Crime – Page 6 – immigrationcourtside.com

⚖️👏😎 BREAKING: SUPREME RELIEF: Court Reaffirms Executive’s Authority To Set Sane Immigration Enforcement Policies! — “Standing” Key! — Baseless Attacks By GOP In Texas & Louisiana Thwarted (For Now) — 8-1 Win For Administration, Opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, 3 Concurring, Alito Lone Dissenter! — U.S. v. Texas

Here’s a copy of the full decision:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf

Here’s the syllabus (NOT part of the decision):

UNITED STATES ET AL. v. TEXAS ET AL. CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 22–58. Argued November 29, 2022—Decided June 23, 2023

In 2021, the Secretary of Homeland Security promulgated new immigra- tion-enforcement guidelines (Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law) that prioritize the arrest and removal from the United States of noncitizens who are suspected terrorists or dangerous criminals or who have unlawfully entered the country only recently, for example. The States of Texas and Louisiana claim that the Guide- lines contravene two federal statutes that they read to require the ar- rest of certain noncitizens upon their release from prison (8 U. S. C. §1226(c)) or entry of a final order of removal (§1231(a)(2)). The District Court found that the States would incur costs due to the Executive’s failure to comply with those alleged statutory mandates, and that the States had standing to sue based on those costs. On the merits, the District Court found the Guidelines unlawful and vacated them. The Fifth Circuit declined to stay the District Court’s judgment, and this Court granted certiorari before judgment.

Held: Texas and Louisiana lack Article III standing to challenge the Guidelines. Pp. 3–14.

(a) Under Article III, a plaintiff must have standing to sue. This bedrock constitutional requirement has its roots in the separation of powers. So the threshold question here is whether the States have standing to maintain this suit. Based on this Court’s precedents and longstanding historical practice, the answer is no.

To establish standing, a plaintiff must show an injury in fact caused by the defendant and redressable by a court order. The District Court found that the States would incur additional costs due to the chal- lenged arrest policy. And monetary costs are an injury. But this Court has stressed that the alleged injury must also “be legally and judicially cognizable.” Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811, 819. That requires that

2

UNITED STATES v. TEXAS Syllabus

the dispute is “traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process.” Ibid. Here, the States cite no precedent, history, or tradition of federal courts entertaining lawsuits of this kind. On the contrary, this Court has previously ruled that a plaintiff lacks standing to bring such a suit “when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.” See Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614, 619. The Linda R. S. Article III standing principle remains the law today, and the States have pointed to no case or historical prac- tice holding otherwise. Pp. 3–6.

(b) There are good reasons why federal courts have not traditionally entertained lawsuits of this kind. For one, when the Executive Branch elects not to arrest or prosecute, it does not exercise coercive power over an individual’s liberty or property, and thus does not infringe upon interests that courts often are called upon to protect. Moreover, such lawsuits run up against the Executive’s Article II authority to decide “how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. ___, ___. The principle of Executive Branch enforcement dis- cretion over arrests and prosecutions extends to the immigration con- text. Courts also generally lack meaningful standards for assessing the propriety of enforcement choices in this area, which are invariably affected by resource constraints and regularly changing public-safety and public-welfare needs. That is why this Court has recognized that federal courts are generally not the proper forum for resolving claims that the Executive Branch should make more arrests or bring more prosecutions. Pp. 6–9.

(c) This holding does not suggest that federal courts may never en- tertain cases involving the Executive Branch’s alleged failure to make more arrests or bring more prosecutions. First, the Court has adjudi- cated selective-prosecution claims under the Equal Protection Clause in which a plaintiff typically seeks to prevent his or her own prosecu- tion. Second, the standing analysis might differ when Congress ele- vates de facto injuries to the status of legally cognizable injuries re- dressable by a federal court. Third, the standing calculus might change if the Executive Branch wholly abandoned its statutory respon- sibilities to make arrests or bring prosecutions. Fourth, a challenge to an Executive Branch policy that involves both arrest or prosecution priorities and the provision of legal benefits or legal status could lead to a different standing analysis. Fifth, policies governing the contin- ued detention of noncitizens who have already been arrested arguably might raise a different standing question than arrest or prosecution policies. But this case presents none of those scenarios. Pp. 9–12.

(d) The discrete standing question raised by this case rarely arises because federal statutes that purport to require the Executive Branch

Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 3 Syllabus

to make arrests or bring prosecutions are rare. This case is different from those in which the Federal Judiciary decides justiciable cases in- volving statutory requirements or prohibitions on the Executive, be- cause it implicates the Executive Branch’s enforcement discretion and raises the distinct question of whether the Federal Judiciary may in effect order the Executive Branch to take enforcement actions. The Court’s decision does not indicate any view on whether the Executive is complying with its statutory obligations. Nor does the Court’s nar- row holding signal any change in the balance of powers between Con- gress and the Executive. Pp. 12–14.

606 F. Supp. 3d 437, reversed.

KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS and BAR- RETT, JJ., joined. BARRETT, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judg- ment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Key quotes from Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion:

In short, this Court’s precedents and longstanding

historical practice establish that the States’ suit here is not the kind redressable by a federal court.

B

Several good reasons explain why, as Linda R. S. held, federal courts have not traditionally entertained lawsuits of this kind.

To begin with, when the Executive Branch elects not to arrest or prosecute, it does not exercise coercive power over an individual’s liberty or property, and thus does not infringe upon interests that courts often are called upon to protect. See Lujan, 504 U. S., at 561–562. And for standing purposes, the absence of coercive power over the plaintiff makes a difference: When “a plaintiff’s asserted injury arises from the government’s allegedly unlawful regulation (or lack of regulation) of someone else, much more is needed” to establish standing. Id., at 562 (emphasis deleted).2

Moreover, lawsuits alleging that the Executive Branch has made an insufficient number of arrests or brought an insufficient number of prosecutions run up against the Executive’s Article II authority to enforce federal law. Article II of the Constitution assigns the “executive Power” to the President and provides that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U. S. Const., Art. II, §1, cl. 1; §3. Under Article II, the Executive Branch possesses authority to decide “how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law.” TransUnion LLC, 594 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 13); see Lujan, 504 U. S., at 576–578; Allen, 468

——————

2 By contrast, when “the plaintiff is himself an object of the action (or

forgone action) at issue,” “there is ordinarily little question that the action or inaction has caused him injury, and that a judgment preventing or requiring the action will redress it.” Lujan, 504 U. S., at 561–562.

Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 7

Opinion of the Court

U.S., at 760–761. The Executive Branch—not the Judiciary—makes arrests and prosecutes offenses on behalf of the United States. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 693 (1974) (“the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case”); Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898, 922–923 (1997) (Brady Act provisions held unconstitutional because, among other things, they transferred power to execute federal law to state officials); United States v. Armstrong, 517 U. S. 456, 464 (1996) (decisions about enforcement of “the Nation’s criminal laws” lie within the “special province of the Executive” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 138 (1976) (“A lawsuit is the ultimate remedy for a breach of the law, and it is to the President, and not to the Congress, that the Constitution entrusts the responsibility to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’” (quoting U.S. Const., Art. II, §3)); see also United States v. Cox, 342 F. 2d 167, 171 (CA5 1965).

That principle of enforcement discretion over arrests and prosecutions extends to the immigration context, where the Court has stressed that the Executive’s enforcement discretion implicates not only “normal domestic law enforcement priorities” but also “foreign-policy objectives.” Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U. S. 471, 490–491 (1999). In line with those principles, this Court has declared that the Executive Branch also retains discretion over whether to remove a noncitizen from the United States. Arizona v. United States, 567 U. S. 387, 396 (2012) (“Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all”).

In addition to the Article II problems raised by judicial review of the Executive Branch’s arrest and prosecution policies, courts generally lack meaningful standards for assessing the propriety of enforcement choices in this area. After all, the Executive Branch must prioritize its

8 UNITED STATES v. TEXAS Opinion of the Court

enforcement efforts. See Wayte v. United States, 470 U. S. 598, 607–608 (1985). That is because the Executive Branch (i) invariably lacks the resources to arrest and prosecute every violator of every law and (ii) must constantly react and adjust to the ever-shifting public-safety and public- welfare needs of the American people.

This case illustrates the point. As the District Court found, the Executive Branch does not possess the resources necessary to arrest or remove all of the noncitizens covered by §1226(c) and §1231(a)(2). That reality is not an anomaly—it is a constant. For the last 27 years since §1226(c) and §1231(a)(2) were enacted in their current form, all five Presidential administrations have determined that resource constraints necessitated prioritization in making immigration arrests.

In light of inevitable resource constraints and regularly changing public-safety and public-welfare needs, the Executive Branch must balance many factors when devising arrest and prosecution policies. That complicated balancing process in turn leaves courts without meaningful standards for assessing those policies. Cf. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, 830–832 (1985); Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U. S. 182, 190–192 (1993). Therefore, in both Article III cases and Administrative Procedure Act cases, this Court has consistently recognized that federal courts are generally not the proper forum for resolving claims that the Executive Branch should make more arrests or bring more prosecutions. See Linda R. S., 410 U. S., at 619; cf. Heckler, 470 U. S., at 831 (recognizing the “general unsuitability for judicial review of agency decisions to refuse enforcement”); ICC v. Locomotive Engineers, 482 U. S. 270, 283 (1987) (“it is entirely clear that the refusal to prosecute cannot be the subject of judicial review”).3

——————

3 Also, the plaintiffs here are States, and federal courts must remain

mindful of bedrock Article III constraints in cases brought by States

Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 9

Opinion of the Court

All of those considerations help explain why federal courts have not traditionally entertained lawsuits of this kind. By concluding that Texas and Louisiana lack standing here, we abide by and reinforce the proper role of the Federal Judiciary under Article III. The States’ novel standing argument, if accepted, would entail expansive judicial direction of the Department’s arrest policies. If the Court green-lighted this suit, we could anticipate complaints in future years about alleged Executive Branch under-enforcement of any similarly worded laws—whether they be drug laws, gun laws, obstruction of justice laws, or the like. We decline to start the Federal Judiciary down that uncharted path. Our constitutional system of separation of powers “contemplates a more restricted role for Article III courts.” Raines, 521 U. S., at 828.

C

In holding that Texas and Louisiana lack standing, we do not suggest that federal courts may never entertain cases involving the Executive Branch’s alleged failure to make more arrests or bring more prosecutions.

First, the Court has adjudicated selective-prosecution claims under the Equal Protection Clause. In those cases, however, a party typically seeks to prevent his or her own prosecution, not to mandate additional prosecutions

——————

against an executive agency or officer. To be sure, States sometimes have standing to sue the United States or an executive agency or officer. See, e.g., New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144 (1992). But in our system of dual federal and state sovereignty, federal policies frequently generate indirect effects on state revenues or state spending. And when a State asserts, for example, that a federal law has produced only those kinds of indirect effects, the State’s claim for standing can become more attenuated. See Massachusetts v. Laird, 400 U. S. 886 (1970); Florida v. Mellon, 273 U. S. 12, 16–18 (1927); cf. Lujan, 504 U. S., at 561–562. In short, none of the various theories of standing asserted by the States in this case overcomes the fundamental Article III problem with this lawsuit.

10 UNITED STATES v. TEXAS Opinion of the Court

against other possible defendants. See, e.g., Wayte, 470 U. S., at 604; Armstrong, 517 U. S., at 459, 463.

Second, as the Solicitor General points out, the standing analysis might differ when Congress elevates defacto injuries to the status of legally cognizable injuries redressable by a federal court. See Brief for Petitioners 20, n. 3; cf. TransUnion LLC, 594 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 10–11); Federal Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U. S. 11, 20 (1998); Raines, 521 U. S., at 820, n. 3; Lujan, 504 U. S., at 578; Linda R. S., 410 U. S., at 617, n. 3. For example, Congress might (i) specifically authorize suits against the Executive Branch by a defined set of plaintiffs who have suffered concrete harms from executive under-enforcement and (ii) specifically authorize the Judiciary to enter appropriate orders requiring additional arrests or prosecutions by the Executive Branch.

Here, however, the relevant statutes do not supply such specific authorization. The statutes, even under the States’ own reading, simply say that the Department “shall” arrest certain noncitizens. Given the “deep-rooted nature of law- enforcement discretion,” a purported statutory arrest mandate, without more, does not entitle any particular plaintiff to enforce that mandate in federal court. Castle Rock, 545 U. S., at 761, 764–765, 767, n. 13; cf. Heckler, 470 U. S., at 835. For an arrest mandate to be enforceable in federal court, we would need at least a “stronger indication” from Congress that judicial review of enforcement discretion is appropriate—for example, specific authorization for particular plaintiffs to sue and for federal courts to order more arrests or prosecutions by the Executive. Castle Rock, 545 U. S., at 761. We do not take a position on whether such a statute would suffice for Article III purposes; our only point is that no such statute is present in this case.4

——————

4 As the Solicitor General noted, those kinds of statutes, by infringing

Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 11 Opinion of the Court

Third, the standing calculus might change if the Executive Branch wholly abandoned its statutory responsibilities to make arrests or bring prosecutions. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a plaintiff arguably could obtain review of agency non-enforcement if an agency “has consciously and expressly adopted a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities.” Heckler, 470 U. S., at 833, n. 4 (internal quotation marks omitted); see id., at 839 (Brennan, J., concurring); cf. 5 U. S. C. §706(1). So too, an extreme case of non-enforcement arguably could exceed the bounds of enforcement discretion and support Article III standing. But the States have not advanced a Heckler-style “abdication” argument in this case or argued that the Executive has entirely ceased enforcing the relevant statutes. Therefore, we do not analyze the standing ramifications of such a hypothetical scenario.

Fourth, a challenge to an Executive Branch policy that involves both the Executive Branch’s arrest or prosecution priorities and the Executive Branch’s provision of legal benefits or legal status could lead to a different standing analysis. That is because the challenged policy might implicate more than simply the Executive’s traditional enforcement discretion. Cf. Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 591 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2020) (slip op., at 11–12) (benefits such as work authorization and Medicare eligibility accompanied by non- enforcement meant that the policy was “more than simply a non-enforcement policy”); Texas v. United States, 809 F. 3d 134, 154 (CA5 2015) (Linda R. S. “concerned only nonprosecution,” which is distinct from “both nonprosecution and the conferral of benefits”), aff ’d by an equally divided Court, 579 U. S. 547 (2016). Again, we need

——————

on the Executive’s enforcement discretion, could also raise Article II issues. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 24–25.

12 UNITED STATES v. TEXAS Opinion of the Court

not resolve the Article III consequences of such a policy. Fifth, policies governing the continued detention of noncitizens who have already been arrested arguably might raise a different standing question than arrest or prosecution policies. Cf. Biden v. Texas, 597 U. S. ___ (2022). But this case does not concern a detention policy, so

we do not address the issue here.5

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

Given the narrow resolution on standing grounds, and the reservations set forth in Section C of Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion, in addition to the somewhat different approach of the three concurring Justices, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Barrett, it’s unpredictable what this decision might mean if the DACA challenge now pending before U.S. District Judge Hanen eventually reaches the Supremes. In “point four” of “Section C,” Justice Kavanaugh goes to some length to distinguish a situation “that involves both the Executive Branch’s arrest or prosecution priorities and the Executive Branch’s provision of legal benefits or legal status,” citing the Court’s earlier decision in DHS v. Regents, involving a DACA challenge that was decided on APA technical grounds.

Still, this is a strong statement rejecting the attempt of GOP States and GOP lower Federal Court Judges to take over Federal immigration enforcement! And, with Immigration Courts overwhelmed with a largely artificially-inflated 2 million case backlog, many consisting of cases in which relief should be granted elsewhere (like at USCIS) or where removal would actually be detrimental to the interests of the U.S., a reaffirmation of the Executive’s historical authority to set reasonable, practical immigration enforcement priorities could not come soon enough.

In that light, it’s curious why in a case where the ultimate result was lopsided, the Court DENIED the Administration’s motion for a stay pending review of the Fifth Circuit’s and USDC’s wrong orders! This unnecessarily created months of “enforcement chaos” which has been damaging both to individuals and to our national interests.

I also find it interesting that Justice Kavanaugh cited and in part relied upon the Executive’s Article II authority to enforce the law. This was also part of the rationale I used in a 1976 legal opinion written for then General Counsel Sam Bernsen reaffirming the “Legacy” INS’s authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion in designating some cases as “non priority.”

That memo stated:

The ultimate source for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the Federal Government is the power of the President. Under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the executive power is vested in the President. Article II, Section 3, states that the President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

. . . .

The reasons for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion are both practical and humanitarian. There simply are not enough resources to enforce all of the laws and regulations presently on the books. As a practical matter, therefore, law enforcement officials have to make policy choices as to the most effective and desirable way in which to deploy their limited resources. Thus, for example, police and prosecutors may choose to concentrate on apprehension and prosecution of perpetrators of violent crimes, while choosing not to proceed against those committing so-called “victimless crimes,” such as certain consensual sex acts and possession of small amounts of marihuana. In addition, there are times when defects in the quality, quantity, or method of gathering evidence will make it difficult to prove the matter before a court.

Aside from purely practical considerations, it is also obvious that in enacting a statute the legislature cannot possibly contemplate all of the possible circumstances in which the statute may be applied. In some situations, application of the literal letter of the law would simply be unconscionable and would serve no useful purpose. For instance, a prosecutor may well decide not to proceed against a terminally ill individual, even in the presence of overwhelming evidence of guilt.

You can find a copy of that legal opinion here: https://wp.me/p8eeJm-260. Still relevant, after nearly half a century!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-23-23

🗽 AFTER DECADES OF INEXCUSABLE FAILURE & CRUEL GIMMICKS, AMERICA 🇺🇸 CAN & SHOULD DO MUCH BETTER FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS — AN ESSENTIAL GROUP OF LEGAL IMMIGRANTS — New AILA Report Tells How! ⚖️

Clown Parade — AILA says this vision of the USG’s Asylum Program could be changed for the better. PHOTO: Public Domain

https://www.aila.org/highstakesasylum

Introduction

There should be a process, but there does need to be some space to be able to do this process. When you are in the thick of applying for asylum, you’re going to commit errors, you’re going to make mistakes, and it’s my understanding that these are the things that get you sent home. The work of an attorney is so important because you [as the applicant] have to turn over your soul, the best of you in this interview. The hardest part is the time, and the details required to demonstrate to the U.S. you are worthy of being allowed to remain herei

Lara Boston, MA Recently received her green card based on an asylum grant.

For people fleeing violence and persecution, nothing is more important than finding safety. For more than 40 years, U.S. asylum law has guaranteed asylum seekers the right to access legal protections enabling them to stay in the United States and avoid being returned to danger. But since the Refugee Act was signed into law in 1980, the laws on asylum eligibility have grown into a maze of convoluted requirements and pitfalls, like the children’s game “Chutes and Ladders,” with potentially deadly consequences.

Because of the complexity and requirements of asylum law, it takes time to prepare an asylum application. In my 25 years of practice, I have prepared and filed hundreds of asylum applications. Based on my experience, it takes time to get an accurate account of someone’s life when there’s violence and trauma involved. It takes time to find evidence of torture and persecution. When you read this report, I encourage you to try to imagine navigating the complex legal steps in the asylum process. Then, imagine doing it without an attorney, a nearly impossible task as extensive research and data has shown.1

This report comes at a critical moment when increased migration to the U.S. southern border and intense political pressure are pushing lawmakers to process asylum seekers faster. Faster can be accomplished, but it must also be fairer. If the system is fair, people meriting protection will receive it and those not eligible can and must depart. Toward that end, this report includes several recommendations that improve asylum processing so that it is both fair and more efficient. It is our hope that this report will contribute to policy reforms that are grounded in the realities of asylum law and the system that implements it.

Jeremy McKinney President, American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)

i Quotes by Lara throughout the report are from an interview conducted primarily in Spanish and then translated into English.

High-Stakes Asylum How Long an Asylum Case Takes and How We Can Do Better 3 AILA Doc. No. 23061202. (Posted 6/14/23)

Return to TOC

Executive summary and recommendations

The heightened levels of migration worldwide are drawing intense political and media attention to the United States’ southern border, including radical calls for blocking access to asylum seekers that would undo longstanding American humanitarian principles. More balanced, smarter approaches are available. In fact, since taking office, the Biden Administration has implemented several such policies, including the scale-up of resources to screen asylum seekers at the border and the expansion of existing legal pathways for people to obtain protection.

Unfortunately, the President is also accelerating and truncating the asylum system in an attempt to speed up the process with policies like the 2022 asylum processing rule and the dedicated dockets program.ii AILA has forcefully opposed these recent policies because they are restricting or blocking asylum access and, as a result, deeply compromising the integrity and fairness of the U.S. system.iii

This report on the asylum process draws principally upon the expertise of AILA’s membership of more than 16,000 immigration attorneys and law professors nationwide who provided more than 300 detailed responses to a survey about the critical steps and time required to prepare an asylum case.iv The report’s principal conclusion is that the minimum time required for an attorney to properly prepare an asylum case is 50 to 75 hours. While this estimate accounts for some complications, an asylum case can take much longer. For example, the attorney may need to find evidence of torture in a country that is still wracked by political violence or devote extensive interview time to obtain sensitive information from the asylum applicant while they are still suffering from trauma. See Appendix I.

The government can greatly increase the efficiency of the asylum process by increasing agency resources and capacity and by eliminating existing delays within the system. Some of those steps are being taken, but further action is urgently needed . AILA recommends the Biden Administration use a systemwide, all-of-government approach to implement a range of solutions that will improve asylum processing and the management of migration at the U.S. southern border.

America needs an asylum system that is in line with the nation’s commitments to protect asylum seekers and ensure a fair legal process while also meeting the urgent demand for greater efficiency and capacity. The country’s immigration system must be able to quickly identify who has a legitimate claim for humanitarian protection and who does not. Those not eligible should be required to depart. But imposing strict, arbitrary timelines for asylum that do not allow for adequate preparation will result in eligible asylum seekers being denied protection and sent back to face persecution or death.

ii The asylum processing rule is formally known as “Procedures for Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers.” New enrollment is currently paused as the Biden administration focuses on the transition away from Title 42. For recent updates, see Featured Issue: Asylum and Credible Fear Interim Final Rule, AILA, https://www.aila.org/advo-media/issues/featured-issue-asylum-and-credible-fear#:~:text=The%20 interim%20final%20rule%20%E2%80%9CProcedures,for%20individuals%20in%20expedited%20removal. See infra at Biden administration fast-tracked programs limit the opportunity to access counsel for more information on the asylum processing rule and the dedicated docket program.

iii E.g., AILA and the Council Submit Comments on Credible Fear Screening and Asylum Processing IFR, May 26, 2022, https:// www.aila.org/infonet/comments-on-credible-fear-screening; AILA Joins Legal Service & Mental Health Providers in Letter to Administration Expressing Grave Concerns over the “Dedicated Docket”, Oct. 5, 2022, https://www.aila.org/advo-media/ aila-correspondence/2022/letter-to-administration-expressing-grave-concerns; AILA and the Council Submit Comments on Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Proposed Rule, Mar. 26, 2023, https://www.aila.org/infonet/comments-on-circumvention- of-lawful-pathways.

iv See Appendix II.

High-Stakes Asylum How Long an Asylum Case Takes and How We Can Do Better 4 AILA Doc. No. 23061202. (Posted 6/14/23)

Return to TOC

Ultimately, systemwide changes can only be accomplished through congressional action to appropriate the funding required to meet these systemic demands. After three decades of inaction, Congress must pass immigration laws that ensure America’s immigration system is ready for the future.

Key findings

The basic steps of preparing an asylum application takes an estimated minimum of 50 to 75 hours. This work cannot be done in one continuous period; instead, it is carried out over the course of several months. Cases with significant complexity can take far more time than this estimate.

Most asylum cases are not straightforward. Complicating factors that add time to an asylum case may include detention, past trauma experienced by the applicant, language barriers, and procuring evidence from foreign countries or expert witnesses such as medical testimony.

It is extremely difficult for an asylum seeker represented by counsel to sufficiently develop their asylum application within the mandatory deadlines established in the May 2022 asylum processing rule or the expedited family court “dedicated dockets.”
AILA recommendations
Ensure asylum timelines do not undermine fairness

When setting asylum processing deadlines, allow adequate time for an asylum seeker to obtain counsel and for the attorney to prepare for the case. Timelines should not rush trauma survivors who may need more time to recount their experience. Reasonable continuances should be allowed to obtain an attorney or for attorney preparation.

Waive or exempt asylum seekers from deadlines if the reason the deadline was not met is outside of their control.

Do not hold asylum seekers to the same evidentiary standards when they are subject to expedited adjudication timelines, such as the shortened deadlines of the 2022 asylum processing rule.
Reduce government delays and inefficiency

Establish uniform policies, centralized systems, and appropriate information sharing between immigration agencies. Agencies should centralize and digitize address changes across all agencies and simplify access to a noncitizen’s immigration record. These steps will enhance communication and data sharing, which will in turn reduce backlogs, avoid delays, and increase efficiency and fairness.

Reduce the immigration court backlog. Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) should continue expanding initiatives to remove cases from the docket or facilitate the resolution of cases through pretrial conferencing. Immigration judges should administratively close or terminate appropriate cases, such as those eligible for a benefit with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).2

Do not expend finite prosecutorial resources on cases that can be resolved more expeditiously. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) attorneys should engage in pretrial negotiations and exercise prosecutorial discretion to avoid unnecessary litigation.
High-Stakes Asylum How Long an Asylum Case Takes and How We Can Do Better 5 AILA Doc. No. 23061202. (Posted 6/14/23)

Return to TOC

Legal access and representation improve fairness and government efficiency

Ensure asylum seekers and other migrants being processed rapidly at the U.S. southern border have access to legal information, advice, and full counsel during credible fear interviews (CFIs), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspections, and immigration court proceedings.

Congress should Fund the Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide legal representation for all immigrants. Everyone needs access to an attorney to provide legal advice and information prior to any hearings, including the CFI. Congress should appropriate DOJ funding to provide full legal representation to those in removal proceedings who cannot afford it.

Ensure access to counsel in all detention facilities. Detention facilities must be held accountable to policies that ensure attorneys have reliable confidential contact visits with clients, as well as access to free and confidential phone calls and video conferences. The government must monitor access to counsel at ICE facilities and impose penalties for violations of standards.
Reduce immigration detention

• Reduce immigration detention. Detention delays asylum cases because it creates barriers to obtaining counsel and makes case preparation far more difficult. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should reduce its use of immigration detention.

Improve the asylum process

The Biden administration should publish the long-awaited regulation on particular social group (PSG) asylum cases. On February 20, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order to promulgate this regulation by November 17, 2021,3 but it has not been published. A regulation would aid in consistency of application of asylum law and would reduce USCIS referrals to immigration court.

Increase transparency in adjudications by making DHS’s asylum officer training materials publicly available.

Establish an interagency task force to develop a trauma-informed adjudication system. Experts in development, mental health, welfare, and trauma science should all be involved in this process. A trauma-informed adjudication process will help ensure accurate adjudications in the first instance, which in turn will decrease appeals.

Fund additional asylum officers. Congress should appropriate funds to increase the capacity of USCIS to adjudicate asylum applications.

High-Stakes Asylum How Long an Asylum Case Takes and How We Can Do Better 6 AILA Doc. No. 23061202. (Posted 6/14/23)

Return to TOC

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

Download and read the complete report and view accompanying video at the above link!

Here’s one of my favorite comments on Linkedin from an all-star member of the NDPA, Amy R. Grenier:

A year ago, I wanted to cite something in a regulatory comment, but the cite I needed didn’t exist yet.

Today, the American Immigration Lawyers Association released a report on asylum timelines, High-Stakes Asylum: How Long an Asylum Case Takes and How We Can Do Better. The report is based on a survey of over 300 asylum attorneys about how much time it takes to prepare an asylum application, and what complications add significant time. High-Stakes Asylum also includes recommendations on how to inject efficiency into the existing asylum process and ensure the integrity of a system that has life-and-death consequences.

I hope that you find it helpful to cite someday #immigration #lawyers #HighStakesAsylum!

Three decades ago, when I was practicing business immigration at Jones Day, we also did a robust pro bono Immigration Court BIA practice in which I played an advisory role. Even then, we allocated a minimum of 100 hours of attorney/paralegal prep time for an asylum case in Immigration Court and 40 hours for a BIA appeal.

And, at that time, the system probably wasn’t as “intentionally user unfriendly” as it is now. On some occasions, we were responding to requests for pro bono representation from Immigration Judges who believed that without representation certain previously unrepresented detained cases would “be lost and linger in the system forever.” That was long before 2 million case backlogs!

Representation is essential for due process at EOIR! This fundamental truth is neither new nor is it “rocket science!” That politicians of both parties and Article III Judges have swept this truth under the carpet doesn’t make it less true! If lives of persons who didn’t have the bad fortune to be immigrants were at issue, this intentionally due-process-denying system would have been held unconstitutional by the Supremes decades ago!

Unfortunately, A.G. Garland has fashioned a “highly, unnecessarily, and intentionally user unfriendly system” that actually discourages and impedes pro bono and low bono representation.

Alfred E. Neumann — Immigration experts and long-suffering advocates have become weary of AG Garland’s “above the fray” attitude and substandard performance on human rights and equal justice in America!
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

Even worse, he and his subordinates have failed miserably to “fully leverage” the amazing VIISTA Villanova program for training more highly-qualified non-attorney “accredited representatives” to rapidly close the representation gap throughout the nation. The asylum litigation “training modules” put together by VIISTA founder Professor Michele Pistone, with help from the National Institute for Trial Advocacy (“NITA”) puts EOIR/DOJ/DHS asylum training to shame!

Professor Michele Pistone
Villanova Law — The founder of VIISTA Villanova, brilliant lawyer, inspirational leader, teacher, scholar, social justice mavan, why isn’t she running and reforming EOIR? Why is Garland afraid of a proven “creative disrupter” driven 100% by a commitment to equal justice for all?

Incredibly, the Biden Administration “blew off” recommendations by experts that Professor Pistone or one of her colleagues be recruited to “shake up” EOIR and radically reform and improve training in asylum and other forms of protection.

Lack of fundamental expertise and private sector expedience representing asylum seekers is a key reason why EOIR under Garland continues to “wander in the wilderness” of legal dysfunction with no way out! So unnecessary! So damaging to democracy!

Many thanks to Jeremy McKinney, Greg Chen, and others who worked on the AILA report. Cite it! Use it! Demand that Congress heed it! Use it to force justice into Garland’s failed, dysfunctional, and unfair “Clown Courts!”🤡

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-16-23

☠️⚰️🤮🏴‍☠️ THE PARTY AT THE BOTTOM OF HUMANITY’S BARREL 🛢 — New Wave Of Fascist Cruelty & Stupidity @ The Border! — “Texas governor Greg Abbott is seated at the center of a long table surrounded by grim-faced White men, most of them elderly, in various postures of mental agita.” — The Border Chronicle

https://www.theborderchronicle.com/p/sinking-to-the-bottom?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Melissa del Bosque reports for the Border Chronicle:

Both parties have doubled down on inhumane border policies, but it’s the GOP that is taking it to new depths in its race to the bottom over who can be more deliberately cruel.

It’s like some kind of grotesque Last Supper: In a publicity photo from last week’s press conference, Texas governor Greg Abbott is seated at the center of a long table surrounded by grim-faced White men, most of them elderly, in various postures of mental agita. Next to them is a large illustration on an easel board titled “Live Test of Attempt to Breach.” It shows a man with an inner tube (presumably an asylum seeker) clinging to a floating red buoy. Hundreds of these buoys Abbott announced, will be deployed on the Rio Grande near the town of Eagle Pass. The barrier will be 1,000 feet long, and its netting will extend underwater, catching anyone who tries to swim under it.

Share

“We don’t want anyone to get hurt,” said Steve McCraw, head of Texas’s Department of Public Safety, at the June 9 press conference. “We want to prevent people from drowning.”

The floating buoy barrier will persuade people not to cross, he said. “This is to deter them from even coming in the water.”

But we already know this isn’t true. Both McCraw and Abbott were parroting the same strategy, known as “prevention through deterrence,” introduced in the mid-1990s during the Clinton administration. It has turned our southern border into a graveyard. After nearly three decades of militarized border buildup that has pushed people into increasingly deadly terrain like the Sonoran Desert, people haven’t stopped coming. But thousands of them have died.

As Todd [Miller] recently wrote in his poignant piece about this deadly strategy, “On the cusp of summer, we can predict like clockwork that hundreds of otherwise healthy people will be dead by summer’s end. It has an aura of premeditated murder.”

These floating barriers, which, according to the manufacturer’s website, can also be reinforced with spikes, will only contribute to an already-skyrocketing death count. Abbott’s latest announcement has already spurred many human rights organizations to sound a warning. Jenn Budd, a former Border Patrol agent and now border human rights activist, along with fellow Texas-based activist Marianna Treviño Wright, released a bilingual video warning migrants of the deadly new policy.

All-in on Fascism

Abbott has long toyed with the idea of running for president. While it increasingly looks less likely that he will, Florida governor Ron DeSantis has already joined the fray. And he’s all-in on fascism. When he’s not treating fellow human beings like FedEx packages, he’s modeling himself after Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s authoritarian leader, and darling of the CPAC circuit. Last week DeSantis released “B-roll” of Florida state troopers surveying the Texas-Mexico border as they participate in Abbott’s Operation Lone Star. I suspect they didn’t include any audio in the B-roll because it would humanize the children and adults waving to the troopers from the Mexican side of the river, detracting from DeSantis’s threatening narrative of an invading army.

DeSantis’s campaign video begins with a Texas DPS officer, who sports an official DPS seal on his tactical face covering, unlocking a tiny metal door surrounded by razor wire. This is next-level border security theater, as comical as it is utterly surreal and tragic. Several other Republican-led states are also, once again, sending troopers and National Guard soldiers to the Texas border—as they did before the 2022 midterm—to wage war against the Biden White House before the election. Unfortunately, it’s border communities and migrants who are caught in the crossfire.

Leave a comment

For many years, I’ve documented border theater as it has ebbed and flowed depending on the political tide. But as I’ve been documenting in The Border Chronicle, we’ve reached an altogether different and deadly era of disinformation, with the GOP parroting invasion and great replacement rhetoric, and increasingly dehumanizing people, spurring mass shootings and political violence. This behavior is championed by a growing right-wing media ecosystem which in turn promotes more anti-democratic and extremist behavior.

I spoke with Sergio Muñoz, vice president of Media Matters for America, a nonprofit that has tracked conservative media for nearly two decades. I quoted Muñoz in a recent article, and wanted to include my full Q&A with him here. As Muñoz warns, the U.S. is in a “dangerous moment” as it approaches the 2024 presidential election.

. . . .

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

Read Melissa’s full report, including the interview with Sergio Muñoz at the above link.

Yes, “deterrence gimmicks” directed at refugees have a decades-long proven record of failure. You can just look at the efforts of the EU to “bar the door” to refugees from Africa and the Middle
East.

The boats continue to come, some sink, people drown. But, not surprisingly to those other than the “overprivileged and elitist White power class” like Abbott and DeSantis, desperate individuals forced from their homes are going continue to come — at any cost, even their own health, safety, and sometime lives.

Most would rather “risk it all” on a shot — even a very long shot — at stability and a real life, rather than facing the certainty of wasting away without hope, freedom, or opportunity and having to watch the same thing happening to younger generations. Some, against all odds, continue to believe that rich, powerfu Western countries like the U.S. will eventually live up to their solemn legal obligations to protect refugees and asylum seekers!

While, as Melissa cogently points out, these inane, yet deadly, gimmicks do kill migrants, they don’t do so at a high enough rate to materially affect the flow. It’s just causing pain, suffering, and sometimes death for their own perverted sake.

Border Death — This is a monument for those who have died attempting to cross the US-Mexican border. Each coffin represents a year and the number of dead. It is a protest against the effects of Operation Guardian. Taken at the Tijuana-San Diego border.
Tomas Castelazo
n order to comply with the use and licensing terms of this image, the following text must must be included with the image when published in any medium, failure to do so constitutes a violation of the licensing terms and copyright infringement: © Tomas Castelazo, www.tomascastelazo.com / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 3.0

Apparently, neo-fascists like Abbott, DeSantis, Trump, and their “role model” Stephen Miller just “get off on” watching others suffer unnecessarily. Bullies and cowards often get a kick out of observing the effects of their handiwork.

Meanwhile, the public money being wasted on these cruel, yet ultimately ineffective stunts (remember former AZ Gov. Ducey’s shipping containers arrayed and then disassembled at government expense), could much, much better be spent on providing representation, organized resettlement, and humanitarian assistance to asylum seekers.

As Melissa says, the GOP’s (and sometimes, unfortunately the Dems’) “uber-enforcement/deterrence gimmicks are “as comical as [they are] utterly surreal and tragic.” It’s time for decent Americans to “just say no” to these horrible folks and their failed and deadly policies of dehumanization and degradation!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-15-23

🇺🇸 MAINE VOICES: A “Woke” America Is A Better America, Says Don Bessey Of Old Orchard Beach — Speak Out Against the Agenda Of Hate, Marginalization, & Dehumanization Being Touted By Right-Wing Politicos & Their Followers! — “These people should not be leading our wonderful country.”

Ron DeSantis Dave Grandlund PoliticalCartoons.com Republished under license Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump are “campaigning” on an agenda of racism, hate, and White Supremacist grievance not seen since the late Gov. George Wallace. Yet, mainstream media has largely “normalized” that which would have been unacceptable and unthinkable only a few years ago! — Ron DeSantis
Dave Grandlund
PoliticalCartoons.com
Republished under license
Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump are “campaigning” on an agenda of racism, hate, and White Supremacist grievance not seen since the late Gov. George Wallace. Yet, mainstream media has largely “normalized” that which would have been unacceptable and unthinkable only a few years ago!

https://www.pressherald.com/2023/06/10/maine-voices-woke-should-not-be-a-four-letter-word/

From the Portland Press Herald:

Maine Voices: ‘Woke’ should not be a four-letter word

Being aware of how we have treated and still treat other people in our society is so important to our society’s evolving that it should be honored, not vilified.

It is frustrating to see the continuous redefining of words and terms by the extremist conservative element in our society and government. One of these terms is “woke.” According to Merriam-Webster, the definition is “aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues.” I will add in the qualification as well: “especially issues of ABOUT THE AUTHOR

For my entire life I have strived to embrace this philosophy, trying to listen to and understand other opinions, beliefs and religions, whether they agreed with mine or not, understanding that one cannot fully comprehend a point of view without appreciating the counterpoint. This certainly requires personal evolution and maturity. Being aware of the true history of our country, of how we have treated and still treat other people in our society, is so important to our society’s evolving that it should be honored, not vilified.

The term “woke” has now been unjustly transformed into a negative term. Let that sink in: Attention to important facts and issues, the truth, is something to avoid and discredit. Somehow, this makes sense to a significant number of our political leaders and fellow Americans. It appears that what is most troubling for those who would see “woke” as a vile four-letter word is the qualification above, that it applies to “issues of racial and social justice.”

One of the tag lines for objecting to this thought is that it may cause someone to feel uncomfortable or criticized by being confronted with these historical facts. Personally, I strongly desire to know the truth. I am delighted – admittedly, shocked sometimes – by learning about the history we were never taught, which was suppressed to a large extent for so many years by those who perpetrated many injustices. The historical truth has never made me feel bad about myself. In fact, it is enlightening. It expands my understanding of how and why we have come to this place in our evolution. It shows me how to be better and more empathetic, and it suggests the path forward.

I believe I do understand why this can be so threatening and discomforting to so many. I believe that the truth is like a mirror to them. They see their own racist views, their distrust of anyone they perceive as being “different” as a significant threat. I feel so sad for them, since in my life, through being open to other races, ethnicities, religions and thoughts, I have learned so much and have been blessed with a much more beautiful world, life and friends.

It is extremely troubling to see elected officials, the leaders of our political parties, and fellow Americans embracing and endorsing this philosophy of derision, division and hateful rhetoric that has its roots in the cesspool of white supremacist thought. They are leading us into the abyss of an authoritarian kakistocracy, or government by the worst of us. We must all, every rational one of us, stand and reject this thinking. We must only, and always, embrace truth, the actual facts. These people should not be leading our wonderful country.

Don Bessey is an Air Force veteran of the Vietnam War and a resident of Old Orchard Beach.

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

Well said, Don! Thanks for speaking out so forcefully!

Don’s views echo several previous postings from Courtside:

Walter Rhein: “When people say they are ‘anti-woke,’ I interrupt them and say ‘You mean ‘anti-black.’ They become enraged and act like they’re the victims (like racists always do).”https://wp.me/p8eeJm-8tJ

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

As [Villanova University President] Father [Peter M.] Donohue said at yesterday’s celebration, “‘Woke’ means social justice!” https://wp.me/p8eeJm-8vF

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-11-23

🤯🗽 AT THE REAL BORDER WITH TODD MILLER OF THE BORDER CHRONICLE: Less Due Process, More Robo-Dogs! — The “Bogus Invasion Of Due Process Seekers” Overhyped By The White Nationalist GOP, The Biden Administration, & An Indolent Media Never Came — But, “The Border Industrial Complex,” Well-Fed By Biden, Is Alive & Prospering As Never Before!

https://www.theborderchronicle.com/p/the-real-border-surge-the-end-of?utm_medium=email

Todd writes in the Border Chron:

On May 11th, I was with a group of people at the bottom of the Paso del Norte bridge in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. Suddenly, I realized that I didn’t have the small change needed to cross the bridge and return to El Paso, Texas, where I was attending the 16th annual Border Security Expo. Worse yet, this was just three hours before Title 42, the pandemic-era rapid-expulsion border policy instituted by the Trump administration, was set to expire. The media was already in overdrive on the subject, producing apocalyptic scenarios like one in the New York Post reporting that “hordes” of “illegals” were on their way toward the border.

While I searched for those coins, a woman approached me, dug 35 cents out of a small purse — precisely what it cost! — and handed the change to me. She then did so for the others in our group. When I pulled a 20-peso bill from my wallet to repay her, she kept her fist clenched and wouldn’t accept the money.

Having lived, reported, and traveled in Latin America for more than two decades, such generosity didn’t entirely surprise me, though it did contradict so much of the media-generated hype about what was going on at this historic border moment. Since Joe Biden took office in 2021, the pressure on his administration to rescind Trump’s Title 42 had only grown. Now, it was finally going to happen — and hell was on the horizon.

But at that expo in El Paso that brought together top brass from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), its border and immigration enforcement agencies, and private industry, I was learning that preparations for such a shift had been underway for years and — don’t be shocked! — the corporations attending planned to profit from it in a big-time fashion.

Seeing the phase-out of Title 42 through the lens of a growing border-industrial complex proved grimly illuminating. Border officials and industry representatives continued to insist that just on the other side of the border was a world of “cartels,” “adversaries,” and “criminals,” including, undoubtedly, this woman forcing change on me. By then, I had heard all too many warnings that, were the United States to let its guard down, however briefly, there would be an infernal “border surge.”

As I later stood in the halls of that expo, however, I became aware of another type of surge not being discussed either there or in the media. And I’m not just thinking about the extra members of the National Guard and other forces the Biden administration and Texas Governor Greg Abbott only recently sent to that very border. What I have in mind is the surge of ever higher budgets and record numbers of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) contracts guaranteed to ensure that those borderlands will remain one of the most militarized and surveilled places on planet Earth.

. . . .

At $29.8 billion, the CBP/ICE portion of the DHS budget he praised was not just the highest ever but a $3 billion jump above 2022, including $2.7 billion for “new acquirements in our southwestern border.” In other words, the coming surge at the border was distinctly budgetary.

For context, when Donald Trump took office in 2017 his CBP/ICE budget was $21.2 billion. By 2020, it had gone up to $25.4 billion. In other words, it took him four years to do what the Biden administration essentially did in one. The last time there had been such a jump was from $9.4 billion in 2005 to $12.4 billion in 2007, including funding for huge projects like the Secure Fence Act that built nearly 650 miles of walls and barriers, SBInet which aimed to build a virtual wall at the border (with special thanks to the Boeing Corporation), and the largest hiring surge ever undertaken by the Border Patrol — 8,000 agentsin three years.

But if that’s what $3 billion meant in 2005-2007, what does it mean in 2023 and beyond? Gone was the Trump-era bravado about that “big, beautiful wall.” Hysen’s focus was on the Department of Homeland Security’s launching of an Artificial Intelligence Taskforce. A technocrat, Hysen spoke of harnessing “the power of AI to transform the department’s mission,” assuring the industry audience that “I follow technology very closely and I am more excited by the developments of AI this year than I have been about any technology since the first smartphones.”

Robo-Dog — This cuddly robo version of “man’s best friend” can be fully outfitted to “go into barracks and blow a motherfucker’s face off.” And, it can be triggered by an agent 30 miles away! How great is that! Sadly, in the midst of all this techno-warfare at the border, the Biden Administration can’t scrape together the resources to humanely resettle and fairly and timely process those asylum seekers they DO let into the country. It’s a question of priorities.
PHOTO: Border Chronicle
CAPTION BY COURTSIDE

That robo-dog in front of me caught the state of the border in 2023 and the trends that went with it perfectly. It could, after all, be controlled by an agent up to 33 miles away, according to the vendor, and apparently could even — thank you, AI — make decisions on its own.

The vendor showed me a video of just how such a dog would work if it were armed. It would use AI technology to find human forms. A red box would form around any human it detects on a tablet screen held by an agent. In other words, I asked, can the dog think?

I had in mind the way Bing’s Chatbox, the AI-powered search engine from Microsoft, had so infamously professed its love for New York Times reporter Kevin Roose. A human, using an Xbox-like controller, the vendor told me, will be able to target a specific person among those the dog detects. “But,” he reassured me, “it’s a human who ultimately pulls the trigger.”

In Mexico, when I walked to a spot where the Rio Grande flowed between the two countries, I ran into a small group of migrants camped out at the side of the road. Near them was a fire filled with charred wood over which a pot was cooking. A pregnant Colombian woman told me they were providing food to other migrants passing by. “Oh,” I asked, “so you sell food?” No, she responded, they gave it away for free. Before they had been camped out for months near the immigration detention center in Ciudad Juárez where a devastating fire in March killed 40 people. Now, they had moved closer to the border. And they were still waiting, still hoping to file applications for asylum themselves.

Behind where they sat, I could see the 20-foot border wall with coiling razor wire on top. There was nothing new about a hyper-militarized border here. After all, the El Paso build-up had begun 30 years ago with Operation Hold the Line in 1993. A desert camo Humvee sat below the wall on the U.S. side and a couple of figures (Border Patrol? National Guard?) stood at the edge of the Rio Grande shouting to a Mexican federal police agent on the other side.

The clock for the supposed Title 42 Armageddon was ticking down as I then crossed the bridge back to El Paso, where more barriers of razor wire had only recently been emplaced. There was also a slew of blue-uniformed CBP agents and several jeeps carrying camouflaged members of border units. Everyone was heavily armed as if about to go into battle.

At the Border Security Expo, Hysen pointed out that fear of a Title 42 surge had resulted in an even more fortified border, hard as that might be to imagine. Fifteen hundred National Guard troops had been added to the 2,500 already there, along with 2,000 extra private security personnel, and more than 1,000 volunteers from other agencies. Basically, he insisted, they had everything more than under control, whatever the media was saying.

. . . .

At the Edge of Everything — and Nothing At All

On the morning of May 12th, I was with border scholar Gabriella Sanchez at the very spot where the borders of Texas, New Mexico, and Chihuahua meet near El Paso. Title 42 had expired the night before and I asked her what she thought. She responded that she considered this the border norm: we’re regularly told something momentous and possibly terrible is going to happen and then nothing much happens at all.

And she was right, the predicted “surge” of migrants crossing the border actually decreased — and yet, in some sense, everything keeps happening in ways that only seem grimmer. Perhaps 100 yards from where we were standing, in fact, we soon noticed a lone man cross the international boundary and walk into the United States as if he were taking a morning stroll. Thirty seconds later, a truck sped past us kicking up gravel. For a moment, I thought it was just a coincidence, since it wasn’t an official Border Patrol vehicle.

Then, I noted an insignia on its side that included the U.S. and Mexican flags. The truck came to a skidding stop by the man. A rotund figure in a gray uniform jumped out and ran toward him while he raised his hands. Just then, a green-striped Border Patrol van also pulled up. I was surprised — though after that Border Security Expo I shouldn’t have been — when I realized that the initial arrest was being made by someone seemingly from a private security firm. (Remember, Hysen said that an extra 2,000 private security agents had been hired for the “surge.”)

In truth, that scene couldn’t have been more banal. You might have seen it on any May 12th in these years. That banality, by the way, included a sustained violence that’s intrinsically part of the modern border system, as geographer Reece Jones argues in his book Violent Borders: Refugees and the Right to Move. In the days following Title 42’s demise, an eight-year-old Honduran girl died in Border Patrol custody and a Tohono O’odham man was shot and killed by the Border Patrol. In April, 11 remains of dead border crossers were also recovered in Arizona’s Pima County desert alone (where it’s impossible to carry enough water for such a long trek).

In the wake of Donald Trump, everything on the border has officially changed, yet nothing has really changed. Nothing of note is happening, even as everything happens. And as Hysen said at that border expo meeting, big as the record 2023 border budget may be, in 2024 it’s likely to go “even further” into the stratosphere.

Put another way, at the border, we are eternally at the edge of everything — and nothing at all.

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

Read Todd’s complete report in the Border Chron at the link.

From Ike’s “Military-Industrial Complex” to Biden’s “Border-Industrial Complex” — my life has spanned it all! But, while Ike was trying to warn us about the dangers ahead, Biden (and the GOP) are trying to lull us into accepting unending and largely unaccountable border militarization as the inevitable wave of the future — even a good thing!

I’ve got nothing against technology! But, it should employed to make humanity better, not just for its own sake. As I suggest below, the “Armed Robot-Dogs v. CBP One” (or EOIR’s venture into the virtual world) strongly suggest the lack of a healthy balance!

Human migration is even older and more permanent than never-ending border militarization, industrialized cruelty, and dehumanization. The latter are now routinely practiced by the very Western nations who once, long ago, fought against Nazism and vowed, apparently somewhat disingenuously, “never again!”

Human migration was in motion long before the creation of the modern nation-state. It will be with us as long and there is life on earth.

Moreover, the realities of climate change and the future migrations and political reckonings it will force go well-beyond our already overly restrictive legal refugee regimes. Like it or not — and those of us fortunate to live in potential “receiving countries” shouldn’t fear it — there will be more, not less, human migration in the future.

In this context, I’m highly skeptical that “armed robo-dogs” — even those miracles of modern technology fully weaponized to “go into barracks and blow a motherfucker’s face off” — are the durable solutions to inevitable events that we need.

It struck me that the woman who insisted that Todd keep her 35 cents, and the patient folks camped out around a wood cooking fire just south of the fence, waiting for appointments and hearings that might never come from the poor technology (how would an armed robo-dog react to the badly flawed “CBP One App” inflicted on human asylum seekers — state of the art technology seems rather one-sided at DHS, as most advocates would tell you) and our broken asylum legal system, probably are closer to having the answers to the future than any of the “hot air” politicos calling the shots or aspiring to do so.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-10-23

🛡⚔️ THE ONGOING QUEST FOR THE “HOLY GRAIL OF JUSTICE” — Round Table Files Brief In Support Of Due Process, Rule of Law In East Bay Sanctuary v. Biden!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12Gi2JbTNOI9C1kVWN1NuULgAuYCWziVd/view?usp=sharing

KEY EXCERPT:

INTRODUCTION

As former immigration judges and former members of the Board, we submit this amicus brief to ask the Northern District of California to strike down the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. 31314 (May 11, 2023). The Rule, which came into effect in the immediate aftermath of Title 42’s sunset and which applies to non-Mexican asylum-seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border, automatically forecloses a migrant’s asylum claim unless the person (i) arrives at an official port of entry having secured an immigration appointment through a complex mobile application, (ii) receives advance permission to travel to the U.S., or (iii) comes to the U.S. after applying for and being denied asylum in a transit country. Absent proof one of these narrow exceptions or a medical or other emergency, asylum-seekers will be unable to seek asylum regardless of whether they have compelling claims to relief.

Immigration judges serve an important role in the Congressionally-mandated process for reviewing the claims of asylum-seekers at or near the U.S.-Mexico border. This decades-old process, known as Expedited Removal, has its own flaws, but it does provide a credible fear review system that provides important protections for those seeking asylum. Specifically, and as explained in more detail below, the Expedited Removal statute requires that asylum-seekers, regardless of how they entered the United States, be interviewed by asylum officers to determine whether they have a credible fear of persecution and therefore can proceed to a full asylum hearing under Section 240 of the INA. The statute further mandates that immigration judges provide de novo review of asylum officers’ negative credible fear determinations, and thus make the final decision about whether an asylum-seeker at the U.S.-Mexico border has shown a credible fear of persecution and will have the opportunity to progress to a full asylum hearing.

The Rule unlawfully undermines this statutory scheme. First, the Rule creates clear bars to asylum for most migrants, disingenuously labeling these as “rebuttable presumptions.” As a result, almost all claims for asylum are pretermitted without the full asylum credible fear interviews required by the statutory Expedited Removal process. Rather, the credible fear interview will be turned into a “reasonable fear” interview to determine whether the migrant can proceed to claim withholding of

removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), lesser forms of relief compared to asylum. Asylum-seekers are thus denied the opportunity to obtain full review of their asylum credible fear claims, including the de novo review by an immigration judge as required by Section 235 of the INA, 8 C.F.R. § 235.3. Instead, asylum-seekers may only seek review from an immigration judge as to the application of the narrow exceptions under the Rule or the lesser claims for relief. Accordingly, the Rule significantly and unlawfully curtails the role of immigration judges in asylum adjudication as set forth in the INA.

Moreover, the idea that the Rule heightens efficiency in the asylum adjudication process is an illusion. When an asylum-seeker is denied the ability to provide a credible fear of persecution, Expedited Removal still requires a review of potentially more complicated claims for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT. Thus, immigration judges on the one hand find their hands tied, unable to review the claims of bona fide asylum-seekers, but on the other hand are required to delve into the standards of withholding and CAT. Thus, the Rule turns a straightforward (and efficient) asylum credible fear review into a three-part analysis: the Rule exceptions, withholding, and CAT.

Finally, by creating exclusions that deny asylum to refugees who appear at the U.S.-Mexico border, the Rule violates U.S. obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention. Longstanding canons of statutory and regulatory construction require consideration of international law; in this case, the Rule violates both the INA and international law.

. . . .

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

Read the complete brief skillfully prepared by our friend Ashley Vinson Crawford and her team at Akin Gump!

Our brief basically reiterates, expands, and applies points we made in our recent comments opposing the Biden Administration’s “Death to Asylum,” regulations! See https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/03/27/⚔%EF%B8%8F🛡-round-table-joins-chorus-of-human-rights-experts-slamming-biden-administrations-abominable-death-to-asylum-seekers-☠%EF%B8%8F-proposed/

Rather than heeding our comments and those of many other experts, the Administration proceeded with its wrong-headed changes, rammed through a farcically truncated “comment period” that showed that process was little but a sham. This is the exact kind of mockery of justice and prejudgement that one might have expected from the Trump Administration. It’s also one of the many things concerning immigration that Biden and Harris “ran against” in 2020 but lacked the will and integrity to achieve in practice.

Notably, we’re not the only group of “concerned experts” weighing in against the Biden Administration’s ill-advised rules. The union representing the USCIS Asylum Officers were among the many expert organizations and individuals filing in support of the plaintiffs in East Bay Santuary. See, e.g., Asylum Officers, Ex-Judges Back Suit On Biden Asylum Rule – Law360.

Among other choice commentary, the Asylum Officers argue that the rule “effectively eliminates asylum” at the southern border! What on earth is a Dem Administration doing betraying due process and the rule of law in favor of the most scurrilous type of nativist anti-asylum pandering — stuff right out of the “Stephen Miller playbook?” Who would have thought that we would get rid of Miller & company in 2020, yet still have to deal with his ghost in a Biden/Harris Administration that clearly and beyond any reasonable doubt has “lost its way” on immigration, human rights, racial justice, and the rule of law?

As Round Table spokesperson “Sir Jeffrey” Chase says, “We are in very good company!” Too bad that the Biden Administration has wandered off course into the morally vacant, disingenuous “never-never land” of anti-asylum, racially-driven nativism! It certainly did not have to be this way had effective, principled, expert leadership taken hold at the beginning.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-09-23

☹️ WRONG AGAIN: 1st Cir. KO’s 🥊 BIA On Firearms! — Portillo v. DHS

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis immigration:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-realistic-probability-portillo-v-dhs#

CA1 on Realistic Probability: Portillo v. DHS

May 31, 2023

(1 min read)

Portillo v. DHS

“Gerardo A. Portillo petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming his order of removal and denying his application for adjustment of status. Because we find that a conviction under Massachusetts General Laws (“MGL”) ch. 269, § 11C is not categorically a firearm offense as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C), we grant the petition for review, vacate the decision below, and remand for further proceedings. … Accordingly, without resorting to “legal imagination,” we conclude that MGL ch. 269, § 11C sweeps more broadly than the federal offense, and Portillo need not produce an actual case to demonstrate that overbreadth. … For the reasons stated above, we grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s opinion, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”

[Hats off to Jennifer Klein, Susan Brooks Church and Kathleen Marie Gillespie! Audio of the oral argument here.]

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

Congrats to the NDPA “litigation team” of Klein, Church, & Gillespie!

Notably, the unanimous 1st Circuit did a detailed 24-page analysis to get this one right. This is the type of scholarship and effort one might expect, but doesn’t consistently get, from the BIA.

Remarkably, this case has now been pending for more than six years at EOIR. Now, largely as a consequence of EOIR’s, toxic “how can we get to no” bias, present over the past several Administrations, it’s back to “square one” with no end in sight.

THAT’S how a system builds uncontrollable backlog! Maybe pruning out the “deadwood” and bringing in “practical scholar-experts” as judges at the appellate and trial levels wouldn’t solve all the problems that have been building up for decades at EOIR. But, it sure would be a great start on a better future!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-05-23

☠️🤮 THE TRUTH ABOUT BIDEN’S CURRENT BORDER POLICIES IS DISGUSTING, PERPLEXING, & BEYOND UGLY! — It’s Also Totally Unrelated To Scurrilous, Racist Border Myths Being Pedaled By GOP Govs Like Virginia’s Glenn “The Junkman” Youngkin! — Lindsay Toczylowski in The San Diego Union Tribune!

Lindsay Toczylowski
Executive Director, Immigrant Defenders
“ I always tell the new immigration attorneys at Immigrant Defenders Law Center to never forget just how stacked against our clients the odds are in immigration court.“

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/story/2023-05-24/opinion-joe-bidens-migrants-title-42-failure-broken-immigration-system-asylum-seekers

Toczylowski is executive director of Immigrant Defenders Law Center, a nonprofit legal organization working along the U.S.-Mexico border and throughout Southern California, and lives in Los Angeles.

The lifting of Title 42 — the policy that shut down the U.S. asylum system for three years — should have been an inflection point leading to a more humane and orderly system for processing asylum seekers. Instead, the Biden administration doubled down on the politics of exclusion, introducing new restrictive measures, including an asylum ban, that keep asylum out of reach for those who need protection the most.

. . . .

When asylum seekers are finally able to ask for protection, they are often met not with compassion but with cruelty. Just days ago in San Ysidro, I saw mothers with children sleeping on dirt while in Customs and Border Protection custody, sharing one port-a-potty for more than 500 people. Good Samaritans handed out supplies because CBP did not provide sufficient food, water or medicine.

. . . .

President Biden has perpetuated these failed deterrence policies despite his campaign promises to restore humanity at our border. The administration has turned its back on asylum seekers. These are real people. They deserve our protection. They deserve to be safe.

. . . .

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

Read Lindsay’s complete op-ed at the link.

These cruel, unnecessary, cowardly, and illegal policies are a disgrace to America and an embarrassment to the Democratic Party!

Meanwhile, dangerous lies are being promoted by Gov. Glenn “Junkman” Youngkin (R-VA) and other GOP Governors responding to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s racist/nativist call for further National Guard infusions to militarize the border. See, e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/05/31/virginia-youngkin-national-guard-border/.

You don’t have to be either an immigration expert or very smart to recognize that desperate individuals trying to turn themselves in to CBP agents at or near the border, to exercise their legal rights to seek protection, are NOT going to be a meaningful source of fentanyl smuggling. That trade is controlled by cartels who basically smuggle product through ports of entry in large quantities disguised as or mingled with legitimate commercial commerce.

Indeed, the preoccupation of CBP with improperly “deterring,” “discouraging,” and “punishing” legal asylum seekers not only empowers cartels, but significantly detracts from actual law enforcement against drug smugglers. And, the millions of dollars being misappropriated and wasted by Junkman and others on bogus National Guard deployments could much better and more appropriately be spent on humanitarian aid, coordinated, orderly resettlement programs for asylum seekers and asylees, and securing them legal representation to aid in the fair and timely processing of asylum claims.

However, the repetition of bogus and deliberately fabricated narratives like the “Junkman’s” latest wasteful stunt creates a “guilt by repetition” syndrome that feeds and enables the racist agenda of today’s GOP as well as the spineless “rollover” response of the Biden Administration, and, sadly, some other so-called Democrats.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-02-23

⚖️ DISSENTING OPINION: Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge Denise G. Brown Says “No” To Colleagues “Go Along To Get Along” With DHS Enforcement Approach To Chevron In Latest “Crime of Violence” Precedent: Matter of POUGATCHEV, 28 I&N Dec. 719 (BIA 2023)

Scales of Justice — The BIA’s approach to statutory interpretation under Chevron tends to be one-sided in favor of DHS Enforcement.
IMAGE: Wikimedia Commons

BIA HEADNOTE:

(1) A conviction for burglary of a building under section 140.25(1)(d) of the New York Penal Law is not categorically an aggravated felony burglary offense under section 101(a)(43)(G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) (2018), because the statute is overbroad and indivisible with respect to the definition of “building” under New York law.

(2) A conviction for displaying what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, or other firearm while committing burglary under section 140.25(1)(d) of the New York Penal Law necessarily involves the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another and therefore constitutes an aggravated felony crime of violence under section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F).

FOR THE RESPONDENT: Yuriy Pereyaslavskiy, Esquire, Albany, New York

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Donald W. Cassidy, Associate Legal Advisor

BEFORE: Board Panel: GOODWIN and WILSON, Appellate Immigration Judges. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: BROWN, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge.

GOODWIN, Appellate Immigration Judge [majority opinion]

Judge Brown’s Dissent:

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION: Denise G. Brown, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge

I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion that holds that second degree burglary under section 140.25(1)(d) of the New York Penal Law is categorically an aggravated felony crime of violence under section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) (2018). As an initial matter, I have reservations that this case is an appropriate means through which to establish binding precedent on this issue as the Immigration Judge did not reach it. While the parties have had an opportunity to address the issue through supplemental briefing, we lack the benefit of the Immigration Judge’s reasoning. It is our role to “review” questions of law de novo, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (2023), but there is no underlying decision regarding whether the respondent was convicted of an aggravated felony crime of violence for us to review here.

Further, I disagree with the majority’s analysis by which it concludes that a violation of section 140.25(1)(d) of the New York Penal Law is categorically a crime of violence. Section 140.25(1)(d) provides that a person is guilty of burglary in the second degree:

when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein, and when

. . . [i]n effecting entry or while in the building or in immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime

…

. . . [d]isplays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm . . . .

N.Y. Penal Law § 140.25(1)(d) (McKinney 2017). A crime of violence under section 101(a)(43)(F) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), is “an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) (2018).

I disagree with the majority that second degree burglary under section 140.25(1)(d) includes as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person. In my view, second degree burglary under section 140.25(1)(d) does not include any element that requires the presence of a person other than the defendant. In the absence of an element that requires the presence of a person, the majority’s conclusion that this offense is a crime of violence is unavailing. See Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817, 1825 (2021) (“The phrase ‘against another,’ when modifying the ‘use of force,’ demands that the perpetrator direct his action at, or target, another individual.”).

The majority’s analysis heavily relies on case law involving robbery to support its conclusion that second degree burglary under this subsection is a crime of violence. But under New York law, robbery always involves forcible stealing from a person and burglary does not. In United States v. Ojeda, 951 F.3d 66, 71 (2d Cir. 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected the defendant’s argument that it was possible to commit New York first degree robbery with the aggravating factor of the display of an

730

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 719 (BIA 2023) Interim Decision #4063

apparent weapon without the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. The court held that the defendant’s argument ignored the foundational element being aggravated, i.e., forcible stealing, which is defined in New York to include the use or threatened immediate use of physical force upon another person. Id. at 72. Forcible stealing is an element for every degree of robbery in New York and “that element categorically requires the use of physical force.” Id. Thus, New York robbery always includes as an element the use or threatened use of physical force against another person, regardless of whether an apparent weapon is displayed. Accordingly, the New York robbery statutes are distinguishable from the burglary statute at issue here, and thus the case law relied upon by the majority relating to robbery is not persuasive in this context. For the same reason, the case law cited by the majority relating to assault is likewise unpersuasive.

The majority also relies on the definition of “display” in the New York model jury instructions to conclude that a display of an apparent weapon must be in front of a person. The majority concludes that “display” in the context of section 140.25(1)(d) necessarily means a conscious display of an apparent weapon to a victim. “Display” as described by the model jury instructions does not constitute the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person because, as the Supreme Court explained in Borden, “against the person of another” means “in opposition to” and expresses “a kind of directedness or targeting” rather than being akin to “waves crashing against the shore.” Borden, 141 S. Ct. at 1825–26. However, the language of the model jury instructions—i.e., describing display to be “manifest[ing] the presence of an object that can reasonably be perceived” as a weapon—does not require the type of directedness or targeting described in Borden. N.Y. Crim. Jury Instr. & Model Colloquies, Penal Law § 140.25(1)(d) (May 2018). The language instead appears to contemplate that a person be “the mere recipient” of the display. Borden, 141 S. Ct. at 1826.

Even if the majority’s conclusion were correct that display of an apparent weapon necessarily contemplates the presence of a person to perceive it and that it necessarily involved conduct directed at another person as contemplated by Borden—a conclusion not supported by the actual language of section 140.25(1)(d)—there is nothing in the statute that requires the person perceiving the display to be the victim of the crime, rather than a bystander or another defendant.

The majority’s conclusion that an offense under section 140.25(1)(d) is categorically a crime of violence also assumes that the crime a defendant intends to commit is necessarily a “confrontational crime.” But there is nothing in the statute that connects the display of an apparent weapon with

731

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 719 (BIA 2023) Interim Decision #4063

the crime the defendant has “intent to commit [in the building],” and thus nothing in the statute that requires the crime a defendant has “intent to commit [in the building]” to be a confrontational crime, as the majority concludes. N.Y. Penal Law § 140.25.

For these reasons, I am not persuaded by the majority’s conclusion that an offense under section 140.25(1)(d) of the New York Penal Law is categorically a crime of violence. I would instead conclude that it is not and that therefore the respondent is not removable as charged.

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

Thanks for speaking out, Judge Brown, against the BIA’s one-sided approach to statutory interpretation that almost always favors DHS over better and more reasonable interpretations offered by individuals. Then, the Article III Courts compound the problem by giving “Chevron deference” to the BIA’s one-sided jurisprudence!

Dissent matters!

Here’s Judge Brown’s official EOIR bio:

Denise G. Brown

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Denise G. Brown as a temporary Appellate Immigration Judge in July 2021. Judge Brown earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1992 from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a Juris Doctor in 1995 from the Catholic University of America. From July 2007 to July 2021, she has served as an attorney advisor, Board of Immigration Appeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review. During this time, from March to September 2019, she served on detail as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Virginia, and from January to July 2017, she served on detail as a temporary Immigration Judge at the Headquarters Immigration Court, EOIR. From December 1999 to July 2007, she served as an Associate General Counsel at the Office of General Counsel, Department of the Air Force. Judge Brown is a member of the District of Columbia Bar.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-27-23

😎⚖️🗽 REAL LEADERSHIP SPEAKS: “[T]he promises that nations made after World War II to respect the dignity and rights of those who are fleeing have been eroded and now, on a practical level, forgotten,” says Anna M. Gallagher, Executive Director of Catholic Legal Immigraton Network (“CLINIC”)!

Anna Marie Gallagher, Esquire
Executive Director
CLINIC
PHOTO: CLINIC website

Executive Director Opening Plenary Remarks CLINIC Convening 2023
May 17, 2023

Good afternoon, dear friends. My name is Anna Gallagher and I have the honor of leading CLINIC as executive director. It is such a pleasure to be here with you all as we officially begin our first in-person Convening since 2019.

Looking out at the sea of faces in front of me, I am filled with gratitude to finally be able to come together to engage with one another, to listen, learn and gather strength for the work ahead in support of our immigrant brothers and sisters.

Even just being in your presence I feel a sense of renewed hope and energy. I am so looking forward to the next few days, and I am certain that you will be reignited to take on the important work ahead.

In a moment I will welcome our wonderful panel of Affiliate experts, but right now I want to take a moment to recognize this moment we’re facing and my hopes for this year’s CLINIC Convening.

You all, of all people, know that immigrant communities are facing truly unprecedented challenges – and I do not use that word, unprecedented, lightly.

With the lifting of Title 42, and the camps of men, women and children along the border desperate to find welcome on the other side; the proposed USCIS fee increases which threaten to put immigration benefits out of reach for many; the newly announced delays for foreign-born religious workers and special immigrant juveniles; and, perhaps above all, our warming planet and the outbreaks of violence which force many more people to migrate around the world – these are extremely challenging times for migrants in our country and around the world.

Several months ago, the New York Times featured an op-ed that has stuck with me, entitled, “The Rich World Has a Shockingly High Tolerance for Cruelty.”

It was about how rich nations are more willing than ever to let migrants languish at their borders in sub-human conditions rather than create safe pathways for migration or address the conditions causing people to flee.

It was about how the promises that nations made after World War II to respect the dignity and rights of those who are fleeing have been eroded and now, on a practical level, forgotten.

When I read this article, in my mind I was transported back to the time I spent in North Africa several years ago, working with migrants as a representative of Jesuit Refugee Services.

1

I interviewed migrants who had traveled for 18 months or more to try and find safety in these countries bordering Europe. I got to know some of the migrants, who called me “grandma” – a term of endearment, as my hair was grey.

While I was talking to some of them, they showed me their hands, which were scarred with wounds. When I asked them what happened, they said their hands were repeatedly pierced while climbing barbed wire to get through to safety.

Hearing this, my heart broke – as it has many times over the years.

The idea that we are using barbed wire to keep out our fellow human beings is inconceivable, yet true. Our immigrant brothers and sisters stand at our gates, begging for our aid, and we build barbed wire fences that pierce their hands.

Many wealthy nations are founded on a concept of all human beings being equal in dignity, but we do not act like it.

As we gather in Arizona, I know we are all mindful that these kinds of camps that the op-ed author is speaking of are just several hours away on the border. We also know that immigrant communities’ dignity is denied not only in these camps, but all over the country in the various places we’ve come from.

We must be clear, this is not an “other side of the world problem,” it is our problem. It affects all of us, in our integrity as people of faith and conscience, and as a reflection of our society.

And yet today, as I recall that New York Times op-ed, and the sense of frustration and despair I felt while reading it, I feel a surge of hope.

I want you to look around the room. Look at your neighbor to your left and right. YOU are the hope that fills my heart, and YOU are the hope that reignites me in our work.

As we gather here today, I am in a room full of people who DO act like all human beings are equal. Those who spend their precious time – often too much of their time, working long hours – trying to advance the truth that every person is precious, valuable, and deserving of a safe and dignified life.

That’s why being in your presence gives me such hope. I am reminded that the CLINIC network is full of holy people.

That is why our gathering here together, and throughout this week, is so powerful: we are, to borrow the words of Bishop Seitz of El Paso, working to be a “creative counterexample” to the culture of fear and hostility, to be a network that is slowly creating a new culture of solidarity and hospitality.

At CLINIC, we also are bolstered by our faith that we do not do this hard work alone. The spirit of God is inspiring us and pushing us forward, giving us strength and magnifying our efforts, especially when we are overwhelmed by the need in front of us.

2

Our faith also acts as a mirror for us, forcing us to keep evaluating whether we are truly reflecting the gospel truth of God’s concern for all people.

To maintain this faith, and to maintain the energy to be this creative counterexample, we need one another. Our network is sustained through the support, advice, and solidarity we demonstrate to one another.

Throughout the next few days, we will take the time to step back, to reflect on our work and learn and share new strategies, information, and tips for the very practical day-to-day work of supporting immigrant clients and communities.

We know that this practical work – the forms, the bureaucracy, the nitty-gritty details – changes and saves lives. So how well we can do it matters, which is why we gather to learn and grow.

We also gather to enjoy one another – to laugh, share stories, and reconnect with beloved colleagues and friends.

So I also hope that over the next few days you will have some fun!

Thank you for coming here to CLINIC Convening and for your dedication to this work. I am so honored to be alongside all of you this week, and all days.

Now, I am pleased to introduce our panelists for our opening plenary, Preparing for the Lifting of Title 42: Key Insights from our Network. When we decided on “reunited and reignited” for our theme this year, we knew we wanted to do something different for our opening conversation.

This “Network Fireside Chat” will be an opportunity to highlight the work done by our network throughout the United States. During this conversation, you’ll hear how Affiliates in three distinct geographical regions are rising to meet the needs of our immigrant and refugee brothers and sisters – especially during this increased time of uncertainty.

From the Border region, Joel Enriquez-Cazarez will share about the work of Jewish Family Service of San Diego.

As a transit city, Carolina Rivera will share how Catholic Charities of Dallas assists our immigrant brothers and sisters.

And Yer Vang from Catholic Charities Archdiocese of Dubuque will give an interior city perspective of welcome.

Now please join me in welcoming our keynote panelists to the stage…

3

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

Thanks, my friend, for a lifetime of service to due process, fundamental fairness, and social justice, and for speaking out as the “powers that be” and the “powers that wannabe” go into cowardly retreat and hide in fear from the needs and rights of humanity!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-24-23

🏴‍☠️☠️ AMERICAN FASCISTS: DeSANTIS & GOP KILLING KIDS, AS FLORIDA TEACHERS VOTE WITH THEIR FEET! — “What the GOP’s vendetta against the LGBTQ community really is, is a classic authoritarian tactic to vilify already marginalized people,” Says Robert Reich!

Except, perhaps, in Florida and other GOP-controlled “mini-reichs” where hate, censorship, and persecution of vulnerable populations have become official policy! Is this REALLY the way the next generations of Americans want to live and be remembered by history?
PHOTO: Public Realm

How DeSantis and other GOP lawmakers are killing LGBTQ young people

And why they’re doing it

ROBERT REICH

MAY 23

Friends,

Last Wednesday, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis — who is expected to announce his campaign for the presidency as soon as tomorrow — signed a gaggle of bills targeting LGBTQ youth.

In addition to those he had already signed into law — including a “Don’t Say Gay” measure barring teachers from mentioning sexual orientation or gender identity and another prohibiting gender-affirming care — his latest laws expand the state’s prohibition on classroom instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity, require that students use bathrooms associated with their sex assigned at birth, prohibit adults from taking children to see drag shows, and bar teachers from asking students about their preferred pronouns.

Another of the bills DeSantis just signed into law allows the state of Florida to take transgender minors away from parents who help them obtain gender-affirming care.

In raging against gender-affirming care, DeSantis lied that “they’re literally chopping off the private parts of young kids.” In fact, genital surgery is rarely, if ever, done under the age of 18. It’s not even all that common for adults. DeSantis is lying about it to scare people.

Meanwhile, the Republican presidential frontrunner has made it clear that trans people have no place in his vision of America:

“I will sign a new executive order instructing every federal agency to cease all programs that promote the concepts of sex and gender transitions at any age. I will ask Congress to pass a bill establishing that the only genders recognized by the United States government are male and female, and they are assigned at birth.”

***

My friends, these scare tactics are dangerous. Recent analysis found a 70% increase in hate crimes against LGBTQ Americans between 2020 and 2021, as the surge of these anti-LGBTQ bills began. And that’s only counting hate crimes that get reported. The years 2020 and 2021 each set a new record for the number of trans people murdered in America.

**

The cruelest irony is that these Republican bills pretending to protect children are putting our most vulnerable children at greater risk.

LGBTQ kids are more than four times likelier than non-LGBTQ kids to attempt suicide, especially transgender young people.

Gender-affirming care reduces that risk. That is why it is life-saving.

“Don’t Say Gay” laws also strip away potentially life-saving support. A teacher who positively and respectfully discusses sexual orientation and gender identity won’t turn a straight kid gay. But such a discussion will make an LGBTQ student 23% less likely to attempt suicide.

The tragic truth is that “Don’t Say Gay” laws and bans on gender-affirming care are causing more young lives to be needlessly lost.

Laws that threaten to take transgender minors away from their families if they are receiving gender-affirming care will cause these young people even more trauma.

If Republicans really cared about protecting kids, they’d focus on gun violence, now the leading cause of death for American children.

If they were really worried about children undergoing life-altering medical procedures, they wouldn’t pass abortion bans that force teens to give birth or risk back-alley procedures.

What the GOP’s vendetta against the LGBTQ community really is, is a classic authoritarian tactic to vilify already marginalized people.

This is how fascism takes root.

We need to see DeSantis’s bills and similar bills signed by Republican governors across the land for what they are — attempts to use bigotry and hate to elevate their political standing.

And we need to see this Republican attack on LGBTQ Americans for what it is: a threat to all of our human rights.

[My thanks to Allan Piper for work on a version of today’s letter.]

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

Meanwhile, as Caleb Ecarma reports for Vanity Fair, Florida teachers have had enough:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/05/florida-education-brain-drain-hitting-schools-hard

. . . .

“For the first time, I’ve actually started talking to my investment guy about retirement,” Michael Woods, a teacher who has spent decades working in exceptional-student education for public schools in South Florida, tells me. “I’m a 30-year veteran who showed up every day, hardly calls in sick, but now I don’t want to be a teacher in Florida.” Most troubling to Woods—a gay man who teaches science and biology courses—is the ballooning list of laws that police classroom material, discriminate against LGBTQ+ educators and students, and restrict sex education. “They’re all so vague,” he says of DeSantis’s new laws. “Even things that used to be easy like human reproduction [for ninth graders], I now have to check with my co-teacher and ask, ‘Is this okay? Are we still allowed to teach this?’”

On Wednesday, the governor rubber-stamped a batch of four bills restricting LGBTQ+ rights and expanding the Parental Rights in Education Act—or, as critics have dubbed it, the “Don’t Say Gay” law. The new measures, which will be enforced at public and charter schools, ban educators from discussing sexual orientation or gender identity in pre-K through eighth grade, and place new, vague restrictions on sex education, including that such instructions “be age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

This latest salvo was a bridge too far for many teachers, according to Rebecca Pringle, the president of the National Education Association, the largest labor union in the US. “I just talked to one teacher yesterday who is leaving and she said, ‘I can’t teach like this,’” Pringle tells me. “‘I can’t teach while worrying that they’re coming after my license, or I’m committing a felony.’ They’re leaving in protest.” Pringle says she has tried to convince teachers to stay in Florida, given the dearth of teachers in the state. But that discussion has been difficult to have, she says, with teachers who are facing death threats or harassment.

Case in point: One fifth-grade teacher in West Florida said this month that she was placed under investigation by the Florida Department of Education for showing her class Disney’s Strange World, a children’s movie that features an openly gay character. Jenna Barbee, the teacher at hand, said she played the film to give students a post-exam “brain break.” But when a local school board member learned of the showing, Barbee said, she was reported to state officials. Barbee told CNN that she had already submitted her resignation before the incident, in protest of the “politics and the fear of not being able to be who you are” in Florida public schools.

It appears that no educator has yet been prosecuted or charged under Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law or its legislation restricting books in schools. But as fears mount over their future implementation, parents are already witnessing the effects of shorthanded schools and overcrowded classrooms. “Last year, I saw several teachers leave, and we had substitutes for three, four months of the year,” says Reagan Miller, a parent in West Florida whose two children attend public school. “We had a teacher who taught advanced math at our middle school for years and years—he just left to go be a 911 operator,” she tells me, “which blows my mind, that becoming a 911 operator would be less stressful than being a teacher.”

. . . .

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

My experience on the bench was that almost all the transgender individuals coming before me had attempted suicide on one or more occasions or expressed suicidal thoughts. To a person, they just wanted to be accepted, protected, and to live their own lives without harassment, interference, or fear. These are all things that today’s cowardly GOP “Brown Shirt Pols” would deny them.

The next generation is going to have to decide whether they want to live in a Nazi-inspired police “hate state” where individual freedoms are meaningless and cruelty, bullying, suppression, and betrayal are the norms. If not, then they had better get busy removing every GOP politico from every office — from local school boards and city councils to the Presidency.

How soon we forget the lessons of 1939! Perhaps that’s part of the GOP’s war on truth, education, and history!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-23-23

🏴‍☠️☠️ NAACP ISSUES TRAVEL WARNING: Florida, The Neo-Fascist “Hate State” ⚠️

Nina GolgowskiSenior Reporter HuffPost PHOTO: HuffPost — Nina Golgowski
Senior Reporter
HuffPost
PHOTO: HuffPost

Nina Golgowski reports for HuffPost:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/naacp-issues-florida-travel-advisory_n_646a1309e4b06749be1485ba

The NAACP’s Board of Directors has issued a travel warning about Florida that accuses the state, and pointedly Gov. Ron DeSantis, of being “openly hostile toward African Americans, people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals.”

“Before traveling to Florida, please understand that the state of Florida devalues and marginalizes the contributions of, and the challenges faced by African Americans and other communities of color,” the notice issued Saturday states.

The civil rights organization specifically accuses DeSantis, a possible 2024 Republican presidential candidate, of aggressively attempting to erase Black history and “restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in Florida schools.”

. . . .

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

Read Nina’s complete report at the link.

Colfax Massacre — “Gathering the dead after the Colfax massacre, published in Harper’s Weekly, May 10, 1873” — White Nationalist snowflakes like DeSantis feel diminished and threatened by the truth about American history and the role of race.

The “anti-woke agenda” touted by DeSantis is a very thinly disguised euphemism for “overtly racist!” That, decades after folks like Gov. George Wallace and Sen. Strom Thurmond unabashedly made hate, segregation, and racism the “centerpieces” of failed presidential bids, racists like DeSantis are openly campaigning on the same basic platform, and enacting it in their “mini-reichs,” should be deeply disturbing to younger generations of voters who will have to live with the stupidity, ignorance, cynicism, and hate promoted by these immoral GOP pols. It’s a race backwards and to the bottom that can only end in a complete catastrophe for our nation and the world!

Also remember: It all started with the dehumanization and false demonization of migrants. Many, including too many Dems, have been unwilling to stand up against it! That’s how the GOP’s “destroy America” agenda gains traction!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-22-23

☠️🏴‍☠️🤮⚰️ AS THEIR OVERHYPED AND LARGELY SELF-CREATED “BORDER CRISIS” WANES, “MAINSTREAM MEDIA” IGNORES THE HUMANITARIAN CATASTROPHE THEY HELPED CREATE & INFLAME! — Racist Repubs & Cowardly Dems Have “Normalized” Gratuitous Cruelty, Scofflaw Behavior, Racism, & Restrictionism — Migrants & Future Generations Will Pay The Price!

James “Jim” Crow
Symbol of American Racism — Why are the Biden Administration and some Dem pols embracing this guy when it comes to asylum seekers — primarily individuals of color, merely seeking to exercise their legal rights and to be treated fairly and with human dignity?

Border Lines has published one of the best analyses of the Title 42 charade and its ongoing impact on our Government’s cruel, lawless, and misguided border policies. Given the cosmic impact of bad border policies, they have made it available “outside the paywall.”

https://borderlines.substack.com/p/special-editiontitle-42-is-dead-long?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=17175&post_id=122261190&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

. . . .

Ultimately, Title 42 has ended, but the asylum restrictionist approach that it was the apex of has clearly not. For now, there’s no return to normal Title 8 processing — which, as regular readers of our historical analyses know, has never been impartial or apolitical, but at least provided some semblance of access and cursory due process. Title 42 is dead. Long live Title 42.

. . . .

This version of the transit ban is also, like its predecessor, under acute legal jeopardy. The ACLU has already sued to stop it, and some legal analysts are predicting that, given the precedents and legalities involved here, the administration’s efforts to make it compliant — including the very limited exceptions — won’t be enough. The CBP One exception is, after all, just another version of metering, another policy that was struck down. If there’s an injunction or even a final ruling and the transit ban goes down, then what? There’s at least some likelihood that word will spread and the surge of arrivals that was expected in the immediate aftermath of Title 42 will actually materialize then. How does the administration respond? Does it rush to enact an overlapping asylum restriction, as the Trump administration so often did? It’s hard to say.

A federal judge in Florida recently issued a restraining order blocking a Biden policy that would have allowed the administration to issue parole to some arriving families and instruct them to check in with ICE instead of placing them directly in removal proceedings, removing another option to control the immigration court backlog and avoid detaining families. It seems relatively unlikely that the administration will be happy to accept a defeat of its asylum restrictions that will then force it back into the uncomfortable position of detaining more families. In the meantime, market analysis site Seeking Alpha has upgraded the stock of private detention conglomerate GEO Group to “strong buy” in anticipation of strong profits from growth in detentions, not to mention GEO’s piece of all sorts of surveillance technologies used in the administration’s alternatives to detention programs.

In the meantime, an eight-year-old girl died yesterday in Border Patrol custody after having what is vaguely described as a “medical episode.” The machine churns on.

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

Read the complete article at the link.

There’s lots of of “disturbing stuff” here. But, perhaps the worst and most discouraging is the role of the Biden Administration and some Dem pols in aiding, abetting, and even encouraging this 21st Century version of Jim Crow.

The poor and superficial reporting of the “mainstream media” — which performed like an adjunct Fox News — also has had life-threatening consequences. Inaccurately and cynically treating the Title 42 farce as “the norm,” and the return to applying some semblance of the rule of law (the Refugee Act has been in effect for more than four decades) as some type of radical “change” also has contributed mightily to the human tragedy and carnage at the border. Highly irresponsible!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-18-23

📰 IMMIGRATION JOURNALISM: ATLANTIC’S CAITLIN DICKERSON WINS PULITZER FOR REPORTING CRUELTY & OFFICIAL LIES BEHIND FAMILY SEPARATION!

https://www.theatlantic.com/press-releases/archive/2023/05/caitlin-dickerson-wins-2023-pulitzer-prize-explanatory-journalism/673986/

May 8, 2023—The Atlantic’s staff writer Caitlin Dickerson has won the 2023 Pulitzer Prize in Explanatory Journalism for the September 2022 cover story, “‘We Need to Take Away Children,’” an exhaustive investigation that exposed the secret history of the Trump administration’s policy to intentionally separate migrant children from their parents; the incompetence that led the government to lose track of many children; and the intention among former officials to separate families again if Trump is reelected. Her reporting, one of the longest articles in The Atlantic’s history, laid out in painstaking detail one of the darkest chapters in recent U.S. history, exposing not only how the policy came into being and who was responsible for it, but also how all of its worst outcomes were anticipated and ignored. The investigation was edited by national editor Scott Stossel.

. . . .

In awarding Dickerson journalism’s top honor, the Pulitzer Board cited: “A deeply reported and compelling accounting of the Trump administration policy that forcefully separated migrant children from their parents resulting in abuses that have persisted under the current administration.”

The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, wrote to staff: “This is a wonderful moment for everyone, but particularly for Caitlin, Liz, and Xochitl. There is much to say about their talents, and the talents of their editors. This is also a very proud moment for all of you who worked on these stories. Caitlin’s piece, one of the longest and most complicated stories The Atlantic has published across its 166-year history, required the unflagging work of a good portion of our comparatively small staff—from the copy-editing and fact-checking teams to our artists and designers and lawyers. Our ambitions outmatch our size, but I’m proud to say that our team rises to every challenge.”

Dickerson’s investigation exposed that U.S. officials misled Congress, the public, and the press, and minimized the policy’s implications to obscure what they were doing; that separating migrant children from their parents was not a side effect of the policy, but its intent; that almost no logistical planning took place before the policy was initiated; that instead of working to reunify families after parents were prosecuted, officials worked to keep families apart longer; and that the architects of the legislation will likely seek to reinstate it, should they get the opportunity. Over 18 months, Dickerson conducted more than 150 interviews––including the first extensive on-the-record interviews on this subject with Kirstjen Nielsen, John Kelly, and others intimately involved in the policy and its consequences at every level of government––and reviewed thousands of pages of internal government documents, some of which were turned over only after a multiyear lawsuit.

. . . .

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

Read the complete article at the link.

Many congrats and thanks Caitlin! Unfortunately, the message still doesn’t seem to have gotten through to politicos and policy-makers of both parties who continue to promote, tout, and sometimes employ illegal, immoral, and ineffective measures directed at migrant children and families!

Most important — no accountability for the perpetrators! Indeed, if the GOP gets power again they plan to repeat their crimes! And the Dems aren’t that much better — happily touting policies that can have the same effect, whether intended or not.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-09-23

🇺🇸🗽⚖️ NDPA SUPERHERO 🦸🏽‍♀️ MARIA DANIELLA PRIESHOFF: Cut The Dehumanizing Language! — “[T]he more dehumanizing language we use, the more likely it is that we will see immigrants as the “other” to justify cruel immigration policies.”

https://otherwords.org/retire-this-dehumanizing-language-about-immigrants/

Four Central American girls at a tent for U.S. asylum seekers in Reynosa, Mexico. For years now the U.S. has forced asylum applicants to wait in Mexico, often for years and in dangerous conditions. (Shutterstock)

Retire This Dehumanizing Language About Immigrants

Human beings fleeing persecution are not a “flood” or “surge.” And it’s not “illegal” when they cross the border to seek asylum.

Daniella Prieshoff

Last year, my client Susan called me to discuss her immigration case.

During our conversation she referenced the news that immigrants were being bused from the southern border to cities in the North, often under false promises, only to be left stranded in an unknown city.

In confusion and fear, Susan asked me: “Why do they hate us so much?”

While I couldn’t answer Susan’s question, her underlying concern highlights a startling escalation of public aggression against migrants over the past year.

There seems to be a growing “us” versus “them” mentality towards immigrants. This divisive language serves no purpose other than to divide our country, undermine the legal right to seek asylum in the United States, and cultivate a fear of the most vulnerable.

A clear example is showcased in recent media coverage of northbound migration across the U.S.-Mexico border. Many outlets describe recent migration through the Americas as a “flood,” “influx,” “wave,” or “surge”— language that reinforces the notion that migration is akin to an imminent, uncontrollable, and destructive natural disaster.

These descriptions are accompanied by sensational photographs and videos of long lines of brown and Black immigrants wading across the Rio Grande, crowding along the border wall, or boarding Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) vehicles to be transported to detention.

Woven into this framing is the near-constant use of the term “illegal” or “unlawful” to describe unauthorized crossings. As an advocate for immigrant survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence, and trafficking, I’m alarmed by the use of this language to describe a migrant’s attempt to survive.

Moreover, it’s often simply incorrect. A noncitizen who has a well-founded fear of persecution in the country from which they’ve fled has a legal right — protected under both U.S. and international law — to enter the United States to seek asylum.

When mainstream media wield the term “illegal” as though it were synonymous with “unauthorized,” they misinform readers and falsely paint asylum seekers as criminals.

Worse still, they encourage politicians who call immigrants themselves “illegals,” a deeply dehumanizing term. And the more dehumanizing language we use, the more likely it is that we will see immigrants as the “other” to justify cruel immigration policies.

We must retire the use of this inflammatory rhetoric, which distracts from real solutions that would actually serve survivors arriving at our borders.

Migrants expelled back to their home countries are at grave risk of severe harm or death at the hands of their persecutors. Those forced to remain in Mexico as they await entry to the United States are increasingly vulnerable to organized crime or abusive and dangerous conditions in detention.

And those who have no choice but to desperately navigate dangerous routes to the United States to avoid apprehension are increasingly dying by dehydration, falling from cliffs, and drowning in rivers.

The words we use in everyday discourse mean something — they can spell out life or death for those among us who are most vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Now more than ever, I’d urge the public and the media to retire the use of sensationalizing, stigmatizing, and misleading imagery and rhetoric surrounding immigration.

Now is the time to apply accuracy and humanity in our depictions of migrants. Let’s not repeat the errors of our past.

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

Thanks for speaking up, MDP!

Dehumanization of the “other” has a long ugly history in the U.S., of course going back to enslaved African Americans, Native Americans, and the Chinese Exclusion Laws.

We also see that dehumanizing language has extended from asylum seekers and other migrants to the LGBTQ+ community, Asian Americans, advocates for social justice, homelessness, handicaps, economic disadvantages, women, government officials, political opponents, etc.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-05-23

Here’s a copy of the full decision:

Here’s the syllabus (NOT part of the decision):

Key quotes from Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Melissa del Bosque reports for the Border Chronicle:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From the Portland Press Herald:

Don’s views echo several previous postings from Courtside:

Related posts:

Todd writes in the Border Chron:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

KEY EXCERPT:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis immigration:

CA1 on Realistic Probability: Portillo v. DHS

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Meanwhile, as Caleb Ecarma reports for Vanity Fair, Florida teachers have had enough:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Nina Golgowski reports for HuffPost:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Border Lines has published one of the best analyses of the Title 42 charade and its ongoing impact on our Government’s cruel, lawless, and misguided border policies. Given the cosmic impact of bad border policies, they have made it available “outside the paywall.”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts: