Litigation – Page 80 – immigrationcourtside.com

TED HESSON @ POLITICO: DHS TO ACLU ON SEPARATED PARENTS: “Go find ‘Em Yourself. Not Our Problem!”

Ted Hesson reports for Politico:

The Trump administration on Thursday informed a federal judge that it isn’t responsible for locating deported parents separated forcibly from their children at the southern border.

DOJ said in a court filing that the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit over family separations, should instead take the lead in reunifying deported parents with their children.

“Plaintiffs’ counsel should use their considerable resources and their network of law firms, NGOs, volunteers, and others, together with the information that defendants have provided (or will soon provide), to establish contact with possible class members in foreign countries,” DOJ said.

The administration suggested that the ACLU find out whether the deported parents wish to be reconnected with their children, or whether they waive that option.

DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has stated repeatedly that no parents were deported without first being given the option to take their children with them. But a Trump administration official told POLITICO on July 25 that an estimated three-quarters of the parents who left the country alone left no record behind that they ever consented to leave their children in the U.S. “We don’t see it in the documentation,” the official said.

At a Senate hearing earlier this week, Matthew Albence, executive associate director for Enforcement and Removal Operations at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, repeatedly dodged questions about whether DHS could document that it secured deportee parents’ consent to leave their children behind.

In Thursday’s court filing, the ACLU disputed the Trump administration’s claim that it isn’t responsible for deportees, saying it “must bear the ultimate burden of finding the parents.”

The ACLU said that Trump’s “unconstitutional separation practice” precipitated the crisis and that the federal government possessed far more resources than non-governmental organizations to find the parents.

In addition, the plaintiffs contended that many addresses that the administration provided won’t aid reunification. Some simply said “in DHS custody” or “failed to provide,” according to the ACLU.

The organization estimated that records for 120 parents outside the U.S. — more than one quarter the total deported without their kids — may lack viable addresses.

According to the court filing, some records simply say “calle sin nombre” (street without a name) or list the name of a city.

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

Yeah, as I was saying about lack of accountability in my previous posting. Seems like it’s time for the U.S. District Judge to start issuing some contempt citations for Government officials and lawyers. Perhaps a few days in jail for Secretary Nielsen would light a fire under her to correct the Constitutional abuses undertaken under her authority. And it seems to me that the disingenuous court filings from DOJ in behalf of DHS are more than enough to file disciplinary actions against the DOJ Attorneys and to haul Sessions into court for possible contempt proceedings.

As I’ve said before, if any private lawyer conducted themselves before the District Court the way the Trump Administration did in this case, he or she would be in danger of losing both freedom and license to practice law. But, the laws don’t seem to apply to this Administration the way they do to the rest of us.

PWS

08-02-18

NPR: FRONTLINE TAKES YOU INSIDE THE POLICY DECISIONS THAT LED TO FAMILY SEPARATION — Featuring Michelle Brane Of The Women’s Refugee Commission

Dear Paul,I hope you saw the new “Frontline” episode, Separated: Children at the Border, last night on PBS. The episode provides an in-depth, factual look at the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” policy and the treatment of families seeking safety at the border.

I was interviewed about the work of the Women’s Refugee Commission (WRC) on behalf of women and children seeking asylum and what I witnessed on a recent monitoring visit to a processing center at the border.

We want you to know that WRC is unyielding in our commitment to hold the Trump administration accountable for its cruel policies — we will not stop until families seeking safety at the U.S. border are treated humanely and have their human rights respected.

Thank you for standing with us.

Warm regards,

Michelle Brané,

Director of Migrant Rights and Justice

WATCH IT HERE

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

The Trump Administration specializes in avoiding accountability. The masters of the lie always blame the courts, the victims, the Democrats, the press, lawyers, everybody but them. That was on display this week during Senate oversight hearings where nobody took responsibility for the child separation policy that everyone agreed was a bad idea. Of course, missing from the hearing lineup was the unapologetic and disingenuous “mastermind” of the “zero tolerance policy” Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions.

The video also shows how badly the Obama Administration screwed up the treatment of arriving asylum applicants with counterproductive policies like the abominable “family detention.” Not much acceptance of responsibility there either. Indeed, this is when the policy of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by the DOJ and White House politicos went into high gear sending the Immigration Court backlog careening out of control.

PWS

08-02-18

LA TIMES: SESSIONS IS “DECONSTRUCTING” OUR ASYLUM SYSTEM, AND IT’S A NATIONAL OUTRAGE THAT CONGRESS SHAMEFULLY REFUSES TO FIX – “Many more people with legitimate claims are likely being sent home to perilous conditions despite federal and international laws recognizing the right of the persecuted to seek sanctuary in other countries. That is unconscionable.”

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=8434794c-eb73-4a2e-a2cd-3dafee637733

By the LA Times Editorial Board:

A shameful retreat on asylum

Here’s the disheartening reality about the Trump administration’s policies toward those arriving at the borders seeking asylum: Many more people with legitimate claims are likely being sent home to perilous conditions despite federal and international laws recognizing the right of the persecuted to seek sanctuary in other countries. That is unconscionable.

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University reports that immigration judges — who work for the Justice Department, not the federal courts — are granting asylum seekers’ appeals half as often as they did a year ago. Through June, courts revived less than 15% of the asylum claims that had been rejected by immigration agents, who make the initial determination whether an asylum seeker had a credible fear of persecution if returned home.

What changed from the first half of 2017? The reduction of successful appeals coincided with Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions’ comments that the asylum system “is being gamed” (there’s little evidence of that), his demands that immigration courts handle appeals more quickly, and the roll-out of performance quotas to force immigration judges to clear cases faster. That’s what changed.

The TRAC analysis further found that rate of successful appeals varies wildly by geographic region and even among judges within the same regional court — a systemic inconsistency that predates the Trump administration. That justice is so fickle is neither fair nor meets our moral and legal obligations to those fleeing persecution.

We can rail against the Justice Department’s failings, but the responsibility rests with Congress. It granted the department wide latitude in handling asylum requests from people facing persecution based on race, religion, race, political beliefs, nationality or membership in a social group.

That last, ill-defined category gave the government flexibility as times and needs warranted, but it also has led to uncertainty and politicization. Sessions, for instance, recently overturned an Obama-era immigration court definition that made asylum available to women who faced domestic violence in countries where police failed to protect them. So a political change in the attorney general’s office can weigh more heavily than precedents set by immigration judges.

This is fixable if we ever get a Congress willing to compromise and craft comprehensive immigration reforms framed within a humanitarian context and informed by the nation’s best interests — in terms of diversity and economic growth — and not one that panders to the current mood in the capital of nationalistic antipathy for the foreign-born. In the meantime, we must insist that people who are deserving of sanctuary receive it, and not get turned away to satisfy the current political whims.

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

What’s happening to our U.S. Immigration Courts and to our asylum system is indeed a national outrage that requires Congressional action. That corrective action, at a minimum, must 1) establish an independent, Article I Immigration Court outside the Executive Branch; and 2) specify that persecution based upon gender constitutes persecution on account of a “particular social group.”

Not going to happen under this Congress! That’s why regime change is so critical. And, getting out the vote this November and thereafter is key to the majority no longer being subject to the whims of a toxic minority Government that has abandoned our Constitution, human rights, human decency, common sense, and the common good.

PWS

08-02-18

SLAMMED AGAIN – SPLIT 9TH HANDS SCOFFLAWS TRUMP & SESSIONS YET ANOTHER “SANCTUARY” DEFEAT — Attempt To Punish California Cities Unconstitutional!

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sanctuary-9th-circuit-20180801-story.html

Maura Dolan reports for the LA Times:

A federal appeals court decided Wednesday that the Trump administration may not withhold federal funds from California’s immigrant-friendly “sanctuary” cities and counties.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld a district judge’s ruling in favor of San Francisco and Santa Clara County, which sued over the administration’s threats to withhold money to jurisdictions that have passed laws limiting local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

The ruling was a blow to the Trump administration’s efforts to punish cities and states that fail to help enforce federal immigration law, a goal President Trump announced shortly after he was sworn in.

The administration did not comment on whether it intended to appeal the decision.

But the 9th Circuit handed Trump one victory. It removed a nationwide injunction against his directive, concluding there was not enough evidence presented in the case so far to support blocking it beyond California.

Devin O’Malley, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice, called the ruling a “a victory for criminal aliens in California, who can continue to commit crimes knowing that the state’s leadership will protect them from federal immigration officers.”

O’Malley also declared that the removal of the nationwide injunction amounted to “another major victory for the rule of law.”

The case stemmed from an executive order issued by Trump shortly after taking office. He directed his administration to withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions.

The 9th Circuit said Trump exceeded his authority because only Congress can put conditions on federal funds.

“The United States Constitution exclusively grants the power of the purse to Congress, not the President,” wrote Chief 9th Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas, a Clinton appointee.

The administration argued that the order was “all bluster and no bite, representing a perfectly legitimate use of the presidential ‘bully pulpit,’ without any real meaning — ‘gesture without motion,’ as T.S. Eliot put it,” Thomas wrote.

But that explanation “strains credulity,” Thomas said.

The ruling quoted Trump expressing his opposition to sanctuary cities in a television interview after issuing his order.

“If we have to defund, we give tremendous amounts of money to California…. California in many ways is out of control,” the court quoted Trump as saying.

The Justice Department later issued a memorandum interpreting Trump’s order as affecting only three law enforcement grants historically conditioned on compliance with immigration law.

But the 9th Circuit said that interpretation was unreasonable and inconsistent with the executive order.

The court left the injunction in place for California because it found there was sufficient evidence that the counties and the state were “particular targets.”

But there was little to no evidence presented on the impact of the executive order outside California, the 9th Circuit said.

“The record as presently developed does not justify a nationwide injunction,” the court said.

Unless the Trump administration appeals, which legal analysts believe is likely, the case will return to the district court, where evidence could be presented to support a nationwide injunction.

Ninth Circuit Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, dissented.

He argued the case was not “ripe” for a decision, in part because no action has been taken against the counties.

“While the counties may be convinced that the Executive Order loosed a fearsome chimera upon them, that does not mean that the courts should take up arms to vanquish the imagined beast by slaying the executive order itself,” Fernandez said.

Wednesday’s decision was the latest among several to block Trump from punishing sanctuary jurisdictions.

Last month, a federal judge in Sacramento largely rejected a challenge by the Trump administration of three statewide California sanctuary laws.

In April, a federal judge in Los Angeles sided with the city in a ruling that said the administration could not consider sanctuary policies in parsing out police grants.

Chicago and Philadelphia also won court challenges of the administration’s authority to yank law enforcement grants based on sanctuary policies. The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision in the Chicago case.

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, though, has allowed a Texas law requiring police chiefs and sheriffs to cooperate with federal immigration officials to go into effect. Texas lawmakers passed the requirement in response to the sanctuary city movement.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on the sanctuary policies or on the legality of the administration’s effort to end protections from deportation for immigrants who came to the U.S. when they were young.

The high court decided 5 to 4 in June to uphold Trump’s travel ban, which was a revision of an executive order the president issued shortly after taking office.

The order bans foreign visitors and immigrants from several mostly Muslim-majority nations. Lower courts had struck down the ban.

Santa Clara County Counsel James Williams called Wednesday’s decision “great news.”

He said all the courts that have examined lawsuits involving sanctuary polices have concluded that Congress, not the executive branch, controls federal spending.

“This opinion today is a huge reaffirmation of that very core bedrock principle of separation of powers,” Williams said.

Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, described the majority ruling as “deeply dishonest.” The foundation sided with the Trump administration in the case.

Scheidegger noted that Trump’s order asked for compliance “consistent with law,” which limited it to only a few grants, not all federal spending.

“This case is headed for rehearing by a larger 11-judge panel, at least, and probably to the Supreme Court,” he said.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera praised the ruling for blocking an unconstitutional “power grab” by Trump.

“San Francisco’s sanctuary policies make our city safer by encouraging anyone who has been a victim or witness to a crime to tell police,” Herrera said. “We are a safer community when people aren’t afraid to call the Fire Department in an emergency.”

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

Fairly predictable. Just think of the incredible amount of attorney and court resources, and the potential for goodwill and cooperation the Trump Administration has wasted in pursuing its White Nationalist agenda to actually make America less safe!

If the same amount of energy, effort, and resources were put on working with the private bar and the Immigration Judges to 1) get all asylum applicants competently represented, and 2) remove the 75% or so of the cases of individuals who should eventually be legalized or otherwise allowed to stay from already overcrowded Immigration Court dockets, the backlog resulting from “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by DOJ politicos could largely be eliminated. The system then would be able to adjudicate new cases, particularly those of recently arrived asylum seekers, fairly, within a reasonable period of time, and in conformity with Constitutional Due Process.

PWS

08-01-18

TRAC: THE SESSIONS EFFECT — DENIALS OF DAY IN COURT FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS SPIKE — Country Conditions Remain Horrible & Asylum Statute Hasn’t Changed, But Many More Asylum Applicants Now Denied Access To Immigration Court Hearings — Huge Individual Discrepancies Among Judges On “Credible Fear” Findings!

==========================================
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
==========================================
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Greetings. Immigration Court outcomes in credible fear reviews (CFR) have recently undergone a dramatic change. Starting in January 2018, court findings of credible fear began to plummet. By June 2018, only 14.7 percent of the CFR court decisions found the asylum seeker had a “credible fear.” This was just half the level that had prevailed during the last six months of 2017.
These very recent data from the Immigration Court provide an early look at how the landscape for gaining asylum may be shifting under the current administration. Unless asylum seekers, including parents with children, arriving at the southwest border pass this initial CFR review, they are not even allowed to apply for asylum. As a consequence, individuals who don’t pass these reviews face being quickly deported back to their home countries.

The latest available case-by-case court records obtained and analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University document that depending upon the particular Immigration Court undertaking the credible fear review, the proportion of asylum seekers passing this screening step varied from as little as 1 percent all the way up to 60 percent – a sixty-fold difference. Since October 2015, for example, at least half passed their credible fear reviews when these were conducted by the Immigration Courts in Arlington, Virginia (60% passed), Chicago, Illinois (52% passed), Pearsall, Texas (51% passed), and Baltimore, Maryland (50% passed). In contrast, few were found to have credible fear when their review took place in Immigration Courts based in Lumpkin, Georgia (only 1% passed) and Atlanta, Georgia (only 2% passed).

Which judge is assigned to undertake this review can also have a dramatic impact. Judges on the Pearsall, Texas and San Antonio, Texas Immigration Courts found as few as 4 percent demonstrated credible fear, while others on the same two courts found 94 percent with such fear.

Previous reports by TRAC and others have long documented wide judge-to-judge disparities in asylum decisions. This report breaks new ground in showing that similar differences also exist earlier in the asylum process in the determination of who is allowed to apply for asylum.

To read the full report, including specifics for each Immigration Court, go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/523/

In addition, many of TRAC’s free query tools – which track the court’s overall backlog, new DHS filings, court dispositions and much more – have now been updated through June 2018. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/

If you want to be sure to receive notifications whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

http://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1&list=imm

or follow us on Twitter @tracreports or like us on Facebook:

http://facebook.com/tracreports

TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the U.S. federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
Suite 360, Newhouse II
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
315-443-3563

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

To state the obvious, if we believe in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we simply can’t tolerate a “court” run, improperly influenced, and manipulated by a xenophobic, White Nationalist, racist enforcement zealot like Jeff Session.

Time for “regime change” that includes an independent U.S. Immigration Court dedicated to insuring Due Process! Get out the vote this fall!

PWS

08-01-18

PBS: ADMINISTRATION WARNED OF LASTING DAMAGE CAUSED BY SEPARATION — PROCEEDED ANYWAY

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-administration-was-warned-of-traumatic-psychological-injury-from-family-separations-official-says

Joshua Barajas reports for PBS:

A top health official told lawmakers Tuesday that the Trump administration was warned about instituting “any policy” resulting in family separations because of the effects such separations could have on the wellbeing of immigrant children.

The official’s response came after Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) asked every federal immigration official at Tuesday’s hearing over family separations to answer a particular question: “Did anyone on this panel say, maybe [separating families] wasn’t such a good idea?”

After a pause, Blumenthal directed his question first to Commander Jonathan White of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, who said he and the Office of Refugee Resettlement raised a number of concerns in the previous year about “any policy which would result in family separation due to concerns we had about the best interest of the child as well about whether that would be operationally supportable with the bed capacity we had.”

The Democratic senator asked the commander to further explain his response in layman’s terms, asking if he told the administration that children would “suffer” as a result of its “zero tolerance” policy.

“There’s no question that separation of children from parents entails significant potential for traumatic psychological injury to the child.”

“Separation of children from their parents entails significant harm to children,” White said in response. “There’s no question that separation of children from parents entails significant potential for traumatic psychological injury to the child,” he added, shortly after.

READ MORE: How the toxic stress of family separation can harm a child

White also said that the administration’s response was that family separation was not a policy. As stated before, there is no current law that mandates the separation of migrant children from their parents at the U.S. border.

The Trump administration implemented its “zero-tolerance” policy this spring. President Donald Trump signed an executive order in June to halt the separations.

In recent weeks, lawsuits filed against the separation policy have produced testimonies from lawyers and the separated families they represent, alleging that the government’s actions resulted in trauma to their children.

In one personal declaration presented earlier this month in court, one mother said her son “is not the same since we were reunited.”

“I thought that, because he is so young he would not be traumatized by this experience, but he does not separate from me. He cries when he does not see me,” Olivia Caceres said of her 1-year-old son. “That behavior is not normal. In El Salvador he would stay with his dad or my sister and not cry. Now he cries for fear of being alone,” she wrote.

Here are several other key moments from Tuesday’s hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

. . . .

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

Read the entire article at the link.

The lack of accountability and acceptance of responsibility by the Administration is astounding, as was Sen. Cornyn’s tone deaf comment. The reason why other laws aren’t being enforced is because of the cruel, wasteful, unconstitutional “zero tolerance” policy instituted by Sessions. Stop blaming the victims, Senator!

And why isn’t Sessions being held accountable for the mess he “masterminded?”

PWS

08-01-18

SESSIONS’S CLAIM THAT HE WAS “REQUIRED BY LAW” TO PROSECUTE ALL ILLEGAL BORDER CROSSERS IS BOGUS — CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS ARE ALWAYS DISCRETIONARY — “[W]hen it comes to prosecuting immigration laws, it’s never not a choice.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-hernandez-family-separations_us_5b5a0a30e4b0fd5c73cd2e59

César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández writes in HuffPost:

When President Barack Obama announced Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, his administration’s policy of pushing young unauthorized migrants to the bottom of the immigration law-enforcement priority list, Republicans complained that focusing on some legal violations over others was equivalent to not enforcing the law. When Obama used his discretion to extend similar protections to parents of U.S. citizens, Republican legislators successfully took to the courts to block him.

Within days of entering the White House, President Donald Trump issued an executive order proclaiming, “We cannot faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States if we exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement.” To Republicans, prosecutorial discretion subverts the rule of law. Or so they say.

Government data about the Trump administration’s zero tolerance policy toward border crossers reveal that it, too, is picking and choosing whom to target. In May, at the height of its policy of tossing parents into criminal proceedings while their children were hauled to government-run prisons, Border Patrol agents sent 9,216 people to prosecutors. That is about 1,000 more than in April and over 5,000 more than the same month a year earlier. The increase was especially noticeable in the family separation epicenter of McAllen, Texas, where I was born and where my law firm is based. Lawyers in my hometown saw 841 prosecutions in April jump to 2,079 in May.

That is a lot of people, but it’s not everyone. In May, Border Patrol agents stationed across the southwest border caught almost 29,000 adults clandestinely entering the United States. Eighty-five percent had no children; the rest are the parents whose anguish has been heard across the world.

Of all the adults apprehended that month, most were not prosecuted criminally. Only one-third were charged with a federal immigration crime. The rest presumably ended up in the civil immigration court system or in fast-track legal proceedings in which immigration officials deport people without taking them in front of a judge. Zero tolerance apparently didn’t mean zero exceptions.

It makes complete sense that the government did not go after everyone. The federal courts can’t handle that many cases. Picking and choosing is a part of every big law enforcement system. The important question isn’t whether that happens ― despite Republican insistence, it always does. The important question is why law enforcement officers choose to target some people over others.

. . . .

When it comes to taking a child from her parent, nothing is simple. And when it comes to prosecuting immigration laws, it’s never not a choice.

César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández is an associate professor of law at the University of Denver, publisher of the blog crimmigration.com, and of counsel to García & García Attorneys at Law.

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

Read the rest of the article at the link.

Of course separating children from parents has always been a choice driven by Sessions’s racism, White Nationalism, and xenophobia and having nothing whatsoever to do with sound law enforcement policy.

Indeed, studies have shown that so-called “zero tolerance” enforcement programs are failures across the board from a law enforcement standpoint. And, low level immigration prosecutions such as those promoted by Sessions have no documented deterrent effect. But, they have been shown to reduce the amount of time that Federal prosecutors and Federal Judges have to spend on “real” law enforcement, such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, organized crime, and fraud.

PWS

07-31-18

EUGENE ROBINSON @ WASHPOST: RACIST, WHITE NATIONALIST ADMINISTRATION DEHUMANIZES MIGRANTS OF COLOR — “All of this is happening because Trump has no respect for law or due process and no sense of empathy. He was reportedly upset this spring by a rise in border crossings by asylum-seekers, who by law had to be allowed to stay pending resolution of their claims. He and Sessions seized upon the pretext — for which they have not provided evidence — that children were being “trafficked” into the country for some reason.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/does-the-trump-administration-see-central-americans-as-human/2018/07/30/90dc17d4-9432-11e8-810c-5fa705927d54_story.html?utm_term=.17b3b808d283

Robinson writes:

. . . .

If you have children, imagine how you would feel seeing them taken away like that. Hug your kids. Imagine not knowing where they are or whether you’ll ever get to hug them again.

Now imagine the terror and despair those 711 “ineligible” children must feel. It is monstrous to gratuitously inflict such pain. It is, in a word, torture.

In 120 cases, according to the government, a parent “waived” reunification with the child. This claim cannot be taken at face value, however, since immigration advocates cite widespread reports of parents being coerced or fooled into signing documents they did not understand.

Human nature binds parents with their children. It shocks and depresses me to have to write this, but I wonder whether Trump and his minions see these Central Americans — brown-skinned, with indigenous features — as fully human.

In 431 cases involving children between 5 and 17, officials reported, the parents have been deported. Where are they now? How could the government let this happen? If these parents were going to be denied permission to stay in the United States, what was the big hurry to kick them out? Why couldn’t the administration wait until their children could be brought back from wherever they were being kept?

Even more incredibly, in 79 cases, the children’s parents have been released into the United States. In other words, the parents have some legal status — but the government has their children.

And in 94 cases, according to Trump administration officials, the parents cannot be located. What are the odds, do you think, that these men and women will ever be found? Where do parents go to begin the process of tracking down their children? How do you tell a 5-year-old that she may never see her mother and father again?

That’s the reported situation for children 5 and older. The government is also still holding 46 children younger than 5 whom officials cannot or will not give back to their parents. Think of the trauma being inflicted on 2-year-olds — to make a political point.

All of this is happening because Trump has no respect for law or due process and no sense of empathy. He was reportedly upset this spring by a rise in border crossings by asylum-seekers, who by law had to be allowed to stay pending resolution of their claims. He and Sessions seized upon the pretext — for which they have not provided evidence — that children were being “trafficked” into the country for some reason.

“If you’re smuggling a child, then we’re going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you, probably, as required by law,” Sessions said in May. “If you don’t want your child separated, then don’t bring them across the border illegally.”

Think, for a moment, of the millions of Irish, Italian, Eastern European and other immigrants who “smuggled” children into the United States — families such as Trump’s own. The only difference is that those earlier immigrants, though sometimes rejected at first, came to be seen as white.

Brown immigrants need not apply. Not if they want to see their kids again.

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

Read Robinson’s complete op-ed at the above link.

“Right on” Eugene! We need “regime change,” sooner rather than later. And, we still don’t have an answer to Eugene’s earlier question: When, if ever, will Sessions and other Trump Administration officials be held accountable for their intentionally lawless and unconstitutional behavior?

PWS

07-31-18

RETIRED ARTICLE III JUDGES OFFER TO SERVE AS U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES TO HELP RESOLVE BACKLOGS!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/26/us/retired-judges-immigration-case-backlog/index.html

Emanuella Grinberg reports for CNN:

(CNN)The number of pending cases in US immigration courts hit a record high this year and the trend shows no sign of slowing down.

With more than 700,000 open cases as of May, judges face a heavy case load. To alleviate the burden, two retired federal judges have proposed a solution: bring jurists like them back to the bench.

“We certainly have the expertise. We’ve handled heavy dockets of cases and we’re accustomed with having to get up to speed very quickly in various areas of the law,” retired US District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel said.

Patel and retired Judge D. Lowell Jensen sent a letter with the recommendation earlier this month to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and James McHenry, director of the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday night.

“We are aware that at this time there are extraordinary burdens and backlogs faced every day by the country’s immigration judges, particularly along the southern border. We believe retired federal judges are a valuable untapped resource who could be called into service to assist in handling the immigration caseload fairly and efficiently,” the pair wrote in a letter dated July 12.

Retired judges have been vetted before so the process for obtaining security clearances wouldn’t take as long as it would for new appointees, the letter said. And because federal judges receive an annuity from the government, they could potentially “volunteer” their time without drawing a salary, Patel added.

Retired US District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel in 1992.

They also bring experience in immigration law from their time on the bench and other chapters of their career, Patel said. She worked as a DOJ attorney for the Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1967 to 1971. She served as district court judge for 32 years before retiring in 2012.

Like many federal judges, especially those in large metropolitan areas or near ports of entry, Patel said she handled various immigration matters: asylum cases, deportations, removals and petitions for release, or habeas corpus. None in particular stand out — “they sort of merge all together,” she said. But one of her cases resurfaced after she retired, through the Trump administration’s travel ban.

In 1983, Patel overturned Japanese-American Fred Korematsu’s criminal conviction for disobeying government orders during World War II to leave his Bay Area home and enter an internment camp. But the infamous 1944 Supreme Court decision that blessed the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II remained intact — until Chief Justice John Roberts announced that the court was overruling it in its ruling upholding the travel ban.

Otherwise, Patel said she has kept a relatively low profile, with a few speaking engagements and some consulting work here and there. But as controversy and caseloads grew along the southern border, she felt compelled to act, she said. She contacted Jensen, who served on the federal bench for 28 years, who agreed to co-sign the letter.

“We urge you to utilize this considerable resource since we know that vetting and appointment of new [immigration judges] will take some time, and time is of the essence to meet the crushing burden of pending and new cases,” the letter said.

Patel said she had yet to receive any response from the government.

“I’m not holding my breath,” she said. “I know federal judges are perceived as being very independent and that may not be to the liking of the attorney general or the Department of Justice at this time.”

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

Interesting!

Sounds like a great idea! I think it would be an eye opener for both the Article IIIs and the IJs.

Suspect, though, as suggested in the article, the “real judges” would be too independent for Sessions & McHenry.

How DOJ & EOIR respond to this offer will tell us lots about whether they genuinely desire to resolve the Immigration Court backlog in a fundamentally fair manner, consistent with Due Process, or whether the backlog is purposely being “jacked up” and used as a “bludgeon” by Sessions to eliminate Due Process and otherwise push for draconian changes in the law.

PWS

07-30-18

“OUR GANG” OF RETIRED US IMMIGRATION JUDGES ISSUES PRESS RELEASE ON IMPROPER REMOVAL OF IMMIGRATION JUDGE FROM CASTRO-TUM CASE!

On Thursday, July 26, EOIR, in a costly and inefficient use of the agency’s resources, sent an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge to the Philadelphia Immigration Court to conduct a single preliminary hearing. Although there was no indication of any legitimate basis for doing so, the case had been taken off of the calendar of an experienced Immigration Judge in Philadelphia, apparently for the sole reason that the judge had exercised independent judgment by asking for briefs on the issue of whether the respondent had in fact received notice of the hearing. The Assistant Chief Judge (a part of EOIR’s management) ordered the respondent removed in absentia without further inquiry into such question, fulfilling the purpose for which she was sent to Philadelphia.

An independent judiciary is imperative to democracy. Immigration Judges have always struggled to maintain independence while remaining in the employ of an enforcement agency, the Department of Justice, and serving at the pleasure of a political appointee, the Attorney General. Although not entitled to the same due process safeguards as criminal proceedings, the consequences of deportation can be as harsh as any criminal penalty. As their decisions often have life-or-death consequences, Immigration Judges must be afforded the independence to conduct fair, impartial hearings. For this reason, some important due process safeguards are required in deportation proceedings, and errors should be corrected through the appeals process, not through interference by managers.

Last Thursday’s case had been remanded by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. In the absence of another explanation, it would seem that EOIR’s management did not believe Sessions’ purpose in remanding the case was for an Immigration Judge to then exercise independent judgment to ensure due process. The agency therefore removed the case from the docket of a capable judge in order to ensure an outcome that would please its higher-ups. While as former Immigration Judges and BIA Members with many decades of combined experience, we appreciate the pressures on EOIR’s leadership, such interference with judicial independence is unacceptable. EOIR’s management exists to fulfill an administrative function, not to impede on the decision-making process of its judges. EOIR more than ever needs leadership with the courage to protect its judges from political pressures and to defend their independence. As a democracy, we expect our judges to reach results based on what is just, even where such results are not aligned with the desired outcomes of politicians.

Hon. Steven Abrams
Hon. Sarah M. Burr
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Hon. Cecelia M. Espenoza
Hon. John F. Gossart, Jr.
Hon. William P. Joyce
Hon. Carol King
Hon. Margaret McManus
Hon. Charles Pazar
Hon. Susan Roy
Hon. Paul W. Schmidt
Hon. Polly A. Webber

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

Sadly, no surprise that under Sessions the “captive” U.S. Immigration Courts are becoming more blatantly politicized — always in ways that are adverse to Due Process, an independent judiciary, and the rights of migrants appearing before those courts.

We need an Article I U.S. Immigration Court, run by judges, not politicos, with the assistance of professional court administrators responsible to the judges.

PWS

07-30-17

WASHPOST CHRONICLES THE TRUMP/SESSIONS SELF-CREATED HUMAN RIGHTS DISASTER — Incredible Cruelty, Incompetence, Bias, & Just Plain Old Stupidity!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/deleted-families-what-went-wrong-with-trumps-family-separation-effort/2018/07/28/54bcdcc6-90cb-11e8-8322-b5482bf5e0f5_story.html

Nick Miroff, Amy Goldstein, and Maria Sacchetti report for the Washington Post:

Social Issues

‘Deleted’ families: What went wrong with Trump’s family-separation effort

5:41

Why hundreds of migrant children are still separated from their parents

Hundreds of migrant children remain in custody after the Trump Administration scrambled to reunite separated families under a court-imposed deadline.(Jon Gerberg/The Washington Post)

By Nick Miroff, Amy Goldstein and Maria SacchettiJuly 28 at 1:15 PMEmail the author

When a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reunify migrant families separated at the border, the government’s cleanup crews faced an immediate problem.

They weren’t sure who the families were, let alone what to call them.

Customs and Border Protection databases had categories for “family units,” and “unaccompanied alien children” who arrive without parents. They did not have a distinct classification for more than 2,600 children who had been taken from their families and placed in government shelters.

So agents came up with a new term: “deleted family units.”

But when they sent that information to the refugee office at the Department of Health and Human Services, which was told to facilitate the reunifications, the office’s database did not have a column for families with that designation.

The crucial tool for fixing the problem was crippled. Caseworkers and government health officials had to sift by hand through the files of all the nearly 12,000 migrant children in HHS custody to figure out which ones had arrived with parents, where the adults were jailed and how to put the families back together.

Compounding failures to record, classify and keep track of migrant parents and children pulled apart by President Trump’s “zero tolerance” border crackdown were at the core of what is now widely regarded as one of the biggest debacles of his presidency. The rapid implementation and sudden reversal of the policy whiplashed multiple federal agencies, forcing the activation of an HHS command center ordinarily used to handle hurricanes and other catastrophes.

After his 30-day deadline to reunite the “deleted” families passed Thursday, U.S. District Judge Dana M. Sabraw lambasted the government for its lack of preparation and coordination.

“There were three agencies, and each was like its own stovepipe. Each had its own boss, and they did not communicate,” Sabraw said Friday at a court hearing in San Diego. “What was lost in the process was the family. The parents didn’t know where the children were, and the children didn’t know where the parents were. And the government didn’t know either.”

This account of the separation plan’s implementation and sudden demise is based on court records as well as interviews with more than 20 current and former government officials, advocates and contractors, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to give candid views and diagnose mistakes.

Trump officials have insisted that they were not doing anything extraordinary and were simply upholding the law. The administration saw the separations as a powerful tool to deter illegal border crossings and did not anticipate the raw emotional backlash from separating thousands of families to prosecute the parents for crossing the border illegally…

. . . .

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

Read “the team’s” entire much, much more detailed article at the link! By the end you will be disgusted by this Administrtion’s intentional dehumanization, stunning incompetence, dishonesty, and lack of any sense whatsoever of responsible government or prudent use of taxpayer resources.

No wonder deficits are soaring while essential services are being cut. This Administration consistently and intentionally misuses our taxpayer dollars on counterproductive and totally misguided efforts such as this which have little or nothing whatsoever to do with legitimate law enforcement. And think of the monumental amounts of attorney and court time being wasted because of the Government’s lawless, racially motivated actions! What if these efforts and resources were it toward actually solving problems, rather than creating them?

The Administraton’s explanations don’t make sense. In court before Judge Sabraw, DOJ attorneys have always conceded that intentional separation of children from parents for deterrence purposes would be unconstitutional. They initially claimed that there was no such policy.

But, it’s clear that separating children from parents for deterrence was exactly what Sessions, Nielsen, and others in the Administration intended. Moreover, they had no intention of ever reuniting the children with families, which is why they didn’t bother to set up a system to keep track of them,

This seems like a very clear and intentional violation of our Constitution and lack of candor before a tribunal by Sessions, not to mention failure to fully and in good faith comply with the court’s order. That should lead to civil liability under Bivens or punishment for contempt of court, or both.

Also, seems that the DOJ lawyers who misrepresented the nature of the program their boss was running should be in line for disciplinary action from the District Court and from their respective state bars. One would only have had to watch a Sessions news clip (as many reporters did) to know that what they were telling the court was untrue or at least required some further explanation from Sessions.

Back to Eugene Robinson. Why are we putting families seeking the protection of the law in jail instead of dishonest, disingenuous scofflaws like Jeff Sessions? Maybe “Ol Gonzo” shouldn’t be up in front of the young neo-Nazis leading “lock her up” chants. What goes around comes around!

And, if I were Judge Sabraw, I might want to know why Sessions was out there leading nationalist chants rather than busting his tail to comply fully with the court’s order for reunification of families.

We need regime change! Vote the scofflaws and their enablers out of office in November! Vote only for candidates pledged to hold Jeff Sessions and the other scofflaws in this Administration accountable for their actions through meaningful oversight (of which there has been none since Trump took office).

PWS

07-28-18

HON. LORY DIANA ROSENBERG — “MOTHER & CHILD REUNION” — A Satirical Update Of An “Oldie But Goodie”

Family Reunion and Detention Lyrics, to Mother and Child Reunion, Paul Simon,
Lory Rosenberg (originally parodied in 2015, re 2014 “surge”), revised in 2018.

No, I would not give you false hope

On this strange and mournful day

But a parent-child reunion,
Just might be a long time away.

Oh, desperate client of mine,
Your babies ripped from your arms
And taken by ICE from you,
Without any thought of harm.
Cause racism works this way,
In the course of enforcement,
Over and over again,

No, I would not give you false hope
As the days keep passing by,
Because some of these parents and children,
May never reunify.

Oh, parents who fled their homes,
In fear that their kids would die,
And begged for protection here,
But found it to be a lie.
Cause racism works that way
Under the Trump regime
Over and over again.

Oh, desperate client of mine

They’ve taken your liberty

Imprisoned your child with you

By claiming you’d surely flee

But deterrence breaks the law, and

Jail is no good for kids,

Under the Flores case

No I would not give you false hope

On this strange and mournful day

So the end of

family detention
Is surely a long time away.Oh, desperate client of mine
Though you left your home in fear

The mistreatment that you’ve fled
Has only continued here

.

The cold and indignity,
The meals that your child can’t eat,
The memories you must erase

No I would not give you false hope

On this strange and mournful day

But release from family detention Is likely a lawsuit away
Yes, release from family detention Is likely a lawsuit away.

~END~

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

Thanks, Lory!

PWS

07-28-18

FEDERAL JUDGE HAS SEEN ENOUGH OF THE ABUSE OF CHILDREN IN SESSIONS’S “NEW AMERICAN GULAG” – WILL APPOINT “INDEPENDENT AUDITOR” TO OVERSEE TREATMENT OF KIDS IN THREE FACILITIES!

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-flores-ruling-20180727-story.html

Andrea Castillo reports for the LA Times:

A federal judge in Los Angeles will appoint an independent auditor to oversee the treatment of children in immigrant detention facilities.

The Friday ruling came a day after the court-imposed deadline for the Trump administration to reunite families separated at the border under its zero-tolerance policy. As of Friday, hundreds of children remained isolated from their parents.

A monitor is expected to be appointed within a few weeks.

Peter Schey, lead counsel and director of the Los Angeles-based Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, said the monitor will oversee all three family detention centers run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement — two in Texas and one in Pennsylvania — as well as Border Patrol facilities in the Rio Grande sector along the Texas border.

Schey’s group filed a motion seeking an independent monitor for the Rio Grande sector after lawyers observed inhumane conditions there. He said his team will discuss in the coming weeks whether to file another motion asking that the monitor also oversee all other Border Patrol facilities along the border.

The group filed a scathing report last week including testimony from more than 200 parents and children held in California, Texas and other states who described cramped cells without enough bedding to sleep, cold or frozen food and a lack of basic hygiene products.

A Mexican woman said her daughter had wet herself on their first night because there were so many people sleeping in the room that she couldn’t get to the toilet. A Guatemalan boy told attorneys that he had no soap, towels or a toothbrush.

“These are problems that appear to be pervasive,” Schey said Friday. “We’re hoping that that has a salutary effect on Border Patrol operations throughout the southern border. Hopefully they won’t wait until we bring a new motion to expand the special monitor before they will learn from this and correct their ways.”

The interviews were done through a 1997 court settlement called the Flores agreement that governs how long migrant children may be held in custody and under what conditions. The settlement allows attorneys to periodically inspect detention facilities that children are held in.

This month, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee rejected the federal government’s request to renegotiate the terms of the Flores agreement to hold children for longer than 20 days.

She ruled in 2015 that the government had breached the agreement by allowing rooms that were cold and overcrowded as well as inadequate nutrition and hygiene.

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

Great idea!

It’s also time for some Federal Judge (or Judges) to appoint an “Independent Auditor” or “Special Master” to run the U.S. Immigration Court system in accordance with the laws and our Constituton until Congress establishes a new independent system.

PWS

07-28-18

U.S. JUDGE BLASTS SESSIONS AGAIN FOR LAWLESS AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ATTACKS ON “SANCTUARY CITIES,” As Reported By Tal @ CNN!

Judge strikes down law underpinning Sessions’ anti-sanctuary city push

By Tal Kopan, CNN

Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Trump administration were handed another stark defeat in their effort to punish sanctuary cities, with a judge declaring a law the administration had been relying on unconstitutional.

In a terse 58-page opinion, a Reagan-nominated district court judge thoroughly rebuked Sessions’ efforts to penalize sanctuary cities, saying efforts he has taken to impose immigration-related conditions on federal law enforcement grants are unconstitutional. The judge also called the underlying law that the administration has pointed to as justifying its efforts unconstitutional.

The ruling will only apply to the city of Chicago for now — but the judge said he intends for his ruling to apply nationwide.

Judge Harry Leinenweber had also previously temporarily blocked the grant conditions, which the appellate court upheld.

But now Leinenweber has gone even further — making his initial ruling permanent and going beyond it to strike down the underlying law, referred to as Section 1373.

The administration has pointed to the obscure law in all of its sanctuary city lawsuits, the vast majority of which it has lost. The law mandates that local governments share immigration status of individuals with the federal government.

The Justice Department has argued that law should be interpreted broadly to mandate cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. But citing a recent Supreme Court ruling, Leinenweber did the opposite — striking down the law itself as unconstitutional.

More: https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/27/politics/trump-sessions-defeat-sanctuary-cities/index.html

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

Not only is Sessions’s attack on “sanctuary cities” illegal, it’s also just plain bad law enforcement policy. Sessions is “poisoning the well” for needed cooperation between the Feds and locals on real law enforcement initiatives for many years to come.

PWS

07-27-18

TAL & CNN: LISTEN AS TRAUMATIZED MIGRANT MOMS BEG FOR THEIR LIVES AND THEIR CHILDREN IN IMMIGRATION COURT – BUT THERE IS NO MERCY, LAW, OR DUE PROCESS IN THE AGE OF SCOFFLAW CHILD ABUSER JEFF SESSIONS!

Exclusive: Listen to separated moms beg for their kids in court

By Tal Kopan and Nick Valencia, CNN

Washington (CNN)Newly obtained audio reveals the anguish of parents separated from their children, as it pours from them in immigration court while a judge finds them ineligible to stay in the United States.

In recordings of two court proceedings obtained by CNN, two women who have been separated from their children plead with an immigration judge to reunite them, as he asks them if they have any evidence to back up their asylum claims.

Their attorneys also ask the judge to give them another chance to make their cases, citing their mental health after the prolonged separation from their children.

In both cases, however, the judge denies the requests, and orders the women deported from the country. CNN has received permission from the women to share the audio of their hearings, but is not identifying them for their protection.

While the hearings are just two of thousands of similar proceedings regularly held across the country, they are an indication of the struggles of parents who have been separated from their children for weeks or longer in their quest to stay in the United States. Thousands of parents were separated from their children at the border under the Trump administration’s now-reversed “zero tolerance” policy that prosecuted all adults caught crossing the border illegally, including parents with their children.

Advocates for the immigrants broadly say the parents are being rejected for pursuing asylum at record numbers, in part because they are so distraught.

The hearings were conducted before Judge Robert Powell at the immigration court at the Port Isabel Detention Center on two separate days in July. During one of the hearings, the woman is audibly sniffling and distraught, telling the judge she feels too ill to continue. Neither lasts as long as 10 minutes.

“Well I’ll tell you what, ma’am, what I can do, I’ll put you on the back side of the calendar today, give you time to compose yourself,” Judge Powell tells her. “If you think you need to go to the medical unit, you can go to the medical unit. What do you want to do?”

“What I want is to be with my son,” the woman replies, via an interpreter.

More: https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/exclusive-audio-separated-parents-in-court/index.html

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

Obviously, no Due Process here!

No excuse for proceeding with a hearing of any type under these conditions! Is this how we want to be remembered? If not, what have you done today to promote “regime change” and to force both Congress and the Article III Courts to live up to their responsibilities and stop this abuse of our laws and our Constitution? This is a charade of a “court” system, in prisons, run by scofflaw child abuser Jeff Sessions and featuring some “judges” unwilling to stand up to his abuses and enforce Due Process (not to mention common sense, respect, and human decency).

These folks are entitled to fair access to counsel, a reasonable chance to prepare and document a case, and a fair and impartial judge. That’s not happening right now.

PWS

07-25-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

‘Deleted’ families: What went wrong with Trump’s family-separation effort

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: