when it counts.
The events occurring now on our border with Mexico, where children are being removed from the arms of their mothers and fathers and sent to foster families or “shelters”, make me weep and gnash my teeth with sadness and rage. I know what they are going through. When we were children, my two siblings and I were also taken from our parents. And the problems we’ve experienced since then portend the terrible things that many of these children are bound to suffer.
My family was Jewish, living in 1942 in the Netherlands when the country was occupied by the Nazis. We children were sent into hiding, with foster families who risked arrest and death by taking us in. They protected us, they loved us, and we were extremely lucky to have survived the war and been well cared for.
Yet the lasting damage inflicted by that separation reverberates to this day, decades hence.
Have you heard the screams and seen the panic of a three-year-old when it has lost sight of its mother in a supermarket? That scream subsides when mother reappears around the end of the aisle.
This is my brother writing in recent years. He tries to deal with his lasting pain through memoir. It’s been 76 years, yet he revisits the separation obsessively. He still writes about it in the present tense:
In the first home I scream for six weeks. Then I am moved to another family, and I stop screaming. I give up. Nothing around me is known to me. All those around me are strangers. I have no past. I have no future. I have no identity. I am nowhere. I am frozen in fear. It is the only emotion I possess now. As a three-year-old child, I believe that I must have made some terrible mistake to have caused my known world to disappear. I spend the rest of my life trying desperately not to make another mistake.
My brother’s second foster family cared deeply about him and has kept in touch with him all these years. Even so, he is almost 80 years old now and is still trying to understand what made him the anxious and dysfunctional person he turned into as a child and has remained for the rest of his life: a man with charm and intelligence, yet who could never keep a job because of his inability to complete tasks. After all, if he persisted he might make a mistake again, and that would bring his world to another end.
My younger sister was separated from our parents at five. She had no understanding of what was going on and why she suddenly had to live with a strange set of adults. She suffered thereafter from lifelong, profound depression.
I was older: seven. I was more able than my siblings to understand what was happening and why. I spent most of the war with Dick and Ella Rijnders. Dick was mayor of a small, rural village, and he and Ella lived in a beautiful house next to a wide waterway. Ella had a warm smile and Dick referred to me as his “oldest daughter”. I was able to go to school normally, make friends, and became part of village life. I was extraordinarily lucky, but I was not with my own parents, sister, and brother. And, eventually, I also had to leave the Rijnders, my loving second “family”. I was returning to my own family, but this meant another separation.
In later life, I was never able to really settle down. I lived in different countries and was successful in work, but never able to form lasting relationships with partners. I never married. I almost forgot to mention my own anxiety and depression, and my many years in psychotherapy.
My grief and anger about today’s southern border come not just from my personal life. As a retired psychotherapist who has worked extensively with victims of childhood trauma, I know all too well what awaits many of the thousands of children, taken by our government at the border, who are now in “processing centers” and foster homes – no matter how decent and caring those places might be. We can expect thousands of lives to be damaged, for many years or for ever, by “zero tolerance”. We can expect old men and women, decades from now, still suffering, still remembering, still writing in the present tense.
What is happening in our own backyard today is as evil and criminal as what happened to me and my siblings as children in Nazi Europe. It needs to be stopped immediately.
This about race. It is no accident that virtually all of the separated parents and kids are Hispanic and the few others affected are almost all “of color.” We wouldn’t be having all this ruckus if the arrivals were White. Trump, Sessions, and Miller are White Nationalists in the “Bannon Mode.” Kelly and Nielsen have decided to come out of the closet and reveal their racist sympathies.
The harm is permanent. All experts say that the harm intentionally inflicted in these kids will be permanently disabling. More blogging on that later.
We’re sending these families to concentration camps masquerading as countries. Make no mistake about it, most of these folks are refugees fleeing persecution and torture at the hands of gangs and cartels that basically are the government in much of the Northern Triangle. Sessions & Trump have intentionally misconstrued the law, misrepresented facts, and violated Constitutional Due Process to artificially deny most of these individuals legal protections they deserve. Their return is likely to mean death, torture, a lifetime of abuse, extortion, rape, sexual enslavement, forced drug trafficking, or prostitution. Others will be forcibly impressed into a life of serving the gangs because we have turned our collective backs on them. Inhumanity is inhumanity; it’s only a matter of degree. And, that the Nazis were even worse in no way makes any difference to those we are sentencing to death, torture, or a lifetime of abuse. Dead is dead. Tortured is tortured. Decapitated is functionally the same as shot or gassed.
Sessions keeps parroting that misdemeanor unlawful entry “isn’t a victimless crime.” Perhaps he’s right. The “victims” here are the migrants and their families seeking to exercise legal rights to apply for asylum. The “criminals” are Sessions, Trump, Nielsen, Miller, Kelly and other Administration hard liners who engage in child abuse rather than protection. And, they lie about what and why they are doing it. Who will eventually bring the real criminals to justice?
This isn’t the first time The Board of Immigration Appeals has considered domestic violence and rejected victims of domestic violence as a particular social group. The Board did it in “Matter of R-A-” in 1999.
The Board held that R-A- was not eligible for asylum for two reasons. First, her claimed social group — “Guatemalan women who have been involved intimately with Guatemalan male companions, who believe that women are to live under male domination” — did not qualify as a “particular social group” for asylum purposes.
And second, that she has not established that her husband abused her because he perceived her to be a member of this group.
Attorney General Janet Reno intervened and vacated that decision — rendered it void — so it could be reconsidered in light of a proposed regulation that would clarify some of these concepts, but no final rule was ever promulgated.
The case was resolved without further consideration by the Board when R-A- and DHS jointly stipulated that she was eligible for asylum. Nevertheless, the Board and the federal courts continued to treat the R-A- analysis as persuasive.
In a later case, “Matter of A-R-C-G-”, the Board abandoned the reasoning from the R-A- analysis and held that depending on the facts and evidence in an individual case, “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” can constitute a particular social group for asylum purposes. But the finding was based primarily on government concessions, as opposed to basing it on an application of Board precedent.
Sessions found that the Board decided A-R-C-G-’s case without performing the rigorous analysis required by Board precedents by basing its decision on concessions from the DHS attorney that the respondent had suffered past persecution, that she was a member of a qualifying particular social group, and that her membership in that group was a central reason for her persecution instead of adjudicating these issues.
Sessions concluded therefore that A-R-C-G-’s case was wrongly decided and should not have been issued as a precedential decision. Accordingly, he overruled it.
Having overruled A-R-C-G-’s case, he had to vacate the Board’s decision in the A-B- case too. The Board’s cursory analysis of the respondent’s “particular social group” in that case consisted mainly of a general citation to A-R-C-G-’s case and country condition reports.
He remanded the case to the immigration judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, reiterating that an applicant for asylum on account of membership in a particular social group must demonstrate:
Membership in a particular social group that is composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, is defined with particularity, and is socially distinct;
That membership in that group is a central reason for the alleged persecution; and
That the alleged harm is inflicted by the government of her home country or by persons that the government is unwilling or unable to control.
The Board decisions applying asylum to domestic abuse victims may be morally correct, but they are legally indefensible.
************************
Read Nolan’s complete article over at The Hill at the above link.
I respectfully dissent. See Matter of R-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 906, 922 (BIA 1999) (Judge Guendelsberger, dissenting, joined by Schmidt, Chairman, and Judges Rosenberg, Villageliu, Moscato). The “Gang of Five” had it right then and continue to be right today.
I’ve been one of those fighting the battle for a correct interpretation of asylum law, particularly as it applies to abused women and other vulnerable groups, for two decades. It’s discouraging to have to re-fight a war we already won once. But, we’re all going to hang in there until justice and the humane, protective values behind the 1952 Convention and the Refugee Act of 1980 prevail. And, after we’re gone, members of the New Due Process Army will continue the fight until justice for the most vulnerable among us prevails.
Michael Scherer & Josh Dawsey report for the Washington Post:
President Trump has calculated that he will gain political leverage in congressional negotiations by continuing to enforce a policy he claims to hate — separating immigrant parents from their young children at the southern border, according to White House officials.
On Friday, Trump suggested he would not change the policy unless Democrats agreed to his other immigration demands, which include funding a border wall, tightening the rules for border enforcement and curbing legal entry. He also is intent on pushing members of his party to vote for a compromise measure that would achieve those long-standing priorities.
Trump’s public acknowledgment that he was willing to let the policy continue as he pursued his political goals came as the president once again blamed Democrats for a policy enacted and touted by his own administration.
“The Democrats are forcing the breakup of families at the Border with their horrible and cruel legislative agenda,” he tweeted. After listing his demands in any immigration bill, he added, “Go for it! WIN!”
The attempt to gain advantage from a practice the American Academy of Pediatrics describes as causing children “irreparable harm” sets up a high-stakes gambit for Trump, whose political career has long benefited from harsh rhetoric on immigration.
Democrats have latched onto the issue and vowed to fight in the court of public opinion, with leaders planning trips to the border to highlight the stories of separated families, already the focus of news media attention. Democratic candidates running for vulnerable Republican seats also have begun to make the harsh treatment of children a centerpiece of their campaigns.
The policy has cracked Trump’s usually united conservative base, with a wide array of religious leaders and groups denouncing it. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention issued statements critical of the practice.
The Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, who delivered a prayer at Trump’s inauguration, signed a letter calling the practice “horrible.” Pastor Franklin Graham of Samaritan’s Purse, a vocal supporter of the president’s who has brushed aside past Trump controversies, called it “terrible” and “disgraceful.”
Besides increasing the odds of a broader immigration bill, senior Trump strategists believe that the child separation policy will deter the flow of migrant families across the border. Nearly 2,000 immigrant children were separated from parents during six weeks in April and May, according to the Department of Homeland Security. The figure is the only one released by the goverment.
“The president has told folks that in lieu of the laws being fixed, he wants to use the enforcement mechanisms that we have,” a White House official said. “The thinking in the building is to force people to the table.”
Trump reinforced that notion Friday morning at the White House when he suggested Democrats alone had the power to alter the policy.
“I hate the children being taken away,” Trump said.
The president used a similar strategy last year as he sought to gain approval for his immigration demands by using the lure of protection for young immigrants brought to the United States as children. That effort, which ran counter to Trump’s earlier promise to sign a bipartisan bill protecting the young immigrants, foundered in Congress.
. . . .
The current policy resulted from a decision made in April by Attorney General Jeff Sessions to prosecute all migrants who cross the border, including those with young children. Those migrants had avoided detention during the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Because of a 1997 court settlement that bars children from being imprisoned with parents, Justice Department officials now say they have no choice but to isolate the children.
Sessions and White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders have defended the policy as a sound, and biblical, decision to enforce the law.
“The previous administration wouldn’t prosecute illegal aliens who entered the country with children,” Sessions said Thursday in Fort Wayne, Ind., citing biblical advice to follow laws. “It was de facto open borders.”
The biblical underpinnings have been challenged by religious leaders.
“There’s definitely a groundswell of opposition from virtually every corner of the Christian community,” said Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. “People are able to understand immediately the drive of parents to protect their child and to understand the horror of splitting up vulnerable children from their parents.”
Yet several key Trump administration officials support the family separation policy, including Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and senior adviser Stephen Miller, a vocal supporter of stricter immigration laws.
Some senior officials think Democrats will be pressured by the policy to cut an immigration deal.
“If they aren’t going to cooperate, we are going to look to utilize the laws as hard as we can,” said a second White House official.
Others have argued that the main benefit of the policy is deterrence. Miller has said internally that the child separations will bring the numbers down at the border, a goal that Trump wants to achieve. Miller and Marc Short, the White House director of legislative affairs, have argued that immigration legislation is unlikely to pass this summer, officials said.
“The side effect of zero tolerance is that fewer people will come up illegally, and fewer minors would be put in danger,” said a third senior administration official. “What is more dangerous to a minor, the 4,000-mile journey to America or the short-term detention of their parents?”
. . . .
*********************************************
Please read the complete article at the link.
So, the choice is ““What is more dangerous to a minor, the 4,000-mile journey to America or the short-term detention of their parents?” Not really!
The real choices are 1) a dangerous 4,000 mile journey to a place where you might be able to save your life and that of your loved ones; or 2) the much more dangerous option of remaining in a place where you will likely be beaten, raped, extorted, tortured, impressed against your will, or killed by gangs, who are not just “street criminals” (as falsely portrayed by Sessions and other restrictionists) but who exercise quasi-governmental authority with the knowing acquiescence of the recognized governments.
Realistically, folks are going to opt for #1. We could recognize them as refugees; screen them abroad to weed out gang members and criminals and to take the danger out of the 4,000 mile journey; work with the UNHCR and other countries to distribute the flow; open more paths to legal immigration for those who want to leave but might not fit easily within the refugee definition; and encourage those who still arrive at our borders without documents seeking protection to go to a port of entry where they will be treated respectfully, humanely, and be given a prompt but full opportunity to present their cases for protection with access to counsel in a system that satisfies all the requirements of Constitutional Due Process, with the additional understanding that if they lose they will have to return to their home country.
Alternatively, we could double down on our current failed policies of detention, deterrence, and lawless and immoral Governmental behavior; send the message that folks shouldn’t bother using our legal system because it’s a fraud that has intentionally been fixed against them; encourage the use of smugglers who will charge ever higher fees for developing new and more dangerous means of entry; and send the message that if folks rally want to survive, they should pay a smuggler to get them into the interior of our country where they have at least a fighting chance of blending in, hiding out from immigration enforcement, behaving themselves, and working hard until they are caught and removed, die, conditions improve and they leave voluntarily for their country of origin, or we finally give them some type of legal recognition.
My first alternative could likely be established and operated for a fraction of what we are now spending on failed immigration enforcement, useless and unnecessarily cruel detention, unnecessary criminal prosecutions, and a broken Immigration Court system.
Plus, at a time of low birth rate and low unemployment, it would give us a significant economic boost by bringing a highly motivated, hard-working, family oriented, and appreciative workforce into our society. It might also inspire other stable democratic nations to join us in an effort to save lives (which also happens to fit in well with religious values), resettle individuals, and, over time, address the horrible situation in the Northern Triangle that is creating this flow.
Alternative two, which is basically a variation on what we already are doing, will guarantee a continuing “black market flow”of migrants, some of whom will be apprehended and removed at significant financial and societal costs, while most will continue to live in an underground society, subject to exploitation by unscrupulous employers and law enforcement, underutilizing their skills, and not being given the opportunity to integrate fully into our society.
The thing we will not be able to do is to halt human migration solely by law enforcement actions taken at “our end” of the chain. That is, unless we wish to establish a “Stalinist type state” that is so grim and repressive that nobody wants to come any more.
Kids as human pawns. Child abuse as policy. Dreamers as hostages. Jesus told us to do it. It’s the Democrats fault. I really hate to let Jeff abuse children, but I have no choice. Refugee women fleeing gang controlled states reduced to human scum who should just accept their beatings and rape and get in the non-existent line for legal immigration that we want to eliminate. That is, if they actually live long enough to get in the non-existent line, which is unlikely. Biased judges cheering the chance to sign death warrants for the most vulnerable among us. Courts clogged with refugees being prosecuted for seeking refuge while being pressured by seizure of their children into giving up rights.
Once again, I’ve been proved right: We are actively diminishing ourselves as a nation every day; but, it isn’t stopping, and won’t in the long run stop, human migration. Sure, there is a natural ebb and flow that responds in some minor ways to our futile attempts to stop it. Sort of like throwing up man-made sand bars to stop beach erosion. Works for a few months or even years, but eventually the inevitable forces of nature win out. It sure seems to me that it would be smarter to work with the flow of the river and turn it to our advantage, rather than trying to make it reverse course — an exercise in futility that only serves to diminish the humanity of each of us.
Here’s a wonderful response to Sessions by Kansas City Attorney Andrea C. Martinez:
The “Christian” B.S. Litmus Test By , Andrea C. Martinez, Esq.
To my amazing friends who are atheist, agnostic, or non-Christian. To the good-willed and the pissed-off. To the people who are genuinely confused as to how Jefferson Sessions and Sarah Huckabee Sanders can use the Bible as a justification for abhorrent policies such as the separation of immigrant children from their parents at the border or the persecution of vulnerable asylum seekers, I am a Jesus-follower with a Bible degree from a Christian college and I GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO CALL B.S.
Please join me in calling B.S. whenever you hear people use the Bible to justify the oppression of others. Especially when they misuse and cite Romans 13 to justify their mistreatment. While Romans 13:4 calls us to submit to government authorities because “the one in authority is God’s servant for your good” it does not require us to submit to an unjust law. If the government authority is not acting in a way that reflects God’s law, which is the loving treatment of others, Jesus invites us to participate in civil disobedience. Remember when Jesus healed a man’s hand on the Sabbath in violation of the Jewish law (Mark 3:1-6) and says, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” Matthew 3:4. Then he goes ahead and heals the man. There are numerous other examples in the Bible of civil disobedience that I would be happy to analyze with you at a different time (like the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego).
We must look first and foremost to Jesus Himself and His words when deciding whether a law is just and therefore should be followed. Jesus gave us a “Greatest Commandment” litmus test for determining which actions are really done in his name: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” Luke 6:31. And Jesus provided us a pretty simple “B.S. Litmus Test” (my words, not Jesus’!) to determine whether an action or law reflects His heart. The B.S. Litmus Test is this: “is this law/action/policy treating others as I would like to be treated?” (Matthew 7:12). And a second question would be, “does this law reflect love or fear?” If the latter, it is not from God. Because “perfect love casts out fear.” 1 John 4:18.
Regarding Jesus’ exact instructions on the treatment of immigrants, read Matthew 25: 34-46. Jesus refers to the immigrant/refugee/foreigner as “the stranger” and says, “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger (refugee/immigrant/foreigner) and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” -JESUS
PLEASE BE ON GUARD: when you hear a government official use a passage like Romans 13 to try to justify actions that contradict the commandments of Jesus Himself, it is akin to a lawyer trying to convince a judge that a policy or regulation should be followed even though a statute or the Constitution of the United States itself prohibits it. Oh wait, that is exactly what is happening in the Jeff Sessions video above. The United States has ratified international refugee treaties legally obliging our nation to consider the claims of each asylum-seeker on its own merit and the Attorney General has now created his own self-indulging policy persecuting asylum seekers as a “deterrent” to seeking the protection they are legally entitled to. Laws trump policies in the hierarchy of authority, and Jesus’ words trump unjust government action in the spiritual context.
So please join me in calling BS on policies that oppress the immigrant, the refugee, and the foreigner. No citation to Romans 13 can ever trump Jesus’ calling to love the immigrant in Matthew 25. I stand with Jesus-followers and non-Christians alike in the disgusted renunciation of any attempt to cite Holy Scripture as a justification to oppress the weak or the vulnerable. I proudly stand with Jesus and will continue to defend the “stranger” in my law practice as an act of worship to my Jesus who I know loves and cares for them even more than I do.
I call B.S. But, then most of what Sessions says is B.S.
***********************************
Here’s another from JRube in the WashPost:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions displayed an appalling lack of appreciation for the religious establishment clause, not to mention simple human dignity. Speaking to a meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and in the wake of the Church’s condemnation of the barbaric policy of separating children from their parents at the border, Sessions proclaimed: “Persons who violate the law of our nation are subject to prosecution. I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government, because God has ordained them for the purpose of order. Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful.” Later in the day, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders repeated his religious admonition to obey the law.
This is horrifically objectionable on multiple grounds. First, he is a public employee and must uphold the First Amendment’s establishment clause. If Sessions wants to justify a policy, he is obligated to give a secular policy justification. (Citing the Bible — inaptly — to Catholic bishops who exercise their religious conscience in speaking out against family separation may be the quintessential example of chutzpah.) Second, he is a policymaker, in a position tochange a position that is inconsistent with our deepest values, traditions and respect for human rights. Third, the bishops were not advocating civil disobedience; they were objecting to an unjust law. Sessions is trying to use the Bible to squelch dissent.
We should point out that invoking this Biblical passage has a long and sordid history in Sessions’s native South. It was oft-quoted by slave-owners and later segregationists to insist on following existing law institutionalizing slavery (“read as an unequivocal order for Christians to obey state authority, a reading that not only justified southern slavery but authoritarian rule in Nazi Germany and South African apartheid”).
I’m no expert in Christianity, but the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was when he drafted his letter from the Birmingham jail:
Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.
Sessions perfectly exemplifies how religion should not be used. Pulling out a Bible or any other religious text to say it supports one’s view on a matter of public policy is rarely going to be effective, for it defines political opponents as heretics.
The bishops and other religious figures are speaking out as their religious conscience dictates, which they are morally obligated to do and are constitutionally protected in doing. A statement from the conference of bishops, to which Sessions objected, read in part:
At its core, asylum is an instrument to preserve the right to life. The Attorney General’s recent decision elicits deep concern because it potentially strips asylum from many women who lack adequate protection. These vulnerable women will now face return to the extreme dangers of domestic violence in their home country. This decision negates decades of precedents that have provided protection to women fleeing domestic violence.
Reminding the administration of the meaning of family values, the bishops continued, “Families are the foundational element of our society and they must be able to stay together. While protecting our borders is important, we can and must do better as a government, and as a society, to find other ways to ensure that safety. Separating babies from their mothers is not the answer and is immoral.”
The Catholics are not alone. The administration’s vile policy has alarmed a wide array of faith leaders. The Southern Baptist Convention issued their own statement. It is quoted at length because it is so powerful:
WHEREAS, Every man, woman, and child from every language, race, and nation is a special creation of God, made in His own image (Genesis 1:26–27); and
WHEREAS, Longings to protect one’s family from warfare, violence, disease, extreme poverty, and other destitute conditions are universal, driving millions of people to leave their homelands to seek a better life for themselves, their children, and their grandchildren; and
WHEREAS, Scripture is clear on the believer’s hospitality towards immigrants, stating that meeting the material needs of “strangers” is tantamount to serving the Lord Jesus Himself (Matthew 25:35–40; Hebrews 13:2); and
WHEREAS, Southern Baptists affirm the value of the family, stating in The Baptist Faith and Message that “God has ordained the family as the foundational institution of human society” (Article XVIII), and Scripture makes clear that parents are uniquely responsible to raise their children “in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). . . .
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Dallas, Texas, June 12–13, 2018, affirm the value and dignity of immigrants, regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, culture, national origin, or legal status; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we desire to see immigration reform include an emphasis on securing our borders and providing a pathway to legal status with appropriate restitutionary measures, maintaining the priority of family unity, resulting in an efficient immigration system that honors the value and dignity of those seeking a better life for themselves and their families; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we declare that any form of nativism, mistreatment, or exploitation is inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage all elected officials, especially those who are members of Southern Baptist churches, to do everything in their power to advocate for a just and equitable immigration system, those in the professional community to seek ways to administer just and compassionate care for the immigrants in their community, and our Southern Baptist entities to provide resources that will equip and empower churches and church members to reach and serve immigrant communities. . . .
Rabbi David Wolpe dryly observed that “until 2018, I don’t believe any reader of the Bible has argued that separating families is rooted in the Bible, and if the Bible is about obeying the government, it is hard to understand what all those prophets were yelling at the kings about.” (Meanwhile, 26 Jewish organizations sent a letter condemning the policy to Sessions.)
Peter Wehner of the Ethics and Public Policy Center has written extensively on the role of religion in politics. “I would say that this is just the most recent, but also one of the most egregious, ways that those who call themselves Christians are disfiguring and discrediting their faith. They are living in an inverted moral world, where the Bible is being invoked to advance cruelty,” he said. “Rather than owning up to what they are doing, they are trying to sacralize their inhumane policies. They are attempting to harm children and then dress it up as Christian ethics.”
He added: “This shows you the terrible damage that can be done to the Christian witness when the wrong people attain positions of power. They subordinate every good thing to their ideology, twisting and distorting everything they must to advance their political cause. In this case, it’s not simply that an authentic Christian ethic is subordinate to their inhumane politics; it is that it is being thoroughly corrupted, to the point that they are using the Bible to justify what is unjustifiable.”
If the administration is embarrassed by a policy they are trying to insist is required by law (that is untrue, and I know the prohibition against lying is very biblical) they should change it. Trump and his aides need to stop shifting blame to other politicians, and stop telling Christians what their obligations are. Frankly, the lack of outrage from Trump’s clique of evangelical supporters on this issue is not simply unusual given the near-universal outrage in faith-based communities, but is a reminder that leaders of “values voters” traded faith for the political game of power and access. As Wehner put it, “To watch the Christian faith be stained in this way by people like Jeff Sessions and Sarah Huckabee Sanders is painful and quite a disturbing thing to watch. I don’t know whether they realize the defilement they’re engaging in, but that’s somewhat beside the point. The defilement is happening, and they are leading the effort. It’s shameful, and it’s heretical.”
****************************************
Remarkably, Sessions claims to be a Christian and a Methodist (although I can’t for the life of me find a speck of the actual kind, merciful, forgiving, teachings of Jesus Christ in any aspect of Sessions’s life, career, or actions). He’s one of the most “unChristian” people I’ve ever witnessed in American public life. And, I’ve seen some pretty bad actors, going all the way back to infamous Wisconsin GOP Senator Joe McCarthy! In his own way, Sessions is just as far removed from the true meaning of Christ’s teaching as his pagan, idolatrous boss, Trump.
At any rate, the Methodist Council of Bishops has joined other religious denominations in condemning Sessions’s policies of cruelty and child abuse.
Faith leaders’ statement on family separation
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, June 7, 2018
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Council of Bishops of The United Methodist Church is joining other faith organizations in a statement urging the U.S. government to stop its policy of separating immigrant families.
Below is the full statement signed by dozens of faith organizations. Bishop Kenneth H. Carter, president of the Council of Bishops, signed on behalf of the Council.
FAITH LEADERS’ STATEMENT ON FAMILY SEPARATION
Recently, the U.S. Administration announced that it will begin separating families and criminally prosecuting all people who enter the U.S. without previous authorization. As religious leaders representing diverse faith perspectives, united in our concern for the well-being of vulnerable migrants who cross our borders fleeing from danger and threats to their lives, we are deeply disappointed and pained to hear this news.
We affirm the family as a foundational societal structure to support human community and understand the household as an estate blessed by God. The security of the family provides critical mental, physical and emotional support to the development and wellbeing of children. Our congregations and agencies serve many migrant families that have recently arrived in the United States. Leaving their communities is often the only option they have to provide safety for their children and protect them from harm. Tearing children away from parents who have made a dangerous journey to provide a safe and sufficient life for them is unnecessarily cruel and detrimental to the well-being of parents and children.
As we continue to serve and love our neighbor, we pray for the children and families that will suffer due to this policy and urge the Administration to stop their policy of separating families.
His Eminence Archbishop Vicken Aykazian
Diocesan Legate and
Director of the Ecumenical Office
Diocese of the Armenian Church of America
Mr. Azhar Azeez
President
Islamic Society of North America
The Most Rev. Joseph C. Bambera
Bishop of Scranton, PA
Chair, Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs
Senior Bishop George E. Battle, Jr.
Presiding Prelate, Piedmont Episcopal District
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
Bishop Kenneth H. Carter, Jr.
President, Council of Bishops
The United Methodist Church
The Most Rev. Michael B. Curry
Presiding Bishop
Episcopal Church (United States)
The Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer
General Minister & President
United Church of Christ
The Rev. Elizabeth A. Eaton
Presiding Bishop
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
The Rev. David Guthrie
President, Provincial Elders’ Conference
Moravian Church Southern Province
Mr. Glen Guyton
Executive Director
Mennonite Church USA
The Rev. Teresa Hord Owens
General Minister and President
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Rabbi Rick Jacobs
President
Union for Reform Judaism
Mr. Anwar Khan
President
Islamic Relief USA
The Rev. Dr. Betsy Miller
President, Provincial Elders’ Conference
Moravian Church Northern Province
The Rev. Dr. J. Herbert Nelson II
Stated Clerk
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Rabbi Jonah Pesner
Director
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
The Rev. Don Poest
Interim General Secretary The Rev. Eddy Alemán
Candidate for General Secretary
Reformed Church in America
Senior Bishop Lawrence Reddick III
Presiding Bishop, The 8th Episcopal District
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
The Rev. Phil Tom
Executive Director
International Council of Community Churches
Senior Bishop McKinley Young
Presiding Prelate, Third Episcopal District
African Methodist Episcopal Church
###
Media Contact:
Rev. Dr. Maidstone Mulenga
Director of Communications – Council of Bishops
The United Methodist Church mmulenga@umc-cob.org 202-748-5172
**********************************************
Ed Kilgore over at NY Magazine also nails Sessions’s noxious hypocrisy:
St. Paul would probably like Jeff Sessions to keep his name out of his mouth. Photo: Getty Images
When he spoke to a law enforcement group in Indiana today, the attorney general of the United States was clearly angry about religious objections to his administration’s immigration policies. He may have had in mind incidents like this very important one this week (as notedby the National Catholic Reporter):
The U.S. bishops began their annual spring assembly by condemning recent immigration policies from the Trump administration that have separated families at the U.S.-Mexico border and threatened to deny asylum for people fleeing violence.
The morning session here began with a statement, but by its end escalated to numerous bishops endorsing the idea of sending a delegation to the border to inspect the detention facilities where children are being kept and even floating the possibility of “canonical penalties” for those involved in carrying out the policies.
Being a Protestant and all, Sessions has no fear of the kind of “canonical penalties” Catholic bishops might levy. But perhaps he is aware of an official resolution passed by his own United Methodist Church in 2008 (and reaffirmed in 2016), which reads in part:
The fear and anguish so many migrants in the United States live under are due to federal raids, indefinite detention, and deportations which tear apart families and create an atmosphere of panic. Millions of immigrants are denied legal entry to the US due to quotas and race and class barriers, even as employers seek their labor. US policies, as well as economic and political conditions in their home countries, often force migrants to leave their homes. With the legal avenues closed, immigrants who come in order to support their families must live in the shadows and in intense exploitation and fear. In the face of these unjust laws and the systematic deportation of migrants instituted by the Department of Homeland Security, God’s people must stand in solidarity with the migrants in our midst.
So Sessions decided he’d smite all these ninny-faced liberal clerics with his own interpretation of the intersection of Christianity and immigration:
In his remarks, Sessions hit back at the “concerns raised by our church friends about separating families,” calling the criticism “not fair or logical” and quoting scripture in his defense of the administration’s tough policies.
“Persons who violate the law of our nation are subject to prosecution. I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order,” Sessions said. “Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful.”
Those who are unacquainted with the Bible should be aware that the brief seven-verse portion of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans has been throughout the ages cited to oppose resistance to just about every unjust law or regime you can imagine. As the Atlantic’s Yoni Appelbaum quickly pointed out, it was especially popular among those opposing resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act in the run-up to the Civil War. It was reportedly Adolf Hitler’s favorite biblical passage. And it was used by defenders of South African Apartheid and of our own Jim Crow.
Sessions’s suggestion that Romans 13 represents some sort of absolute, inflexible rule for the universe has been refuted by religious authorities again and again, most quoting St. Augustine in saying that “an unjust law is no law at all,” and many drawing attention to the overall context of Paul’s epistle, which was in many respects the great charter of Christian liberty and the great rebuke to legalism in every form. Paul was pretty clearly rejecting a significant sentiment among Christians of his day: that civil authorities deserved no obedience in any circumstance.
Beyond that, even if taken literally, in Romans 13 Paul is the shepherd telling the sheep that just as they must love their enemies, they must also recognize that the wolf is part of a divinely established order. In today’s context, Jeff Sessions is the wolf, and no matter what you think of his policies, he is not entitled to quote the shepherd on his own behalf. Maybe those desperate women and men at the border should suck it up and accept their terrible lot in life and defer to Jeff Sessions’s idolatry toward those portions of secular immigration law that he and his president actually support. But for the sake of all that’s holy, don’t quote the Bible to make the Trump administration’s policies towards immigrant families sound godly. And keep St. Paul out of it.
**************************************
Last, but certainly not least among my favorite rebuttals to Sessions is this article from Marissa Martinelli at Slate incorporating a video clip from John Oliver which captures the smallness, meanness, and lack of humane values of Sessions perfectly:
There’s nothing funny about the Trump administration’s policy of separating children from their parents at the border, which doesn’t make it an ideal topic for late night hosts. Stephen Colbert acknowledged that difficulty directly on The Late Show on Thursday night, explaining that he usually only addresses tragic stories on the show if everyone is already talking about them. But he’s willing to make an exception:
That’s my job: to give you my take on the conversation everyone’s already having. With any luck, my take is funnier than yours, or I would be watching you. But this story is different, because this is the conversation everybody should be having. Attorney General and man dreaming of legally changing his name to “Jim Crow” Jeff Sessions has instituted a new policy to separate immigrant kids from their parents at the border.
An estimated 1,358 children have been taken from their families so far, with some officials reportedly telling their parents that the children were being taken away for a bath, only to never return them. “Clearly, no decent human being could defend that,” said Colbert. “So Jeff Sessions did.”
Colbert, who is devoutly Catholic, especially took issue with Sessions quoting the bible—specifically, Romans 13, the same passage used to defend slavery in the 1840s—to justify the policy as morally acceptable. Colbert suggested that Sessions might want to go back and reread that bible, and quoted Romans 13:10 to him. “Love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law,” he recited, before ripping into Sessions’s use of the bible as a smokescreen: “I’m not surprised Sessions didn’t read the whole thing. After all, Jesus said, ‘Suffer the children to come unto me’ but I’m pretty sure all Sessions saw was the words children and suffer and said ‘I’m on it.’”
For I was hungry Jeff, and you gave me nothing to eat.
I was thirsty, Jeff, and you gave me nothing to drink.
I was a stranger seeking refuge, Jeff, and you did not invite me in.
I needed clothes, Jeff, and you clothed me only in the orange jumpsuit of a prisoner.
I was sick and in a foul prison you called “detention,” Jeff, and you mocked me and did not look after me.
I said “suffer the children to come unto me,” Jeff, and you made my children suffer.
In your arrogant ignorance, Jeff, you might ask when did I see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
But, Jeff, I was right there before you, in a caravan with my poor sisters, brothers, and children, having traveled far, seeking shelter and refuge from mistreatment and expecting mercy and justice under your laws. But, in your prejudice and ignorance, Jeff, you did not see me because I did not look like one of you. For you see, Jeff, as you did not show love, mercy, forgiveness, kindness, and human compassion for the least of my children, you did not do for me.
And so, Jeff, unless you repent of your wasted life of sins, selfishness, meanness, taking my name and teachings in vain, and mistaking your often flawed view of man’s laws for my Father’s will, you must go away to eternal punishment. But, the poor, the vulnerable, the abused, and the children who travel with me and those who give us aid, compassion, justice, and mercy will accompany me to eternal life.
For in truth, Jeff, although you yourself might be immoral, none of God’s children is ever “illegal” to Him. Each time you spout such nonsense, you once again mock me and my Father by taking our names, teachings, and values in vain.
Those looking for legal analysis should read no further. The following is a cry from the heart.
The respondent’s personal nightmare began the year after her marriage. For the next 15 years, she was subjected to relentless physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.
It is most apt that Donald Trump became president by beating a woman. His campaign historically provoked millions to march in angry protest of his denigration of women on his first full day in office.
“The violence inflicted on [her] took many forms. Her husband beat her repeatedly, bashing her against the wall and kicking her, including while she was pregnant. He raped her on countless occasions.”
On Monday, Trump’s Attorney General announced that women who are victims of domestic violence should no longer be deemed to merit protection from our government in the form of political asylum.
Sessions’ action was shockingly tone deaf. As the wonderful Rebecca Solnit wrote in her 2013 essay “The Longest War:” “We have an abundance of rape and violence against women in this country and on this Earth, though it’s almost never treated as a civil rights or human rights issue, or a crisis, or even a pattern. Violence doesn’t have a race, a class, a religion, or a nationality, but it does have a gender.” The year after Solnit wrote those words, our Department of Justice took a step in the right direction. In recognizing domestic violence as a basis for asylum, our government was finally recognizing such gender-based abuse as a human rights issue, at least in the limited forum of immigration law.
“He also frequently threatened to kill her, at times holding a knife to her neck, and at other times brandishing a gun or, while she was pregnant, threatening to hang her from the ceiling by a rope.” The above were supported by sworn statements provided by the respondents’ neighbors.
It is only very recently that our society has begun to hold accountable those who commit gender-based abuses against women. #MeToo is a true civil rights movement, one that is so very long overdue. In opposing such movement, Jeff Sessions is casting himself as a modern day George Wallace. It bears repeating that no one, no one, was challenging the settled precedent that victims of domestic violence may be granted asylum as members of a particular social group. When the precedent case was before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Department of Homeland Security, i.e. the enforcement agency prosecuting the case, filed a brief in which it conceded that the group consisting of “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” satisfied all of the legal criteria, and was therefore a proper particular social group under the law. No one has appealed or challenged that determination in the four years since. Who is Jeff Sessions, who has never practiced immigration law in his life, to just toss out such determination because he and only he disagrees?
The respondent’s “husband controlled, humiliated, and isolated her from others. He insulted her ‘constantly,’ calling her a ‘slut’ or ‘dog.’ He did not want her to work outside the house and believed ‘a woman’s place was in the home like a servant.’ When he came home in the middle of the night, he forced her out of bed to serve him food, saying things like ‘Bitch, feed me.”
Like Wallace before him, who in 1963 stood in front of the door of the University of Alabama trying in vain to block the entry of four black students, Sessions is trying to block a national movement whose time has come. As with Wallace and the Civil Rights Movement, justice will eventually prevail. But now as then, people deserving of his protection will die in the interim.
“Although [her] husband frequently slept with other women, he falsely accused her of infidelity, at times removing her undergarments to inspect her genitals. He also beat their children in front of her, causing her serious psychological damage.”
The AG’s decision was intentionally released during the first day of the Immigration Judges’ Training Conference. There have been ideological-based appointments of immigration judges under both the Trump and Bush administrations. Several persons present at the conference reported that when the decision was announced, some immigration judges cheered. It was definitely a minority; the majority of immigration judges are very decent, caring people. But it was more than a few; one of my sources described it as “many,” another as “a noteworthy minority.”
Think about that: some federally appointed immigration judges cheered the fact that women who had been violently raped and beaten in their country can no longer find refuge here, and will be sent back to face more violence, and possibly death. Will there be any consequences for their actions? Were the many outstanding immigration judges who have been proud to grant such cases in the past, who were saddened and sickened by this decision, able to openly jeer or weep or curse this decision? Or would that have been viewed as dangerous?
The respondent “believes her life will be in danger” if returned to her country, “where her ex-husband, supported by his police officer brother, has vowed to kill her. She does not believe there is anywhere” in her country “she could find safety.
Victims of domestic violence will continue to file applications for asylum. They will argue before immigration judges that their claims meet the legal criteria even under the AG’s recent decision. Unfortunately, some of those applicants will have their cases heard by immigration judges who, when they heard that the woman whose claim was described in the italicized sections was denied asylum by Jeff Sessions, and will now likely be deported to suffer more such abuse or death, cheered.
The sections in italics are the facts of the asylum-seeker in Matter of A-B-, (including quotes from her appeal brief) who was denied asylum on Monday by Jeff Sessions.
Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
“Group Leader” Hon. Jeffrey Chase forwards these items:
Samantha Schmidt (long-lost “Cousin Sam?” sadly, no, but I’d be happy to consider her an honorary member of the “Wauwatosa Branch” of the Wisconsin Schmidt Clan) writes for the Washington Post:
Aminta Cifuentes suffered weekly beatings at the hands of her husband. He broke her nose, burned her with paint thinner and raped her.
She called the police in her native Guatemala several times but was told they could not interfere in a domestic matter, according to a court ruling. When Cifuentes’s husband hit her in the head, leaving her bloody, police came to the home but refused to arrest him. He threatened to kill her if she called authorities again.
So in 2005, Cifuentes fled to the United States. “If I had stayed there, he would have killed me,” she told the Arizona Republic.
And after nearly a decade of waiting on an appeal, Cifuentes was granted asylum. The 2014 landmark decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals set the precedent that women fleeing domestic violence were eligible to apply for asylum. It established clarity in a long-running debate over whether asylum can be granted on the basis of violence perpetrated in the “private” sphere, according to Karen Musalo, director for the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings College of the Law.
But on Monday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions overturned the precedent set in Cifuentes’s case, deciding that victims of domestic abuse and gang violence generally will not qualify for asylum under federal law. (Unlike the federal courts established under Article III of the Constitution, the immigration court system is part of the Justice Department.)
For critics, including former immigration judges, the unilateral decision undoes decades of carefully deliberated legal progress. For gender studies experts, such as Musalo, the move “basically throws us back to the Dark Ages, when we didn’t recognize that women’s rights were human rights.”
“If we say in the year 2018 that a woman has been beaten almost to death in a country that accepts that as almost the norm, and that we as a civilized society can deny her protection and send her to her death?” Musalo said. “I don’t see this as just an immigration issue … I see this as a women’s rights issue.”
. . . .
A group of 15 retired immigration judges and former members of the Board of Immigration Appeals wrote a letter in response to Sessions’s decision, calling it an “affront to the rule of law.”
The Cifuentes case, they wrote, “was the culmination of a 15 year process” through the immigration courts and Board of Immigration Appeals. The issue was certified by three attorneys general, one Democrat and two Republican. The private bar and law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, agreed with the final determination, the former judges wrote. The decision was also supported by asylum protections under international refugee treaties, they said.
“For reasons understood only by himself, the Attorney General today erased an important legal development that was universally agreed to be correct,” the former judges wrote.
Courts and attorneys general have debated the definition of a “particular social group” since the mid-1990s, according to Musalo.
“It took the refugee area a while to catch up with the human rights area of law,” Musalo said.
A series of cases led up to the Cifuentes decision. In 1996, the Board of Immigration Appeals established that women fleeing gender-based persecution could be eligible for asylum in the United States. The case, known as Matter of Kasinga, centered on a teenager who fled her home in Togo to escape female genital cutting and a forced polygamous marriage. Musalo was lead attorney in the case, which held that fear of female genital cutting could be used as a basis for asylum.
“Fundamentally the principle was the same,” as the one at stake in Sessions’s ruling, Musalo said. Female genital cutting, like domestic violence in the broader sense, generally takes place in the “private” sphere, inflicted behind closed doors by relatives of victims.
Musalo also represented Rody Alvarado, a Guatemalan woman who fled extreme domestic abuse and, in 2009, won an important asylum case after a 14-year legal fight. Her victory broke ground for other women seeking asylum on the basis of domestic violence.
Then, after years of incremental decisions, the Board of Immigration Appeals published its first precedent-setting opinion in the 2014 Cifuentes case, known as Matter of A-R-C-G.
“I actually thought that finally we had made some progress,” Musalo said. Although the impact wasn’t quite as pronounced as many experts had hoped, it was a step for women fleeing gender-based violence in Latin America and other parts of the world.
Now, Musalo says, Sessions is trying to undo all that and is doing so at a particularly monumental time for gender equality in the United States and worldwide.
“We’ve gone too far in society with the MeToo movement and all of the other advances in women’s rights to accept this principle,” Musalo said.
“It shows that there are these deeply entrenched attitudes toward gender and gender equality,” she added. “There are always those forces that are sort of the dying gasp of wanting to hold on to the way things were.”
. . . .
Paul Wickham Schmidt, a retired immigration judge and former chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals, wrote on his blog that Sessions sought to encourage immigration judges to “just find a way to say no as quickly as possible.” (Schmidt authored the decision in the Kasinga case extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation.)
Sessions’s ruling is “likely to speed up the ‘deportation railway,’ ” Schmidt wrote. But it will also encourage immigration judges to “cut corners, and avoid having to analyze the entire case,” he argued.
“Sessions is likely to end up with sloppy work and lots of Circuit Court remands for ‘do overs,’ ” Schmidt wrote. “At a minimum, that’s going to add to the already out of control Immigration Court backlog.”
Picking on our most vulnerable and denying them hard-earned legal protections that had been gained incrementally over the years. Certainly, can’t get much lower than that!
Whether you agree with Sessions’s reasoning or not, nobody should cheer or minimize the misfortune of others as Sessions does! The only difference between Sessions or any Immigration Judge and a refugee applicant is luck. Not merit! I’ve met many refugees, and never found one who wanted to be a refugee or even thought they would have to become a refugee.
An Attorney General who lacks fundamental integrity, human values, and empathy does not belong at the head of this important judicial system.
In my career, I’ve probably had to return or sign off on returning more individuals to countries where they didn’t want to go than anybody involved in the current debate. Some were good guys we just couldn’t fit into a badly flawed and overly restrictive system; a few were bad guys who deserved to go; some, in between. But, I never gloried in, celebrated, or minimized anyone’s suffering, removal, or misfortune. Different views are one thing; overt bias and lack of empathy is another.
Advocates and many judges say that the decision is extraordinary, not only because the attorney general took steps to overrule the court’s’ prior rulings, but because the decision that victims of certain kinds of violence can qualify for asylum has been previously reviewed over the course of decades.
A group of 15 former immigration judges signed a letter on June 11 calling the decision “an affront to the rule of law.” They point out that the decision Sessions overturned, a precedent cited in the “Matter of A-B-” decision that he was reviewing, had been certified by three attorney generals before him: one Democrat and two Republicans.
“For reasons understood only by himself, the Attorney General today erased an important legal development that was universally agreed to be correct,” the letter says. “Today we are deeply disappointed that our country will no longer offer legal protection to women seeking refuge from terrible forms of domestic violence from which their home countries are unable or unwilling to protect them.”
In his decision, Sessions said “private criminal activity,” specifically being a victim of domestic violence, does not qualify migrants for asylum. Rather, victims have to show each time that they are part of some distinct social group (a category in international and US law that allows people to qualify for refugee status) and were harmed because they are part of that group — and not for “personal reasons.”
Sessions said US law “does not provide redress for all misfortune. It applies when persecution arises on the account of membership in a protected group and the victim may not find protection except by taking refuge in another country.”
“Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-government actors will not qualify for asylum,” the decision reads. In a footnote, he also says that few of these cases would merit even being heard by judges in the first place because they would not pass the threshold of “credible fear.”
But attorney Karen Musalo says every case has to be decided individually. Muslao is the director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the UC Hastings College of the Law and has been representing women in immigration hearings for decades. She is concerned that some asylum officers will see this decision as a directive to turn people away from seeing a judge. “That’s patently wrong,” she says.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that conducts initial screenings for asylum cases (known as “credible fear interviews”) did not respond to a request for information about how the decision might change the work they do.
Musalo’s is among the attorneys representing A-B-, a Salvadoran woman identified only by her initials in court filings, whose case Sessions reviewed. Her center was part of a group that submitted a brief of over 700 pages in the case; that brief was not cited in Sessions’ decision. The brief reviewed impunity in El Salvador, for example, for those who commit violence against women and also had specific evidence about A-B- and how local police failed to protect her from domestic violence.
“What’s surprising is how deficient and flawed his understanding of the law and his reasoning is. The way he pronounces how certain concepts in refugee law should be understood and interpreted is sort of breath-taking,” says Musalo. “He was reaching for a result, so he was willing to distort legal principles and ignored the facts.”
To Musalo, this case is about more than asylum, though. She says it’s a surprising, damaging twist in the broader #MeToo movement. Sessions is “trying to turn back the clock on how we conceptualize protections for women and other individual,” she says. “In the bigger picture of ending violence against women, that’s just not an acceptable position for our country to take and we’re going to do everything we can to reverse that.”
That includes monitoring cases in the system now and making appeals in federal courts, which could overturn Sessions’ decision. Congress, Musalo says, could also take action.
Because Sessions controls the immigration courts, which are administrative courts that are part of the Department of Justice rather than part of the judiciary branch, immigration judges will have to follow his precedent in determining who qualifies for asylum. District court and other federal judges
Ashley Tabaddor, an immigration judge and president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said she was troubled by Sessions’ lack of explanation for why he intervened in this particular case.
The attorney general’s ability to “exercise veto power in our decision-making is an indication of why the court needs true independence” from the Justice Department, Tabaddor told the New York Times.
Immigration judge Dana Leigh Marks, the immigration judges association past president, says the group has been advocating for such independence for years.
“We have a political boss. The attorney general is our boss and political considerations allow him, under the current structure, to take certain cases from the Board of Immigration Appeals and to choose to rule on those cases in order to set policy and precedent,” she says. “Our organization for years has been arguing that … there’s a major flaw in this structure, that immigration courts are places where life and death cases are being heard.”
Therefore, she adds, they should be structured “like a traditional court.”
Sessions’ decision will have immediate implications for domestic violence victims currently seeking asylum in the US.
Naomi, who asked to be identified by a pseudonym because her case is pending in New York, is from Honduras. Her former boyfriend there threw hot oil at her, but hit her 4-year-old son instead. The boyfriend threatened them with a gun — she fled, ultimately coming to the US where she has some family. She told us that she tried to get the police to help, but they wouldn’t.
Naomi’s attorney, Heather Axford with Central American Legal Assistance in Brooklyn, said they might need to try a new argument to keep her client in the US.
“We need to come up with new ways to define a particular social group, we need to explore the possibility of when the facts lend themselves to a political opinion claim, and we need to make claims under the Convention Against Torture,” she told WNYC Monday. The US signed and ratified the Convention Against Torture in 1994.
Mary Hansel, deputy director of the International Human Rights Clinic at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, says the Sessions decision goes against US human rights obligations.
“An evolving body of international legal authorities indicates that a state’s failure to protect individuals (whether citizens or asylum seekers) from domestic violence may actually amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” Hansel writes in an email to PRI. In international human rights law, states need to protect individuals from harm. “Essentially, when women are forced to endure domestic violence without adequate redress, states are on the hook for allowing this to happen,”
Naomi’s story is horrific, but it is not unusual for women desperate to escape these situations to flee to the US. Many of these women had a high bar for winning an asylum case to begin with. They have to provide evidence that they were persecuted and documents to support their case. Sometimes, lawyers call expert witnesses to explain what is happening in their country of origin. Language barriers, lack of access to lawyers, contending with trauma and often being in detention during proceedings also contribute to making their cases exceptionally difficult.
Sessions’ decision will make it even harder.
In justifying tighter standards, Sessions often claims that there is fraud in the system and that asylum seekers have an easy time arguing their cases.
“We’ve had situations in which a person comes to the United States and says they are a victim of domestic violence, therefore they are entitled to enter the United States” Sessions told Phoenix radio station KTAR in May. “Well, that’s obviously false, but some judges have gone along with that.”
The Trump administration has taken several steps to clear the 700,000 cases pending in immigration court. At the end of May, Sessions instituted a quota system for immigration judges, requiring them to decide 700 cases each year and have fewer than 15 percent of cases be overturned on appeal.
Marks told NPR that the quota could hurt judicial independence. “The last thing on a judge’s mind should be pressure that you’re disappointing your boss or, even worse, risking discipline because you are not working fast enough,” she said.
According to TRAC, the courts decided more than 30,000 cases in the 2017 fiscal year compared to about 22,000 in 2016. Some 61.8 percent of these cases were denied; the agency does not report how many of the claims were due to domestic or gang violence, or for other reasons. For people from Central America, the denial rate is 75 to 80 percent. Ninety percent of those who don’t have attorneys lose their cases.
Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said Sessions’ overturned a decision in the “Matter of A-B-.”
**************************************
Here’s another one from Bea Bischoff at Slate:
How the attorney general is abusing a rarely used provision to rewrite legal precedent.
Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Alex Wong/Getty Images, Library of Congress.
On Monday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions told a group of immigration judges that while they are responsible for “ensur[ing] that our immigration system operates in a manner that is consistent with the laws,” Congress alone is responsible for rewriting those laws. Sessions then announced that he would be issuing a unilateral decision regarding asylum cases later in the day, a decision he told the judges would “provide more clarity” and help them “rule consistently and fairly.” The decision in Matter of A-B-, which came down shortly after his remarks, reverses asylum protections for victims of domestic violence and other persecution.
During his speech Sessions framed his decision in Matter of A-B- as a “correct interpretation of the law” that “advances the original intent” of our immigration statute. As a matter of law, Sessions’ decision is disturbing. It’s also alarming that this case ended up in front of the attorney general to begin with. Sessions is abusing a rarely used provision to rewrite our immigration laws—a function the attorney general himself said should be reserved for Congress. His zealous self-referral of immigration cases has been devastatingly effective. Sessions is quietly gutting immigration law, and there’s nothing stopping him from continuing to use this loophole to implement more vindictive changes.
Normally, an immigration judge is the first to hear and decide an immigration case. If the case is appealed, it goes in front of the Board of Immigration Appeals before being heard by a federal circuit court. In a peculiarity of immigration law, however, the attorney general is permitted to pluck cases straight from the Board of Immigration Appeals for personal review and adjudication. Sessions, who was famously denied a federal judgeship in 1986 because of accusations that he’d made racist comments, now seems to be indulging a lingering judicial fantasy by exploiting this provision to the fullest. Since January 2018, Sessions has referred four immigration cases to himself for adjudication, putting him on track to be one of the most prolific users of the self-referral provision since 1956, when attorneys general stopped regularly reviewing and affirming BIA cases. By comparison, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch certified a total four cases between them during the Obama administration.
Sessions is not using these cases to resolve novel legal issues or to ease the workload of DHS attorneys or immigration judges. Instead, he is using the self-referral mechanism to adjudicate cases that have the most potential to limit the number of people granted legal status in the United States, and he’s disregarding the procedural requirements set up to control immigration appeals in the process.
A close look at the Matter of A-B- case shows exactly how far out of bounds Sessions is willing to go. Matter of A-B- began when Ms. A-B- arrived in the United States from El Salvador seeking asylum. Ms. A-B- had been the victim of extreme brutality at the hands of her husband in El Salvador, including violent attacks and threats on her life. The local police did nothing to protect her. When it became clear it was only a matter of time before her husband tried to hurt her again, Ms. A-B- fled to the United States. Upon her arrival at the U.S. border, Ms. A-B- was detained in Charlotte, North Carolina. Her asylum case was set to be heard by Judge Stuart Couch, a notoriously asylum-averse judge who is especially resentful of claims based on domestic violence.
During her trial, Ms. A-B- testified about the persecution she’d faced at the hands of her husband and provided additional evidence to corroborate her claims. Despite the extensive evidence, Judge Couch found Ms. A-B-’s story was not credible and rejected her asylum claim. Ms. A-B- then appealed her case to the BIA. There, the board unanimously found that Ms. A-B-’s testimony was in fact credible and that she met the requirements for asylum. Per their protocol, the BIA did not grant Ms. A-B- asylum itself but rather sent the case back down to Judge Couch, who was tasked with performing the required background checks on Ms. A-B- and then issuing a grant of asylum in accordance with their decision.
Judge Couch, however, did not issue Ms. A-B- a grant of asylum, even after the Department of Homeland Security completed her background checks. Instead, he improperly tried to send the case back to the BIA without issuing a new decision, apparently because he was personally unconvinced of the “legal validity” of asylum claims based on domestic violence. Before the BIA touched the case again, Attorney General Sessions decided he ought to adjudicate it himself.
Sessions trampled over several crucial procedural requirements in his zeal to shut off asylum eligibility for vulnerablewomen.
After taking the case, Sessions asked for amicus briefs on the question of “whether … being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable ‘particular social group’ for purposes of an application for asylum.” The question of whether private criminal activity like domestic violence can in some instances lead to a grant of asylum had not been at issue in Matter of A-B-. The issue raised in Ms. A-B-’s case was whether her claims were credible, not whether asylum was available for victims of private criminal activity. In fact, persecution at the hand of a private actor who the government cannot or will not control is contemplated in the asylum statute itself and has been recognized as a grounds for asylum for decades. The question of whether domestic violence could sometimes warrant asylum also appeared to be firmly settled in a 2014 case known as Matter of A-R-C-G-.
The question the attorney general was seeking to answer was actually so settled that the Department of Homeland Security, the agency responsible for prosecuting immigration cases, submitted a timid brief to Sessions politely suggesting that he reconsider his decision to take on this case. “This matter does not appear to be in the best posture for the Attorney General’s review,” its brief argued, before outright acknowledging that the question of whether private criminal activity can form the basis of an asylum claim had already been clearly answered by the BIA. The attorney general, despite his alleged desire to simplify the jobs of immigration prosecutors and judges, ignored DHS’s concerns and denied the agency’s motion. “[BIA] precedent,” Sessions wrote in his denial, “does not bind my ultimate decision in this matter.” Sessions, in short, was going to rewrite asylum law whether DHS liked it or not.
Sessions not only ignored DHS concerns about the case but, as 16 former immigration judges pointed out in their amicus brief, trampled over several crucial procedural requirements in his zeal to shut off asylum eligibility for vulnerable women. First, he failed to require Couch, the original presiding judge, to make a final decision before sending the case back to the BIA. The regulations controlling immigration appeals allow an immigration judge to send a case to the BIA only after a decision has been issued by the original judge. Next, Sessions failed to wait for the BIA to adjudicate the case before snapping it up for his personal analysis. Even if Judge Couch hadn’t improperly sent the case back to the BIA, Sessions was obligated to wait for the BIA to decide the case before intervening. The self-referral provision permits the attorney general to review BIA decisions, not cases that are merely awaiting adjudication.
Finally, and perhaps most tellingly, the question Sessions sought to answer in this case, namely “whether … being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable ‘particular social group’ for purposes of an application for asylum” was not a question considered by any court in Matter of A-B-. Rather, it was one Sessions seemingly lifted directly from hardline immigration restrictionists, knowing that the answer had the potential to all but eliminate domestic violence–based asylum claims.
On June 11, after receiving 11 amicus briefs in support of asylum-seekers like Ms. A-B- and only one against, the attorney general ruled that private activity is not grounds for asylum, including in cases of domestic violence. Ms. A-B-’s case, in Sessions’ hands, became a vehicle by which to rewrite our asylum laws without waiting on Congress.
The attorney general’s other self-referred decisions are likewise plagued by questionable procedure. In Matter of E-F-H-L-, Sessions seized on a case from 2014 as an opportunity undo the longstanding requirement that asylum applicants be given the opportunity for a hearing. Like in Matter of A-B-, Sessions did procedural somersaults to insert himself into Matter of E-F-H-L-, using a recent decision by the immigration judge in the case to close the proceedings without deciding the asylum claim as grounds to toss out the original BIA ruling on the right to a hearing. Without so much as a single phone call to Congress, Sessions effectively rescinded the requirement that asylum seekers are entitled to full hearings. He also mandated that the judge reopen Mr. E-F-H-L-’s case years after he thought he was safe from deportation.
In Matter of Castro-Tum, a case Sessions referred to himself in January, he used his powers to make life more difficult for both immigrants and immigration judges by banning the use of “administrative closure” in removal proceedings. Administrative closure allowed immigration judges to choose to take cases off their dockets, indefinitely pausing removal proceedings. In Matter of Castro-Tum, Sessions made a new rule that sharply curtails the use of the practice and allows DHS prosecutors to ask that judges reschedule old closed cases. The result? The potential deportation of more than 350,000 immigrants whose cases were previously closed. In addition, judges now have so many hearings on their dockets that they are scheduling trials in 2020.
As CLINIC, an immigration advocacy group, pointed out, Sessions appeared be using his decision in Matter of Castro-Tum to improperly develop a new rule on when judges can administratively close immigration cases. Normally, such a new rule would need to go through a fraught bureaucratic process under the Administrative Procedures Act before being implemented. Instead of going through that lengthy process, however, Sessions simply decreed the new rule in his decision, bypassing all the usual procedural requirements.
The cases that Sessions has chosen to decide and the procedural leaps he’s taken to adjudicate them show that his goal is to ensure that fewer people are permitted to remain in the United States, Congress be damned. So far, his plan seems to be working. As a result of Sessions’ decision in Matter of A-B-, thousands of women—including many of the women who are currently detained after having their children torn from their arms at our border—will be shut out of asylum proceedings and deported to their countries of origin to await death at the hands of their abusers.
While Sessions’ decisions trump BIA precedent, they do not override precedent set by the federal circuit courts on immigration matters, much of which contradicts the findings he’s made in his decisions. While immigration attorneys are scrambling to protect their clients with creative new advocacy strategies, the only real way to stop Sessions’ massacre is to listen to him when he says Congress needs to fix our immigration laws. In doing so, the legislative branch could not only revise our immigration system to offer meaningful paths to legal status for those currently shut out of the system, but could eliminate the needless attorney general review provision altogether and force Sessions to keep his hands out of immigration case law.
*****************************************
Sessions’s shameless abuses of our Constitution, Due Process, fundamental fairness, the true rule of law, international standards, common morality, and basic human values are beyond astounding.
I agree with Bea that this requires a legislative solution to 1) establish once and for all that gender based asylum fits squarely within the “particular social group” definition; and 2) establish a U.S. Immigration Court that is independent of the Executive Branch.
A few problems, though:
Not going to happen while the GOP is in control of all branches of Government. They can’t even get a “no brainer” like DACA relief done. Trump and his White Nationalist brigade including Sessions are now firmly in control.
If you don’t win elections, you don’t get to set the agenda. Trump’s popularity has consistently been below 50%. Yet the majority who want to preserve American Democracy and human decency have let the minority control the agenda. If good folks aren’t motivated to vote, the country will continue its descent into the abyss.
No more Obama Administrations, at least on immigration. The Dreamer fiasco, the implosion of the Immigration Courts, and the need for gender protections to be written into asylum law were all very well-known problems when Obama and the Dems swept into office with a brief, yet significant, veto proof Congress. The legislative fix was hardly rocket science. Yet, Obama’s leadership failed, his Cabinet was somewhere between weak and incompetent on immigration, and the Dems on the Hill diddled. As a result “Dreamers” have been left to dangle in the wind — a bargaining chip for the restrictionist agenda; children are being abused on a daily basis as a matter of official policy under Sessions; women and children are being returned to death and torture; and the U.S. Immigration Courts have abandoned Due Process and are imploding in their role as a “junior Border Patrol.” Political incompetence and malfeasance have “real life consequences.” And, they aren’t pretty!
There have been some bright spots for the Dems in recent races. But, the November outcome is still totally up for grabs. If the Trump led GOP continues its stranglehold on all branches of Government, not only will children suffer and women die, but there might not be enough of American Democracy left to save by 2020.
The massive asylum changes Jeff Sessions tucked into the footnotes
By Tal Kopan, CNN
When Attorney General Jeff Sessions ruled that domestic violence and gang victims are not likely to qualify for asylum in the US, he undercut potentially tens of thousands of claims each year for people seeking protection.
But in a footnote of his ruling, Sessions also telegraphed a desire for more sweeping, immediate reinterpretations of US asylum law that could result in turning people away at the border before they ever see a judge.
Sessions wrote that since “generally” asylum claims on the basis of domestic or gang violence “will not qualify for asylum,” few claims will meet the “credible fear” standard in an initial screening as to whether an immigrant can pursue their claim before a judge. That means asylum seekers may end up being turned back at the border, a major change from current practice.
“When you put it all together, this is his grand scheme to just close any possibility for people seeking protection — legally — to claim that protection that they can under the law,” said Ur Jaddou, a former chief counsel at US Citizenship and Immigration Services now at immigration advocacy group America’s Voice. “He’s looking at every possible way to end it. And he’s done it one after the other.”
The Trump administration has focused on asylum claims — a legal way to stay in the US under domestic and international law — characterizing them as a “loophole” in the system. The problem, they say, is many claims are unsuccessful, but in the meantime as immigrants wait out a lengthy court process, they are allowed to live and work in the US and build lives there, leading some to go into hiding.
I strongly recommend that you go on over to CNN at the link to read Tal’s amazing and incisive analysis of Jeff Sessions’s insidious plan to destroy US protection laws and undermine our entire Constitutional system of justice to further his obscene White Nationalist agenda.
For those of you who read “Courtside” on a regular basis, it’s no secret that I’m a “Charter Member” of the “Tal Kopan Fan Club.” I have total admiration for her amazing work ethic, ability to understand and simplify one of the most complex subjects in US law and politics, and to turn out such tightly written, gobbledygook free copy on a regular basis.
In my view, even for a superstar like Tal, this is one of her “best ever” articles, and one that every American interested in saving lives, preserving our refugee and asylum laws, retaining our Constitutional system of Due Process, and remaining a nation of “values rather than men” in light of a totally unprincipled attack by an Attorney General unqualified for office should read and digest Tal’s analysis!
How disingenuous a scofflaw is Jeff Sessions? As Tal mentions, in FN 8 of Matter of A-B-, Sessions takes aim at the well-established principle of asylum law that “family” is a qualifying “particular social group.”
Now, lets hear what a “real” Article III Court, one not bound to a restrictionist White Nationalist anti-asylum agenda, and where they judges don’t work for Jeff Sessions, has to say about “family” as a particular social group:”
The INA does not expressly define the term “particular social group,” but we have recently considered its meaning. See Lizama v. Holder,629 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2011).4 We there concluded that Chevron deference should be accorded to the BIA’s long-standing interpretation of “particular social group” as “a group of persons all of whom share a common, immutable characteristic,” Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 233 (BIA 1985), overruled on other grounds by Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I. & N. Dec. 439 (BIA 1987). See Lizama, 629 F.3d at 447. This “immutability” test, first articulated in the BIA’s seminal Acosta case, requires that group members share a characteristic that “the members of the group either cannot change, or should not be required to change because it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences.” 19 I. & N. Dec. at 233.
The Crespins’ proposed group satisfies this test. Acosta itself identifies “kinship ties” as paradigmatically immutable, see id., and the BIA has since affirmed that family bonds are innate and unchangeable. See In re C-A, 23 I. & N. Dec. 951, 959 (BIA 2006); In re H-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 337, 342 (BIA 1996) (accepting “clan membership” as a particular social
[632 F.3d 125]
group because it was “inextricably linked to family ties”). Accordingly, every circuit to have considered the question has held that family ties can provide a basis for asylum. See Al-Ghorbani v. Holder,585 F.3d 980, 995 (6th Cir.2009); Ayele v. Holder,564 F.3d 862, 869 (7th Cir.2009); Jie Lin v. Ashcroft,377 F.3d 1014, 1028 (9th Cir.2004); Gebremichael v. INS,10 F.3d 28, 36 (1st Cir.1993). We agree; the family provides “a prototypical example of a `particular social group.'” Sanchez-Trujillo v. INS,801 F.2d 1571, 1576 (9th Cir. 1986).
The BIA committed legal error by concluding to the contrary. That error flowed from the fact that, as the Government concedes, the BIA’s removal order rejected a group different from that which the Crespins proposed. The BIA concluded that “those who actively oppose gangs in El Salvador by agreeing to be prosecutorial witnesses” does not constitute a cognizable social group. But the Crespins did not so contend. Rather, they maintained, and continue to maintain, that family members of those witnesses constitute such a group. The BIA later essentially admitted this error, acknowledging in its denial of Crespin’s motion to reconsider that it does “not dispute that family membership can give rise to membership in a particular social group under certain circumstances.” The BIA nonetheless affirmed its original order, asserting that the Crespins’ proposed social group was insufficiently “particular[ ]” because “anyone who testified against MS-13, as well as all of their family members, would potentially be included.” Again the BIA inaccurately characterized the Crespins’ proposed social group. Indeed, the Crespins’ proposed group excludes persons who merely testify against MS-13; the Crespins’ group instead encompasses only the relatives of such witnesses, testifying against MS-13, who suffer persecution on account of their family ties. The BIA never explained why this group stretches beyond the bounds of particularity.
Moreover, the precedent on which the BIA relied requires only that “the group have particular and well-defined boundaries” such that it constitutes a “discrete class of persons.” Matter of S-E-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 579, 582, 584 (BIA 2008). The family unit—centered here around the relationship between an uncle and his nephew—possesses boundaries that are at least as “particular and well-defined” as other groups whose members have qualified for asylum. See, e.g., Urbina-Mejia v. Holder, 597 F.3d 360, 365-66 (6th Cir.2010) (former gang members); Tapiero de Orejuela v. Gonzales,423 F.3d 666, 672 (7th Cir.2005) (“the educated, landowning class of cattle farmers”); Safaie v. INS,25 F.3d 636, 640 (8th Cir.1994) (“Iranian women who advocate women’s rights or who oppose Iranian customs relating to dress and behavior”), superseded by statute on other grounds, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009, as recognized in Rife v. Ashcroft,374 F.3d 606, 614 (8th Cir.2004).
Finally, the BIA opined that the proposed group lacked the requisite “social visibility” of a particular social group. This was also error.5 Indeed, the BIA itself has previously stated that “[s]ocial
[632 F.3d 126]
groups based on innate characteristics such as … family relationship are generally easily recognizable and understood by others to constitute social groups.” In re C-A, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 959. In fact, we can conceive of few groups more readily identifiable than the family. See Sanchez-Trujillo, 801 F.2d at 1576. This holds particularly true for Crespin’s family, given that Crespin and his uncle publicly cooperated with the prosecution of their relative’s murder.
In sum, the BIA’s conclusion that Crespin failed to demonstrate his membership in a “particular social group” was manifestly contrary to law.
Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 124-26 (4th Cir. 2011).
Outrageously, Sessions is suggesting taking a position that has been held by the Article III Courts to be “manifestly contrary to law.” Could there be a clearer example of a “scofflaw?”
And, lets not forget the cause for which Sessions is prostituting himself and the law. Contrary to Sessions’s suggestion that these are just ordinary folks seeking a better life, he is actually proposing to summarily remove mostly women and children who face a specific, very real chance of rape, torture, beatings, and death because of their position, gender, and resistance to the forces perpetrating persecution in El Salvador who are closely aligned with or operate largely with impunity from the Government, in fact if not in the mythical version that Sessions portrays.
In plain terms, Jeff Sessions is advocating that we pass a potential “death sentence” on the most vulnerable among us without giving them a fair hearing or actually considering the many ways in which protections laws could be used to save their lives. Even if Sessions were legally correct (which he certainly isn’t) removing basically defenseless individuals to places where they face such a deadly future would be both cowardly and highly immoral.
Finally, as I have pointed out before, the real plan here, which will go into effect almost immediately, is to have USCIS Asylum, Officers and Immigration Judges who now are all considered “partners” in the enforcement mechanism by Sessions, deny almost all “credible fear” claims based on Sessions’s yet untested decision in Matter of A-B-. Therefore, unless the Article III Courts decide to enforce the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, a duty which to date they have fairly consistently shirked in connection with the “credible fear process,” most current and future arrivals will be shipped out without any access to the hearing process at all — in other words, without even a veneer of fairness, impartiality, and Due Process.
Advocates had better get busy with a better plan to get the illegal aspects of the “deportation express” before the Article IIIs. Otherwise, vulnerable women and children are going to be condemned to death and /or torture with no process at all! Think we’re not witnessing the “decline and fall” of our republic. Guess again!
What have we come to as a nation when a corrupt and biased individual like Sessions purports to “speak for America?”
Stand up for Due Process and human values! Oppose Jeff Sessions and his restrictionist agenda!
************************************
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, “Midnight Writer” Tal reports on the GOP’s “DACA negotiations.”
House DACA deal in final stages: ‘Crossing the Ts’
By: Tal Kopan, CNN
Republican negotiations on a House immigration bill that would fix the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program are in the final stages, key lawmakers said as they left a secretive meeting in the House basement on Wednesday.
Both moderates and conservatives are coming together on an outline of a bill brought on by weeks of negotiations behind closed doors, as leadership brought the two wings of the party together to avert rebellions on both sides.
After a breakthrough agreement on how to proceed Tuesday — and arm twisting by leadership — that cut off moderates’ efforts to buck leadership control of the floor, talks Wednesday centered around hammering out the details of the policy itself.
The progress in negotiations sets the stage for votes on immigration on the House floor next week, which will include a vote on a conservative proposal that is not believed to have the support to pass and a separate compromise being written that will stem from the negotiations currently in progress.
Though the bills’ fates are still unclear and it’s possible neither passes the House — let alone moves in the Senate — the prospect of Republicans having a debate and vote on the political third rail of immigration on the House floor the summer before midterm elections was unthinkable just months ago.
“We’re just doing the cleanup stuff from the negotiations that (Reps) Raul (Labrador) and Carlos (Curbelo) did yesterday,” said conservative Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows as he left member negotiations Wednesday. “So we’re just trying to dot our I’s and cross our T’s.”
“We’re just about there,” Curbelo said. “I think we’ll definitely see text this week.”
What’s in it
CNN has obtained a draft from a source close to the negotiations of the outline lawmakers are working from to write the bill, which, when described to Curbelo, was confirmed as largely still what they’re working on minus a few “details filled in.” The broader GOP conference was briefed on the toplines of the bill in a Wednesday morning meeting.
Sounds to me like another wasteful “legislative charade” on the way from the GOP. The only “Dreamer bill” that actually could pass both houses would be one pushed by a bipartisan group of legislators. But, GOP leadership has no interest in such a solution, nor does Trump.
Therefore, I predict that Dreamers will continue to “twist in the wind” while the Federal Courts ruminate about their fate.
Retired Immigration Judges and Former Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals Statement in Response to Attorney General’s Decision in Matter of A-B-.
As former Immigration Judges with decades of experience at the trial and appellate level, we consider the Attorney General’s decision an affront to the rule of law. As former judges, we understand that in order to be fair, case law must develop through a process of impartial judicial analysis applying statute, regulations, case law, and other proper sources to the facts of the case.
The life-or-death consequences facing asylum applicants makes it extremely important to keep such analysis immune from the political considerations that appointed cabinet members are subject to.
The BIA’s acknowledgment that a victim of domestic violence may qualify for asylum as a member of a
particular social group was the culmination of a 15 year process through the immigration courts and BIA. The issue was certified by three different Attorneys General (one Democrat and two Republican), who all chose in the end to leave the final determination to the immigration judges and the BIA. The private bar, law enforcement agencies (including DHS), the BIA, and the circuit courts all agreed with this final determination.
What is more, a person who suffers persecution that is perpetrated by private parties whom their government cannot or will not control, is equally eligible for asylum protection under both US law and international refugee treaties.
For reasons understood only by himself, the Attorney General today erased an important legal development
that was universally agreed to be correct. Today we are deeply disappointed that our country will no longer offer legal protection to women seeking refuge from terrible forms of domestic violence from which their home countries are unable or unwilling to protect them. We hope that appellate courts or Congress through legislation will reverse this unilateral action and return the rule of law to asylum adjudications.
Sincerely,
Honorable Steven R. Abrams
Honorable Sarah M. Burr
Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase
Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn
Honorable Cecelia Espenoza
Honorable Noel Ferris
Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr.
Honorable William P. Joyce
Honorable Carol King
Honorable Elizabeth A. Lamb
Honorable Margaret McManus
Honorable Susan Roy
Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg
Honorable Paul W. Schmidt
Honorable Polly A. Webber
1
AILA Doc. No. 18061134. (Posted 6/11/18)
List of Retired Immigration Judges and Former BIA Members
The Honorable Steven R. Abrams served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1997 to 2013 at JFK Airport, Varick Street, and 26 Federal Plaza. From 1979 to 1997, he worked for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in various capacities, including a general attorney; district counsel; a Special U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York and Alaska. Presently lectures on Immigration law in Raleigh, NC.
The Honorable Sarah M. Burr served as a U.S. Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 and was appointed as Assistant Chief Immigration Judge in charge of the New York, Fishkill, Ulster, Bedford Hills and Varick Street immigration courts in 2006. She served in this capacity until January 2011, when she returned to the bench full-time until she retired in 2012. Prior to her appointment, she worked as a staff attorney for the Criminal Defense Division of the Legal Aid Society in its trial and appeals bureaus and also as the supervising attorney in its immigration unit. She currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Immigrant Justice Corps.
The Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1995 to 2007 and was an attorney advisor and senior legal advisor at the Board from 2007 to 2017. He is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and is of counsel to the law firm of DiRaimondo & Masi in New York City. Prior to his appointment, he was a sole practitioner and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First. He also was the recipient of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s annual pro bono award in 1994 and chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.
The Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn served as a United States Immigration Judge in Los Angeles from 1990 to 2007. He now serves as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California, and a Visiting Professor of International, Immigration, and Refugee Law at the University of Oxford, England. He is also a contributing op-ed columnist at D.C.-based The Hill newspaper. He is a member of the Bars of Washington D.C., New York, Pennsylvania, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Honorable Cecelia M. Espenoza served as a Member of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) Board of Immigration Appeals from 2000-2003 and in the Office of the General Counsel from 2003- 2017 where she served as Senior Associate General Counsel, Privacy Officer, Records Officer and Senior FOIA Counsel. She is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and a member of the World Bank’s Access to Information Appeals Board. Prior to her EOIR appointments, she was a law professor at St. Mary’s University (1997-2000) and the University of Denver College of Law (1990-1997) where she taught Immigration Law and Crimes and supervised students in the Immigration and Criminal Law Clinics. She has published several articles on Immigration Law. She is a graduate of the University of Utah and the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law. She was recognized as the University of Utah Law School’s Alumna of the Year in 2014 and received the Outstanding Service Award from the Colorado Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in 1997 and the Distinguished Lawyer in Public Service Award from the Utah State Bar in 1989-1990.
The Honorable Noel Ferris served as an Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 to 2013 and an attorney advisor to the Board from 2013 to 2016, until her retirement. Previously, she served as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York from 1985 to 1990 and as Chief of the Immigration Unit from 1987 to 1990.
The Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr. served as a U.S. Immigration Judge from 1982 until his retirement in 2013 and is the former president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. At the time of his retirement, he was the third most senior immigration judge in the United States. Judge Gossart was awarded the Attorney General Medal by then Attorney General Eric Holder. From 1975 to 1982, he served in various positions with the former Immigration Naturalization Service, including as general attorney, naturalization attorney, trial attorney, and deputy assistant commissioner for naturalization. He is also the co-author of the National Immigration Court Practice Manual, which is used by all practitioners throughout the United States in
2
AILA Doc. No. 18061134. (Posted 6/11/18)
immigration court proceedings. From 1997 to 2016, Judge Gossart was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law teaching immigration law, and more recently was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Maryland School of Law also teaching immigration law. He has been a faculty member of the National Judicial College, and has guest lectured at numerous law schools, the Judicial Institute of Maryland and the former Maryland Institute for the Continuing Education of Lawyers. He is also a past board member of the Immigration Law Section of the Federal Bar Association. Judge Gossart served in the United States Army from 1967 to 1969 and is a veteran of the Vietnam War.
The Honorable William P. Joyce served as an Immigration Judge in Boston, Massachusetts. Subsequent to retiring from the bench, he has been the Managing Partner of Joyce and Associates with 1,500 active immigration cases. Prior to his appointment to the bench, he served as legal counsel to the Chief Immigration Judge. Judge Joyce also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Associate General Counsel for enforcement for INS. He is a graduate of Georgetown School of Foreign Service and Georgetown Law School.
The Honorable Carol King served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2017 in San Francisco and was a temporary Board member for six months between 2010 and 2011. She previously practiced immigration law for ten years, both with the Law Offices of Marc Van Der Hout and in her own private practice. She also taught immigration law for five years at Golden Gate University School of Law and is currently on the faculty of the Stanford University Law School Trial Advocacy Program. Judge King now works as a Removal Defense Strategist, advising attorneys and assisting with research and writing related to complex removal defense issues. The Honorable Elizabeth A. Lamb
Judge Margaret McManus was appointed as an Immigration Judge in 1991 and retired from the bench after twenty-seven years in January 2018. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the Catholic University of America in 1973, and a Juris Doctorate from Brooklyn Law School in 1983. Judge McManus was an attorney for Marion Ginsberg, Esquire from 1989 to 1990 in New York. She was in private practice in 1987 and 1990, also in New York. Judge McManus worked as a consultant to various nonprofit organizations on immigration matters including Catholic Charities and Volunteers of Legal Services from 1987 to 1988 in New York. She was an adjunct clinical law professor for City University of New York Law School from 1988 to 1989. Judge McManus served as a staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society, Immigration Unit, in New York, from 1983 to 1987. She is a member of the New York Bar.
The Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg served on the Board from 1995 to 2002. She then served as Director of the Defending Immigrants Partnership of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association from 2002 until 2004. Prior to her appointment, she worked with the American Immigration Law Foundation from 1991 to 1995. She was also an adjunct Immigration Professor at American University Washington College of Law from 1997 to 2004. She is the founder of IDEAS Consulting and Coaching, LLC., a consulting service for immigration lawyers, and is the author of Immigration Law and Crimes. She currently works as Senior Advisor for the Immigrant Defenders Law Group.
The Honorable Susan Roy started her legal career as a Staff Attorney at the Board of Immigration Appeals, a position she received through the Attorney General Honors Program. She served as Assistant Chief Counsel, National Security Attorney, and Senior Attorney for the DHS Office of Chief Counsel in Newark, NJ, and then became an Immigration Judge, also in Newark. Sue has been in private practice for nearly 5 years, and two years ago, opened her own immigration law firm. Sue is the NJ AILA Chapter Liaison to EOIR, is the Vice Chair of
was appointed as an Immigration Judge in September 1995. She received
a Bachelor of Arts degree from the College of Mt. St. Vincent in 1968, and a Juris Doctorate in 1975 from St.
John’s University. From 1983 to 1995, she was in private practice in New York. Judge Lamb also served as an
adjunct professor at Manhattan Community College from 1990 to 1992. From 1987 to 1995, Judge Lamb
served as an attorney for the Archdiocese of New York as an immigration consultant. From 1980 to 1983, she
worked as senior equal employment attorney for the St. Regis Paper Company in West Mark, New York. From
1978 to 1980, Judge Lamb served as a lawyer for the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services in
New York. She is a member of the New York Bar.
3
AILA Doc. No. 18061134. (Posted 6/11/18)
the Immigration Law Section of the NJ State Bar Association, and in 2016 was awarded the Outstanding Pro Bono Attorney of the Year by the NJ Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.
The Honorable Paul W. Schmidt served as an Immigration Judge from 2003 to 2016 in Arlington, virginia. He previously served as Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals from 1995 to 2001, and as a Board Member from 2001 to 2003. He authored the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1995) extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation. He served as Deputy General Counsel of the former INS from 1978 to 1987, serving as Acting General Counsel from 1986-87 and 1979-81. He was the managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Fragomen, Del Rey & Bernsen from 1993 to 1995, and practiced business immigration law with the Washington, D.C. office of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue from 1987 to 1992, where he was a partner from 1990 to 1992. He served as an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University School of Law in 1989, and at Georgetown University Law Center from 2012 to 2014 and 2017 to present. He was a founding member of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ), which he presently serves as Americas Vice President. He also serves on the Advisory Board of AYUDA, and assists the National Immigrant Justice Center/Heartland Alliance on various projects; and speaks, writes and lectures at various forums throughout the country on immigration law topics. He also created the immigration law blog immigrationcourtside.com.
The Honorable Polly A. Webber served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2016 in San Francisco, with details in Tacoma, Port Isabel, Boise, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Orlando Immigration Courts. Previously, she practiced immigration law from 1980 to 1995 in her own private practice in San Jose, California, initially in partnership with the Honorable Member of Congress, Zoe Lofgren. She served as National President of AILA from 1989 to 1990 and was a national officer in AILA from 1985 to 1991. She has also taught Immigration and Nationality Law for five years at Santa Clara University School of Law. She has spoken at seminars and has published extensively in this field, and is a graduate of Hastings College of the Law (University of California), J.D., and the University of California, Berkeley, A.B., Abstract Mathematics.
4
AILA Doc. No. 18061134. (Posted 6/11/18)
****************************************
The AP already picked up our statement in this article:
U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, said the decision was “despicable and should be immediately reversed.” And 15 former immigration judges and Board of Immigration Appeals members signed a letter calling Sessions’ decision “an affront to the rule of law.”
“For reasons understood only by himself, the Attorney General today erased an important legal development that was universally agreed to be correct,” the former judges wrote. “Today we are deeply disappointed that our country will no longer offer legal protection to women seeking refuge from terrible forms of domestic violence from which their home countries are unable or unwilling to protect them.”
******************************************
Also, I was quoted in this article by Alan Pyke posted yesterday in ThinkProgress:
The attorney general also took care to remind the judges that his decisions aren’t advice from a fellow lawyer but binding instructions from their one true boss. Though they are termed “judges” and wear robes behind a bench in court, the immigration judiciary is essentially a staff arm of the Attorney General rather than the independent arbiters that most envision when hearing their job titles.
Sessions’ frank expression of expectations was jarring to retired immigration judge Paul Schmidt. When attorneys general addressed the training conference in the past, Schmidt said, they stuck to the kind of collegial rah-rah stuff common to executives addressing underappreciated staff — but also stressed an expectation of careful, diligent, and independent professional conduct.
“I’ve never seen an AG come and basically tell the judges they’re part of the border enforcement effort. It’s outrageous,” Schmidt said. “Whether they’re inside DOJ or not, this is supposed to be an administrative court that exercises independent judgment and decisionmaking. And he’s reduced to to where they’re little enforcement officers running around carrying out the AG’s border policies.”
Sessions did go briefly off-book on Monday to offer one conciliatory note, looking up from his notes after calling the current backlog in immigration courts“unacceptable” to acknowledge that it’s been a tougher problem than he expected. “We thought we could get those numbers down, but they’re not going down yet,” Sessions said, before returning to his prepared remarks. He did not acknowledge that his own policies have contributed to the swelling of the backlog, which hit an all-time high in May.
Immigration court backlog hits all-time high, days before Sessions speech to immigration judges
Sessions is redrawing lines more tightly atop an already perversely narrow system.
A separate ruling last Friday helps underline the severity of the limits on traumatized migrants’ rights to seek protection in the United States. In a decision pertaining to the immigration courts’ handling of those accused of providing “material support” to terrorist organizations abroad, the Board of Immigration Appeals decided even labor compelled with death threats counts as grounds to bar someone from the United States.
The Salvadoran woman whose appeals gave rise to the case had been married to a sergeant in El Salvador’s army during a bloody civil war there. Guerrillas kidnapped the woman and her husband, made her watch as he dug his own grave and was shot dead, then made her wash clothes and do other menial chores for the rebel fighters while in captivity.
This clothes-washing and death-avoiding makes her, in the DOJ’s immigration overseers’ eyes, a terrorist no better than the unnamed group — presumably the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMNL) — who killed her husband in front of her and forced her into servitude.
The board denied her appeals and used the case to set a broader line across all immigration courts. Violently coerced labor while imprisoned by a terror organization will permanently bar you from crossing the U.S. border to seek protection. If you try it, we’ll send you back to your captors — presumably after first taking your kids away from you, pursuant to Sessions’ new policy mandating all immigrants crossing the border without documentation be referred to criminal court and thus separated from any minors who accompanied them.
This piece has been updated with additional context about Sessions’ immigration policies and further perspective from immigration policy experts.
Read Alan’s full analysis at the above link. According to many observers, the “small aside” by Sessions in the article is the closest he’s ever come to accepting responsibility for a mess that he, the Trump Administration, and the two previous Administrations actually have caused with their horrible and highly politicized mismanagement of the U.S Immigration Courts.
For the most part, the ever disingenuous Sessions, has tried to shift blame for his gross mismanagement to the victims: migrants (particularly asylum seekers); private attorneys (particularly those heroic attorneys performing pro bono); and the beleaguered, totally demoralized U.S. Immigration Judges themselves who have been stripped of dignity, wrongfully accused of laziness, and placed under inane, sophomoric, “performance standards” — incredibly developed by Sessions and other politicos and “Ivory tower” bureaucrats who have never themselves been Immigration Judges, have no idea what is happening in Immigration Court, and are driven entirely by political bias and/or a desire to keep their comfy jobs on the 5th floor of the DOJ or in the Falls Church Tower — well away from the results of the havoc they are wreaking on local Immigration Courts every day!
What a way to “manage” one of the nation’s largest and most important court systems! The real blame here goes to Congress which created this awful mess, yet has done nothing to remove this joke of a system from the toxic incompetence of the DOJ and create an independent court system where fairness, Due Process, quality, respect, and efficient, unbiased decision-making will be the hallmarks!
*********************************
UPDATE:
The fabulous Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis also reminds me that our statement was the “banner, above the fold” headline on today’s bibdailyonline!
Here’s the link which also includes tons of other “great stuff” that Dan publishes!
When Attorney General Jeff Sessions issues his decision in Matter of A-B- (the case he certified to himself to decide whether “being a victim of private criminal activity” can constitute a particular social group for asylum purposes), it may negatively impact those asylum applicants who fear gang violence on account of their membership in a particular social group. Attorneys representing such claimants should consider whether their clients may alternatively claim a well-founded fear of persecution based on their political opinion under a “third-generation gang” theory, supported by country condition evidence.
In their article ‘Third Generation’ Gangs, Warfare in Central America, and Refugee Law’s Political Opinion Ground,1 Deborah Anker and Palmer Lawrence make a very important point: that “the Refugee Convention’s concept of political opinion incorporates ‘any opinion on any matter in which the machinery of the State, government, and policy may be engaged,’ or that of other persecutory agents where the state is unwilling or unable to provide protection” (citing Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 746 (Can.)).
Relying on this broad interpretation of political opinion, Anker and Lawrence next note that some military and law enforcement experts have concluded that the larger Central American gangs (including MS-13 and Mara 18) “have developed a degree of politicization, sophistication, and international reach to qualify them as ‘third generation gangs,’” which “function as de facto governments, controlling significant territory (competing with the state for power).” Anker and Lawrence cite Lieutenant Colonel Howard L. Gray, Gangs and Transnational Criminals Threaten Central American Stability, 7 U.S. Army War College, Strategy Research Project (2009)); in documenting such claims, practitioners should also reference John P. Sullivan and Robert J. Bunker, “Third Generation Gang Studies: An Introduction,” 14-4 Journal of Gang Research 1 (Summer 2007), and “Third General Gangs Strategic Note No. 1: Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) 500 Man Commando Unit Planned for El Salvador,” Small Wars Journal, Sept. 10, 2016. The last article quotes Douglas Farah, Visiting Senior Fellow, National Defense University Center for Complex Operations as stating that “The MS has strong political and military ambitions and now views itself as political/military rather than a gang…MS 13 now has troops, weapons, and a cause…efforts to form a joint force with the 18 is less likely but both sides are in discussion to at least have lines of communication open.”2
Under the definition of political opinion cited above, gangs such as MS-13 and Mara 18 are at least other persecutory agents from which the state is unable or unwilling to provide protection. Such gangs might also be the de facto “state” itself in areas they control. The idea that opinions or matters that engage such gangs might constitute political opinion finds support from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which has recently published Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Guatemala (January 2018), El Salvador (March 2016), and Honduras (July 2016). These can be found on the website Refworld.org. UNHCR has been described as “the entity that most resembles a supervisory body of the [1951] Convention.”3 Although U.S. courts and the BIA have been inconsistent in the deference accorded to its opinions, given the clearly stated intent of Congress in passing the Refugee Act of 1980 to conform U.S. asylum law to the language of the 1951 Convention (which was binding on the U.S. based on its ratification of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees), it has been argued that courts should defer more consistently to UNHCR’s interpretations of the Convention’s provisions.4
UNHCR’s 2016 Eligibility Guidelines for El Salvador includes an “Assessment of International Protection Needs of Asylum-seekers from El Salvador.” The agency concludes that “depending on the particular circumstances of the case, UNHCR considers that persons perceived by a gang as contravening its rules or resisting its authority may be in need of international protection on the grounds of their (imputed) political opinion…”5 The UNHCR Guidelines report at p. 12 that “gangs are reported to exercise extraordinary levels of social control over the population of their territories.” According to UNHCR, residents in such gang-controlled zones “are reportedly required to ‘look, listen and keep quiet’ (‘mirar, oir, callar’), and often face a plethora of gang-imposed restrictions on who they can talk with and what about, what time they must be inside their homes, where they can walk or go to school, who they can visit and who can visit them, what they can wear, and even, reportedly, the color of their hair.”
At p. 28 of its Guidelines, UNHCR states:
The ground of political opinion needs to reflect the reality of the specific geographical, historical, political, legal, judicial, and sociocultural context of the country of origin. In contexts such as that in El Salvador, expressing objections to the activities of gangs may be considered as amounting to an opinion that is critical of the methods and policies of those in control and, thus, constitute a “political opinion” within the meaning of the refugee definition. For example, individuals who resist being recruited by a gang, or who refuse to comply with demands made by the gangs, such as demands to pay extortion money, may be perceived to hold a political opinion.
Anker and Lawrence note in their conclusion that many denials of such claims “reflect adjudicators’ and courts’ lack of knowledge (often because they are not presented with evidence) of regarding the political nature and context of the present conflict in that region.” This is an extremely important point. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated in Castro v. Holder6 that “a claim of political persecution cannot be evaluated in a vacuum….” The court noted that it has “remanded cases in which the agency denied an application for asylum based on its failure to properly engage in the “complex and contextual factual inquiry” that such claims often require…Nevertheless, in this case, the agency has once again embraced an ‘impoverished view of what political opinions are, especially in a country where certain democratic rights have only a tenuous hold’” in denying the asylum claim “without any coherent examination of the surrounding political environment.”
Immigration judges dealing with seriously overloaded dockets, limited authority to grant continuances, and completion quotas will be hard pressed to engage in “complex and contextual factual inquiry.” Practitioners should do their best to educate adjudicators through country condition evidence, expert testimony, memoranda of law, and through detailed direct examination of the asylum-seeker.
Practitioners should also rely on the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of S-P-, 21 I&N Dec. 486 (BIA 1996), which held that imputed political opinion may satisfy the refugee definition (relying in part on the UNHCR Handbook and Procedures for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention; and that asylum applicants need not show conclusively why persecution may occur, but need only produce facts to establish that a reasonable person would fear that the danger arises on account of a protected ground. The Board in S-P- also set forth five elements to consider in identifying motive, including “indications in the particular case that the abuse was directed toward modifying or punishing opinion rather than conduct (e.g., statements or actions by the perpetrators or abuse out of proportion to nonpolitical ends)” (Id. at 494). With the support of the UNHCR Guidelines, a strong argument can be made that death threats or actual killings for offenses such as “looking mistrustfully at a gang member,” “wearing certain clothing.” or “accidentally turning up uninvited in a gang zone” constitute “statements or actions…out of proportion to nonpolitical ends” under the criteria found in Matter of S-P-.7
Where another motive exists for the feared harm, practitioners should argue that mixed motives will support a grant of asylum where one of the motives is tethered to a statutory ground. See Matter of S-P-, supra at 495. In Osorio v. INS, 18 F.3d 1017 (2d Cir. 1994), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit responded to INS’ argument that a labor union leader could not establish a nexus to political opinion because his dispute with the Guatemalan government was economic in nature by finding “any attempt to unravel economic from political motives is untenable in this case.” The court concluded that the petitioner’s union activities “imply a political opinion,” concluding that “the Government’s view of what constitutes a political opinion is too narrow.” Or, as Anker and Lawrence explain, “gangs can, for example, view a person who refuses extortion as an enemy opposing them and, at the same time, also want the funds.”
Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Notes:
1. 14-10 Immigration Briefings 1 (October 2014).
2. I first heard Farah speak at a country condition training on gang violence in the Northern Triangle held by USCIS for its asylum officers; at my invitation, Farah was a speaker on the same topic at the 2015 EOIR Training Conference for its immigration judges and BIA staff.
3. American Courts and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees: A Need for Harmony in the Face of a Refugee Crisis (Note), 131 HARVARD L.R. 1399 (March 2018).
4. See, e.g., American Courts and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, supra; Bassina Farbenblum, Executive Deference in U.S. Refugee Law: Internationalist Paths Through and Beyond Chevron,” 60 DUKE L.J. 1059 (2011); Joan Fitzpatrick, The International Dimension of U.S. Refugee Law, 15 BERKELEY J. INT’L L. 1 (1997).
CORTEZ MASTO, COLLEAGUES CALL ON SESSIONS TO UPHOLD PROTECTIONS FOR LGBTQ ASYLUM SEEKERS FLEEING PERSECUTION
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Cortez (D-Nev) Masto joined Senators Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) and other Senate Democrats in sending a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions urging that the Justice Department uphold a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that provides protections for LGBTQ asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution. In the letter, the senators highlight the increasing threat of violence LGBTQ individuals face in many parts of the world.
“LGBTQ individuals’ access to the U.S. asylum process has assumed increased urgency today as their persecution by both state and private actors is worsening in many parts of the world,” said the senators. “As of 2017, 72 countries worldwide effectively outlaw same-sex sexual relations between consenting adults. Eight apply the death penalty as a punishment for such relations. A majority of countries lack applicable hate crime laws and have law enforcement agencies that neither effectively investigate nor document hate-motivated private violence against LGBTQ individuals.”
The senators continued, “Altering the BIA’s decision in Matter of A-B- to place additional roadblocks and burdens upon asylum seekers could potentially deprive deserving LGBTQ applicants with an opportunity to secure protection in the U.S. that would save their lives. Any increase in the burden of proof for LGBTQ asylum seekers experiencing private harm – additional evidence not now needed by either the immigration courts or asylum officers to fairly adjudicate claims – would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.”
In addition to Cortez Masto, Harris and Feinstein, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Patty Murray (D-WA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Bob Casey (D-PA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Bob Menendez (D-NJ).
We write to express our concerns about your pending review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision in Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 227 (A.G. 2018) and the adverse impact such a decision could have on vulnerable populations fleeing persecution and violence. We urge you to uphold the BIA’s decision, which reflects a well-settled matter of law that provides critical protections for vulnerable populations, including LGBTQ individuals subject to private persecution that foreign governments are unwilling or unable to control.
LGBTQ individuals’ access to the U.S. asylum process has assumed increased urgency today as their persecution by both state and private actors is worsening in many parts of the world. As of 2017, 72 countries worldwide effectively outlaw same-sex sexual relations between consenting adults. Eight apply the death penalty as a punishment for such relations. A majority of countries lack applicable hate crime laws and have law enforcement agencies that neither effectively investigate nor document hate-motivated private violence against LGBTQ individuals. As just two alarming examples of state sponsored anti-LGBTQ actions this past year, Russian authorities in Chechnya undertook an anti-gay purge that involved the alleged torture of dozens of men, and Egyptian authorities engaged in a campaign to target and incarcerate individuals solely based on their sexual orientation.
Your referral order for the Matter of A-B- – in which you aim to address, “Whether, and under what circumstances, being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable ‘particular social group’ for purposes of an application for asylum or withholding of removal” –has great import for the majority of LGBTQ asylum seekers who arrive in the United States fleeing persecution by private individuals. In the decades since this country first recognized LGBTQ status as a protected particular social group, it has been well established that LGBTQ individuals face grave risks in reporting private persecution or seeking governmental protection from such persecution abroad. Any change to this body of law would be a mistake.
In countries where government authorities engage in serious physical and sexual assaults of LGBTQ individuals, it is effectively impossible for them to seek protection from those same authorities when faced with private persecution. In some countries, simply asking for protection from state authorities can result in government-sponsored persecution. Even where state authorities are not active perpetrators of violence against LGBTQ individuals, they frequently turn a blind eye, emboldening private actors to engage in hate-motivated violence. U.S. State Department research highlights that foreign government retribution towards and lack of assistance for LGBTQ individuals who face private threats of persecution is commonplace, even when the population is not expressly criminalized. This chills the ability of LGBTQ individuals to report such persecution in their home countries.
Societal and familial considerations also often prevent LGBTQ victims of private persecution from coming forward to foreign authorities. They may be threatened with reprisals from their persecutors or coming forward would reveal their LGBTQ status and increase other persecution. In many countries, the act of reporting violence can have deadly consequences.
Altering the BIA’s decision in Matter of A-B- to place additional roadblocks and burdens upon asylum seekers could potentially deprive deserving LGBTQ applicants with an opportunity to secure protection in the U.S. that would save their lives. Any increase in the burden of proof for LGBTQ asylum seekers experiencing private harm – additional evidence not now needed by either the immigration courts or asylum officers to fairly adjudicate claims – would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. As such, we strongly urge you to leave undisturbed the BIA’s decision in Matter of A-B-.
###
********************************************
The effort is likely to be futile. It’s hard to believe that Sessions, given his xenophobic record and anti-asylum rhetoric, certified the case to himself (actually over the objection of both the DHS and the Respondent) just to uphold and strengthen refugee protections for abused women and LGBTQ individuals. Indeed, Sessions has a clear record of anti-LGBTQ views and actions to go along with his anti-asylum bias.
But, the law favoring asylum protections for victims of DV and LGBTQ individuals who suffer harm at the hands of non-state-actors that governments are unwilling or unable to control is now well established. Therefore, Sessions’s likely “scofflaw” attempt to undo it and deny protections to such vulnerable refugees is likely to “muck up the system” and artificially increase the backlogs in the short run, while failing in the long run to achieve the perversion of justice and denial of Due Process for asylum seekers that he seeks to impose.
Surprisingly, the Article III (“real”) courts don’t allow the disgruntled prosecutor to “certify” results that he doesn’t like to himself and rewrite the law in his own favor! That’s why the facade of “courts” operating within the USDOJ must come to an end, sooner or later!
