Congress – Page 112 – immigrationcourtside.com

US DISTRICT JUDGE ROGER W. TITUS IN MD REJECTS DACA CHALLENGE — Basically Finds Rescission Dumb But Legal, While Barring DHS From Using DACA Info In Removal Proceedings — Casa de Maryland v. DHS

Casa de Maryland v. DHS, D. MD., 03-05-18, Judge Roger W. Titus

While the Administration and right-leaning media are touting this as a “smashing victory” here’s what District Judge Titus really said:

The original Obama Administration DACA program was an exercise of prosecutorial discretion on which reasonable minds can differ as to its legality.
The Trump Administration had discretion either to continue the DACA program or not as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
The decision by the Administration to phase out DACA was subject to judicial review and the plaintiffs had standing to challenge it.
The DHS’s decision to phase out DACA upon receiving an opinion from Attorney General Sessions that it might well be held illegal in a threatened court action was reasonable.
The sometimes ill-advised and inflammatory statements by President Trump were not relevant to the basis for termination of DACA.
Although Judge Titus personally would have chosen a different policy approach from that of the Administration, under Constitutional separation of powers that policy decision was vested in the Executive and Congress, not the Courts, and the Administration had acted reasonably in this case.
The DHS is estopped from using information gathered during the DACA application process against individuals in Removal Proceedings except if “the Government needs to make use of an individual Dreamer’s information for national security or some purpose implicating public safety or public interest, the Government may petition the Court for permission to do so on a case-by-case basis with in camera review.”

Judge Titus’s decision actually more or less undermines the Administration’s frequent claims that DACA was “illegal” and that the Administration had “no choice” but to terminate it. Rather, the court held that legitimate unresolved questions had been raised about the DACA program’s legality and that in the face of those questions the Administration’s choice to proceed with a phased termination rather than trying to defend DACA in court was reasonable.

Additionally, as I had predicted, the court was unwilling to allow DHS to use DACA information against the individuals in Removal Proceedings. While this aspect of the case was :”under the radar” in most reports, it could well be another major practical/legal roadblock to the Administration’s actually removing many DACA recipients even if the injunctions against DACA termination eventually are lifted.

Here’s a “KEY QUOTE” from Judge Titus’s decision:

“The result of this case is not one that this Court would choose if it were a member of a different branch of our government. An overwhelming percentage of Americans support protections for “Dreamers,” yet it is not the province of the judiciary to provide legislative or executive actions when those entrusted with those responsibilities fail to act. As Justice Gorsuch noted during his confirmation hearing, “a judge who likes every outcome he reaches is probably a pretty bad judge, stretching for the policy results he prefers rather than those the law compels.”

This Court does not like the outcome of this case, but is constrained by its constitutionally limited role to the result that it has reached. Hopefully, the Congress and the President will finally get their job done.”

In other words, the decision to rescind DACA was “dumb but legal.” Hardly the ringing endorsement that the Trumpsters claim. What this case actually did is to vindicate their right to make bad policy decisions. Ultimately, the remedy for that type of poor governance is at the ballot box.

Here’s the full decision in Casa de Maryland v. DHS so you can judge for yourself:

JudgeTitusDACAOp

PWS

03-06-18

BESS LEVIN – THE LEVIN REPORT – After A Year Of Being One Of Trump’s Chief Toadies To Fulfill Dream Of Big Tax Cuts For Fat Cats That Cripple The Government, Screw The Needy, & Blow Up The Deficit, “Spineless Paul” Ryan Panics When Trump Goes Bonkers On Tariffs!

Levin writes for Vanity Fair:

“For his entire adult life and, let’s be honest, probably a good portion of his teen years, Paul Ryan has fantasized about tax cuts the way some people fantasize about having sex with a porn star. Not just any old tax cuts, of course, but the kind that disproportionately benefit corporate America and the upper-echelons of the ultra rich, while handing average Americans an extra buck fifty a paycheck and expecting an outpouring of gratitude in return. We know this because 1) he’s openly and unabashedly obsessed with Ayn Rand, and 2) just a few short months ago, the House Speaker released a sizzle reel highlighting his many urgent calls for tax cuts spanning nearly 20 years in office. In Donald Trump, a man who has never demonstrated conviction in anything other than enriching himself and other people named Trump, Ryan saw an opportunity for his longtime dream to become a reality. That’s why, for more than a year now, Ryan has put up with everything from the president demanding loyalty from the head of the F.B.I. (“he’s new at this!”) to his decision to give Nazis a free pass (“he’s learning!”) to his refusal to release his tax returns, even though Wisconsin’s first son could compel to do so (“tee-hee!”). And in December, Ryan’s commitment to holding his nose and looking the other way paid off, big time.

This week, though, we learned that there are, in fact, limits to what Ryan will put up with, and they involve imperiling the legacy of his tax bill and upsetting his corporate sugar daddies. In the wake of the president’s decision to announce that he plans to effectively start a trade war, Ryan’s spokeswoman, AshLee Strong, said in a statement on Monday: “We are extremely worried about the consequences of a trade war and are urging the White House to not advance with this plan. The new tax-reform law has boosted the economy and we certainly don’t want to jeopardize those gains.” To be clear, most people outside of the G.O.P. already expect the long-term effects of the tax bill to be a deficit-busting mess. But with Trump’s call to slap steel and aluminum imports with 25% and 10% tariffs, more or less out of spite, the havoc wreaked on the economy could be even worse, with experts estimating 146,000 job losses, among other consequences. Presumably, Ryan was also inspired to find his voice on the issue—and to fire off at least one passive-aggressive tweet—on account of the fact that the Koch brothers, who donated half a million dollars to his fundraising committee after the bill passed, harshly condemned the tariffs. And as they teach lawmakers on their first day on Capitol Hill, one mustn’t upset one’s benefactors.

Trump, though, apparently could not care less about Ryan’s (or anyone else’s) concerns, telling reporters Monday “we’re not backing down” and that the tariffs are “100 percent” happening. The U.S., he said, has been “ripped off” by other countries for too long, and “we are going to take care of it.” Perhaps the one ray of hope in this otherwise terrifying situation? Because this whole thing was put together in such a half-assed, completely slipshod way, Trump’s advisers—the ones who support the tariffs—are already hedging their bets:

Peter Navarro, an adviser and the architect of many of Mr. Trump’s campaign-trade promises, confirmed on Sunday that the president would not exclude any country from the tariffs but said individual companies could apply for exemptions for certain products. . . . Navarro [also] left room for change in the timing of the tariffs, which the president said would be signed this week. “Toward the end of the week,” Mr. Navarro said in a separate appearance on CNN’s State of the Union, when asked when the tariffs would be announced. “At the latest, it would be the following week.”

Wilbur Ross, the secretary of commerce, also appeared to leave room for the president to change his mind. “Whatever his final decision is, is what will happen,” Mr. Ross said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “What he has said he has said. If he says something different, it’ll be something different.” “If he for some reason should change his mind, then it will change,” Mr. Ross added, noting that he had no reason to believe that the president would do so.

Or as a top Republican put it to Politico: “I’ve stopped worrying and reacting to the day-to-day because you get all stressed out about something, then you realize tomorrow morning by lunch that it’s never going to happen.”

Report: Trump’s personal lawyer couldn’t believe he wasn’t immediately reimbursed for $130,00 porn-star payment

It’s almost as though you can’t trust a guy who (allegedly!) had an affair with an adult film star named Stormy Daniels right after his wife gave birth to their son:

The lawyer, Michael Cohen, wired the money to a lawyer for former actress Stephanie Clifford, known professionally as Stormy Daniels, from an account at First Republic Bank. The money was received on Oct. 27, 2016, 12 days before the presidential election, another person familiar with the matter said…Mr. Cohen said he missed two deadlines earlier that month to make the $130,000 payment to Ms. Clifford because he couldn’t reach Mr. Trump in the hectic final days of the presidential campaign, the person said.

Ms. Clifford was owed the money in return for signing an agreement that bars her from discussing an alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump in 2006, people familiar with the matter said. After Mr. Trump’s victory, Mr. Cohen complained to friends that he had yet to be reimbursed for the payment to Ms. Clifford, the people said.

Honestly, finance departments should really provide expense-report templates for this kind of thing. (Asked for comment from the Wall Street Journal, Cohen responded: “Fake News.”)

You might want to sit down for this . . .

This might come as a shock, but there are whispers the Trump Organization is attempting to profit off the presidency:

In recent weeks, the Trump Organization has ordered the manufacture of new tee markers for golf courses that are emblazoned with the seal of the president of the United States. Under federal law, the seal’s use is permitted only for official government business. Misuse can be a crime.

Past administrations have policed usage vigilantly. In 2005 the Bush administration ordered the satirical news website The Onion to remove a replica of the seal. Grant M. Dixton, associate White House counsel, wrote in a letter to The Onion that the seal “is not to be used in connection with commercial ventures or products in any way that suggests presidential support or endorsement.”

Area man demands media leave the Trumps alone!

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

Now is is a great time to re-read Andy Borowitz’s (all too true) satire on “Spineless Paul” that I reprinted on Courtside in December 2017:

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/koch-brothers-and-nra-reach-timeshare-agreement-over-ownership-of-paul-ryan

“WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In a unique accord, the billionaire Koch brothers and the National Rifle Association have reached a timeshare agreement over the ownership of House Speaker Paul Ryan, representatives of both parties have confirmed.

Speaking on behalf of the Kochs, Charles Koch said that he contacted the N.R.A.’s executive director, Wayne LaPierre, with the timeshare proposal “so that we could all get the maximum enjoyment out of owning Paul.”

The arrangement is intended to minimize conflicts between the Kochs and the gun group that have arisen in the past when both co-owners have wanted to use Ryan at the same time, Koch said.

“I said to Wayne, ‘This is craziness,’ ” he said. “ ‘Let’s work something out where you get Paul half the year, and we’ll take him the other half.’ ”

Under the timeshare deal, the Kochs will have the exclusive use of Ryan during the months when tax cuts and environmental deregulation are put to a vote, while the N.R.A. will have him for the months when gun legislation is to be defeated.

Additionally, each co-owner is responsible for insuring that Ryan is well maintained and in good condition when the other’s period of using him commences.

Koch indicated that, if the timeshare agreement is a success, the two parties are likely to work out a similar deal for their longtime joint ownership of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.”

However, the deep corruption of the GOP and its leaders, from Trump on down, isn’t really something to laugh about. At some point, the “nickel and dime” income boost given to average Americans by the GOP’s totally bogus and unwarranted “tax cuts” for the rich will automatically expire (but, naturally, not for the rich) and the true bill for running up the deficit so the Koch Bros and others can get richer will come due. By that time, conveniently, Trump, Ryan, and hopefully McConnell will be out of office. But, the damage they are doing to our country will be left for others, likely the Democrats, to clean up. That’s what Kleptocracy is all about, folks. Steal what you can when you can and then get out of Dodge while the getting is good!

PWS

03-06-18

TAL SAYS THE DREAM SEEMS TO HAVE PASSED – “Dreamers” Are Waking Up To The Reality That They Are Back In “Limboland” With No End In Sight!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/03/05/politics/daca-deadline-march-5-passing-immigration-courts/index.html

DACA’s March 5 ‘deadline’ marks only inaction

By Tal Kopan, CNN

It’s been six months since President Donald Trump moved to end a program that protected young undocumented immigrants from deportation, and Washington seems to be no closer to a resolution on the day everything was supposed to be solved by.

March 5 was originally conceived to be a deadline of sorts for action. When Trump ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in September, he created a six-month delay to give Congress time to come up with a legislative version of the policy, which protected young undocumented immigrants who had come to the US as children.

The Department of Homeland Security was going to renew two-year DACA permits that expired before March 5, and Monday was to be the day after which those permits began expiring for good.

But multiple federal judges ruled that the justification the Trump administration was using to terminate the program was shaky at best — and ordered DHS to resume renewing all existing DACA permits. And the Supreme Court declined the administration’s unusual request to leapfrog the appellate courts and consider immediately whether to overrule those decisions.

That court intervention effectively rendered the March 5 deadline meaningless — and, paired with a dramatic failure on the Senate floor to pass a legislative fix, the wind has been mostly taken out of the sails of any potential compromise.

Activists are still marking Monday with demonstrations and advocacy campaigns. Hundreds of DACA supporters were expected to descend on Washington to push for action.

But the calls for a fix stand in contrast with the lack of momentum for any progress in Washington, with little likelihood of that changing in the near future. Congress has a few options lingering on the back burner, but none are showing signs of imminent movement.

March 23 is the next government funding deadline, and some lawmakers have suggested they may try to use the must-pass package of funding bills as a point of leverage.

But sources close to the process say it’s more likely that efforts will be made to keep a bad deal out of the omnibus spending measure than to come up with a compromise to attach to it, as no solution has a clear path to passing either chamber and the House Republican leadership has opposed attaching any immigration matter to a spending deal.

“I have a feeling that anything that goes with the omnibus is going to be a punt, so I’m not excited about that. That’s not my goal,” Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican who has been one of the loudest voices pushing for a DACA fix on the GOP side, told reporters last week.

In the Senate, Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, and Heidi Heitkamp, a North Dakota Democrat, have introduced a bill that would give three-year extension to the DACA program along with three years of border security funding, though that legislation has yet to pick up any momentum and many lawmakers remain hesitant to give up on a more permanent fix. The Senate is also still feeling the residual effect of the failure of a bipartisan group to get 60 votes for a negotiated compromise bill, which suffered from a relentless opposition campaign from the administration. Trump’s preferred bill failed to get even 40 votes, far fewer than the bipartisan group’s.

On the House side of the Capitol, a more conservative bill than even Trump’s proposal has been taking up the focus. The legislation from Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, and others contains a number of hardline positions and no pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients, and it fails to have enough Republican votes even to pass the House. It is considered dead on arrival in the Senate.

But conservatives in the House, buoyed by the President’s vocal support for the bill, have gotten leadership’s commitment to whip the measure, and leadership has been complying for now. According to lawmakers and sources familiar, House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, talked about the bill in a GOP conference meeting during the House’s short workweek last week, and continued to discuss ways to get enough votes.

Lawmakers estimate that at this point, the measure had somewhere between 150 and 170 votes in its favor, far fewer than the 218 it would need. But the bill’s authors are working with leadership to see whether it can be changed enough to lock up more, even as moderates and Democrats remain skeptical it can get there.

“The vote count is looking better every day,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, a conservative Ohio Republican who has been a vocal advocate for the bill. “I think if leadership puts the full weight of leadership behind it, we can get there. … The most recent report I’ve heard is whip count is getting better.”

Moderate Republicans, however, are holding out hope that the party can move on from that bill and seek something that could survive the Senate and become law.

“Bring up the Goodlatte bill that went through Judiciary. If it does not have 218 votes, then let’s go to the next one that makes sense for DACA,” said Rep. Jeff Denham, a California Republican who has supported a compromise on DACA.

In the meantime, most think DACA recipients will continue in limbo, especially with the courts ensuring that renewals can continue for now.

“It’s good news for people in the DACA program, because they can continue renewing their permits. I have mixed feelings on what it means for us here, because we know this institution sometimes only works as deadlines approach, and now there isn’t a deadline,” Curbelo said.

(Published Sunday)

http://www.cnn.com/2018/03/04/politics/daca-advocacy-push-aclu-trump-immigration/index.html

Advocates target Trump in DACA push ahead of March 5

By: Tal Kopan, CNN

Immigration advocates are unveiling a fresh advocacy campaign on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program aimed directly at President Donald Trump — even as a March 5 deadline has been rendered toothless and Congress is retreating from action.

The American Civil Liberties Union is launching a six-figure campaign Sunday to keep the issue up front, using digital and TV advertising as well as local protests and targeted messaging.

The campaign is designed to get the President’s attention, using a mix of digital geo-targeting and physical presence.

The ACLU’s national political director, Faiz Shakir, described the theory behind the effort as getting the issue in front of Trump and sending the message that he uniquely can reach a solution if he commits to it.

“I think the one important thing that I feel like we all appreciated and learned about Donald Trump is that he is a person who reacts to headlines. He’s a person who reacts to PR, publicity and attention, and if you’re not in his face on headlines and press, then essentially you’re kind of outside of his scope,” Shakir said in an interview. “Whatever we can do to try to make it a front-and-center, in-front-of-his-face issue, that’s what we’re going to try to do.”

As of Sunday, the ACLU campaign will be on TV screens, in DC cabs, local political newspapers and other outlets, and streaming apps.

The civil liberties group also plans to buy ads on “Fox and Friends,” a show the President regularly watches, and Twitter ads designed to help supporters tweet directly at Trump and get into his Twitter feed, another presidential favorite.

The 30-second ad intersperses clips of Trump saying how much he supports DACA and its recipients with direct calls to action, saying in text directed at the President: “You killed DACA. … Fix what you broke before it’s too late.”

The group will also debut a banner with Trump’s face and a countdown clock to March 5 in front of the White House on Sunday, as well as work to have demonstrators in California when Trump travels to San Diego, perhaps later this month, to see his border wall prototypes.

The campaign demonstrates the long odds of achieving action on DACA in Washington, as well as the loss of meaning for the March 5 deadline. When Trump opted to terminate the program, which protects from deportation young undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children, he planned for the permits to begin expiring after March 5, giving Congress six months to act to make the program permanent.

But court decisions have required the administration to resume renewing the two-year DACA permits indefinitely, and after a failed attempt in the Senate to pass bipartisan legislation over objections from Trump, Congress has retreated from the issue with the deadline no longer offering urgency.

Shakir said the ACLU plans to continue the push in the coming weeks and into November’s elections, urging action however it can send the message.

“We’re trying to find a way to be positive and optimistic to keep the enthusiasm going,” Shakir said. “The court injunctions are helpful in that … we have some hopes that we’ll be able to have months of reprieve, but we don’t know how many months.”

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

I think it’s going to take “regime change.” And, “regime change” takes time and great effort. And, the outcome is always far from certain.

PWS

03-05-18

E.J. DIONNE, JR. @ WASHPOST — TRUMP/GOP ATTACK ON PUBLIC SERVICE COULD CRIPPLE US FOR GENERATIONS! — JFK Challenged The “Best & The Brightest” To Ask “What You Can Do For Your Country!” — Trump Surrounds Himself With Kleptocrat Grifters Trying To Loot, Destroy, & Misuse Power To Enrich Selves & Cronies While Punishing “Enemies” (The Rest Of Us)!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-witnessing-a-war-on-public-life-this-is-the-cost/2018/03/04/ddc94790-1e5f-11e8-9de1-147dd2df3829_story.html

“We didn’t fully realize just how hard it is to be president until we had one with no idea of what it takes to do the job.

We didn’t appreciate having a government that was relatively honest and free of venality until we had one riddled with corruption.

And we didn’t know how wildly irresponsible Republican criticisms of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were until the GOP fell silent in the face of abuse after abuse from President Trump. Obama was “not presidential” for wearing a tan suit? Benghazi? Really? Let’s start there. When the current administration finally reaches the end of the line, we will need some serious rethinking about how to grapple with the asymmetry in the behavior of our two parties. Republicans — and particularly the party’s dominant right wing in the House of Representatives — have kicked away a lot of credibility in a very short time.

Reports that Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee leaked private text messages between Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) and a Russia-connected lawyer to Fox News offered a prime example of their partisanship-above-everything attitude. Let’s not have amnesia a few months or a few years from now about how political warfare took priority over the nation’s security or how double standards became the rule for a large part of the GOP. To their credit, Warner’s Republican colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee were outraged over the behavior of their House counterparts whose primary interest is in protecting Trump and disrupting any serious investigation of Russian collusion. Warner had disclosed the contact to his colleagues months before, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) had said it had “zero impact on our work.”

Both Warner and Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) complained to House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) about the irresponsibility of their House counterparts, led by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif). Ryan said he did not run the committee, thus pushing away an obligation to act. Imagine that: A House speaker who uses all of his prerogatives to push through his own priorities claims utter powerlessness in the face of a runaway committee chairman.

Good for Burr and Rubio, and may more Republicans stand against the madness.

The larger lesson from this shameful interlude is about what self-government demands. Aspects of governing we regard as boring and pay little attention to are important to making it function well.

For the past week or so, an avalanche of commentary about the chaos of the Trump regime has pointed to how key appointees are rushing toward the exits; how Trump springs new policies with little preparation and changes his views news cycle to news cycle; how ill-prepared Trump and many of his aides were for the rigors of the White House; and how recklessly they cast aside norms and rules aimed at preventing conflicts of interest and sleaze.

How did we get a government of this sort? For decades, our country has been witness to a war on public life. Legitimate dissatisfaction with government has turned into contempt for government itself and a denial of the indispensability of politics.

We value expertise from our doctors, nurses, engineers and scientists. But when it comes to government, there is a popular assumption that those who spend their lives mastering the arts of administration, politics and policymaking must be up to no good. This inclination, by the way, is prevalent in other democracies, too.

It is an attitude that leads voters to mistake inexperience for purity and outsider status (often, as in Trump’s case, a feigned outsiderism) for an exceptional understanding of the people’s wishes.

It has turned the word “politician” into an epithet, even though most of our best presidents (Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt especially) have been politicians through and through. The cliched and supposedly high-minded distinction between “a politician” and “a statesman” was always wrong. It’s coming back to haunt us.

And viewing our civil servants as mere timeserving “bureaucrats” fails to appreciate the contributions they make and the extent to which our government, in comparison with so many others, has been remarkably light on corruption.

The danger is that we will suffer all the costs the Trump era imposes without learning any of the lessons it teaches.

Yes, democracy can be frustrating. Our leaders have made big mistakes. Power and wealth are concentrated into too few hands. But repairing our problems requires citizens willing to engage in public life, not shun it, and people in government who respect the work they are asked to undertake.”

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

Yeah, Trump & Co. have “poisoned the well” for public service. His approach is pretty much that of the Third World strongmen and dictators that those of us who heard asylum cases for decades listened to every day.

Weasel your way into office with lies; appoint your family and friends to high positions; loot the country while aimlessly building up the military, more to keep domestic enemies in line than to combat any realistic international threat; ignore international institutions and treaties; compromise elections; denigrate opposition; focus on your own personality to the exclusion of the common good; and work every day to redistribute wealth upward to the narrow ruling class to perpetuate your own power. Trump apparently aspires to be the “American Robert Mugabe.”

PWS

03-05-18

THE GUARDIAN: USCIS TURNS ITS BACK ON THE REAL AMERICA – “TRULY A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS!” – “The recent barrage of exclusionary immigration policy proposals are attempts to sow the seeds of fear, anxiety, and distrust. Rather than pursue policies that set immigrants apart, we should seek to integrate immigrants and highlight the assets they bring to communities across our nation.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/02/america-nation-immigrants-uscis-deleted?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Professors Linda R. Tropp and Dina G. Okamoto write in The Guardian:

“For more than a century, the identity of the United States has been grounded in the notion that we are a “nation of immigrants.” Immigrants have made innumerable contributions to our economy, infrastructure, and culture – building our railroads and bridges, bringing innovation and new ideas, and settling in communities that thrive throughout our country today. But now, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a federal agency charged with immigrant affairs, has turned its back on this rich legacy.

As of last week, the mission statement of the USCIS has changed. No longer does its mission speak to “America’s promise as a nation of immigrants” that promotes “an awareness and understanding of citizenship” along with “ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.” Now, the new version focuses on “adjudicating requests for immigrant benefits” while “protecting Americans” and “securing the homeland”.

Why do changes to the USCIS’s mission statement matter? It may seem like just a few words, but this new language is happening within the context of other alarming changes to our national immigration policies and practices.

Refugee admissions have been curbed to a historic low, and people with “temporary protected status” who fled their homelands due to natural disasters or civil wars are being sent back.

Several crucial programs are at risk of being terminated, including programs that allow 50,000 people from countries underrepresented in current immigration streams to come to the US, pathways for those who arrived in the US as children without legal documents to remain in the US to work and attend school, and the family-based system of immigration – a cornerstone of US immigration policy – which allows US citizens to reunite with family members by sponsoring their migration to the US.

All of these changes have been presented under the guise of protecting against threats to our national security. But these policies stand in stark contrast to the will of the American people. Despite increased attention on anti-immigrant sentiments, Americans across the country largely embrace immigrants of all faiths and cultures and want our government to do the same.

Most Americans believe the numbers of immigrants coming to the United States should be kept at its present level or increased. And 60% percent of Americans oppose building a wall on our border with Mexico. Nearly three-quarters of Americans now supportgranting legal status to immigrants originally brought to the US without papers as children, driven by the same moral imperative that has guided family reunification efforts over the last 50 years.

These levels of endorsement in national polls are bolstered by the actions of US citizens from many walks of life who have taken to the streets in protest, boldly stating that “immigrants are welcome here”.

Indeed, across the country, people and communities have been sending the clear message that immigrants are not only welcomed, but valued. Hundreds of local governments have advocated for their cities and towns to be recognized as “welcoming cities” for immigrants.

Spanning from the industrial rust-belt of the midwest to our nation’s borders, civic leaders have gone to great lengths to welcome immigrants, because they open up new businesses, populate local schools, revitalize housing markets, and infuse new life into local communities. And while the majority of immigrants in the US are here legally, nearly 500 US cities have chosen to become “sanctuary cities” to protect immigrants without legal status from deportation, even at the risk of losing federal funding.

These actions by everyday Americans uphold our nation’s values and reflect the best of who we are as a country, while our federal immigration policies are seeking to close doors and build walls. One of the best ways to honor our values as a nation is not to close opportunities to immigrants, but to successfully integrate them into the fabric of our society. As researchers who have been studying immigration and race relations for 20 years, our research shows that one of the best ways to integrate immigrants into the fabric of society is to interact with and welcome them.

Such encouraging effects of contact between US citizens and immigrants are not limited to big cities or liberal-leaning areas. Recent immigrants have established themselves both in diverse urban areas and new destinations across the United States.

According to recent poll data, more than 75% of US adults report that there are immigrants living in their community, with about a quarter (27%) reporting many recent immigrants in the community where they live. Our surveys of US citizens, including both white and black Americans, show that the more they encounter and interact with immigrants, the more inclined they are to welcome them into their communities.

This significance of welcoming does not simply serve to express our national values or concern about immigrants and their wellbeing. Welcoming immigrants is also important for creating a shared sense of identity and community within our nation. Parallel surveys we have conducted with immigrants show that the more they feel welcome by Americans, the more they come to identify as American themselves and to seek to become US citizens – factors that can fuel greater civic participation and contributions to our society.

The recent barrage of exclusionary immigration policy proposals are attempts to sow the seeds of fear, anxiety, and distrust. Rather than pursue policies that set immigrants apart, we should seek to integrate immigrants and highlight the assets they bring to communities across our nation.

Linda R Tropp is a professor of social psychology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Dina G Okamoto is the director of the Center for Research on Race and Ethnicity in Society at Indiana University. They are both visiting scholars at the Russell Sage Foundation.”

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

Trump and the GOP restrictionists are trying to “whitewash” American history by denying and downplaying the achievements of immigrants, particularly those of color, without which American could never have survived and prospered. Don’t let them get away with their disingenuous and anti-historical efforts. Don’t let this (unjustifiably) disgruntled minority of (largely White, badly misinformed) Americans hijack our country and its future.

PWS

LIAR-IN-CHIEF GETS FOUR (4) PINOCCHIOS FOR TOTALLY BOGUS CLAIMS ABOUT THE “VISA LOTTERY!”🤥🤥🤥🤥

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/02/26/president-trumps-consistent-misrepresentation-of-how-the-diversity-visa-lottery-works/?utm_term=.ef79ebd959db

Glenn Kessler for the Washington Post’s “Fact Checker:

“Think of the lottery. You have a country, they put names in. You think they’re giving us their good people? Not too many of you people are going to be in a lottery. So we pick out people, then they turn out to be horrendous and we don’t understand why. They’re not giving us their best people, folks. They’re not giving us — I mean, use your heads. They’re giving us — it’s a lottery. I don’t want people coming into this country with a lottery. I want people coming into this country based on merit, based on merit.”
— President Trump, in remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Feb. 23, 2018

“We need something to do with chain migration and something to do with visa lottery. I mean we actually have lottery systems where you go to countries and they do lotteries for who comes into the United States. Now, you know they are not going to have their best people in the lottery, because they’re not going to put their best people in a lottery. They don’t want to have their good people to leave. . . . We want people based on merit. Not based on the fact they are thrown into a bin and many of those people are not the people you want in the country, believe me.”
— Trump, remarks during an interview with Jeanine Pirro of Fox News, Feb. 24

We have repeatedly covered the president’s inaccurate description of the diversity visa lottery system as part of speech roundups and in our database of Trump’s false and misleading claims. At last count, he has made at least 16 inaccurate claims about the diversity visa lottery, though we are still trying to catch up with all of his remarks in February.

We often toss obviously false claims in the database, deeming them not worthy of a fact check, only to find ourselves months later writing a full fact check because the president continues to make his claim, unabashed by the number of times he has been declared wrong. One of our colleagues, rereading the president’s speech to CPAC, noted: “His absolute refusal to understand what the visa lottery is remains amazing.”

Then we saw Trump’s interview with Pirro. Oh my. So here’s the full story, written in the hope the president will read it and perhaps learn something.

The Facts

The Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, as the program is officially called, originally was designed to help the Irish.

In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. It was aimed at reuniting families, so applicants who had immediate family living in the United States — children, spouses, siblings, parents — were given priority. This, however, had some unforeseen consequences. Immigrants from Latin American and Asian countries had come to the United States more recently, and they often had immediate family overseas who were prioritized under the new program. Many Europeans, by contrast, had been in the country for decades, so they had fewer close relatives remaining overseas.

The change in immigration policy hit the Irish particularly hard.

Unlike other European countries, Ireland faced political instability and an economic crisis in the second half of the 20th century. Before 1965, it had been relatively simple for the Irish to immigrate. By the 1980s, as a result, tens of thousands of Irish immigrants came to the United States as tourists or students and overstayed their visas.

In 1990, lawmakers, led by then-Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), pressed for passage of a bill that proposed making a set number of visas available each year to “diversity immigrants” from “low-admission” countries. Despite being couched as a “diversity” action, it was openly pitched as a way to aid the Irish. President George H.W. Bush signed it into law in 1990 as part of a broader immigration package.

Today, under the visa lottery system, a computer program managed by a State Department office in Williamsburg, Ky., randomly selects up to 50,000 immigrant visas a year — from nearly 15 million who applied in 2017 — from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. Thus people from about 20 countries such as Brazil, Canada, China, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, South Korea, the United Kingdom (except North Ireland) and Vietnam are out of luck because more than 50,000 people from these countries had been admitted during the last five years. The visas are apportioned among six geographic regions, with a maximum of 7 percent available to persons born in any single country.

So, essentially, the odds of being selected are under 1 percent — and what that gets you initially is an invitation to apply for a green card. (In 2017, the State Department notified nearly 116,000 that they could apply, but the program ends once 50,000 are accepted. Each person selected gets a number on the list, so people in the bottom half have increasingly less chance of winning a visa.)

Individuals who apply must have at least a high school diploma (or its equivalent) or two years’ work experience of a type specified by the State Department to be eligible for the program. The selected applicants undergo a background check, interview and medical tests before entering the country, and some applicants undergo an additional in-depth review if they are considered a possible security risk — after which, selected applicants can be deemed ineligible for a visa.

Now let’s look back at Trump’s recent remarks and see what he apparently fails to understand:

“You have a country, they put names in.” Nope, no country submits the names of people for the diversity visa lottery; people who apply are self-selected.

“We actually have lottery systems where you go to countries and they do lotteries for who comes into the United States.” Wrong again. The foreign countries do not run their own lottery systems. The United States randomly selects from the millions of people who apply. As noted, a State Department office located in Kentucky, with a workforce of 400 people, manages the process. The Kentucky office receives and processes lottery entries, selects winners, processes winners’ visa applications, and schedules applicant interviews at missions abroad.

“They’re not going to put their best people in a lottery. They don’t want to have their good people to leave.”Again, the selection of applicants is not done by other countries. Moreover, the odds of success are so low that even if another country decided who could apply, there would be a less than 1 percent chance of success in getting rid of such people.

Indeed, far from being losers, there is evidence that many of those who immigrate through the program are better educated than the minimum criteria would suggest. A study by the Migration Policy Institute, using Census Bureau data for 19 countries with high rates of diversity visas, found that among recent immigrants ages 25 and older, “50 percent had a bachelor’s degree or higher (compared to 32 percent of the overall U.S. population in 2016), 16 percent reported some college education, and 12 percent had less than a high school diploma.”

Asked for an explanation of the president’s comments, a White House official did not address the substance of the question but pointed to two reports.

In 2004, the State Department’s deputy inspector general warned that the visa lottery “contains significant threats to national security as hostile intelligence officers, criminals, and terrorists attempt to use it to enter the United States as permanent residents.” This refers to congressional testimony by Anne W. Patterson, who recommended that applications not be accepted from countries listed by State as sponsoring terrorism; that recommendation was not acted on. In the same testimony, Patterson lauded the Kentucky office managing the program and its efforts to root out fraud.

Also in 2004, the House Judiciary Committee noted that “there are few restrictions on the countries from which applicants may come. . . . Second, under the program, successful applicants are chosen at random. . . . Because diversity visa winners do not necessarily have such ties, the program could offer an opportunity for individuals or groups who want to harm the United States, its institutions, and its people to place terrorists in the United States.”

The official added that “the point is that they are not admitted on the basis of skill or merit. The educational requirements are virtually nonexistent — a high school education or two years of work experience that requires two years of training. That’s not admitting someone with any regard for skill or merit or their ability to contribute.”

A 2007 report from the Government Accountability Office did point to substantial fraud risks within the program and proposed using data to mitigate these risks. However, the State Department at the time disagreed with the report’s findings, saying it already had managed those risks. The same report noted that there could be ‘‘difficulty in verifying identities,” which could have “security-based implications because State’s security checks rely heavily on name-based databases,” something a 2011 report from the House Judiciary Committee suggests could be a national security weakness.

The Fact Checker obviously takes no position on the diversity visa program. In addition to possible national-security issues, fraud continues to be a problem, such as some visa winners selling part of their visa to someone who pretends to be their spouse for the purposes of immigrating to the United States.

The Pinocchio Test

The president clearly dislikes the diversity visa program. Perhaps it has outlived its original purpose. But that’s no excuse for him to consistently misrepresent how it works.

Contrary to his repeated claims, countries do not select the applicants and do not run the lottery. Instead, nearly 15 million people from countries with low immigration to the United States apply annually for the slim chance to win an invitation to apply for a green card.

A State Department office in Kentucky manages the lottery. It’s located in a pleasant part of the state, near Daniel Boone National Forest, in the heart of Trump country. Perhaps the president should visit it one day and find out how the program really operates.

Four Pinocchios

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

In this shameless Administration, led by a congenital liar, truth, particularly about immigration issues, has ceased to have meaning. That’s why those of us who know and believe in truth must work overtime to set the record straight and, eventually, to remove these abusers of power, elected by a minority of American voters, from public office.

PWS

03-04-18

PROFESSOR DANIEL PENA — Supremes Anti-Latino Decision In Jennings v. Rodriguez Threatens The Due Process Rights of All Americans — When The Thugs Come for YOU, Who Will Stand Up For YOUR Rights If YOU Stand By While Others’ Rights Are Trashed?

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-s-latest-immigration-ruling-formalizes-terror-against-latinos-ncna851966

Pena writes:

“The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Jennings v. Rodriguez on Tuesday is a bizarre and dark new development in the American experiment. Not only because it’s a breakdown of the court’s ability to properly interpret the constitution (as they formally institutionalize a de facto second class of citizens), but because it’s a dereliction of the court’s duty as a part of a system of checks and balances designed to protect the constitutional rights of people in this country, regardless of country of origin, from a tyrannical government that would subvert our founding document for political or racist ends.

This ruling only formalizes what many of us in the Latinx community have known for generations: that the perpetuation of systems and laws that instill fear in immigrants (detained or not) is a form of state-sponsored terror. Now the court is complicit and part of that terror. And as pathways to legal status for immigrants come under attack by the current administration, this kind of terror is increasingly designed to incarcerate people for no other reason than for their inability to access pathways toward legal status — which is how this ruling will likely be used by this current administration.

The court ruled in Jennings v. Rodriguez that all immigrants, even those with protected legal status or asylum seekers, do not have a right to periodic bond hearing after detention, which makes it possible for them to be detained indefinitely. The defendant, Alejandro Rodriguez, who was brought to the United States from Mexico as an infant and became a permanent legal resident, was detained for three years for joy riding and possession of a controlled substance; the ACLU was fighting for his right to a hearing.

A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent. David Maung / Bloomberg Via Getty Images

It comes a day after another Supreme Court decision not to rule on the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which in effect leaves that program safe for at least another year. But while the ruling on DACA might give the impression of an impartial system of courts, the latter development undermines that illusion by giving this discriminatory Trump administration its seal of approval in the name of the law.

All three branches are now in sync with their consensus to terrorize detained immigrants, documented and undocumented alike. And the explicit message of this ruling against Rodriguez is that, no matter your legal status, the constitution does not work for you if you’re an immigrant. You can be extracted from the American fabric for seemingly arbitrary reasons, by virtue of that now-institutionalized second class status.

What we’ve seen is the majority of this court, our last branch of un-bought government, actively buying out of the idea of America as a melting pot, as a nation of immigrants who deserve certain unalienable rights, not unlike life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents serve an employment audit notice at a 7-Eleven convenience store on January 10, 2018, in Los Angeles. Chris Carlson / AP

This should be a wake-up call to anyone who thought (maybe still thinks) that they have nothing to fear because they are documented, or that they have nothing to fear because they’re not Latinx, or that they have nothing to fear because they are another type of immigrant, or they have nothing to fear because they’ve done nothing wrong. The ruling makes it possible to target, criminalize and then indefinitely detain someone for no other offense than being systematically denied a pathway toward legal status in the first place — or even if they did.”

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

Read Pena’s full article at the link.

I’ve pointed out before that it’s still not clear on what side of history this version of the Supremes stand. So far, as a group, they have shown little backbone or desire to stand up to the Trump Administrations’s all-out assaults on the Constitution, the “rule of law,” and human rights. That could be a big mistake, since the Trumpsters, to a man (not many women in the “land of misogyny”) have shown total disrespect and disdain for judges at all levels, particularly Federal Judges.

Latinos must get to the polls in larger numbers and “un-elect” at all levels a GOP that has largely gone over to a White Nationalist, anti-Latino racist agenda. Votes are power! That’s why the GOP cherishes voter suppression and gerrymandering so much.

PWS

03-04-18

OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND: It Didn’t Take This GOP Controlled Congress Long To Forget About Saving The “Dreamers!”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/with-no-more-deadline-congress-has-stopped-talking-about-immigration/2018/03/01/12d66ad6-1c9d-11e8-b2d9-08e748f892c0_story.html

Paul Kane reports for the Washington Post:

“Take away a deadline, and Congress will simply lose its focus on any issue — even the heated debate around immigration.

At Tuesday morning’s House Republican briefing, just one of the five GOP leaders made a reference to the issue, and it was a passing one — a proposal meant mostly to placate conservatives, not a real solution that could get signed into law.

Across the Capitol, a few hours later, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and four senior Republicans did their weekly briefing. Topics ranged from gun background checks to the Winter Olympics. There was no immigration talk at all.

The four Senate Democrats who followed McConnell also made no mention of the looming Monday deadline to resolve the fate of 800,000 undocumented immigrants who have been shielded from the threat of deportation under an expiring executive order.

It’s understandable that most of the attention has shifted toward the fallout of the Valentine’s Day massacre of 17 students and faculty at a Florida high school, with the media intensely focused on gun laws and school violence.

Capitol Police remove a banner as members of the Catholic community and supporters of DACA recipients are arrested during a protest on Capitol Hill this week. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

All but one of the 17 questions fielded by House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), at their separate press briefings, related in some way to the Parkland, Fla., shootings. The lone outlier focused on the memorial service for the Rev. Billy Graham.

This was supposed to be the week when Congress would force itself to resolve the dispute over the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive order, which President Trump announced in September he would revoke on March 5, giving Congress a six-month window to resolve the issue.

It was, in some ways, a masterful idea by the Trump West Wing, living up to his tough talk on immigration during the presidential campaign in 2016 but also foisting the issue into the laps of lawmakers.

But now, amid legislative and judicial gridlock, lawmakers and the media have moved on to other topics. First, the Senate failed two weeks ago to approve any compromise. Then, the Supreme Court declared it would not wade into the legal challenges to the DACA program until it plays out in lower federal court rulings — a legal process with no obvious end date in sight.

“We would be well advised to continue our work on it, but it seems to me that a lot of the air is out of the balloon here in the Capitol, and people don’t sense its urgency,” said Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), the Republican whip who had been leading bipartisan talks.

Cornyn’s lead negotiating partner, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Democratic whip, has declared helping the “dreamers,” as the undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children are known, an urgent, moral mandate. But even he understands why the issue has fallen off the radar.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) flanked by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), left, and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.), speaks with reporters this week about school safety measures in response to the Parkland, Fla., massacre that left 17 dead. The Republicans made no mention of immigration reform. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

“Along comes this tragedy, in the high school in Parkland, Florida, and the response of the young people and the national response of the subject, it blows away all other conversations about DACA and the Dream Act, North Korean nuclear threats,” Durbin said.

He and Cornyn have not held any serious immigration talks in weeks, he said — and he added that the same is true for a separate bipartisan group of centrist senators. And none are on tap.

“We talk but at this point we don’t have a plan,” he said.

Just like that, in the span of a few days — Senate gridlock, a madman’s bullets killing children and a judicial ruling — and the issue that consumed Washington for most of December, January and February is no longer worth a mention at a leadership news conference.

That’s not to say the issue has subsided from the political debate. Activists are trying to keep the pressure on Trump and Congress, with a rally planned for Sunday in Washington to draw attention to Monday’s DACA deadline that is set to pass without much fanfare.

In southwestern Pennsylvania, Republicans are furiously trying to stave off an embarrassing loss in a special election to fill a vacant House seat. The district tilted toward Trump by nearly 20 percentage points in 2016, a year in which Democrats did not even field a candidate against the longtime Republican incumbent, Tim Murphy, who resigned amid a scandal late last year.

Now, to halt the momentum for Democrat Conor Lamb, a GOP super PAC called the Congressional Leadership Fund has unleashed a new adthat ties Lamb to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her hometown San Francisco’s status as a “sanctuary city” for people in the country illegally.

“Conor Lamb wants to help Nancy Pelosi give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants,” the narrator says. “Sanctuary cities and amnesty for illegals. Conor Lamb is a Pelosi liberal.”

Lamb, 33, a former assistant U.S. attorney, does support a path to citizenship for DACA recipients, but he has stated that he will not vote for Pelosi as speaker. That position was highlighted in a new ad he is running that calls for new leadership in both parties.

Clearly, Republicans believe the issue still has resonance with their conservative base voters, especially if it is mixed in with images of Pelosi. And Lamb seems to be aware of the threat.

But Republicans could face their own political dilemma if the federal courts rule that DACA was illegal, which would effectively reinstate Trump’s order and revoke protections from those 800,000 people. Deportations could begin quickly.

“I don’t believe that Senator McConnell and the Republicans want to see too many people deported out of Nevada and Arizona in the weeks and months ahead,” Durbin said.

He named two southwestern states with large dreamer populations where Republicans are trying to defend two Senate seats that could flip control of the Senate in the November midterm elections.

Republicans are well aware of the potential for a court ruling at any time.

“I’ve been working in and around courts long enough to know things can turn on a dime,” said Cornyn, who served as Texas attorney general, and on the state Supreme Court, before winning his Senate seat 15 years ago.

That said, Cornyn remains less than optimistic about congressional action until that court order arrives and forces action. Stating the obvious, he said: “We don’t do things around here unless there is a deadline.”

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

Given the ugliness surrounding the farcical “debate” about Dreamers in the Senate and pressure exerted by the White Nationalists/Bakuninists in the House, perhaps it’s just as well that Dreamers are “forgotten” for now.

My prediction: It will take “regime change” — however long that might take — to solve the “Dreamers’ dilemma” on a long-term basis. In the meantime, I think that their status and fate will be tied up in the courts for a long, long time — wasteful, but an unfortunate fact of life when we have “Gonzo Government” elected by a minority of voters.

PWS

03-02-18

AMERICA THE UGLY: WHY ARE WE ALLOWING OUR GOVERNMENT TO ABUSE THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF FAMILIES & CHILDREN? — “This policy is tantamount to state-sponsored traumatization.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/opinion/immigrant-children-deportation-parents.html

DORA GALACATOS, ALAN SHAPIRO and BRETT STARK in the NY Times:

“The Department of Homeland Security may soon formalize the abhorrent practice of detaining the children of asylum-seekers separately from their parents. Immigrant families apprehended at the southwest border already endure a deeply flawed system in which they can be detained indefinitely. In this immigration system, detainees too often lack adequate access to counsel. But to unnecessarily tear apart families who cross the border to start a better life is immoral.

Sadly, such separations are already happening. The Florence Project in Arizona documented 155 such cases by October and other immigrant advocacy organizations report that children are being taken away from their parents. If the secretary orders this practice to be made standard procedure, thousands of families could face unnecessary separation.

The Trump administration’s goal is to strong-arm families into accepting deportation to get their children back. Kirstjen Nielsen, the secretary of homeland security, admitted this when she told the Senate on Jan. 16 that separating families may “discourage parents” from seeking refuge in America.

But the increasing informal use of family separation has not proved to be a deterrent. Last year, the number of family apprehensions at the southwestern border skyrocketed from 1,118 families in April to 8,120 in December.

Parents will continue to flee violence to protect their children and themselves. It is reprehensible to punish them for that basic human impulse. It is also despicable that the government would use children as bargaining chips. This policy is tantamount to state-sponsored traumatization.

Those of us who have seen the sites where families are detained and work directly with children and families who have gone through the system know what’s at stake.

The children we work with call the Border Patrol processing stations for migrants stopped at the border “iceboxes” (hieleras) and “dog kennels” (perreras). “I was wet from crossing the river and it was so cold I thought I would die,” one child said.

Another told us: “The lights were kept on day and night. I became disoriented and didn’t know how long I had been there.” A third said: “I was separated from my older sister. She is the closest person in my life. I couldn’t stop crying until I saw her again a few days later.”

In our work we have heard countless stories about detention. But the shock of bearing witness to them is hard to put into words. In McAllen, Tex., you enter a nondescript warehouse, the color of the dry barren landscape that surrounds it. It could be storage for just about anything, but is in actuality a cavernous, cold space holding hundreds upon hundreds of mostly women and children.

Chain-link fencing divides the harshly illuminated space into pens, one for boys, a second for girls and a third for their mothers and infant siblings. The pens are unusually quiet except for the crinkling of silver Mylar blankets. This is where family separation begins, as does the nightmare for parents and children.

The parents whose sons and daughters have been taken from them are given two options: either agree to return home with their children — or endure having those children sent on to shelters run by the Health and Human Services Department while they themselves languish in detention centers scattered around the country.

This country’s medical and mental health organizations have rightly recognized the trauma of this practice. The American Academy of Pediatrics has condemned immigrant family separation, and family detention overall, as “harsh and counterproductive.” The American Medical Association has denounced family separation as causing “unnecessary distress, depression and anxiety.”

Studies overwhelmingly demonstrate the irreparable harm to children caused by separation from their parents. A parent or caregiver’s role is to mitigate stress. Family separation robs children of that buffer and can create toxic stress, which can damage brain development and lead to chronic conditions like depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and heart disease. For that reason, more than 200 child welfare, juvenile justice and child development organizations signed a letterdemanding that the Trump administration abandon this ill-conceived policy.

Family separation is also unjustifiable legally, as “family unity” is central to our immigration laws and our longstanding policy of reuniting citizens and permanent residents with their relatives.

More fundamentally, family separation is anathema to basic decency and human rights. For our government to essentially hold immigrant children as hostages in exchange for the “ransom” of their parents’ deportation is simply despicable.

It is every parent’s nightmare to have a child snatched away. To adopt this as standard procedure to facilitate deportations is inhumane and does nothing to make Americans safer. This country, and Secretary Nielsen, must reject family separation.

9TH STOMPS BIA’S “ABSURD” INTERPRETATION OF THE CHILD STATUS PROTECTION ACT (“CSPA”) IN Matter of Zamora-Molina, 25 I. & N. Dec. 606 (BIA 2011) – TOVAR V. SESSIONS – Congress Intended The CSPA To Help Immigrant Kids – But, You’d Never Know It From The Anti-Immigrant Interpretations Of DHS & The BIA!

9th-Tovar-CSPA-Absurd

Tovar v. Sessions, 9th Cir., 02-14-18, Published

PANEL: Dorothy W. Nelson and Stephen Reinhardt, Circuit Judges, and George Caram Steeh,* District Judge.

* The Honorable George Caram Steeh III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

OPINION BY: Judge Stephen Reinhardt

SUMMARY (BY COURT STAFF):

“Immigration

The panel granted and remanded Margarito Rodriguez Tovar’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision rejecting his application for adjustment of status.

Relying on the BIA’s published opinion in Matter of Zamora-Molina, 25 I. & N. Dec. 606 (BIA 2011), the immigration judge and BIA rejected Rodriguez Tovar’s application for adjustment of status. The agency held that, because Rodriguez Tovar was over 21 years old in biological age on the date of his father’s naturalization, his F2A visa petition (for a minor child of a lawful permanent resident) immediately converted to an F1 visa petition (for an adult child of a U.S. citizen), and not to an immediate relative petition. The agency came to this conclusion even though Rodriguez Tovar was classified by statute as under 21 years old for purposes of his F2A petition, pursuant to the age calculation formula set forth by the Child Status Protection Act. The BIA concluded that Rodriguez Tovar was not eligible for adjustment of status because no visa was immediately available and that Rodriguez Tovar would be subject to removal forthwith.

The panel observed that if Rodriguez Tovar’s father had remained an LPR instead of becoming a citizen, Rodriguez Tovar would have been eligible for a visa in the F2A category

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

RODRIGUEZ TOVAR V. SESSIONS 3

in 2007, at which point his age under the statute would have been 20. Similarly, had he been afforded his statutory age when his father became a citizen, he would have been eligible for a visa immediately. The panel also noted that the government’s position would lead to the absurd result that Rodriguez Tovar would have to wait in line for a visa abroad and not become eligible for an F1 visa until more than twenty years after he would have been eligible for an F2A visa but for his father’s naturalization.

Concluding that Congress had clear intent on the question at issue, the panel did not defer to the BIA’s opinion in Matter of Zamora-Molina. Reading the statue as a whole, the panel concluded that Congress intended “age of the alien on the date of the parent’s naturalization,” 8 U.S.C. § 1151(f)(2), to refer to statutory age—that is, age calculated according to 8 U.S.C. § 1153(h)(1). Under that statute, Rodriguez Tovar’s age was only 19 on the date of his father’s naturalization. Accordingly, the panel concluded that Rodriguez Tovar’s visa application must be treated as one for an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen, for which visas are always immediately available.”

KEY QUOTE:

“[I]nterpretations of a statute which would produce absurd results are to be avoided if alternative interpretations consistent with the legislative purpose are available.” Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 575 (1982). Accordingly, we conclude “that Congress had a clear intent on the question at issue,” The Wilderness Soc’y, 353 F.3d at 1059: children of LPRs may take advantage of the age- calculation formula in 8 U.S.C. § 1153(h)(1) for purposes of converting to immediate relative status under § 1151(f)(2) when their parents naturalize.

22 RODRIGUEZ TOVAR V. SESSIONS

In other words, “age” in 8 U.S.C. § 1151(f)(2) refers unambiguously to age as calculated under 8 U.S.C. § 1153(h)(1). We reject the BIA’s contrary holding in Matter of Zamora-Molina, 25 I. & N. Dec. 606, as well as the district court’s parallel reasoning in Alcaraz v. Tillerson, No. 2:17- cv-457-ODW (C.D. Cal. July 26, 2017). The petition for review is granted and the case is remanded to the BIA with instructions to find that Rodriguez Tovar has an immediately available visa as the immediate relative of a U.S. citizen and to conduct further proceedings regarding the other requirements for adjustment of status.”

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

As I have pointed out before, the BIA generally chooses the interpretation of law that is most favorable to DHS and least favorable to the individual. Rather than the BIA acting to protect individual rights under the Due Process clause of our Constitution, today’s BIA basically engages in a “tag team match” with the DHS to defeat individual interests, even those as compelling as the rights of immigrant families and children!

Meanwhile, as these glaring problems with pro-DHS bias and poor quality work from a supposedly “expert tribunal” fester, Sessions actively pushes to have Immigration Judges at all levels “pedal faster” so that more mistakes are made and more individuals are deported in violation of our laws. Remember, very few of the individuals wronged by poor work by Immigration Judges or the BIA can afford to go to the Courts of Appeals for vindication! The problems that my colleague Hon. Jeffrey Chase and I, along with others, have been highlighting are literally just the “tip of the iceberg” of the monumental legal quality and fairness issues working against individual migrants in today’s out of control, failing, U.S. Immigration Courts.

Another thing to consider: take a look at the complexity of this decision, charts and all. How would an unrepresented individual, particularly a child, fairly be able to represent him or herself in Immigration Court and before the BIA. The obvious answer: They wouldn’t!

How will these glaring Due Process, fairness, and quality control problems be solved by Sessions’s anti-Due Process “round ’em up and move ’em out” policies? Answer: They won’t!

We need an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court. Harm to our most vulnerable is harm to all of us!

PWS

03-01-18

ETHICS HOT SEAT: TRUMP LAWYERS’ DILEMMA: How Do You Prepare A Congenital Liar To Testify Under Oath?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/donald-trump-robert-mueller-interview

Abagail Tracy reports for Vanity Fair:

“The most difficult decision a lawyer has to make is whether to allow his client to speak to the prosecutor—or in this case, the special counsel,” Robert Bennett told me, referring to the unfolding chess match between Donald Trump and Robert Mueller. Bennett, the Brooklyn-born Washington superlawyer, would know, having represented President Bill Clinton in the Kenneth Starr investigation. For a fabulist like Trump, however, the danger is tenfold: Mueller has already charged four former members of the Trump campaign with making false or misleading statements to the F.B.I. “I think there are tremendous risks in this case, because the easiest case for the government to prove would be a false statement given to the F.B.I. or the independent counsel,” Bennett added. “That’s a very easy one to prove.”

While the president initially said he is “100 percent” willing to meet with Mueller under oath, his legal team has cautioned that any interview could be a perjury trap. “He’ll be guided by the advice of his personal counsel,” Ty Cobb, the White House lawyer on the Russia inquiry, told The New York Times. For months, Trump’s lawyers have been engaged in discussions with Mueller’s team, weighing options that could mitigate the president’s legal risk. Though the format of the potential interview remains an open question, Mueller, wielding the power of subpoena, has the upper hand in shaping the negotiations. “What matters is how much leverage you have on either side,” said Renato Mariotti, a former Chicago prosecutor. “Mueller has most of the leverage . . . in the end, Mueller is going to get most, if not the vast majority, of what he wants.”

The challenge for Trump’s legal team, led by Cobb and John Dowd, is to protect the president from himself under conditions acceptable to Mueller. “It’s a very bad sign for the president that his own lawyers are so worried about whether he’s going to tell the truth that they’re trying to negotiate all of these conditions ahead of time,” Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general under President Barack Obama, told me. “Ordinarily, when you’re representing a high-ranking government official, you’re not worried about your client being forthcoming because that goes with the nature of government service. But here, I think the lawyers are wise to worry, just given Donald Trump’s track record of him confabulating in any number of ways.”

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

Read the rest of Tracy’s article at the above link.

I don’t have much doubt that Trump will perjure himself. I don’t think he could tell the truth if his life depended on it. And, it’s likely that Mueller will be able to build a convincing case for obstruction against the Liar-In-Chief.

But, Trump relies heavily on the complicity of the sleazy GOP he has come to dominate and the indifference of his voters to moral values or honest government. Trump is used to at least figuratively “getting away with murder” (remember his all too true boast that he could shoot someone in broad daylight in Times Square and his voters wouldn’t care). So, the chances of Trump being held accountable are probably minimal until 2024.

PWS

02-28-18

TAL @ CNN: ADMINISTRATION “SPLITS A PAIR” OF USDC RULINGS IN CAL. – Blown Out Again On DACA, But A Victory On “The Wall!”

http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/daca-revocation-ruling/index.html

Court hands DACA recipients another victory

By: Catherine E. Shoichet and Tal Kopan, CNN

Young immigrants brought illegally to the United States as children have won another legal victory.

A federal judge in California ruled Monday that the government can’t revoke DACA recipients’ work permits or other protections without giving them notice and a chance to defend themselves.

The ruling in a California district court marks the third time a lower court has ruled against the administration’s handling of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. But this case, unlike the others, is not about President Donald Trump’s September decision to end the program.

US District Judge Philip Gutierrez’s preliminary injunction Monday addressed another aspect: government decisions to revoke protections from individual DACA recipients.

The Obama-era DACA program protected young immigrants brought illegally to the United States from deportation if they met certain criteria, paid fees, passed background checks and didn’t commit serious crimes.

The Trump administration announced it was ending the program last year, arguing that it was unconstitutional. A series of recent lower court rulings have thwarted that effort, requiring the government to continue renewing permits under the program while legal challenges make their way through the courts. On Monday, the US Supreme Court said it was staying out of the dispute for now.

Meanwhile, activists across the country have increasingly criticized government decisions to end DACA protections in individual cases.

Monday’s ruling came in a class action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The suit argues that the government had revoked protections from DACA recipients who hadn’t been convicted of serious crimes without giving them any opportunity to defend themselves.

An example: Officials revoked the work permit of one of the plaintiffs, Jesus Arreola, after he was arrested on suspicion of immigrant smuggling. An immigration judge later found that allegation wasn’t credible, according to the ACLU’s complaint. Arreola says he was an Uber and Lyft driver who had picked up passengers for a friend without any knowledge of their immigration status.

Attorneys representing the government argue that the plaintiffs had “misused the trust given to them with the administrative grace of DACA.”

The judge said the Department of Homeland Security must restore protections to the group of DACA recipients who had them revoked “without notice, a reasoned explanation, or any opportunity to respond.”

The ruling also temporarily blocks officials from revoking DACA protections from others without following a procedure “which includes, at a minimum, notice, a reasoned explanation, and an opportunity to be heard prior to termination.”

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Monday’s ruling.

According to DHS, officials had revoked or terminated 2,139 individuals’ DACA protections over the lifetime of the program as of August 2017.

The ruling came the same day the Supreme Court said it would stay out of the dispute over the termination of DACA for now, leaving renewals under the program in place for at least months.

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

http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/border-wall-ruling-curiel/index.html

Judge Curiel, once attacked by Trump, rules border wall can proceed

By Tal Kopan, CNN

(CNN)US District Judge Gonzalo Curiel has cleared one potential obstacle to President Donald Trump’s long-promised border wall, ruling Tuesday that the administration has the authority to waive a host of environmental laws and other regulations to begin construction.

Curiel’s 100-page order does not mean construction of the wall will begin immediately. Congress has yet to authorize or provide funding for any new wall to begin the project. Thus far, the Department of Homeland Security has built several prototypes in San Diego — which was the focus of the lawsuit Curiel rejected.

Still, the ruling is a win for the administration as it seeks to get money to build its wall, a centerpiece of Trump’s campaign.

Curiel’s ruling left little doubt that the DHS has broad authority to issue waivers — authorized in a cluster of laws passed by Congress in the mid 1990s to 2000s — to expedite the construction of border barriers and infrastructure. His lengthy ruling went point-by-point through the challenges to DHS’ authority brought by environmental groups and the state of California and rejected all of them.

Judge criticized by Trump will hear case on border wall

Curiel was famously the target of Trump’s ire when he presided over a lawsuit against Trump University, which was ultimately settled after Trump won the White House.

Trump drew fierce criticism in June 2016 when he said that Curiel, who was born in Indiana, was biased against him due to his Mexican heritage.

In his ruling Tuesday, Curiel noted that the border wall is a highly contentious issue under this administration but said he did not factor that into his decision.

“The court is aware that the subject of these lawsuits, border barriers, is currently the subject of heated political debate in and between the United States and the Republic of Mexico as to the need, efficacy and the source of funding for such barriers,” Curiel wrote. “In its review of this case, the Court cannot and does not consider whether underlying decisions to construct the border barriers are politically wise or prudent.”

Not just Trump’s idea: A short history on famous walls and the environment

The groups had challenged DHS’ move to expedite construction of the prototypes and replacement fencing in San Diego on a number of grounds. The collection of lawsuits from the environmental advocacy organizations and the state of California argued that the Trump administration’s waiver wasn’t allowed by the law that created the overarching authority and that the authority itself violated the Constitution.

Curiel rejected each argument, saying the law and the nature of the border clearly give the DHS broad authority to build border barriers.

“Both Congress and the Executive share responsibilities in protecting the country from terrorists and contraband illegally entering at the borders. Border barriers, roads, and detection equipment help provide a measure of deterrence against illegal entries,” Curiel wrote. “With section 102, Congress delegated to its executive counterpart, the responsibility to construct border barriers as needed in areas of high illegal entry to detect and deter illegal entries. In an increasingly complex and changing world, this delegation avoids the need for Congress to pass a new law to authorize the construction of every border project.”

In addition to pro-immigration and civil liberties groups, environmental groups have opposed the construction of Trump’s border wall on the grounds that it would disturb sensitive wildlife and ecosystems.

One section of Trump’s proposed wall in Texas would run through a wildlife preserve.

The Justice Department, meanwhile, hailed the ruling.

“Border security is paramount to stemming the flow of illegal immigration that contributes to rising violent crime and to the drug crisis, and undermines national security,” said spokesman Devin O’Malley. “We are pleased DHS can continue this important work vital to our nation’s interests.”

One of the groups challenging the wall said it intended to appeal the decision.

“We intend to appeal this disappointing ruling, which would allow Trump to shrug off crucial environmental laws that protect people and wildlife,” said Brian Segee, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Trump administration has completely overreached its authority in its rush to build this destructive, senseless wall.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement that he was considering his options.

“We remain unwavering in our belief that the Trump Administration is ignoring laws it doesn’t like in order to resuscitate a campaign talking point of building a wall on our southern border,” Becerra said. “We will evaluate all of our options and are prepared to do what is necessary to protect our people, our values, and our economy from federal overreach. A medieval wall along the US-Mexico border simply does not belong in the 21st century.”

The waiver authority to build barriers along the border has been used a number of times dating back to the George W. Bush administration, and it has been upheld by the courts every time it has been challenged.

Trump is scheduled to visit the border wall prototypes next month.

CNN’s Sara Sidner and Devan Cole contributed to this report.

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

I guess even Gonzo can’t lose ’em all. But, he certainly hasn’t taken his last beating on his counterproductive, ill-conceived, and wasteful “War on Dreamers.”

PWS

02-28-18

SPLINTERED SUPREMES PROVISIONALLY OK “NEW AMERICAN GULAG” — Trump/Sessions Successfully Fight To Preserve Obama Legacy Of Never-Ending “Civil” Immigration Detention — Case Remanded To Lower Court, But Alito & Fellow GOP Justices Show Scant Concern For Human (Non-Economic) Rights & Freedom Under Constitution!

Jennings v. Rodriguez, O2-27-18

MAJORITY: Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch

CONCURRING OPINION: Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch

DISSENTING OPINION: Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor

NOT PARTICIPATING: Justice Kagan

HERE’S A COPY OF THE COURT’S FULL DECISION:

15-1204_f29g

ANALYSIS BY ERIC LEVITZ @ NEW YORK MAGAZINE:

“For much of his presidency, Donald Trump has appeared more committed to nullifying his predecessor’s legacy than to any affirmative political principle. The president campaigned on a promise to repeal Obamacare and expand access to affordable health insurance — but when these goals came into conflict, he opted for the former. Trump argued vociferously that rogue regimes must be blocked from acquiring nuclear weapons — then “decertified” an Obama-era nuclear agreement that did just that. He claimed to believe in regulatory policies that protect “clean air and clean water,” then rolled back Obama-era rules aimed at that objective. Trump praised Janet Yellen’s economic management — but still took the precedent-defying step of refusing to grant the Obama-appointed Federal Reserve chair a second term.

Nevertheless, for all his policy nihilism, the president can still occasionally put substance over spite, and admit that on this or that specific issue, Barack Obama actually had a point. Thus, on Tuesday the Trump administration celebrated the preservation of one piece of Obama’s legacy.

In 2014, a federal district court ruled that immigrants detained while awaiting deportation proceedings were entitled to periodic bond hearings. The lead plaintiff in the case was a legal permanent resident of the United States, Alejandro Rodriguez, who was arrested as a teenager for joyriding and misdemeanor drug possession – and then jailed for three years, without ever receiving a bond hearing, as his lawyers (successfully) contested his deportation. The federal judge ruled that Rodriguez had a legal right to request to await trial outside of a detention facility. The Obama administration disagreed, arguing that the federal government has the authority to decide whether any individual immigrant should be afforded that right – or whether he or she is simply too dangerous for such due process – even if the person in question is a legal permanent resident or asylum-seeker.

Upon his election, Trump set aside his differences with Obama, and continued his predecessor’s appeal. Even when the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling, Jeff Sessions & Co. persisted in their defense of the Obama Justice Department’s position.

And on Tuesday, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority sided with the government in a narrow ruling: The justices did not rule that detained immigrants have no right to bond hearings under the Constitution; rather, they merely ruled that immigrants had no such rights under federal immigration law. As the New York Times explains:

The Ninth Circuit had ruled that bond hearings are required after six months to determine whether detainees who do not pose flight risks or a danger to public safety may be released while their cases proceed. The court based its ruling on an interpretation of the federal immigration laws, not the Constitution, though it said its reading was required to avoid constitutional difficulties.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority on Tuesday, said that this interpretive approach, called “constitutional avoidance,” was unavailable here, as the words of the immigration laws were plain. “The meaning of the relevant statutory provisions is clear — and clearly contrary to the decision of the court of appeals,” Justice Alito wrote.
This ruling will send the case back to the Ninth Circuit, which will have the opportunity to assess whether the Constitution requires bond hearings for detained immigrants.

Three of the court’s liberals opposed the decision, while Elena Kagan recused herself (due to relevant work she had performed as Obama’s solicitor general). In an impassioned dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer insisted that the court should have reached a determination on the underlying Constitutional question – and ruled that all human beings in the United States are entitled to our founding document’s basic protections.

“[W]ould the Constitution leave the Government free to starve, beat, or lash those held within our boundaries?” the Justice asked. “If not, then, whatever the [legal] fiction, how can the Constitution authorize the Government to imprison arbitrarily those who, whatever we might pretend, are in reality right here in the United States?”

“We need only recall the words of the Declaration of Independence, in particular its insistence that all men and women have ‘certain unalienable Rights,’ and that among them is the right to ‘Liberty,’” Breyer wrote.

But thanks to the bipartisan efforts of the patriots in our Justice Department, the Trump administration will remain free, for the moment, to indefinitely imprison any legal immigrants and asylum-seekers it wishes to deport.

And Trump wishes to deport quite a few — although he’ll need to get much more aggressive on that front, if he wishes to preserve the pace of deportations set by his predecessor.

But, as Tuesday’s ruling demonstrated, with enough will and bipartisan cooperation, there’s little the American government cannot do.”

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

HERE’S WHAT JUSTICE ALITO, JUSTICE THOMAS & THEIR BUDDIES REALLY ARE SAYING BEYOND THE LEGAL GOBBLEDYGOOK:

The plaintiffs are neither corporations nor guns. They are mere human beings. Therefore, they are entitled to no Constitutional protections that we care to enforce.

FROM JUSTICE BREYER’S DISSENT:

The relevant constitutional language, purposes, history, traditions, context, and case law, taken together, make it likely that, where confinement of the noncitizens before us is prolonged (presumptively longer than six months), bail proceedings are constitutionally required. Given this serious constitutional problem, I would interpret the statutory provisions before us as authorizing bail. Their language permits that reading, it furthers their basic purposes, and it is consistent with the history, tradition, and constitutional values associated with bail proceedings. I believe that those bail proceedings should take place in accordance with customary rules of procedure and burdens of proof rather than the special rules that the Ninth Cir cuit imposed.

The bail questions before us are technical but at heart they are simple. We need only recall the words of the Declaration of Independence, in particular its insistence that all men and women have “certain unalienable Rights,” and that among them is the right to “Liberty.” We need merely remember that the Constitution’s Due Process Clause protects each person’s liberty from arbi trary deprivation. And we need just keep in mind the fact that, since Blackstone’s time and long before, liberty has included the right of a confined person to seek release on bail. It is neither technical nor unusually difficult to read the words of these statutes as consistent with this basic right. I would find it far more difficult, indeed, I would find it alarming, to believe that Congress wrote these statutory words in order to put thousands of individuals at risk of lengthy confinement all within the United States but all without hope of bail. I would read the statutory words as consistent with, indeed as requiring protection of, the basic right to seek bail.
Because the majority does not do so, with respect, I dissent.

ONE POINT THAT ALL EIGHT JUSTICES AGREED ON:

The 9th Circuit was without authority to rewrite the statute to require bond hearings at 6 month intervals with the DHS bearing the burden of proof on continuing detention.

PWS

02-27-18

“GO POUND SAND” SUPREMES TELL TRUMP & SESSIONS ON DACA – HIGH COURT STIFFARMS DOJ’S FRIVOLOUS TRY TO END RUN LEGAL PROCESS!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/26/politics/daca-supreme-court/index.html

Ariane de Vogue and Tal Kopan report for CNN”

“Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court said on Monday that it will stay out of the dispute concerning the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for now, meaning the Trump administration may not be able to end the program March 5 as planned.

The move will also lessen pressure on Congress to act on a permanent solution for DACA and its roughly 700,000 participants — undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children.

Lawmakers had often cited the March 5 deadline as their own deadline for action. But the Senate failed to advance any bill during a debate earlier this month, and no bipartisan measure has emerged since.

Originally, the Trump administration had terminated DACA but allowed a six-month grace period for anyone with status expiring in that window to renew. After that date, March 5, any DACA recipient whose status expired would no longer be able to receive protections.

Monday’s action by the court, submitted without comment from the justices, is not a ruling on the merits of the DACA program or the Trump administration’s effort to end it.

At issue is a ruling by federal District Judge William Alsup of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, who blocked the plan to end DACA and held that the Trump administration must resume accepting renewal applications. The action means the case will continue going through the lower courts.

Alsup said a nationwide injunction was “appropriate” because “our country has a strong interest in the uniform application of immigration law and policy.”

“Plaintiffs have established injury that reaches beyond the geographical bounds of the Northern District of California. The problem affects every state and territory of the United States,” he wrote.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has generally allowed nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration actions from lower court judges under this President to stand, meaning the DACA program could be spared a year or more until the Supreme Court could take up the case in next year’s term, given the likely realities of the calendar.

Justice Department spokesman Devin O’Malley said the administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court was an uphill climb, given it came before the 9th Circuit ruled.

“While we were hopeful for a different outcome, the Supreme Court very rarely grants certiorari before judgment, though in our view, it was warranted for the extraordinary injunction requiring the Department of Homeland Security to maintain DACA,” O’Malley said. “We will continue to defend DHS’s lawful authority to wind down DACA in an orderly manner.”

University of Texas professor law and CNN legal analyst Stephen Vladeck said justices normally don’t weigh in at this stage.

“The justices have not granted such a request since 2004, but the government claimed that the urgency of settling the legal status of DACA, and the potential for nationwide confusion, justified such an extraordinary measure,” Vladeck said.”

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

Good news for America on a number of fronts:

DACA immigrants get to keep their status and work authorization for now. While the Administration claimed (disingenuously) that removal of DACA recipients would not be a “priority,” loss of DACA status would mean loss of work authorization (and therefore jobs) for many and loss of in-state tuition eligibility for college for others. Thus, they would have been driven “into the underground.” Honest employers who insisted on following work authorization laws would have been penalized by loss of important, talented workers. Meanwhile, unscrupulous employers willing to overlook lack of work authorization or pay “under the table” at substandard wages would have been empowered by the Administration’s bone-headed actions to exploit Dreamers and U.S. workers alike.
Supremes rebuffed the arrogant Trump/Sessions attitude of entitlement. Whatever their disingenuous explanations might be today, in attempting to circumvent the Courts of Appeals to the Supremes, the Administration basically was touting that the GOP had “bought and paid for” five seats on the Supremes and that they expected their “wholly-owned Justices,” including of course the recently appointed Justice Gorsuch, to deliver on their demand for unprecedented special treatment. By forcing the Administration to follow the rules like everyone else, at least for now, the Supremes maintained some degree of dignity and judicial independence in the context of an Administration that publicly holds itself above the law and states that the only acceptable role of Federal Judges (particularly GOP appointees) is to “rubber stamp” Administration positions.
Litigation in the Courts of Appeals will further expose the absurdity of Session’s “legal position” on DACA. In the DACA litigation, the DOJ is incredibly asking the Federal Courts to invalidate the Executive’s own legal authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion on a consistent and disciplined basis. While courts have acknowledged that there are likely ways in which the Administration could go about terminating DACA, claiming that it is “illegal” isn’t one of them. Session’s bogus claim that an Administration doesn’t have authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion on a widespread basis is both disingenuous and absurd on its face. Obviously, this Administration has already chosen to exercise lots of prosecutorial discretion not to enforce environmental, health care, civil rights, ethics, and other “laws on the books” when it suited their purposes.
If the lower court rulings stand, Trump will have difficulty coming up with a “rational reason” to terminate DACA “on the merits.” Trump himself, as well as other Administration officials and politicos from both parties have widely and publicly praised DACA youth and their contributions to the United States. There is neither a legal nor a rational basis for terminating DACA. While Trump & Sessions might well attempt to do so, those attempts are also likely to be tied up in the Federal Courts for a long time. DACA created “settled expectations” on the part of the recipients, their employers, their schools, and even their U.S. families of continuing ability to, at a minimum, remain, work, and study in the United States, assuming continued “good behavior.” In my long experience in Government, Federal Courts have more often than not been anxious to find ways to protect such “settled expectations.”
Congress was going to “punt” on DACA anyway. I detected little if any interest on the part of GOP “leadership” in the House and Senate to fix DACA on a temporary or permanent basis for now. It’s going to take “regime change” — eventually replacing recalcitrant GOP legislators with Democrats more interested in governing in the public interest, including solving the Dreamer issue on a long-term basis (without otherwise damaging our permanent immigration system or further enabling lawless behavior by DHS). That’s going to take time, just like the litigation. In this case, time is the Dreamer’s and the bulk of America’s friend.

PWS

02-26-18

TRUMP ON PACE TO DEPORT ALL 11 MILLION UNDOCUMENTED AMERICANS BY 2070!

Tal Kopen reports for CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/trump-immigration-arrests-deportations/index.html

“Arrests of immigrants, especially non-criminals, way up in Trump’s first year

By Tal Kopan, CNN

In his first year in office, President Donald Trump’s administration’s arrests of immigrants — especially those without criminal convictions — were up substantially, but actual deportations lagged behind his predecessor, according to statistics released Friday.

The jump corresponds to Trump’s central pledge to crack down on illegal immigration, at least in terms of casting a wide net to catch undocumented or deportable immigrants.

Days after being inaugurated, one of Trump’s first actions was to release immigration agents of specific prioritization of who to go after, giving them wide discretion to target almost any undocumented immigrant as a priority.

According to new data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, there was a 41% increase in the number of undocumented immigrants who were arrested by the agency in 2017 compared to 2016.

But the increase was driven by the agency arresting a significantly higher rate of immigrants without a criminal background. While the share of criminals arrested was up 17%, there was an increase 10 times that — of 171% — in the share of non-criminals arrested.

ICE had previously released fiscal year data, but on Friday released additional numbers from the last three months of 2017 as well, allowing for the year-to-year comparison.

In 2017, ICE made routine arrests of more than 155,000 immigrants, 30% of whom were not criminals. The final three months of the year, the rate of non-criminals arrested was even higher, at 35%.

That number was far lower, though, in 2016. That year the Obama administration arrested almost 110,000 immigrants, nearly 16% of whom were not criminals. In 2014, Obama’s Department of Homeland Security set priorities for ICE that focused first on serious criminals and national safety threats, followed by other public safety threats and immigrants who had recently had an order of deportation signed.

Unlike the increased arrests, at the end of 2017, deportations continued to lag behind the Obama administration’s pace, despite Trump’s repeated pledges to get undocumented immigrants “out” of the country.

In 2017, the administration deported nearly 215,000 immigrants, 13% fewer than the nearly 250,000 deported in 2016. The percentage of those individuals who were non-criminals was steady at just over 40%.

Deportations are a complex statistic to compare, however, because it can take many years to work an individual case through the immigration courts. The administration has also cited a decrease in the number of people apprehended at the border as part of the lagging numbers.”

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

While “Gonzo” immigration enforcement is demonstrably bad for America, the good news here is that the pace at which it is proceeding insures its own ultimate failure. That’s great news for America and our future!

If Trump, Sessions & Co were actually able to remove all 11 million so-called “undocumented” Americans tomorrow, the American agriculture, hospitality, technology, construction, dairy, teaching, health care, child care, technology, restaurant, and sanitation industries, to name just a few, would cease to function, thus throwing our country into an economic and social tailspin from which we likely would never recover. When you are being governed by idiots, sometimes your only protection is in the idiocy and self-defeating nature of their own policies.

PWS

02-26-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

The Facts

The Pinocchio Test

Four Pinocchios

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Judge Curiel, once attacked by Trump, rules border wall can proceed

By Tal Kopan, CNN

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: