"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
(Reuters) – More than 2,000 Central American migrants seeking to settle in the United States have given up and accepted free rides home under a 10-month-old program funded by the U.S. government and run by a United Nations agency, according to a U.N. official.
A migrant child stands inside a shelter in Tijuana, Mexico, July 20, 2019. REUTERS/Carlos Jasso
The “Assisted Voluntary Return” program has paid for buses or flights for 2,170 migrants who either never reached the United States or were detained after crossing the border and then sent to Mexico to await U.S. immigration hearings, according to Christopher Gascon, an official with the U.N.’s International Organization for Migration (IOM).
The $1.65 million program, funded by the U.S. State Department, is raising concerns among immigration advocates who say it could violate a principle under international law against returning asylum seekers to countries where they could face persecution.
The returned migrants have not been interviewed by U.S. asylum officers. But Gascon said his agency screens all participants to ensure they are not seeking U.S. asylum and want to go back.
Gascon, head of the IOM’s Mexico mission, said the program provides a safer and more humane means of return than the migrants could arrange on their own.
The effort here, whose scope and controversial aspects have not been previously reported, is the first by the State Department and UN to target Central American migrants in Mexico on such a large scale. The State Department would not comment on the record about its role.
Gascon said the State Department reached out to the IOM last year as caravans of thousands of Central American migrants traveled through Mexico toward the U.S. border.
U.S. President Donald Trump called the caravans an “invasion” and has made stemming immigration a centerpiece of his administration and 2020 re-election campaign.
Migrant advocates are particularly concerned about 347 people returned by the IOM who had been stuck in Mexico under a controversial Trump administration policy known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP).
Under that policy, which began Jan. 29, some migrants who make it across the U.S.-Mexico border are given a notice to appear in U.S. immigration court, then are then turned back to Mexico to wait the months it can take for their court cases to be resolved. In the past seven months, more than 30,000 migrants have been sent back under MPP, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
(For a graphic on the Migrant Protection Protocols, see reut.rs/2MszcsN)
Advocates say that the migrants often face danger and destitution in Mexican border towns, leaving them no good options.
“How can it be a voluntary decision (to return home) given the conditions they face in Mexico? It’s a choice between two hells,” said Nicolas Palazzo, an attorney with El Paso-based Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center.
Besides any danger they might face back home, there is another significant downside to leaving: If migrants do not show up for a U.S. court hearing, they can be ordered deported “in absentia,” reducing their odds of ever being granted refuge in the United States.
AFRAID TO GO, AFRAID TO STAY
Denia Carranza, a 24-year-old Honduran returned to Mexico to await a court hearing set for October, decided instead to board a bus back home last week.
She said she and her 7-year-old son had fled her hometown and a good job at a shrimp packing company after gang members threatened to kill her if she did not deal drugs to fellow employees. She had hoped to apply for U.S. asylum.
But she said she was frightened in Ciudad Juarez – a battleground for drug cartels where the bulk of migrants await their hearings. Also, she had no job and no way to provide for her son.
“I am scared of going back to Honduras. But I am more afraid to stay,” she said.
The U.S.-based nonprofit Human Rights First said it had documented more than 100 violent incidents perpetrated against migrants waiting in Mexico for U.S. court hearings this year, including rape, kidnapping, robbery, assault and police extortion.
The IOM documented 247 deaths of migrants near the US-Mexico border this year through Aug. 15.
In a July 30 letter to the IOM’s Director General, 30 U.S. and international advocacy organizations said they feared the U.N. organization was returning migrants to countries they had fled “out of desperation, not choice, and where they may not fully understand the consequences of failing to appear whenever summoned by a U.S. immigration court.”
There is no way of knowing how many of the migrants who opt to go home with IOM help might have been able to present a successful asylum claim. U.S. courts ultimately deny most such claims brought by Central Americans and the Trump administration has said many are fraudulent.
Migrants who are sent to Mexico under MPP may or may not be seeking U.S. asylum, but they generally have no opportunity to initiate such claims before being sent back across the border. The policy cuts out a traditional asylum screening step in which migrants are interviewed to establish whether they have a “credible fear” of returning home.
Slideshow (35 Images)
SEEING ‘REALITY’
When the U.S. State Department approached IOM last fall, Gascon said, part of the goal was to counter what is saw as misinformation about how easy it was to get into the United States.
IOM set up kiosks at a stadium in Mexico City, which was along the caravan route, and on the U.S.-Mexico border. It also helped spread the word about free rides back in migrant shelters.
“When they saw the reality, some decided to go home,” he said of migrants.
Three quarters of the migrants in the voluntary return program went back to Honduras, a fifth to El Salvador and the rest to Guatemala and Nicaragua, according to IOM figures through July 26 of this year. More than half were “family units” and about 100 were unaccompanied minors. Most of the migrants have been sent back from Mexico, and a small fraction from Guatemala.
The IOM screens all migrants who ask to go home, but those awaiting U.S. hearings in Mexico also undergo an orientation program with Grupo Beta, an arm of Mexico’s National Migration Institute, to ensure migrants understand their options, Gascon said.
So far, Gascon said, two people awaiting U.S. court hearings in Mexico who wanted a ride back were instead referred to the Mexican government to gauge their eligibility for asylum in Mexico.
But advocates said they worried that Grupo Beta is not the best partner for IOM to ensure migrants’ safety.
“Many organizations have documented time and again that Mexican migration officials don’t refer people to (the national refugee office), they don’t register fears of return, and they have even pressured people to withdraw (asylum) claims,” said Kennji Kizuka, a researcher at the nonprofit Human Rights First.
Mexican migration officials did not respond to a request for comment.
More than a dozen migrants awaiting U.S. hearings at the Casa de Migrante shelter in Ciudad Juarez told Reuters the weekly south-bound bus rides held some appeal. Though reluctant to give up on their American dreams, many didn’t have lawyers and saw little prospect for success.
“All that effort we made to get here from Honduras and now we’re going back,” said Angel Estrada, who had hoped to get care in the United States for his 9-year-old son, who has hemophilia. “It’s really sad.”
PHOTO ESSAY: U.S. buys tickets home for Central American migrants – reut.rs/2ZeyOoV
Reporting by Daniel Trotta in Ciudad Juarez, Kristina Cooke in San Francisco and Mica Rosenberg New York; Additional reporting by Julia Love in Ciudad Juarez, Lizbeth Diaz in Tijuana and Stephanie Nebehay in Geneva; Editing by Julie Marquis and Brian Thevenot
Someday, the full tawdry story will be told of how our rich and powerful nation turned its back on vulnerable forced migrants whose countries we helped destroy. And, the anti-Latino racism throughout our Central American policies will be fully exposed.
Until then, thanks to Mica and her colleagues, we are learning about highly questionable programs and expenditures that our Government has tried to hide from public view.
Michelle Hackman Education Reporter Wall Street Journal
Michelle Hackman reports for the WSJ:
WASHINGTON—The Trump administration moved to allow the government to indefinitely detain families crossing the U.S.-Mexico border and supersede a decades-old court settlement that both limits how long migrant children can be held in custody and sets standards for their care.
The new rules are the Republican administration’s latest effort to tighten immigration laws on its own, with Congress long unable to agree on any legal overhaul. Wednesday’s policy change could permit authorities to detain families through the duration of their immigration proceedings, rather than release them or separate children from their detained parents.
Immigration-rights advocates are expected to challenge the rules in federal court, where they have blocked the administration before. A legal challenge would likely keep the policy from taking immediate effect.
Administration officials say the new rules are intended to discourage family members from attempting to cross the border together in the belief that they will gain an advantage in lodging their asylum claims because of the current detention limits for children. “No child should be used as a pawn to scheme our immigration system,” said acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan on Wednesday.
. . . .
**************************
Those with WSJ access can read Michelle’s complete article at the above link.
As Michelle points out, McAleenan and his corrupt DHS flunkies are simply “making it up” as they go along to justify unconstitutional, racist policies intended to target legitimate asylum seekers based on the color of their skin. By continuously doing “in your face” moves, often with little expectation of success in the in the courts, but a great expectation of rallying racial animosity for political gain, Big Mac & Co. are misusing their access to Federal Courts, constantly violating their oaths of office, and making a mincemeat out of Federal and State professional ethics rules.
Contrary to Big Mac’s false blather, the “solution” to the exodus of refugees is straightforward and not prohibitively expensive:
Release them to community placements;
Help them find pro bono lawyers;
Ask judges to schedule court cases at the earliest possible date consistent with the legitimate needs of those pro bono lawyers;
See what happens on the merits of their asylum cases in a fairer, non coercive system where applicants are encouraged to fully develop claims assisted by lawyers who understand the complexities of asylum law. (This is actually the way the U.N. Convention-based system is supposed to work, but too often doesn’t).
As I have pointed out before, even with unabashed bias and the open encouragement by the TrumpAdministration of blatant anti-asylum adjudications, a significant number of represented Central American applicants continue to win their claims both before the Asylum Office and in Immigration Court.
Without the effects of intentionally coercive detention, and gimmicks intended to limit access to counsel and inhibit preparation, many of those who lose in Immigration Court will have a fair opportunity to exercise their legal rights to pursue their claims before Article III Appellate Courts. While far, far too deferential to flawed agency decision makers, the Article IIIs are much closer to operating as fair, impartial, and unbiased decision-makers than are Immigration Judges working for Barr and his White Nationalist regime.
Over time, I think many more asylum seekers will win their claims. But, whether that happens or not, the process will have more legitimacy. U.S. asylum law will come to represent more than the Administration’s anti-asylum ideology. Those who lose their cases after exhausting their legal avenues for appeal can be removed in a dignified and humane manner after receiving full Due Process.
This incident also graphically illustrates the “reward” received by those Democrats who recently worked in good faith with the Administration to pass “emergency border funding.” Rather than returning that good faith by using funds to improve conditions in detention and to explore the many available options to reduce the instances of detention, the Administration is squandering money in an almost certain to be DOA attempt to expand their White Nationalist Gulag to unnecessarily punish more (Hispanic) families for asserting their legal rights to apply for protection under U.S. laws.
I have seen little or no evidence that this “emergency funding” — falsely advertised as “necessary” to put food in kids mouths and provide them medical care — has been used for those purposes. By all reliable accounts, conditions in DHS detention remain intentionally deplorable. Instead of working in good faith with public interest groups and Democrats to solve the problems with border detention, Big Mac & Co. are off wasting time and abusing their publicly funded salaries by spreading lies and insulting the intelligence of Federal Judges.
Indeed, Big Mac regularly ignores the overwhelming body of medical evidence that any amount of detention has potential lifetime adverse effects upon young people. The idea that the “Flores settlement,” which has been in effect for years prior to the Trump regime, is primarily responsible for fueling a surge of children fleeing the Northern Triangle is beyond absurd. Moreover, as Big Mac is undoubtedly aware, the increase in child refugees is part of a worldwide trend that transcends any particular U.S. court settlement. Actually, it’s the dumb policies of the Trump Administration and their insistence on using gimmicks rather than the legal mechanisms available that has fueled the profits of smugglers.
Enough! This Administration simply cannot be trusted on anything involving immigration and humanitarianism. Democrats need to demand fundamental, demonstrable changes at DHS, including a phase out of most civil detention, and a commitment to fair access to the legal system, as a condition for providing any further funding.
This paper critiques US immigration and asylum policies from perspective of the author’s 46 years as a public servant. It also offers a taxonomy of the US immigration system by positing different categories of membership: full members of the “club” (US citizens); “associate members” (lawful permanent residents, refugees and asylees); “friends” (non-immigrants and holders of temporary status); and, persons outside the club (the undocumented). It describes the legal framework that applies to these distinct populations, as well as recent developments in federal law and policy that relate to them. It also identifies a series of cross-cutting issues that affect these populations, including immigrant detention, immigration court backlogs, state and local immigration policies, and Constitutional rights that extend to non-citizens. It makes the following asylum reform proposals, relying (mostly) on existing laws designed to address situations of larger-scale migration:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and, in particular, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) should send far more Asylum Officers to conduct credible fear interviews at the border.
Law firms, pro bono attorneys, and charitable legal agencies should attempt to represent all arriving migrants before both the Asylum Office and the Immigration Courts.
USCIS Asylum Officers should be permitted to grant temporary withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) to applicants likely to face torture if returned to their countries of origin.
Immigration Judges should put the asylum claims of those granted CAT withholding on the “back burner” — thus keeping these cases from clogging the Immigration Courts — while working with the UNHCR and other counties in the Hemisphere on more durable solutions for those fleeing the Northern Triangle states of Central America.
Individuals found to have a “credible fear” should be released on minimal bonds and be allowed to move to locations where they will be represented by pro bono lawyers.
Asylum Officers should be vested with the authority to grant asylum in the first instance, thus keeping more asylum cases out of Immigration Court.
If the Administration wants to prioritize the cases of recent arrivals, it should do so without creating more docket reshuffling, inefficiencies, and longer backlogs
My long-time friend Don Kerwin, Executive Director of CMS, has been a “Lt. General of the New Due Process Army” since long before there even was a “New Due Process Army” (“NDPA”). Talk about someone who has spent his entire career increasing human understanding and making the world a better place! Don is a great role model and example for newer members of the NDPA, proving that one can make a difference, as well as a living, in our world by doing great things and good works! Not surprisingly, Don’s career achievements and contributions bear great resemblance to those of our mutual friend, the late Juan Osuna.
So, when Don asked me to consider turning some of my past speeches about our immigration system and how it should work into an article to honor Juan, I couldn’t say no. But, I never would have gotten it “across the finish line” without Don’s inspiration, encouragement, editing, and significant substantive suggestions for improvement, as well as that of the talented peer reviewers and editorial staff of JMHS. Like most achievements in life, it truly was a “team effort” for which I thank all involved.
Those of you who might have attended my Boynton Society Lecture last Saturday, August 10, at the beautiful and inspiring Bjorklunden Campus of Lawrence University on the shores of Lake Michigan at Bailey’s Harbor, WI, will see that portions of this article were “reconverted” and incorporated into that speech.
Also, those who might have taken the class “American Immigration, a Cultural, Legal, and Anthropological Approach” at the Bjorklunden Seminar Series the previous week, co-taught by my friend Professor Jenn Esperanza of The Beloit College Anthropology Department, and me had the then-unpublished manuscript in their course materials, and will no doubt recognize many of the themes that Jenn and I stressed during that week.
Perhaps the only “comment that really mattered” was passed on to me by Don shortly after this article was released. It was from Juan’s wife, the also amazing and inspiring Wendy Young, President of Kids In Need of Defense (“KIND”):“Juan would be truly honored.”
Donald M. Kerwin Executive Director Center for Migration StudiesJuan P. Osuna (1963-2017) Judge, Executive, Scholar, Teacher, Defender of Due ProcessWendy Young President, Kids In Need of Defense (“KIND”)Me
In June 2018, the Attorney General issued his precedent decision in Matter of A-B-. The AG intended his decision to lead to the denial of asylum claims based on domestic violence and gang violence by asylum officers, immigration judges, the BIA, and the circuit courts. The decision also aimed to compel asylum officers to find those arriving at the southern border to lack the credible fear necessary for entry into the court system, allowing for their immediate deportation.
However, the decision failed to achieve these goals. A U.S. District Court decision, Grace v. Whitaker, prohibited USCIS from applying A-B- in credible fear determinations. And Immigration Judges have continued to grant significant numbers of domestic violence claims, concluding that A-B- did not prevent them from doing so, but only required their decisions to contain an in-depth analysis of their reasoning. The case of A-B- herself presently remains pending before the BIA.
More recently, the Attorney General took the same approach to the question of whether family may constitute a particular social group. While once again, the administration’s goal is to prevent such claims from passing credible fear interviews and from being granted asylum, the effort also seems likely to fail.
* * *
“There can, in fact, be no plainer example of a social group based on common, identifiable and immutable characteristics than that of the nuclear family. Indeed, quoting the Ninth Circuit, we recently stated that ‘a prototypical example of a “particular social group” would consist of the immediate members of a certain family, the family being a focus of fundamental affiliational concerns and common interests for most people.'”
The above language is from a 1994 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Gebremichael v. INS, 10 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 1994). It pretty much reflects the view of every circuit court over the past 25 years. Since Gebremichael, the BIA has added additional requirements of particularity and social distinction to the particular social group (“PSG”) requirements in a series of six precedent decisions issued between 2006 and 2014. But as a recent practice advisory of CLINIC points out, the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits have all recognized that family can constitute a PSG, and all have reiterated that opinion in decisions issued in 2014 or later, meaning that those courts have not found the BIA’s subsequent requirements to alter their longstanding view on the matter.
For this reason, when L-E-A- was first decided by the BIA in 2017, the parties were not in disagreement on this point – the issue had acquired a “the sky is blue” certainty. The issue before the BIA was rather about nexus – i.e.what was required to show that one’s feared persecution was in fact “on account of” such family membership. The Board settled on a highly restrictive standard for establishing nexus, illustrated by the single example of the Romanov family in 1918 Russia.
Possibly fearing an influx of asylum-seeking Romanovs, Matthew Whitaker, during his very brief tenure as Acting Attorney General, felt the need to certify the decision to himself. And on July 29, his successor, WIlliam Barr, issued a decision very reminiscent of A-B-.
As in A-B-, Barr justified vacating the Board’s decision because it relied on the parties’ stipulation to the issue in question. In Barr’s view, this caused the resulting decision to lack the rigorous analysis deserving of a precedent decision.While it remains unclear why rigorous legal analysis is required where everyone agrees to the correctness of the assertion (do we require rigorous mathematical analysis to the proposition that 2+2 = 4?), it should be noted that unlike Matter of A-R-C-G-, which was the single precedent decision holding that victims of domestic violence could be eligible for asylum, there is 25 years worth of circuit court case law on this point, plus the BIA’s own statement in Matter of Acosta that kinship could be a basis for a PSG, which dates to 1985, a point that the BIA reaffirmed over the next three decades, in Matter of C-A- (2006), and then, by reference to that case, in Matter of M-E-V-G- (2014). Barr’s excuse is that, in his view, multiple circuits “have relied upon outdated dicta from the Board’s early cases.”
As in A-B-, the AG’s decision affects no change in the applicable legal standard. The holding is quite narrow, simply overruling the part of the BIA’s decision discussing the cognizability of family as a PSG. The decision doesn’t preclude such findings, but rather requires adjudicators to spend more time on each case, providing a detailed, step-by-step analysis before granting relief. This is a critical point, as at least one IJ has said that L-E-A- has closed the door on family-based PSGs. IJs had a similar reaction in the immediate aftermath of A-B-, stating that they can no longer grant domestic violence claims, only to realize otherwise over time. Barr specifically states that his decision “does not bar all family-based social groups from qualifying for asylum,” adding “[t]o the contrary, in some societies, an applicant may present specific kinship groups or clans that, based on the evidence in the applicant’s case, are particular and socially distinct.” He also cautions adjudicators to “be skeptical of social groups that appear to be “defined principally, if not exclusively, for the purposes of [litigation] . . . without regard to the question of whether anyone in [a given country] perceives [those] group[s] to exist in any form whatsoever.” These are restatements of long-existing law.Of course, the concept of family was not artificially created for litigation purposes.
In L-E-A-, Barr specifically referenced the canon of ejusdem generis, which the BIA applied in Matter of Acosta to conclude that a particular social group should not be interpreted more broadly than the other four terms (race, religion, nationality, and political opinion) that surround it in the statute.1 As the canon was applied to counter the argument that the legislative intent of the PSG ground was to serve as a broad, catch-all “safety net” for those deserving of protection but unable to fit within the other four protected categories, the AG is happy to rely on the premise in his decision as well.
However, ejusdem generis is a two-edged sword. In the same way as it prevents the PSG category from being interpreted more broadly than its fellow protected grounds, it similarly prevents those other categories from being interpreted more broadly than PSG.
And therein lies the flaw in Barr’s argument that “as almost every [noncitizen] is a member of a family of some kind, categorically recognizing families as particular social groups would render virtually every [noncitizen] a member of a particular social group. There is no evidence that Congress intended the term “particular social group” to cast so wide a net.”
Every noncitizen is also a member of a race and a nationality. And most believe in a religion of some type.But no court has suggested that those categories are therefore too wide to form a protected ground for asylum purposes. Barr fails to explain that belonging to a protected ground does not make one a refugee; everyone in the world belongs to one or more such categories; many of us belong to all five. Asylum requires persecution (either suffered in the past, or a sufficient likelihood of suffering in the future), as well as a showing that such persecution was motivated more than tangentially in the persecutor’s view by the victim’s possessing one or more of the protected bases. When one also considers how extreme the harm must be to be constitute persecution; that such harm must either be by the government, or by a person or group that the government is unable or unwilling to control, and that the asylum seeker must not be able to avoid such harm through reasonable relocation to a safer place within their own country, it is not an easy standard to satisfy.
Barr then further errs in claiming that the test for social distinction is not whether the nuclear family carries societal importance (which in fact is the test), but rather, whether the applicant’s “specific nuclear family would be ‘recognizable by society at large.’” In that sentence, Barr supported his erroneous claim by misquoting Jeff Sessions in Matter of A-B-, by omitting the word “classes.” The actual quote, “social groups must be classes recognizable by society at large,” actually supports the argument that nuclear families would enjoy social distinction. By manipulating the language of case law, Barr attempts to equate “social distinction” with fame.Under his proposed interpretation, an asylum seeker must be a Kardashian to satisfy the PSG standard, and a Romanov to then prove nexus. (While such interpretation is clearly incorrect, I am nevertheless coining the term “Czardashian” here).
The true test for social distinction is whether the proposed group is consistent with how society divides itself. And families are the most basic way that society divides itself into groups.We are often identified in society as someone’s child, spouse, parent, or sibling. When we meet someone with a familiar last name, the first thing we ask is “are you related to so and so?”The reason we care to ask such question is precisely because families are socially distinct. By comparison, no one has ever asked me if I’m a member of the group of “tall, gray-haired, left-handed immigration lawyers with glasses,” because that is the type of artificially concocted group that in no way reflects how society divides itself.
Barr’s statement that “unless an immediate family carries greater societal import, it is unlikely that a proposed family-based group will be ‘distinct’ in the way required by the INA for purposes of asylum” is nonbinding dicta, expressing the likelihood of success in claims not before him.2 Nevertheless, his statement also overlooks an important aspect of PSG analysis: the impact of persecution on public perception. Social distinction is measured not in the eyes of the persecutors, but of society.But as UNHCR points out in its 2002 Particular Social Group Guidelines, at para. 14, even though left-handed people are not a particular social group, “if they were persecuted because they were left-handed, they would no doubt quickly become recognizable in their society as a particular social group.” So even if we were to accept Barr’s flawed premise that a regular, non-celebrity family lacks his misconstrued version of social distinction, as word spread of the targeting of its members, that family would gain social recognition pretty quickly.
And as CLINIC’s practice advisory astutely notes, societies accord social distinction to even non-famous families in its laws determining how property is inherited, or to whom guardianship of surviving children is determined.
Notes:
For a highly detailed analysis of the Chevron deference test as applied to Matter of A-B-, including the use of ejusdem generis as a canon of construction in step one of Chevron, see Kelley-Widmer, Jaclyn and Rich, Hillary, A Step Too Far: Matter of A-B-, ‘Particular Social Group,’ and Chevron (July 15, 2019). Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 19-30. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3410556 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3410556
See CLINIC’s Practice Advisory at 3. Much thanks to CLINIC attorneys Victoria Neilson, Bradley Jenkins, and Rebecca Scholtz for so quickly authoring this excellent guide.
Copyright 2019 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
********************************************
There can be no doubt of Bill Barr’s anti-asylum bias, his poor lawyering skills, his lack of ethics, and his willingness to serve as a weapon of White Nationalist racist nonsense.If you serve the cause like a toady, whether or not you “truly believe” becomes irrelevant.
But, as Jeffrey points out, no matter how much the Barrs of the world would like to rewrite the law without going through the legislative or regulatory process, there is a long history of Article III Courts and the Immigration Courts themselves recognizing family-based asylum cases.
There is also an irreducible truth staring Barr and his fellow restrictionists in the face: folks have been identifying themselves based on kinship ties from the beginning of history and other folks have been protecting, rejecting, joining, or excluding themselves from those family-based kinship groups since humans first walked the earth. Sometimes these processes have been peaceful, other times violent, sometimes cooperative, and sometimes coercive.
But, the reality is that family-based persecution happens every day of the week, through out our world. In many many instances it’s “at least one central reason” for the persecution.
Ironically, folks like Trump and Barr are doing their best to divide our country into as many hostile and sometimes violent, ethnic, racial and social groups as it can. But, in the end, whether within my lifetime or not, the truth will “eat up” the lies and false ideologies that drive Barr and the rest of the Trumpists. Sadly, however, by the time they are rightfully dislodged from power, too many will have died or been irrevocably harmed by their false doctrines and conscious disregard for human life, human decency, and well-established truths of human history.
Thanks to Judge Jeffrey Chase, leader of our Roundtable of Former Immigration Judges for sending this to me.
Also, I join Judge Chase in congratulating Gerald D. Wall and the Greater Boston Legal Services (a clinical program of Harvard Law School) for providing pro bono representation in this case.
Note how succinct, straightforward, logical, and well-supported by authority Judge Gagnon’s decision is. Compare that with the nearly incomprehensible 30+ page anti-asylum, lie-filled, intellectually dishonest, and legally incorrect screed written by Sessions in support of his cowardly extralegal attack on some of the most vulnerable and deserving of protection among us in his Matter of A-B- atrocity.
Now think of how the system could work if Judge Gagnon’s correct decision were the precedent and all asylum applicants had access to qualified pro bono counsel.
Many cases could be promptly granted by an honest USCIS Asylum Office committed to properly applying protection law. They would not even have to reach the backlogged Immigration Courts or be subjected to toxic, counterproductive “gimmicks” like “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico” or absurdities like claiming that everyone should apply in Guatemala, from which this respondent was fleeing for her life and which has neither a functional government nor a credible asylum system.
That, plus perhaps using retired judges from all types of courts and bringing back retired Asylum Officers and adjudicators trained to recognize and quickly grant “slam dunk” asylum cases like this would be the key to establishing a credible, independent, Immigration Court and a reestablishing a functioning asylum system of which we all could be proud.
Instead, our current maliciously incompetent White Nationalist regime continues to ignore our laws, our Constitution, and our international obligations in leading a cowardly and disreputable “race to the bottom” in which the richest and most powerful country in the world conducts itself as a “Banana Republic” led by a tinhorn dictator.
It’s a significant omission and a stark difference from the written document that has been linked to the 21-year-old gunman who allegedly opened fire on weekend shoppers Saturday at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas. The shooter’s alleged document mentions a Hispanic invasion, the increasing Hispanic population and a decision by its writer to target Hispanics after reading a right-wing conspiracy theory asserting Europe’s white population is being replaced with non-Europeans.
“We’ve got dead bodies. The majority are Hispanic. Some are foreign nationals from Mexico and we got a manifesto describing what he intends to do and why,” said state Rep. Cesar Blanco, a Democrat who represents El Paso.
“I think it’s telling; he failed to mention Latinos,” Blanco said of the president. “He failed to mention that our community is majority Latino, but it doesn’t surprise me.”
The Mexican government confirmed that eight of the victims identified so far were Mexican citizens, not unexpected considering the city of El Paso and surrounding communities of El Paso County, Texas are about 83 percent Latino.
Add to that the number of shoppers and workers from Mexico who legally cross the international border each day to shop, dine, work and visit family. The Walmart is part of a complex of retail outlets, with a Sam’s Club and the Cielo Vista mall next door. There is also a theater close by along with many restaurants and hotels.
Trump did say in the speech that he had sent his condolences to Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador, because eight citizens from Mexico were among the dead. But he didn’t make specific mention of El Paso’s residents of Latino descent, who comprise the majority of the community.
Jeramey Maynard, 26, a local artist and restaurant manager, said Trump’s response has been largely political, exemplified by the president’s call to combine gun regulation reforms with immigration reform.
“He’s choosing his words without saying Hispanic or immigrant and making it about other things,” Maynard said. “He’s been having these racist comments. When it comes time to defend the community, of course we are not going to hear him say anything about the Hispanic community.”
Maynard added that he thought Trump “would paint it with the broadest brush he can. Why would he say something he thinks supports the Democratic Party?”
‘Target on our back’
Trump launched his 2016 election campaign with disparaging words, seen by many as racist, about people in the United States who have come from Mexico.
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems,” Trump said to a largely white crowd at Trump Tower in New York. “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people …”
Some defended the president saying he was referring only to immigrants who commit crimes and not speaking of Latinos in the United States as a whole.
But then Trump went on to question the ability of a U.S. district court judge to be impartial because he is of Mexican descent.
Trump’s political rallies have often been filled with chants of “Build the Wall” in reference to his pledge to build a wall across the entire border and make Mexico pay for it.
He responded to the influx of Central Americans seeking asylum by separating children from their parents and allowing border officials to hold them in chain-link pens.
In the past several days, many Latinos have been vocal about what they see as a through line between the president’s rhetoric and the shooting in El Paso.
Rep. Veronica Escobar, a Democrat whose district includes El Paso, said she had hoped Trump would have apologized for his rhetoric, which she said put a target on the city’s back.
“I would encourage him to do that,” she said.
The city has seen stark evidence of fear that exists among families because of the Trump hardline on immigration, according to several residents.
Marisa Limón Garza, deputy director of the Hope Border Institute, said the organization fielded calls from families who were directly affected by the shootings and families who were looking for loved ones.
They were afraid to go to the hospital or to interact with police and border enforcement, who responded to the shooting.
“If you are undocumented or of a mixed status household, the last place you want to go is where there is a tremendous amount of police presence,” Limón Garza said. Immigrants often are part of families that may include a mix of citizens, legal residents and people without legal status.
Her organization has been working with families to help them get the help they need, but she said it is a daily occurrence for people without legal permission to be in the country to be afraid to go to the hospital.
“This is just another layer of psychological trauma that this community has to face when we have already been ground zero for so many other challenges,” she said.
‘The illness is racism and xenophobia’
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus pushed Trump to commit to no longer using “invasion“ to describe Hispanic communities, immigrants or refugees to the country.
The caucus also asked the Trump administration to “acknowledge the threat of white supremacy and domestic terrorism” and to “combat this state of emergency head-on” with federal resources.
Rep. Joaquín Castro, D-Texas, twin brother of presidential candidate Julián Castro, said in a statement that the caucus is grateful Trump addressed the El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, tragedies.
But he said, “this does not make up for the years of attacks by President Trump on Hispanic Americans and our immigrant communities.”
“During the president’s address, he blamed the Internet, news media , mental health and video games, among others … Unfortunately, he did not take responsibility for the xenophobic rhetoric that he has frequently used to demonize and dehumanize Hispanic Americans and immigrants over the past four years.”
But Limón Garza said the tragedy has not been confined to immigrants.
“Here in El Paso we are a community that is over 80 percent Latino and that means people that are immigrant themselves and then people who have been here for generations,” she said. “It’s clear it was not just a random attack. It’s clear that this cannot be called someone with a mental illness. This illness is racism and xenophobia.”
Trump delivered a dishonest, divisive, and totally insincere condemnation of White Supremacy designed and delivered primarily to reassure his White Supremacist supporters that he’s really still on their side.
His ridiculously inappropriate upcoming visit to El Paso is a totally dishonest and divisive self-promotion stunt which all residents should either ignore or peacefully protest.
There is no human good, empathy, or redeeming quality in Donald Trump. Decent folks have to stop looking for that which doesn’t (and never did) exist and band together and use what remains of our Constitutional system to remove him from office before he destroys our country and everyone in it. It won’t be easy, but the lives of generations to come and the world’s future are at stake.
Immigrants, for example, have the right to counsel and may hire a lawyer themselves, but unlike in the criminal justice system, representation is not guaranteed.
Under Gillibrand’s proposed bill, legal counsel would be required for eligible groups facing removal proceedings — including children, individuals with disabilities, victims of abuse, torture, and violence, and individuals at or below 200% of the federal poverty level.
The Funding Attorneys for Indigent Removal (FAIR) Proceedings Act “would ensure that some of the most vulnerable individuals in this process can be represented by an attorney,” Gillibrand said in a statement Friday.
“This would not only guarantee a more humane way to process asylum claims and other legal protections, but it would improve the efficiency of our immigration courts and help our country do a much better job of managing our immigration system,” Gillibrand said.
She accused the Trump administration of being “far too willing to fast-track deportation cases even when people have credible claims to asylum.”
Democratic Reps. Donald McEachin from Virginia and Zoe Lofgren from California have introduced a House companion to Gillibrand’s bill. Sens. Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders, two other 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls, and Richard Blumenthal have also signed onto the Senate bill as co-sponsors.
The Trump administration has worked to limit immigration and toughen the US asylum process amid overcrowded conditions at border facilities and a spike in apprehensions at the US-Mexico border over the recent months.
Last month, the departments of Justice and Homeland Security also rolled out an interim rule that would prohibit migrants who have resided or “transited en route” in a third country from seeking asylum in the US, therefore barring migrants from Central America traveling through Mexico from being able to claim asylum and as a result, drastically limiting who’s eligible for asylum.
A federal judge blocked the asylum rulefrom going into effect, deeming it “likely invalid because it is inconsistent with the existing asylum laws.”
The Trump administration also moved to expanda procedure to speed up deportations to include undocumented immigrants anywhere in the US who cannot prove they’ve lived in the country continuously for two years or more.
The notice, filed in the Federal Register on July 22, casts a wider net of undocumented immigrants subject to the fast-track deportation procedure known as “expedited removal” which allows immigration authorities to remove an individual without a hearing before an immigration judge. The American Civil Liberties Union has said it will sue to block the policy.
Competent lawyers have been beating the Trump Administration like a drum on immigration issues. That’s why corrupt officials like Trump, Barr, Miller, “Big Mac With Lies,” and “Cooch Cooch” are so desperate to railroad asylum applicants out of the country while unlawfully denying them access to even the limited number of pro bono lawyers available under current law.
The Federal Courts have also “tanked” on their constitutional duty to insure Due Process by requiring appointed counsel in immigration cases, something that should make the entire Article III judiciary hang their collective heads in shame. The Federal Courts have also been “asleep at the switch” by allowing the Trump Administration to use inhumane coercive detention in obscure places and other gimmicks intentionally designed to defeat asylum applicants’ right to counsel of their own choosing.
Amid these atrocities, many people in the United States are asking how they can help. For those who want to contribute, there is a simple way that doesn’t require donating money, living in a border town, or speaking Spanish: volunteering as a court observer.
Court observers attend asylum hearings to shed light on the immigration court system, which is among the least transparent institutions of the justice system. Qualifications are minimal—one needs only a valid government photo ID and the ability to observe in silence and take legible notes, since recording devices aren’t allowed. Volunteers can plug into different programs to share their observations, as well as discuss the process with family and friends or post their findings on social media. Collectively, this information can be used to highlight judges or courts that are particularly unfriendly to asylum seekers. It can also empower advocates pushing for systemic reform of the 50 immigration courts in 29 states, Puerto Rico, and the Northern Mariana Islands deciding the fate of every asylum seeker, many of whom are forced to return to the place they just barely escaped from.
“The immigration court system has been so insulated from public view,” Michele Garnett McKenzie, deputy director of The Advocates for Human Rights, an organization that has been running a court observation program since 2017, told Rewire.News.“It’s small, it’s under the radar, and it lulls us to thinking that there are a set of rules and if the rules are followed, justice will be done.”
Reports, however, are surfacing of judges who haven’t granted a single asylum out of 200 cases. Asylum seekers who are deported are sent back to a place where they might be tortured or killed.
Ariel Prado, who organizes the volunteer-based court watch program in Atlanta, Georgia, for Innovation Law Lab, hasn’t encountered a judge who has denied 100 percent of asylum cases. “But there are judges in Atlanta with a denial rate in the high 90s,” Prado told Rewire.News.
These high denial rates don’t tell us the full story, Prado noted. “You might think [the judges] have a different understanding of the law or they have a constrained understanding of what asylum is or they apply the law differently,” Prado said. “In [immigration court], it’s a much more human level than that. You see women who describe sexual abuse, repeated rape over the span of the year, being in captivity, being forcefully drugged … and you watch mostly male judges almost doze off through the testimony and totally trivialize [the woman’s] experience in their summary.”
Other advocates echo similar frustrations. Emem Maurus is an immigration attorney for Al Otro Lado, a bi-national nonprofit serving asylum seekers who seek to migrate to the United States, in Tijuana, Mexico. The organization recently launched a court observation program to collect information and bring transparency to Migrant Protection Protocols. Without accountability, Maurus told Rewire.News, “it’s a black hole in terms of what’s happening” to asylum seekers. Maurus described a judge who asked an asylum seeker to designate the country of his removal in case his asylum was denied. “The man said, I can’t go back to Honduras,” said Maurus. The judge then asked the government lawyer for a recommendation. “[The government lawyer] very glumly said, ‘Honduras.’ And the judge said, ‘OK, Honduras,’” added Maurus.
Although Maurus finds these incidents difficult to observe, they believe it’s crucial to document “the human cost of [the collective policies] that Trump [has] enacted.”
Under the “Remain in Mexico” policy, asylum seekers are forced to wait in Mexico for their case to be heard, and when they eventually appear for court, most are unrepresented. Lack of representation can be detrimental to an asylum case.
As part of her court observation for Al Otro Lado, volunteer Sarah Gibb Millspaugh records whether asylum seekers appear with a lawyer and if they try to obtain council. Although the San Diego immigration court provides asylum seekers with a list of legal aid, only 5 percent of people she observed had legal representation. “When you’re living in shelters, [it is difficult] to find a lawyer across the border that will connect with you in Mexico,” Millspaugh told Rewire.News. “The list they had posted in the court were all in San Diego and not in Tijuana.”
Compounding the issue, many U.S.-based immigration law firms don’t answer phone calls from Mexico, according to Maurus. And there are other obstacles. In several immigration courts, interpreters communicate through video as they aren’t present. “So if the judge talks to the prosecutor, it doesn’t get interpreted for the asylum seeker,” said McKenzie. “The interpreters only translate questions addressed to the asylum seekers.” Given such circumstances and the lack of adequate representation, it is highly unlikely for asylum seekers to receive a fair trial.
Millspaugh found the immigration judges she observed to be compassionate. Even so, like other advocates, she thinks the law is unjust. “Some of the most emotional points were that [the judge] said we’ll review [the] case at the next hearing in September.” This meant the asylum seekers would have to live in Mexico shelters for another two-and-a-half months or on the streets of one of the most dangerous cities in the world, with no money or means to protect themselves. “A woman said a man had followed her twice, [while she was in Mexico awaiting her court hearing], [trying] to take her daughter,” Millspaugh added. “Her daughter was about three.” A man and his son who had been threatened in Mexico asked the judge if she could hold the hearing any sooner. Due to a backlog in cases, the judge was able to expedite the case by only two weeks.
Millspaugh observed another judge who asked asylum seekers to not bring their children to their court hearing. Afterwards, Millspaugh wrote the judge a letter stating that given the unstable and unsafe conditions in Mexico, asylum seekers have no choice but to bring their children to the court. “I wouldn’t leave my child in Mexico. I would bring my child,” said Millspaugh.
The advocates Rewire.Newsspoke to encouraged people of all backgrounds to volunteer as court observers. Given the background and different experiences of volunteers, McKenzie believes they can observe court hearings from different angles. “[We have] an amazing array of retired people who go [into the immigration courts] with 40 years of professional experience as a psychologist or a child protection worker,” she said.
Prado, who is helping develop an Immigration Court Watch browser-based app, believes who controls the narrative is important. “It’s all [up to] the community to investigate where the truth lies. Court observation is the core of truth finding and it’s meant to be a national project.”
Scheduled to launch in mid-August, the app uses standardized forms to document immigration judges’ conduct, the hearing outcome, and other factors. “That way we can compare the immigration judge conduct and hearing outcomes by more than just [what the government and the Department of Justice] is willing to share,” said Prado. The forms are uploaded onto the app, which will read responses, ask follow-up questions, and store the information in a centralized location.
“Court observation makes sure what happens [to asylum seekers] isn’t completely shrouded and opaque,” Prado said. There are times, however, that immigration judges determine a hearing should be closed to the public in order to protect the asylum seeker from having to share sensitive details in front of an audience. Other times a judge would rather not be scrutinized or might be concerned the observers will be disruptive. Prado noted it would be ill-advised for observers to challenge the judge. Instead they should document they were ordered to leave the immigration court along with any reasons the judge provides.
McKenzie believes court observation could help the justice system become accountable and even change the behavior of the judges. “The system is designed to operate for the benefit of the system and not the public,” McKenzie said. “Without public engagement there is no sunshine, no transparency. Transparency and accountability are fundamental to protecting the human rights of the people.”
When Millspaugh shared her experience as a volunteer court observer with friends, they were concerned that it is difficult to witness such heartbreaking proceedings. But Millspaugh is undeterred, as she feels contributing to stopping human rights violations is empowering. “There is something that’s very life-giving … about actually engaging in the system. When we know what’s happening and we’re not connecting with it, there is a helpless despair we can feel. We can do something. Even if we [don’t] stop it, we are mitigating the horrors that are inflicted.”
As this article aptly points out, every concerned American can take part in supporting the many traumatized individuals being sentenced to injustice in our disgracefully broken U.S. Immigration Courts. You don’t have to be a lawyer or a journalist. These “courts that function more like star chambers” have been “weaponized” by the Trump Administration against the very individuals they are supposed to be protecting against unlawful Government actions, Executive overreach, and the intentional misconstruction of the laws granting asylum and other immigration benefits.
This article also correctly points out that the so-called “border crisis,” largely created and totally aggravated by this “maliciously incompetent” Administration, has been used to divert attention from the gross violations of legal and human rights and basic morality that the Administration inflicts daily in the “captive” Immigraton Courts as it mocks constitutional Due Process and fundamental fairness.
History will record the intentional misdeeds, lack of human empathy, and the often life-threatening harm being cowardly and unfairly inflicted on those seeking mercy and refuge under our laws.
Angelina Jolie Actress, Writer, Human Rights Advocate
Angelina Jolie writes in Time:
Angelina Jolie: The Crisis We Face at the Border Does Not Require Us to Choose Between Security and Humanity
Angelina Jolie
Jolie, a TIME contributing editor, is an Academy Award–winning actor and Special Envoy of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees
We Americans have been confronted by devastating images from our southern border and increasingly polarized views on how to address this untenable situation.
At times I wonder if we are retreating from the ideal of America as a country founded by and for brave, bold, freedom-seeking rebels, and becoming instead inward-looking and fearful.
I suspect many of us will refuse to retreat. We grew up in this beautiful, free country, in all its diversity. We know nothing good ever came of fear, and that our own history — including the shameful mistreatment of Native Americans — should incline us to humility and respect when considering the question of migration.
I’m not a lawyer, an asylum seeker, or one of the people working every day to protect our borders and run our immigration system. But I work with the UN Refugee Agency, which operates in 134 countries to protect and support many of the over 70 million people displaced by conflict and persecution.
We in America are starting to experience on our borders some of the pressures other nations have faced for years: countries like Turkey, Uganda and Sudan, which host 6 million refugees between them. Or Lebanon, where every sixth person is a refugee. Or Colombia, which is hosting over 1 million Venezuelans in a country slightly less than twice the size of Texas. There are lessons — and warnings — we can derive from the global refugee situation.
The first is that this is about more than just one border. Unless we address the factors forcing people to move, from war to economic desperation to climate change, we will face ever-growing human displacement. If you don’t address these problems at their source, you will always have people at your borders. People fleeing out of desperation will brave any obstacle in front of them.
Second, countries producing the migration or refugee flow have the greatest responsibility to take measures to protect their citizens and address the insecurity, corruption and violence causing people to flee. But assisting them with that task is in our interest. Former senior military figures urge the restoration of U.S. aid to Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, arguing that helping to build the rule of law, respect for human rights and stability is the only way to create alternatives to migration. The UN Refugee Agency is calling for an urgent summit of governments in the Americas to address the displacement crisis. These seem logical, overdue steps. Our development assistance to other countries is not a bargaining chip, it is an investment in our long-term security. Showing leadership and working with other countries is a measure of strength, not a sign of weakness.
Third, we have a vital interest in upholding international laws and standards on asylum and protection. It is troubling to see our country backing away from these, while expecting other countries, who are hosting millions of refugees and asylum seekers, to adhere to a stricter code. If we go down this path, we risk a race to the bottom and far greater chaos. An international rules-based system brings order. Breaking international standards only encourages more rule-breaking.
Fourth, the legal experts I meet suggest there are ways of making the immigration system function much more effectively, fairly and humanely. For instance, by resourcing the immigration courts to address the enormous backlog of cases built up over years. They argue this would help enable prompt determination of who legally qualifies for protection and who does not, and at the same time disincentivize anyone inclined to misuse the asylum system for economic or other reasons. The American Bar Association and other legal scholars and associations are calling for immigration court to be made independent and free from external influence, so that cases can be fairly, efficiently and impartially decided under the law.
There are also proven models of working with legal firms to provide pro-bono legal assistance to unaccompanied children in the immigration system without increasing the burden on the U.S. taxpayer. Expanding these kinds of initiative would help to ensure that vulnerable children don’t have to represent themselves in court, and improve the effectiveness, fairness and speed of immigration proceedings. Approximately 65% of children in the U.S. immigration system still face court without an attorney.
We all want our borders to be secure and our laws to be upheld, but it is not true that we face a choice between security and our humanity: between sealing our country off and turning our back to the world on the one hand, or having open borders on the other. The best way of protecting our security is by upholding our values and addressing the roots of this crisis. We can be fearless, generous and open-minded in seeking solutions.
TIME Ideas hosts the world’s leading voices, providing commentary on events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
********************************************
Wow! Great thoughts on how caring people might actually help to constructively address human migration issues rather than cruelly making them worse through “malicious incompetence.”
It’s painfully clear that we have the wrong “celebrity” leading our nation. But, Jolie wasn’t on the ballot (not will she be). Nevertheless, in a saner and more law-abiding Government, there should be a place for ideas and leadership from Jolie and others like her.
HISTORICAL NOTE: If my memory serves me correctly, Angelina Jolie once appeared before my esteemed retired colleague U.S. Immigration Judge M. Christopher Grant, as an expert witness in an asylum case before the Arlington Immigration Court.
HERE’S WHAT the State Department recommends for U.S. travelers to Guatemala: Do not walk or drive at night. Request security escorts. In the capital, Guatemala City, do not hail taxis on the streets and avoid 10 specific neighborhoods, including one around the airport.
Here’s what the Trump administration recommends to non-U.S. travelers to Guatemala, namely those from other Central American countries: Stay there and apply for asylum. Don’t even think about continuing north to the U.S. border.
The juxtaposition is absurd but no less so than the agreement the administration struck last week with Guatemala — that it be considered a “safe third country” to which the United States will return asylum seekers if they have not already sought refuge there. If the administration’s contempt for Central Americans fleeing violence, hardship and persecution was not already clear, this new policy clarified it.
The rule, set to take effect in the coming weeks if U.S. or Guatemalan courts don’t block it, is mainly aimed at migrants from El Salvador and Honduras. They constitute the second- and third-largest cohorts of asylum seekers crossing the U.S. southwestern border in recent months, and most of them traverse Guatemala on their trek northward. (The largest cohort is Guatemalans themselves, who accounted for a majority of the more than 100,000 migrants stopped at the border monthly this past spring.)
President Trump, irate at the migrant flow, has used slander — “these are bad people,” he told reporters — and a grab bag of legally dubious deterrent measures. He is right that Customs and Border Protection and other agencies are struggling to handle the tide, which resulted in nearly 700,000 apprehensions in the current fiscal year through June, compared with scarcely 400,000 the entire previous year. But it is morally indefensible to attack a migration problem by putting migrants themselves at risk. That is precisely what the administration’s new move would do.
The United States maintains a safe-third-country agreement with Canada, meaning that asylum seekers can be returned to that country to apply for refuge if they crossed the border from there. That makes sense because Canada is generally safe; Guatemala is anything but. And the retort of acting homeland security secretary Kevin McAleenan, who noted that parts of the United States are also unsafe, is risible. Guatemala’s crime rate dwarfs that of the United States; the homicide rate there is five times higher.
The probable result of the administration’s policy, if it goes into effect, will be to transform legal asylum seekers into undocumented immigrants. They are unlikely to seek refuge in Guatemala, which has no administrative mechanism to process thousands of asylum applications — and which agreed to the deal with the United States only after Mr. Trump threatened severe sanctions. Instead, many will likely cross illegally into the United States and live in the shadows.
Mr. Trump’s response is to build his border wall, which got a lift last week when the Supreme Court said construction could proceed while challenges to funding it continue in the courts. But walls can be scaled, tunneled under and circumnavigated; Mr. Trump’s wall would not stanch the flow of migrants nor improve the conditions that drive them from their countries.
*******************************
More confirmation of my observation that “Big Mac With Lies” is one of America’s most dangerous White Nationalist racist liars and enablers. Imagine what an ethical, honest public servant could do by having the courage and integrity to “blow the whistle” on Trump’s lies, fabrications, and racist attacks on the rule of law and on humanity!
Yes, the Post is right that “Big Mac’s” bogus claims about Guatemala are “risible,” meaning in plain English “laughable.” But there is nothing “funny” about a dishonest and cowardly public official whose lies and false narratives are killing innocent, vulnerable humans who (perhaps misguidedly) looked to the U.S. for legal protection.
Most outrageously, “Big Mac” and company think that they essentially can “get away with murder” (perhaps emboldened by Trump’s claim that he could shoot someone in board daylight and escape accountability). While, thanks to the Supremes, public officials have insulated themselves from most legal accountability for many of their outrageous misdeeds, it’s up to history and future generations to insure that the legacy of McAleenan and his fellow “Germany 1939’ers” reflects their disingenuous disregard for the law, truth, and human values and their spineless support for the toxic policies of the worst and most immoral President in U.S. history. No, “just following orders” won’t be a defense for “Big Mac” before the Court of History.
Maria Sacchetti Immigration Reporter, Washington Post
Maria Sacchetti reports for the WashPost:
Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union told a federal judge Tuesday that the Trump administration has taken nearly 1,000 migrant children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border since the judge ordered the United States government to curtail the practice more than a year ago.
In a lengthy court filing in U.S. District Court in San Diego, lawyers wrote that one migrant lost his daughter because a U.S. Border Patrol agent claimed that he had failed to change the girl’s diaper. Another migrant lost his child because of a conviction on a charge of malicious destruction of property with alleged damage of $5. One father, who lawyers say has a speech impediment, was separated from his 4-year-old son because he could not clearly answer Customs and Border Protection agents’ questions.
Acting Homeland Security secretary Kevin McAleenan has said that family separations remain “extraordinarily rare” and happen only when the adults pose a risk to the child because of their criminal record, a communicable disease, abuse or neglect. Of tens of thousands of children taken into custody at the border, 911 children were separated since the June 26, 2018, court order according to the ACLU, which cited statistics as of June 29 that the organization received from the government as part of ongoing legal proceedings.
During a July 12 tour of a detention center in McAllen, Tex., reporters saw almost 400 men being held in cages. They allegedly crossed the border illegally. (The Washington Post)While the judge recognized that parents and children might still be separated when a parent is found to pose a risk to their child, the ACLU and others say federal immigration and border agents are splitting up families for minor alleged offenses — including traffic violations — and urged the judge Tuesday to clarify when such separations should be allowed.Approximately 20 percent of the new separations affected children under 5 years old, the ACLU said, compared with about 4 percent last year.
“They’re taking what was supposed to be a narrow exception for cases where the parent was genuinely a danger to the child and using it as a loophole to continue family separation,” ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt said in an interview. “What everyone understands intuitively and what the medical evidence shows, this will have a devastating effect on the children and possibly cause permanent damage to these children, not to mention the toll on the parents.”
[Accused of gang ties, separated parents struggle to get their kids back]
The Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security declined to comment Tuesday.
The tally of child separations adds to the approximately 2,700 children who were taken from their parents during a chaotic, six-week period from May to June 20 last year, when a Trump administration border crackdown triggered one of the worst crises of his presidency.
The policy sought to deter a crush of asylum seekers, who were surrendering as families at the U.S. southern border, by prosecuting parents for the crime of illegal entry and sending their children to federal shelters. Reports of traumatized, crying children led to widespread demands to reunite the families.
Venezuelan migrant mothers and their children turn themselves in to law enforcement officials to seek asylum after illegally crossing the Rio Grande near Mission, Tex., on July 25. (Loren Elliott/Reuters)
Trump ordered federal officials to stop separating families on June 20, 2018, and said it is the “policy of this Administration to maintain family unity” unless the parent poses “a risk” to the child.
Six days later in San Diego, U.S. District Judge Dana M. Sabraw, an appointee of President George W. Bush, ordered the Trump administration to reunite the families, a process that dragged on for months because the government had failed to track the parents and children after splitting them up. A still-unknown number of families were separated before the policy officially began.
McAleenan, who at the time signed off on the zero tolerance policy and carried it out as commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in May that family separations are “extraordinarily rare” and make up a tiny portion of the now more than 400,000 families taken into custody at the border since the court ruling.
Central American migrants walk along train tracks as they head toward the United States in Saltillo, Mexico, on July 24. (Daniel Becerril/Reuters)
At that time, he testified, about one to three family separations happened out of about 1,500 to 3,000 family members apprehended each day. He also said then that separations occur “under very controlled circumstances.”
Testifying before the U.S. House Oversight and Reform Committee on July 18, McAleenan emphasized that the separation process is “carefully governed by policy and by court order” to protect the children.
“This is in the interest of the child,” he said. “It’s overseen by a supervisor, and those decisions are made.”
[IG: Trump administration took thousands more migrant children from parents]
Of the 911 child separations, 678 were for alleged criminal history, the ACLU said Tuesday, citing government records. Offenses included drunken driving, assault and gang affiliation, as well as theft, disorderly conduct and minor property damage.
Many cases lacked details about the alleged crimes, the ACLU said, and several charges were decades old. Among those separated because of concerns about parental fitness were an HIV-positive father of three young daughters and a mother who broke her leg and required surgery.
Child advocates and medical professionals have repeatedly warned that separating children from their parents can lead to lasting severe physical and emotional disorders.
“Forcibly separating children from their parents is like setting a house on fire,” Jack Shonkoff, a pediatrics professor at Harvard Medical School, said in an affidavit included in the ACLU’s motion. “Prolonging that separation is like preventing the first responders from doing their job and letting the fire continue to burn.”
Jennifer Nagda, policy director of the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights, a child advocate for unaccompanied and separated children, told the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform that the group represented about 120 children and found that nearly all separations were “contrary to the best interests of the child.”
“DHS officials with no child welfare expertise are making split-second decisions, and these decisions have traumatic, lifelong consequences for the children and their families,” Nagda said in her testimony. She also filed an affidavit in the ACLU’s case Tuesday.
**************************
It’s with very good reason that I consider “Big Mac With Lies” to be one of the most dishonest and dangerous public officials in America.
Some reporters seem to mistakenly “cut him some slack” because he: 1) served in the Obama Administration (which had its own very dismal record on treatment of families and children seeking asylum); and 2) unlike folks such as“Gonzo,”“Cooch Cooch,” Miller, Kobach, et al., he’s not a “lifelong White Nationalist ideologue.”
But, I don’t see how being a liar, apologist, “cover up artist,” and human rights abuser in support of a racist White Nationalist Administration is somehow “better” than being a “true believer” in White Nationalist racism. Falsely claiming that Guatemala and Mexico are “Safe Third Countries,” that asylum applicants won’t show up for hearings (when they almost always do, particularly when they are given access to lawyers and have the system properly explained to them), and falsifying stats to paint an untruly negative picture of asylum seekers from Central America is no less vile than Trump’s lies and racist tweets.
As a lawyer and a graduate of Amherst Collge and Chicago Law, “Big Mac” is cerainly smart enough to know that places like Guatemala and Mexico don’t come remotely close to satisfying the legal definition of a “Safe Third Country.” He also has enough Government immigration enforcement experience to know for sure that the extralegal, cruel, and ineffective “enforcement only” approach he disingenuously advocates as a “Trump toady” won’t come anywhere near to solving the problems driving forced migration or saving the lives of the vulnerable.
I actually have a better understanding of what drives the Trumps, “Gonzos,” Millers, and “Cooch Cooches” of the world than what drives corrupt public servants like McAleenan to violate their oaths of office and to pick on those whose rights and human dignity they should be standing up for, no matter how vile the leadership of the Administration they nominally serve (actually, they serve the American people, not any particular political leader) might be.”Big Mac” is a disgrace to honest Federal civil servants and to all Americans who believe in democracy and “good government.” History must hold him accountable.
WASHINGTON, DC — On July 29, 2019, Attorney General (AG) William Barr issued a precedent decision in Matter of L-E-A- and announced that in his view, families cannot be considered a particular social group (and thus grounds for asylum) unless they are recognized by society as such.
AILA Second Vice President Jeremy McKinney stated, “Matter of L-E-A- is a poorly-reasoned decision from an Administration that seems intent on ending legal asylum. AG Barr’s decision ignores decades of circuit court case law which has concluded that families are the ‘prototypical’ or ‘quintessential’ particular social group to qualify for asylum. Courts, like the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, have voluminous case law directly contradicting the Attorney General’s decision today.
“The impact of AG Barr’s decision, along with the other decisions issued by his immediate predecessors on asylum and the nation’s immigration courts, cannot be overstated. Last summer, the AG issued Matter of A-B- attempting to end the category of persecution – essentially restricting domestic violence victims and other victims of crimes perpetrated by private, non-government actors from their ability to qualify for asylum. Today, the AG’s office further attempts to restrict asylum by targeting a new category of asylum seekers: families. This will cause irreparable harm. We know that these are some of the most vulnerable of asylum seekers as parents flee with their children in order to protect them from persecution. This decision unnecessarily makes asylum harder. Clearly, our nation needs an independent immigration court system separate from the Department of Justice.”
Cowardice is the very definition of when those in power whose job and solemn duty is to protect and vindicate the rights of others, particularly the most vulnerable among us like refugees, instead grossly abuse their power by picking on them, bullying them, and abusing them. Whether or not Barr and the other White Nationalist restrictionists in the Trump Administration are committing actual crimes under U.S. law, they are certainly guilty of “crimes against humanity” in any normal sense of the word.
It is for legal scholars, historians, and moral philosophers to insure that Trump, Pence, Barr, Sessions, “Cooch Cooch,” “Big Mac With Lies,” Miller, Nielsen, Kelly, Homan, Morgan, and others who have enthusiastically supported and enabled this debacle do not escape the negative judgements of history!
(1) In Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017), the Board of Immigration Appeals improperly recognized the respondent’s father’s immediate family as a “particular social group” for purposes of qualifying for asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
(2) All asylum applicants seeking to establish membership in a “particular social group,” including groups defined by family or kinship ties, must establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic; (2) defined with particularity; and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.
(3) While the Board has recognized certain clans and subclans as “particular social groups,” most nuclear families are not inherently socially distinct and therefore do not qualify as “particular social groups.”
(4) The portion of the Board’s decision recognizing the respondent’s proposed particular social group is overruled. See Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. at 42– 43 (Part II.A). The rest of the Board’s decision, including its analysis of the required nexus between alleged persecution and the alleged protected ground, is affirmed. See id. at 43–47 (Part II.B).
*******************************
As my friend Dan Kowalski of LexisNexis has pointed out, the AG’s ruling conflicts with most Circuit Court precedents which have recognized the nuclear family as the “quintessential particular social group.” So, Barr’s latest assault on human rights and the rule of law is likely to engender years of unnecessary and wasteful litigation.
But, the New Due Process Army and the Roundtable will be leading the change for truth, justice, and the American way!
Baltimore Congressman Elijah Cummings, the House Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman. (Kenneth K. Lam / Baltimore Sun)
In case anyone missed it, the president of the United States had some choice words to describe Maryland’s 7th congressional district on Saturday morning. Here are the key phrases: “no human being would want to live there,” it is a “very dangerous & filthy place,” “Worst in the USA” and, our personal favorite: It is a “rat and rodent infested mess.” He wasn’t really speaking of the 7th as a whole. He failed to mention Ellicott City, for example, or Baldwin or Monkton or Prettyboy, all of which are contained in the sprawling yet oddly-shaped district that runs from western Howard County to southern Harford County. No, Donald Trump’s wrath was directed at Baltimore and specifically at Rep. Elijah Cummings, the 68-year-old son of a former South Carolina sharecropper who has represented the district in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1996.
Rep, Elijah Cummings has been a brutal bully, shouting and screaming at the great men & women of Border Patrol about conditions at the Southern Border, when actually his Baltimore district is FAR WORSE and more dangerous. His district is considered the Worst in the USA……
….As proven last week during a Congressional tour, the Border is clean, efficient & well run, just very crowded. Cumming District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place
It’s not hard to see what’s going on here. The congressman has been a thorn in this president’s side, and Mr. Trump sees attacking African American members of Congress as good politics, as it both warms the cockles of the white supremacists who love him and causes so many of the thoughtful people who don’t to scream. President Trump bad-mouthed Baltimore in order to make a point that the border camps are “clean, efficient & well run,” which, of course, they are not — unless you are fine with all the overcrowding, squalor, cages and deprivation to be found in what the Department of Homeland Security’s own inspector-general recently called “a ticking time bomb.”
Play
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
Remaining Time
-0:24
Fullscreen
In pointing to the 7th, the president wasn’t hoping his supporters would recognize landmarks like Johns Hopkins Hospital, perhaps the nation’s leading medical center. He wasn’t conjuring images of the U.S. Social Security Administration, where they write the checks that so many retired and disabled Americans depend upon. It wasn’t about the beauty of the Inner Harbor or the proud history of Fort McHenry. And it surely wasn’t about the economic standing of a district where the median income is actually above the national average. No, he was returning to an old standby of attacking an African American lawmaker from a majority black district on the most emotional and bigoted of arguments. It was only surprising that there wasn’t room for a few classic phrases like “you people” or “welfare queens” or “crime-ridden ghettos” or a suggestion that the congressman “go back” to where he came from.
This is a president who will happily debase himself at the slightest provocation. And given Mr. Cummings’ criticisms of U.S. border policy, the various investigations he has launched as chairman of the House Oversight Committee, his willingness to call Mr. Trump a racist for his recent attacks on the freshmen congresswomen, and the fact that “Fox & Friends” had recently aired a segment critical of the city, slamming Baltimore must have been irresistible in a Pavlovian way. Fox News rang the bell, the president salivated and his thumbs moved across his cell phone into action.
As heartening as it has been to witness public figures rise to Charm City’s defense on Saturday, from native daughter House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Mayor Bernard C. “Jack” Young, we would above all remind Mr. Trump that the 7th District, Baltimore included, is part of the United States that he is supposedly governing. The White House has far more power to effect change in this city, for good or ill, than any single member of Congress including Mr. Cummings. If there are problems here, rodents included, they are as much his responsibility as anyone’s, perhaps more because he holds the most powerful office in the land.
Finally, while we would not sink to name-calling in the Trumpian manner — or ruefully point out that he failed to spell the congressman’s name correctly (it’s Cummings, not Cumming) — we would tell the most dishonest man to ever occupy the Oval Office, the mocker of war heroes, the gleeful grabber of women’s private parts, the serial bankrupter of businesses, the useful idiot of Vladimir Putin and the guy who insisted there are “good people” among murderous neo-Nazis that he’s still not fooling most Americans into believing he’s even slightly competent in his current post. Or that he possesses a scintilla of integrity. Better to have some vermin living in your neighborhood than to be one.
********************************
Tellingly, what set off this latest barrage of racist lies was Cummings’s very legitimate anger at and criticism of the Border Patrol and Kevin “Big Mac With Lies” McAleenan during a recent oversight hearing.
The Border Patrol atrocities that Cummings cited, and that “Big Mac” and his GOP backers deny, have all been documented beyond a reasonable doubt by countless reporters, lawyers, Congressmen, the victims themselves, and, most tellingly, the DHS’s own Inspector General. They aren’t “matters of opinion;” they are irrefutable facts that McAleenan disingenuously continues to deny, obscure, and cover up.
Beyond that, recent reports about the racist website in which many Border Patrol personnel, including Chief Carla Provost, participate show that the Border Patrol has a serious racism and lack of professionalism problem that is right out in the open that McAleenan has failed to solve and appears to minimize. No, he’s too busy abusing children and other migrant detainees and dishonestly promoting “Safe Third Country” agreements that violate the statute and his oath of office.In a normal times, McAleenan would be a strong candidate for removal from office and criminal prosecution. Here, he’s just another dishonest Trump stooge.
Hang in there Chairman Cummings! Don’t let the vile racists and White Nationalists who have taken over our Government and are trampling both our Constitution and human decency off the hook!
Beth Werlin Executive Director American Immigration Council
Beth Werlin writes in The NY Times:
The Trump administration’s expansion of the use of fast-track deportations through “expedited removal” will create a “show me your papers” regime nationwide in which people — including citizens — may be forced to quickly prove they should not be deported. This policy allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement to quickly deport someone without going before an immigration judge, undermining American principles of fundamental fairness and putting United States citizens, permanent residents and asylum-seekers at risk of wrongful deportation.
For 15 years, the government has been applying expedited removal in a limited way to those within 100 miles of the Canadian or Mexican border who have been in the United States for less than two weeks. The entire process consists of an interview with an immigration officer during which the burden is on the individual to prove a legal right to remain in the United States. One could be questioned, detained and deported very swiftly with little time to consult a lawyer or to gather evidence to prevent deportation. The extremely short timeline of the expedited-removal process increases the chances that a person who is legally entitled to stay in the United States can end up being removed anyway. The government now says it will apply it across the country for many people who cannot prove they have been present in the United States for two years or more. The expansion could affect thousands of people nationwide.
During just one year of the Trump administration, 27,540 citizens were questioned by ICE — five times more than the last year of the Obama administration. The expansion of the expedited removal process will further increase the number of people questioned, creating a heightened risk that citizens will be arrested, detained and wrongfully deported.
The process has many shortcomings. First, in expedited removal proceedings, immigration officers serve as both prosecutor and judge — charging someone as deportable and making a final decision to deport him, often all within a day. These rapid deportation decisions fail to take into account many critical factors that an immigration judge would consider, including whether the individual is eligible to apply for lawful status in the United States or whether he has citizen family members.
Second, there is generally no opportunity to consult with a lawyer. Having one can make all the difference. With a lawyer, a person is 10 times more likely to prevail in an immigration case. Moreover, there is typically no judicial oversight, with relatively low-level government officers authorized to issue the deportation orders.
Despite the backlogs in the immigration court system and even though the courts often fail to live up to expectations, they can help ensure a basic level of fair process. They safeguard against unlawful removals, afford people the opportunity to obtain counsel, and provide a streamlined appeal process.
This is particularly critical today, given that many people who will be subject to expedited removal are asylum seekers. These particularly vulnerable people could face serious harm or death in their countries of origin if they’re deported.
The lack of safeguards and information in expedited removal is compounded by well-documented abuse of the process. Immigration officers applying expedited removal are obligated to inform individuals of their opportunity to seek asylum and refer a person who expresses a fear of returning to their home country for a “credible fear interview.” Unfortunately, multiple investigations have revealed that officers at the border sometimes fail to fulfill these obligations.
One hallmark of the American justice system is a fair day in court before an impartial decision maker. This is the ultimate distortion of that system. Rather than strengthening the immigration court system, the administration is planning to bypass it entirely, and the human costs will be great.
Beth Werlin is the executive director of the American Immigration Council
*******************
Trump’s cruel abuse of vulnerable refugees and his wanton destruction of the U.S. Immigration Court system are national disgraces!
