THURAISSIGIAM v. USDHS – immigrationcourtside.com

🏴‍☠️☠️🤮⚰️👎🏻AMERICAN INJUSTICE: A COURT SUPREMELY WRONG FOR OUR TIME: Justices Who Oppose Equal Justice For All, View Refugees & Asylum Seekers As Subhuman, Are Incapable Of Consistent Moral Leadership, & Willingly Participate In & Hollowly Attempt To Justify The Bullying Of “The Other” Are Fueling America’s Race To The Bottom Under Trump! — “They believe these people do not deserve an iota of sympathy, let alone due process. That is already how many border agents viewed these immigrants: not as humans with rights, but as fraudulent parasites. The Supreme Court has now transformed that vision into law—and, in the process, allowed the executive to send more persecuted people to their deaths without even a meaningful day in court.”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/supreme-court-asylum-deportations-thuraissigiam.html

From Slate:

JURISPRUDENCE

The Supreme Court Doesn’t See Asylum-Seekers as People — One week after saving DACA, the high court proved that its sympathies for immigrants seeking better lives are limited.

By DAHLIA LITHWICK and MARK JOSEPH STERN

JUNE 25, 20203:35 PM

Last Thursday, the Supreme Court saved more than 700,000 immigrants from the Trump administration’s nativist buzz saw. The court ensured that these immigrants, who were brought to the United States by their undocumented parents as children, would continue to be protected by an Obama administration policy called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, sparing them from deportation to countries many could not even remember. The court split 5–4, with Chief Justice John Roberts throwing his lot in with the liberals to find that Donald Trump’s rescission of DACA had been unlawful—largely because it had been carelessly effectuated, defended pretextually, but also because hundreds of thousands of young people had altered their lives in reliance on the promise that they would be immune from deportation.

In a key section of the majority opinion, Roberts highlighted the humanity of these young undocumented people, as was the hopes and dreams of their families: “Since 2012, DACA recipients have enrolled in degree programs, embarked on careers, started businesses, purchased homes, and even married and had children, all in reliance” on DACA, Roberts wrote, quoting from briefs in the case. “The consequences of the rescission … would ‘radiate outward’ to DACA recipients’ families, including their 200,000 U.S.-citizen children, to the schools where DACA recipients study and teach, and to the employers who have invested time and money in training them.” The chief justice evinced frustration that the Trump administration seemingly took none of those very human interests into account.

One week later, on Thursday morning, the high court proved that its sympathies for immigrants seeking better lives are limited. In a 7–2 ruling, the justices approved the Trump administration’s draconian interpretation of a federal law that limits courts’ ability to review deportation orders. This time around, the court did not note immigrants’ contributions to the nation or acknowledge their humanity in any way. Having last week treated one class of immigrants like actual people, the court on Thursday pivoted back to callous cruelty. All of the chief justice’s kind words about DACA recipients seemingly do not apply to immigrants who—according to the executive branch—do not deserve asylum.

Thursday’s case, Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, involves an asylum-seeker from Sri Lanka named Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam who faces likely death if he is deported because he is Tamil. Thuraissigiam was apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol while trying to cross at the southern border in 2017. After an asylum officer and immigration judge rejected his claims, Thuraissigiam was slated for “expedited removal.” Federal law bars courts from reviewing that deportation order. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the law unconstitutional as applied to Thuraissigiam under the Constitution’s suspension clause, which limits the government’s ability to restrict habeas corpus—the centuries-old right to contest detention before a judge.

At the Trump administration’s request, the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit, with Justice Samuel Alito writing a maximalist majority opinion for the five conservatives and Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg proffering a narrower concurrence. Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a lengthy, vivid dissent joined by Justice Elena Kagan that accused the majority of flouting more than a century of precedent and “purg[ing] an entire class of legal challenges to executive detention.” (In his own opinion, Alito dismissed Sotomayor’s criticisms as mere “rhetoric.”)

This outcome strips due process from immigrants seeking asylum, who now have even fewer rights to a fair adjudicatory process under an expedited system that already afforded them minimal protections. It will also embolden the Trump administration to speed up deportations for thousands of people with no judicial oversight. Under this now court-approved system, immigrants fleeing their home country must undergo a “credible fear” interview, at which they must explain to a federal officer why they qualify for asylum. (The Trump administration has allowed Customs and Border Protection agents—not trained asylum officers—to conduct credible fear interviews.) If the officer finds no “credible fear of persecution,” their supervisor reviews the determination, as does an immigration judge (who is not a traditional judge but rather an employee of the executive branch appointed by the attorney general). If these individuals find no credible fear, the immigrant is thrown into “expedited removal”—that is, swiftly deported in a matter of weeks. They may not contest the government’s “credible fear” determination before a federal court. It is this extreme rule that Thuraissigiam challenged as a violation of habeas corpus and due process.

Alito breezily dismissed Thuraissigiam’s individual claims by stripping a broad swath of constitutional rights from unauthorized immigrants. First, he declared that habeas corpus does not protect an immigrant’s ability to fight illegal deportation orders. Sotomayor fiercely contested this claim, citing an “entrenched line of cases” demonstrating that habeas has long protected the right of individuals—including immigrants—to challenge illegal executive actions in court. Second, Alito held that unauthorized immigrants who are already physically present in the United States have not actually “entered the country.” Thus, they have no due process right to challenge the government’s asylum determination. Sotomayor noted that this holding departs from more than a century of precedent by imposing distinctions drawn by modern immigration laws on the ancient guarantee of due process.

Alito not only waved away these galling consequences; he seemed to laugh at them.

The upshot of the decision will mean almost certain death for Thuraissigiam and others like him. Thuraissigiam faced brutal persecution in Sri Lanka, a fact Alito did not seem to understand at oral arguments. Various officials in the executive branch shrugged off that persecution. Thuraissigiam just wants an opportunity to prove to a federal judge that these officials violated the law by denying his asylum claim. Now, thanks to the Supreme Court, he cannot. Nor can the many immigrants thrown into expedited removal by the Trump administration, which has used the process as a tool to speed up deportations across the country. Just two days ago, a federal appeals court cleared the way for the government to expand expedited removal beyond immigrants intercepted near the border to those apprehended anywhere in the nation. The administration has shown little interest in carefully considering whom it’s deporting; now many of those decisions will be rubber-stamped by executive officers and left unscrutinized by the federal judiciary.

Alito not only waved away these galling consequences; he seemed to laugh at them. Not for a moment does he appear to believe that asylum-seekers may be genuinely in fear for their lives. Among the many bon mots dropped by Alito in his opinion, he wrote: “While [Thuraissigiam] does not claim an entitlement to release, the Government is happy to release him—provided the release occurs in the cabin of a plane bound for Sri Lanka.” Given that Thuraissigiam claims he will likely be tortured to death if he is sent back to Sri Lanka, it’s not clear that line means what he thinks it does. Throughout the opinion Alito refers to Thuraissigiam as either “alien” or “respondent” and appears simply incapable of imagining that his claims are truthful.

RECENTLY IN JURISPRUDENCE

Five DACA Recipients on What’s Next

The People Arrested for Protesting Police Are in Danger

America Is Closed

DOJ Ethics Office Says Bill Barr Can Investigate Political Enemies Under False Pretext

It’s easy to miss the massive erosion of asylum-seekers’ rights in the victory last week around the triumph of DACA. But in some ways, it’s the most American outcome in the world to view DACA beneficiaries as more human because they have gone to school here and birthed children here, while scoffing at asylum-seekers, who, as part of a lengthy tradition under both constitutional and international law, simply ask the U.S. government to save their lives. Roberts, who seemed so attuned to the hardships of DACA recipients, joined Alito’s merciless opinion in full; in fact, the chief justice assigned the opinion to Alito, who has become the court’s staunchest crusader against immigrants’ rights.

The court’s split shows that a majority of justices think immigrants like Thuraissigiam are not the productive young people of the DACA case, with financial and familial ties to all that makes America great, but rather faceless masses cynically manipulating America’s generous asylum policy and overwhelming its immigration system. They believe these people do not deserve an iota of sympathy, let alone due process. That is already how many border agents viewed these immigrants: not as humans with rights, but as fraudulent parasites. The Supreme Court has now transformed that vision into law—and, in the process, allowed the executive to send more persecuted people to their deaths without even a meaningful day in court.

Support our independent journalism

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

Imposing death sentences without fair hearings, or indeed any real hearings at all, is bad stuff. And, Justices who justify this behavior should not be on the bench at all.

Sadly, that applies just as much to the two so-called “liberal icons” who voted with Alito and four other sneering colleagues who seemed to actually glory in being able to dehumanize another soul with the audacity to fight for his life. Frankly, this stuff is right out of the Third Reich. Read a few of the German Judiciary’s opinions of the time and see how quickly, easily, naturally, and often happily Reich jurists “justified the unjustifiable and the unthinkable.” I have no doubt that Sam Alito and some of his colleagues would have fit right in. How has American Justice gotten to this incredible “low point.”

I don’t know exactly what we can do about life-tenured judges who are unqualified for their jobs. Life tenure is there for a reason — to insure judicial independence overall, even in particular instances like this where it clearly does no such thing. And, with 200+ largely unqualified Trump appointees now on the Federal Bench, essentially “young deadwood,” the problem will get worse before it gets better.

The first step is to replace Trump and oust the GOP from the Senate. Then, methodically appoint only judges committed to equal justice for all, willing to stand up against abuses of justice by both the Executive and the Congress, and whose life experiences and legal work show an unswerving commitment to human rights and the rights of migrants to be treated as persons (fellow humans) under law.

It’s a national disgrace that with immigration and human rights the major issues clogging today’s Federal Courts, few, if any, Federal Judges have any experience representing asylum seekers in the Star Chambers known as “Immigration Courts” nor have they personally experienced the type of dehumanization, racism, torture, grotesque abuses, and unnecessary cruelty that they so unnecessarily, uncourageously, and glibly inflict on migrants and asylum seekers who indeed are the most vulnerable among us. If immigration and human rights are the pivotal issues of American justice, then we need to get Justices and judges on the bench who understand what they are doing and the dire human consequences of their actions (or inactions).

The situation of today’s asylum seekers of color is not much different from that of others Americans of color whose legal and Constitutional rights were denied, and whose humanity was intentionally degraded, by a corrupt judiciary and a legal system that intentionally failed to make Constitutonal equal justice for all a reality rather than a cruel fiction .

A nation that doesn’t demand better judges will never rise above its own mistakes and failures. And a Federal Judiciary that so obviously and intentionally lacks diversity and humanity can never properly serve the national interest.

Ditch the clueless, largely white, male “dudocracy” with their Ivy League degrees and not much else to offer. Appoint judges schooled in real life, who know what the law means in human terms and will use it to solve, rather than aggravate, inflame, or avoid, human problems! There are tons of such lawyers out there. We all know them. We need them to move from the “bullpen” to the Federal Benches, before it’s too late for everyone in America!

Folks, what we have here is “judicially-approved murder without trial.” It could also be called “extrajudicial killing.” Ugly, but brutally true! “The upshot of the decision will mean almost certain death for Thuraissigiam and others like him.” We should understand what’s happening, even if seven disingenuous and unqualified members of our highest court claim not to know or care what they are doing and refuse to acknowledge the real life consequences of their deep, dark, and disturbing intellectual corruption and their studied lack of human compassion, empathy, and decency.

Vote ‘Em Out, Vote ‘Em Out! It’s a Start On A Better Court, For America & For Humanity!

PWS

06-28-20

LINDA GREENHOUSE @ NYT: Trump’s Solicitor General Argues For Trashing The Remaining Vestiges Of The Supremes As An Independent Judiciary Rather Than Trump/Far Right Political Toadies! — Not Surprisingly, Immigration Is The Issue!

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/opinion/guantanamo-detention-supreme-court.html

Greenhouse writes in the NYT:

I have tried to write at least one column every year about Guantánamo in the belief that what happened there, and what the Supreme Court had to say about it, still matters — even though only a few dozen prisoners remain from the hundreds once held there as legal proceedings grind on with no end in sight.

Having missed my goal in 2019, I’m starting the new year with a Guantánamo column. It’s not about Guantánamo per se, but rather about a new Supreme Court case that will test the current justices’ adherence to an important constitutional principle that emerged from the struggle among the three branches of government over what legal regime should govern the detention of those deemed enemy combatants in the aftermath of 9/11.

In a series of rulings from 2004 through 2008 that were notable for majority coalitions of justices appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, the court rejected the claims of both the White House and Congress that the federal courts had no business in Guantánamo. The most important of these decisions was the final one, Boumediene v. Bush. Congress had tried in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over cases brought by Guantánamo detainees. The court ruled, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, that the detainees had a constitutional right to seek habeas corpus, the ancient English remedy for illegal detention.

The case now before the court, to be argued in early March, is in essential respects Boumediene’s direct descendant. The question in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam is whether a 1996 federal immigration law unconstitutionally stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction over cases, including habeas corpus cases, brought by undocumented immigrants who are subject to what the law designated as “expedited removal.”

The immigrant in this case, Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, is a member of the minority Tamil population in Sri Lanka who applied for asylum after being apprehended crossing the Mexican border into California. Expedited removal applies to, among others, those aliens who are deemed inadmissible upon arrival; an immigration officer can order their immediate deportation. The rules are different if the immigrant is seeking asylum. Those individuals appear before an asylum officer to be screened for the required “credible fear of persecution or torture” if sent back to their home countries.

If “credible fear” is found, immigrants enter what is known as a “full removal proceeding” where they can apply for asylum and obtain judicial review if asylum is denied. But an immigrant who fails the initial screening, as Mr. Thuraissigiam did, receives only a truncated administrative review process and remains in expedited removal. The only access to federal court is for a claim of mistaken identity. The law, which carries the unwieldy name of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, provides: “There shall be no review of whether the alien is actually inadmissible or entitled to any relief from removal.”

In its decision last March, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the law unconstitutional. “Boumediene is our starting point,” the appeals court wrote. It held that like the Military Commissions Act that the Supreme Court invalidated in that case, the immigration law amounted to an unconstitutional “suspension” of habeas corpus. The reference is to Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution, the Suspension Clause, which provides: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

In the government’s petition to the Supreme Court, which the justices granted in October, Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued that Boumediene was “fundamentally different” from this case, because while the Guantánamo detainees were seeking release from custody so they could return home, Mr. Thuraissigiam is already free to return home but is trying to stay: “He would be removed to and released in Sri Lanka forthwith absent his habeas petition.”

Whatever its merits, this was a conventional legal argument. Lawyers are always distinguishing their case from the case that set the precedent, aiming to persuade a court that the precedent shouldn’t apply because the facts or context are different.

Then something changed.

The brief on the merits that Solicitor General Francisco filed in December took a surprisingly different line of attack on the Ninth Circuit’s decision. In addition to distinguishing Boumediene as inapplicable, the brief argues that Mr. Thuraissigiam’s claim must fail because the Constitution’s framers would not have applied the Suspension Clause to immigrants seeking relief from deportation. This is an aggressive “originalist” argument that comes very close to telling the court that Boumediene itself was wrongly decided. “This court has stated that ‘the Suspension Clause protects the writ as it existed in 1789,’ ” the brief asserts, citing an immigration case from 2001, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr. It continues: “And in 1789, the writ did not protect the sort of claim that respondent asserts here.”

To be generous, that is at best a partial rendering of what Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion in the St. Cyr case. Here is the relevant paragraph, highlighting two important words that the administration’s brief left out (Enrico St. Cyr was a Haitian immigrant trying to avoid deportation; he won the case):

“In sum, even assuming that the Suspension Clause protects only the writ as it existed in 1789, there is substantial evidence to support the proposition that pure questions of law like the one raised by the respondent in this case could have been answered in 1789 by a common law judge with power to issue the writ of habeas corpus. It necessarily follows that a serious Suspension Clause issue would be presented if we were to accept the I.N.S.’s submission that the 1996 statutes have withdrawn that power from federal judges and provided no adequate substitute for its exercise.”

Justice Kennedy voted with the St. Cyr majority. And in his majority opinion seven years later in Boumediene, he had this to say: “The court has been careful not to foreclose the possibility that the protections of the Suspension Clause have expanded along with post-1789 developments that define the present scope of the writ.”

What accounts for the administration’s aggressive advocacy in the face of the carefully nuanced precedents that apply to this area of the law? Two factors, I think. The first is that conservatives despise the Boumediene opinion. Judge Raymond Randolph, a stalwart conservative on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, who wrote the opinion that the Supreme Court overturned in Boumediene, has openly been at war with the Supreme Court over Guantánamo.

In a 2010 speech to the Heritage Foundation, he compared the justices in the Boumediene majority to Tom and Daisy Buchanan in “The Great Gatsby:” “careless people, who smashed things up” and who “let other people clean up the mess they made.” And another conservative judge on the same court, Laurence Silberman, in a concurring opinion in 2011 called Boumediene “the Supreme Court’s defiant — if only theoretical — assertion of judicial supremacy.”

After Boumediene, dozens of Guantánamo detainees brought habeas corpus petitions in Federal District Court in Washington, and the judges of that court granted relief to many of them. But the conservative judges on the appeals court overturned one favorable ruling after another in what at least from the outside looked like a systematic effort to “clean up the mess” by rendering a potentially powerful rights-protecting decision toothless. Not once did the appeals court uphold a detainee’s grant of habeas corpus. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was a judge on the D.C. Circuit throughout that period, joined the majority in two of the more important cases.

The war on Boumediene is not ancient history. In his widely noticed speech to the Federalist Society in November, Attorney General William P. Barr took direct aim at the decision, referring to it as the climax of “the most blatant and consequential usurpation of executive power in our history.” According to the attorney general, the Supreme Court, in its series of Guantánamo cases, “set itself up as the ultimate arbiter and superintendent of military decisions inherent in prosecuting a military conflict — decisions that lie at the very core of the president’s discretion as commander in chief.”

An attorney general doesn’t ordinarily get involved in the day-in, day-out work of the solicitor general’s office. I’m willing to speculate that Mr. Barr was at most only vaguely aware of the Thuraissigiam case until the court agreed to hear it. I’m guessing that at that point, he saw his opening — an opportunity to shackle the right of habeas corpus to a theory of originalism, as rigid as it is ahistorical, and to perhaps inspire some justices to take a fresh look back at Boumediene.

That brings to me the second factor that explains the turn the administration is taking. Both the St. Cyr and Boumediene cases were decided by votes of 5 to 4. (Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Boumediene was memorable. “It will almost certainly cause Americans to die,” he predicted.) Justice Kennedy was in the majority in both. Now, of course, Justice Kavanaugh sits in Justice Kennedy’s seat.

In renewing my commitment to write about Guantánamo every year, I’m not limiting myself to once a year. This case has been overshadowed by pending Supreme Court cases on issues more central to the public conversation. But in their time, it was the Guantánamo cases that held the country in thrall. The current attorney general’s position notwithstanding, that series of decisions represents the best the Supreme Court has to offer the country, an assertion of principle beyond politics. The Trump administration’s advocacy having put that legacy on the line, the question now is whether it will be shredded like so much else in this troubled time.

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

Recently, Chief Justice Roberts remarked on the importance of democratic institutions and judicial independence.

Sadly, the Chiefie and his band of righty politico-judges that form the Supremes’ majority have been rather pathetic examples of how democratic institutions decay and die. With the exception of a rather meek rebuke of outrageous Trump regime fraud and contemptuous lies in the “Census Case,” Roberts and his band have been major contributors to the fecklessness and complicity of the higher level Article III judiciary when confronted by dishonesty and tyranny.

They have eviscerated voting rights, green-lighted unconstitutional gerrymandering by the GOP to dilute voting power on the basis of race, approved a fraudulent “Muslim Ban” based on contrived reasons covering up an obvious invidious purpose, failed to halt unconstitutional immigration detention practices, and allowed the Administration to effectively repeal US and international asylum protections based on Executive action that contravenes both the statute and Constitutional Due Process.

Actions speak louder than words, Chiefie! Until you and your “go along to get along” GOP appointed colleagues act like real judges rather than appendages of right-wing politicos, you won’t get the respect that you seem to crave and believe you deserve. And, that’s why Trump Solicitor General Noel Francisco treats you and your colleague like “bought and paid for” political toadies, assigned to do his and his master’s bidding at the expense of our Constitution and the individual rights it was meant to protect.

There are courageous lawyers, judges, and bureaucrats out there putting themselves at risk to protect the democratic institutions and rule of law that you tout. Your complicity is undermining their efforts at every turn. Why don’t you and your colleagues wake up, smell the roses, and come to the aid and support of those doing your job of protecting American democracy for you?

PWS

01-03-19

SUPREMES TO DECIDE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF “EXPEDITED REMOVAL” IN ASYLUM CONTEXT

Ariane de Vogue
Supreme Court Reporter
CNN

https://apple.news/AYpmeq0mPTTm9sB1mjbDRyg

Ariane de Vogue and Priscilla Alvarez, CNN:

The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to take up a major immigration case concerning the rights of undocumented immigrants seeking asylum to challenge their expedited removal proceedings.

The Trump administration had asked the court to review an opinion of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals that would allow those who have been denied asylum the opportunity to make their claims in federal courts.

If the opinion is ultimately upheld, it could open the doors to more asylum seekers at a time when the administration has attempted to dramatically limit who’s eligible for asylum in the US.

The case centers on Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, a native citizen of Sri Lanka who’s a member of an ethnic minority group. He was arrested 25 yards north of the US-Mexico border and placed in expedited removal proceedings. That fast-track deportation procedure allows immigration authorities to remove an individual without a hearing before an immigration judge.

Thuraissigiam applied for asylum, citing fear of persecution in Sri Lanka, and an asylum officer determined he had not established a credible fear of persecution. A supervising officer and an immigration judge affirmed the decision. Under the law, after the denial, Thuraissigiam was ineligible to challenge the finding.

Thuraissigiam went to federal district court, arguing that the expedited removal violated his constitutional rights. A district court said the law did not authorize the court to hear his claims. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, but said the law violates the Suspension Clause, which, the court held, requires Thuraissigiam, even as a noncitizen, to have a “meaningful opportunity” to demonstrate that he is being held against the law.

The Trump administration argued in briefs that the law — which sharply limits judicial review to final orders of removal — was passed so that the asylum system would not be abused. The law offers some exceptions, but they were not met by Thuraissigiam.

“The Ninth Circuit held that the Suspension Clause provides respondent with a constitutional right to additional review of his application for admission, beyond the review Congress has established,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued in court briefs. He said Thuraissigiam “failed to satisfy even the threshold screening standard.”

A Congressional Research Service report notes that the Supreme Court “has repeatedly held” that the government may exclude immigrants “without affording them the due process protections that traditionally apply to persons physically present in the United States.”

Expedited removal has been a point of contention in recent months, as the Trump administration has moved to expand the procedure and cast a wider net over undocumented immigrants subject to it. A federal judge blocked the move in a separate case last month.

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

The answer is actually simple. As a person applying for asylum in the U.S., the respondent is entitled to Due Process. Since the Asylum Officer and the Immigration Judge both work for the Executive, the respondent never had access to the “fair and impartial” decision maker to which he is entitled under our Constitution.

Not only does the Suspension Clause give him a right to access to the Article III courts, Due Process under the Fifth Amendment also requires it. Therefore, the statute is unconstitutional.

But don’t count on the Supremes to do the right and legal thing here. As the Congressional Research Service notes, the Supremes have a history of manipulating the law to avoid the straightforward and correct answers when it comes to foreign nationals seeking to invoke the protections to which they are entitled under our laws.

“Dred Scottification” predated the Trump Administration. But, the Trump Administration intends to build on making foreign nationals “non-persons” under our Constitution to “de-humanize” as many classes of persons in America as the Article III Courts let it get away with. Who knows, you might be next on the list!

PWS

10-18-19

DR. EDITH BRACHO-SANCHEZ @ CNN: Traumatizing Youth — Trump Administration Routinely Violates Wilberforce Act Protections For Vulnerable Kids — Their Outrageous Solution — Eliminate The Law!

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/28/health/unaccompanied-minors-18th-birthday/index.html

Dr. Bracho-Sanchez writes for CNN:

(CNN)On your 18th birthday, immigration officials will come for you, a lawyer explained. You will be shackled, you will be placed in an orange jumpsuit, and you will be taken to jail. “But I need you to know you are not a criminal.”

This is how Allison Norris, toll litigation staff attorney at Americans for Immigrant Justice, prepares her teenage clients in federal migrant detention shelters who are nearing age 18 without the prospects of a suitable sponsor to whom they can be released.

One of these clients is Veronica, whose name has been changed to protect her identity for fear of retribution. At age 17, she arrived in the United States alone, fleeing sexual predators in El Salvador.

Between the time Veronica arrived and when she turned 18, just over four months, Norris says, she attempted to find a sponsor. But none of the family friends who applied met the extensive list of requirements of the Office of Refugee Resettlement in order for her to be released from the shelter for migrant children in South Florida where she was detained.

ICE arrested 170 potential sponsors of unaccompanied migrant children

On her 18th birthday, she woke up scared, wondering what would happen to her, Veronica said. Norris’ detailed warnings had not exactly calmed her down.

At 8 a.m. on her birthday, immigration officials arrived at the shelter. She was placed in ankle shackles and put in a “very cold room” for hours before being taken into adult detention, Veronica said.

In the months that followed, Veronica describes feeling depressed, crying every day and losing hope. Because she wasn’t serving a specific sentence, she had no idea how long she’d spend in detention.

With hours to fill in a cell she shared with three older women, she relived in her mind the attacks she suffered in El Salvador.

“I didn’t know what was worse: to have died in El Salvador or to be locked up,” she said.

Veronica is part of a group of kids known as ORR age-outs. When unaccompanied minors arrive in the United States, they are placed in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the US Department of Health and Human Services, a humanitarian agency in nature.

Unaccompanied minors risk life for American dream

Once they turn 18, teens are moved into the custody of the Department of Homeland Security — more specifically, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a law enforcement agency known as ICE. Migrant youth cannot, by law, stay in the shelters that housed them before they turned 18.

“I have interviewed the children right before they turn 18 and they go into these facilities,” said Yenis Castillo, a forensic psychologist with the nonprofit advocacy group Physicians for Human Rights. “All the kids I interview are terrified.”

In the weeks leading up to their 18th birthdays, Castillo said, she has seen teens act out, develop chronic headaches or high blood pressure, become depressed and even become suicidal.

“When people undergo trauma, they live in a constant state of alert, and on top of that, then we are sending them to prison,” she said.

Neha Desai, director for immigration at the National Center for Youth Law, has toured immigrant child detention centers across the country. “Everywhere I go, the kids that are in most extreme and visible distress are the ones that are approaching age-out. There’s so much anxiety in that period of time,” she said.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, passed in 2000 and reauthorized in 2008 and 2013, states that when unaccompanied immigrant children in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement turn 18, ICE “shall consider placement in the least restrictive setting available after taking into account the [individual’s] danger to self, danger to the community, and risk of flight.”

“What we’ve seen is that they very rarely do,” said Xiaorong Jajah Wu, immigration attorney and deputy program director at the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights. Wu oversees offices in Houston and Chicago, where she says it is the child’s attorney or child advocates who put forth alternatives to adult detention, “basically begging ICE not to take these kids on their 18th birthday.”

Wu said her team has not seen what they’d consider “any level of thought” being put into the decision of whether to take a migrant youth into adult detention.

In California, Lindsay Toczylowski, an immigration attorney and founder and executive director of the immigrant Defenders Law Center, says the move into adult detention has become the norm rather than the exception for teens over the past two years.

“What we’ve seen is a lack of discussion for ICE when deciding whether or not they are going to take a kid into custody,” she said. Toczylowski also worries about the way in which this is done, which she describes as “overkill,” considering that these are typically petite teens from rural communities in Central America who have committed no crimes.

Record numbers of migrant children are in US custody, hoping they won’t be forgotten

Kate Melloy Goettel, senior litigation attorney at the National Immigrant Justice Center, noted that “Congress really understood that these kids are vulnerable. And now we are just trying to get ICE to understand that they have obligations under the law to really try to find options other than detention.”

These options, Goettel explains, includes placement with family members, non-family sponsors, shelters, group homes and institutional placement.

Jennifer Elzea, press secretary for ICE, wrote in an email that “custody determination is made by ICE on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the totality of the individual’s circumstance, to include flight risk, threat to the public and threat to themselves.” Elzea acknowledged understanding the requirement that the agency consider the least restrictive setting available and to consider alternatives to detention.

Goettel is part of the team of attorneys at the National Immigrant Justice Center who, in March 2018, sued Homeland Security and ICE on behalf of two migrant teens who were placed in adult prisons when they turned 18. The lawsuit alleges that ICE “failed to consider them for placement in ‘the least restrictive setting available’ and to provide them with meaningful alternatives to detention, as required by amendments to the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.”

According to documents obtained from the Office of Refugee Resettlement as part of the class-action lawsuit, 528 children aged out of custody in 2015. The number doubled to 1,044 in 2016, remained about the same at 1,091 in 2017 and, in the first half of 2018 alone, included 1,240 kids.

Record 14,000 unaccompanied immigrant children in US custody, HHS confirms

In November, Health and Human Services confirmed that there were a record 14,000 unaccompanied children in Office of Refugee Resettlement custody.

Since the lawsuit was filed, a judge required ICE to reassess the custody of the two original teens and place them in the “least restrictive setting possible.” In August, the court granted a motion for class action certification, meaning the lawsuit against Homeland Security is now on behalf of all unaccompanied migrant children in custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement who “age out” when they turn 18.

When asked about the lawsuit, Elzea said, “ICE does not comment on pending litigation”

As for Veronica, she spent just over two months in adult detention. Norris, her attorney, says that a family friend with lawful status was able to get all required documents quickly, and Homeland Security released Veronica to live with her.

Get CNN Health’s weekly newsletter

Sign up here to get The Results Are In with Dr. Sanjay Gupta every Tuesday from the CNN Health team.

But, Norris says, the process can take much longer for other teens, many of whom lose hope while in detention and ask to be sent back to their home countries.

“They fought all this way to come here, raised all this money to go on this very dangerous journey to escape horrific violence, and all of a sudden they’ve been in detention for three months, and they’re like ‘just send me back. I can’t take it anymore,’ ” she said.

- ****************************************
The obvious solution: protect the kids; resist the Trump Kakistocracy. That’s what the New Due Process Army does!
PWS

03-31-19

9TH CIR. SAYS STATUTE BARRING MEANINGFUL JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPEDITED REMOVAL PROCESS VIOLATES CONSTITUTION‘S SUSPENSION CLAUSE — Throws “Monkey Wrench” Into Administration’s “Deportation Railroad” On West Coast — THURAISSIGIAM v. USDHS

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/us/asylum-seekers-ninth-circuit.html

Miriam Jordan reports for the NY Times:

LOS ANGELES — Creating yet another roadblock to the Trump administration’s efforts to deport ineligible migrants, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that immigration authorities can no longer swiftly deport asylum seekers who fail an initial screening, opening the door for thousands of migrants a year to get another shot in the federal courts to win asylum in the United States.

The ruling broadens constitutional protections for undocumented immigrants at the border and opens a new legal gateway for some of them to appeal for permission to stay in the country, even when an asylum officer and an immigration judge have made a determination that they do not have a credible fear of persecution in their homeland.

“The historical and practical importance of this ruling cannot be overstated,” said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued the appeal on behalf of a Sri Lankan migrant who had been turned away at California’s border with Mexico in 2017. He said the ruling “reaffirms the Constitution’s foundational principle that individuals deprived of their liberty must have access to a federal court.”

After dropping precipitously over five decades, the number of migrants intercepted at the southern border — the key indicator of how many undocumented people are entering the United States — is soaring again, driven by an influx of families from Central America fleeing violence and poverty. Immigration authorities received more than 99,000 requests for asylum interviews during the 2018 fiscal year, including more than 54,000 submitted at the southwest border.

[Read the latest edition of Crossing the Border, a limited-run newsletter about life where the United States and Mexico meet. Sign up here to receive the next issue in your inbox.]

President Trump has said that migrants are exploiting the asylum system by making baseless and fraudulent claims in order to remain in the United States, and his administration has taken a number of steps to make the process harder, including narrowing the grounds for winning asylum, limiting the number of asylum seekers who can be processed at the border each day and requiring some applicants to wait in Mexico while their cases make their way through the courts.

In 2016, the most recent year for which data is available, an estimated 7,200 migrants were denied permission to apply for asylum after their initial interviews and were placed in expedited deportation proceedings. An analysis by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University found that in June 2018, only 15 percent of initial asylum reviews found that the asylum seeker had a credible fear of persecution, about half the proportion that had prevailed a year earlier.

Thursday’s court decision will most likely send that trend in the other direction, legal analysts said.

“This is a historic decision,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration scholar at Cornell Law School. “But the government will surely appeal this to the Supreme Court.”

The opinion, from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, extends constitutional habeas corpus guarantees to those applying for asylum at the border and provides that they can seek a hearing in the federal courts before being summarily deported — though the court did not specify what standards the courts must use to evaluate such petitions.

The ruling applies to asylum seekers in the five states included in the court’s jurisdiction — California, Arizona, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii — and, because it conflicts with an earlier ruling rejecting such legal protections in the Third Circuit, the issue is likely to be resolved ultimately by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, legal analysts said, the western court’s decision is likely to have sweeping implications for immigration deterrence efforts by enabling thousands to remain in the country while they seek the court review.

Under current procedure, every migrant who arrives at the border and expresses a fear of persecution in his or her homeland is referred for an interview with an asylum officer. Those who succeed in convincing the officer that they have a credible fear are allowed to enter the country and proceed with their asylum cases in the immigration courts. Those who don’t can request a review by an immigration judge, but it is usually cursory and favorable decisions are rare. There is usually no access to a lawyer, and no opportunity to challenge the decision; deportation quickly ensues.

In the case before the appeals court, Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, a member of Sri Lanka’s Tamil ethnic minority, was arrested about 25 yards north of the border near San Ysidro, Calif., and told an asylum officer that he was fearful of returning to his homeland. The officer found no credible fear, and that finding was upheld by a supervisor and an immigration judge.

Mr. Thuraissigiam was in deportation proceedings when he filed a habeas corpus petition in the federal court. He argued that the asylum officer had failed to elicit important background about his case, including that he had been detained and beaten by Sri Lankan army officers on two occasions, and at one point had been lowered into a well and nearly drowned. He also said there were communication problems between the translator and both the asylum officer and the immigration judge.

As a result, his lawyers argued, he was deprived of “a meaningful right to apply for asylum.”

A district court judge in Los Angeles rejected that argument, but the three-judge appeals court panel, sitting in San Francisco, held that even though an asylum seeker may lack the right to a full trial in immigration court, the Constitution requires a more complete review than what immigration law currently provides.

At its “historical core,” said the 48-page opinion written by Judge A. Wallace Tashima, “the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections have been strongest.”

Here’s the full text of the 9th Circuit’s decision.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/03/07/18-55313.pdf

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

As noted in the article, this issue is likely to end up with the Supremes, although perhaps not as quickly as the Administration might wish.

If anyone ever gets around to looking at the “rubber stamp review” by Immigration Judges that Sessions encouraged, it’s not going to be pretty for those judges giving short shrift to Due Process for asylum seekers.

Stay tuned.

PWS

03-07-19

Vote ‘Em Out, Vote ‘Em Out! It’s a Start On A Better Court, For America & For Humanity!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: