Prosecutions – Page 3 – immigrationcourtside.com

THE DOJ’S NEW TITLE UNDER BILLY BARR: “HOOKERS FOR TRUMP” – “Why Bill Barr’s DOJ replaced Catholic Charities with Hookers for Jesus” – Why “There has never been a better time to be a Hooker for Jesus.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/11/why-bill-barrs-doj-replaced-catholic-charities-with-hookers-jesus/

Dana Milbank writes in WashPost:

There has never been a better time to be a Hooker for Jesus.

Under Attorney General Bill Barr’s management, it appears no corner of the Justice Department can escape perversion — even the annual grants the Justice Department gives to nonprofits and local governments to help victims of human trafficking.

In a new grant award, senior Justice officials rejected the recommendations of career officials and decided to deny grants to highly rated Catholic Charities in Palm Beach, Fla., and Chicanos Por La Causa in Phoenix. Instead, Reuters reported, they gave more than $1 million combined to lower-rated groups called the Lincoln Tubman Foundation and Hookers for Jesus.

Why? Well, it turns out the head of the Catholic Charities affiliate had been active with Democrats and the Phoenix group had opposed President Trump’s immigration policies. By contrast, Hookers for Jesus is run by a Christian conservative and the Lincoln Tubman group was launched by a relative of a Trump delegate to the 2016 convention.

That Catholic Charities has been replaced by Hookers for Jesus says much about Barr’s Justice Department. Friends of Trump are rewarded. Opponents of Trump are punished. And the nation’s law enforcement apparatus becomes Trump’s personal plaything.

Federal prosecutors Monday recommended that Trump associate Roger Stone serve seven to nine years in prison for obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, witness tampering and other crimes.

Then Trump tweeted that the proposed sentence was “horrible and very unfair” and “the real crimes were on the other side.” And by midday Tuesday, Barr’s Justice Department announced that it would reduce Stone’s sentence recommendation. All four prosecutors, protesting the politicization, asked to withdraw from the case.

But politicization is now the norm. Last week, Barr assigned himself the sole authority to decide which presidential candidates — Democrats and Republicans — should be investigated by the FBI.

Also last week, the Department of Homeland Security, working with the Justice Department, announced that New York state residents can no longer enroll in certain Trusted Traveler programs such as Global Entry — apparent punishment for the strongly Democratic state’s policies on illegal immigrants.

On Monday, Barr declared that the Justice Department had created an “intake process” to receive Rudy Giuliani’s dirt from Ukraine on Joe Biden and Hunter Biden — dirt dug in a boondoggle that left two Giuliani associates under indictment and Trump impeached.

The same day, Barr’s agency announced lawsuits against California, New Jersey and King County (Seattle), Washington — politically “blue” jurisdictions all — as part of what he called a “significant escalation” against sanctuary cities.

On Tuesday, to get a better sense of the man who has turned the Justice Department into Trump’s toy, I watched Barr speak to the Major County Sheriffs of America, a friendly audience, at the Willard Hotel in Washington.

Even by Trumpian standards, the jowly Barr, in his large round glasses, pinstripe suit and Trump-red tie, was strikingly sycophantic. “In his State of the Union, President Trump delivered a message of genuine optimism filled with an unapologetic faith in God and in American greatness and in the common virtues of the American people: altruism, industriousness, self-reliance and generosity,” he read, deadpan.

Trump, he went on, “loves this country,” and “he especially loves you.” The boot-licking performance continued, about Trump’s wise leadership, his unbroken promises and even the just-impeached president’s passionate belief in the “rule of law.”

Then Barr turned to the enemy. He attacked “rogue DA’s” and “so-called social-justice reformers,” who are responsible for “historic levels of homicide and other violent crime” in Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Chicago and Baltimore. Politicians in sanctuary jurisdictions, he said, prefer “to help criminal aliens evade the law.” Barr vowed to fight these foes with “all lawful means” — federal subpoenas to force them to turn over “information about criminal aliens,” dozens of lawsuits to invalidate statutes and attempts to deny them both competitive and automatic grants.

In response to a question, Barr railed against tech companies’ use of encryption: “They’re designing these devices so you can be impervious to any government scrutiny,” he protested.

Maybe people wouldn’t be so sensitive about government scrutiny if the top law enforcement official weren’t using his position to punish political opponents and reward political allies.

Instead, with Barr’s acquiescence, we live in a moment in which: Trump’s Treasury Department immediately releases sensitive financial information about Hunter Biden, while refusing to release similar information about Trump; Trump ousts officials who testified in the impeachment inquiry and even ousts the blameless twin brother of one of the witnesses; and Trump’s FBI decides to monitor violent “people on either side” of the abortion debate — although the FBI couldn’t point to a single instance of violence by abortion-rights supporters.

This week, the Pentagon released a new color scheme for Air Force One, replacing the 60-year-old design with one that looks suspiciously like the old Trump Shuttle.Surprised? Don’t be. Soon the entire administration will be able to apply for a Justice Department grant as a newly formed nonprofit: Hookers for Trump.

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

Barr’s inspirational lesson for new lawyers: Once you achieve fame, fortune, and protection from corrupt politicos and complicit judges, it’s virtually impossible to get your law license revoked for unethical performance. As long as you thumb your nose at the law and ethical rules right in public, right in front of judges, you’re essentially immune. The “rules” only apply to those poor suckers at the bottom of the “legal totem pole.”

This is actually a fairly new development under the Trump regime. In the past, even high-profile lawyers who violated their ethical obligations got zapped: John Mitchell, Dick Kleindienst, Bill Clinton(technically, he might have “surrendered his law license” in lieu of disbarment), Webb Hubbell, etc.

But, during the Trump regime, Federal Judges seem content to just “roll their eyes” at lies, false narratives, thinly veiled racist or religiously bigoted rationales for policy, and simply astounding conflicts of interest (how about running a biased and unconstitutional Immigration “Court” right in plain view?) streaming out of an ethics-free zone at the “Department of Hookers for Trump.”

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson was actually a “target” of Roger Stone’s contemptuous and openly threatening behavior. It will be interesting to see how she deals with the sudden reversal and baseless plea for mercy from Barr for this unrepentant and totally unapologetic criminal.

As if to resolve any doubts as to his contempt for America and democratic institutions, the cowardly “Bully-in-Chief” unleashed an unprovoked twitter tirade against Judge Jackson and the career prosecutors in the case. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/02/12/trump-stone-judge/

Perhaps predictability, this was followed by an impotent call by Senate Democrats for the uber corrupt Billy Barr to resign and for the equally corrupt and spineless Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to stop slithering around the Capitol and schedule an “investigative hearing” into improper political influence at the “Department of Hookers for Trump.” https://apple.news/Az2hAo6yqT8uKJSuAX26F1Q Don’t hold your breath, folks!

At the same time, former DOJ Inspector General Michael R. Bromwich was telling WashPost’s Greg Sargent that the conduct of Trump and Billy the Toady was an “existential threat to the institutions that most of us value, prize and have served.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/12/trump-openly-corrupts-doj-former-insider-sounds-alarm/. Right on with that!

This is not “normal.” This is not “right.” It’s time for those of us who still believe in American democracy to take a stand in November to remove Trump and the sociopathic element that he represents in our society from power. Otherwise, the “race to the bottom” will continue, unabated. And more innocent people will be hurt by or die because of this unprincipled, totally immoral lunatic.

PWS

02-12-20

U.S. JUDGE THWARTS (FOR NOW) TRUMP REGIME’S PERSECUTION/PROSECUTION OF HUMANITARIAN AID WORKERS – Regime’s Religious Hypocrisy Runs Deep!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-no-more-deaths-religious-liberty_n_5e3adf4ec5b6d032e76d1313

Carol Kuruvilla in HuffPost:

A federal judge has ruled that President Donald Trump’s administration, which often boasts about defending religious liberty, has violated the religious rights of a group of volunteers at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The Trump administration has spent years cracking down on the work of No More Deaths/No Más Muertes, a Unitarian Universalist ministry in Arizona that provides water and food to migrants crossing a treacherous stretch of desert along the border where dozens have died. Various members of No More Deaths have faced fines and even jail for what they consider to be faith-based, life-saving humanitarian aid.

But for the second time in months, a judge has ruled that the government shouldn’t be punishing these volunteers for putting their faith into practice.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary Márquez ruled Monday that four volunteers who left water and food for migrants at the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge were acting according to their “sincerely held religious beliefs.” As a result, the government substantially burdened the volunteers’ religious liberty by prosecuting them for this work, Marquez said.

“Given Defendants’ professed beliefs, the concentration of human remains on the [refuge], and the risk of death in that area, it follows that providing aid on the [refuge] was necessary for Defendants to meaningfully exercise their beliefs,” the judge wrote.

Márquez’s ruling reversed the decision of a lower court, where another judge dismissed the volunteers’ religious liberty claims and sentenced them to probation and fines last March.

A federal judge has ruled that four volunteers who left water and food for migrants at the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge were acting according to their “sincerely held religious beliefs.” From left, they are Natalie Hoffman, Madeline Huse, Zaachila Orozco-McCormick, and Oona Holcomb.

The case against the four volunteers ― Natalie Hoffman, Oona Holcomb, Madeline Huse and Zaachila Orozco-McCormick ― goes back to December 2017, a year when 32 sets of human remains were recovered from the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. The volunteers were charged with misdemeanors for entering the wildlife refuge without proper permits and leaving behind jugs of water and cans of beans, which the government called abandonment of property.

The volunteers’ defense hinged on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). The law states that if a defendant can prove that the government is substantially burdening her “sincerely held religious beliefs,” then the government has to show that it’s using the “least restrictive” path to achieving its goals.

This ruling shows that religious freedom is not just for the Christian right, as the Trump administration would have us believe.Parker Deighan, spokesperson for No More Deaths

RFRA initially had broad bipartisan support. But more recently, the religious right has been using RFRA as a way to secure exemptions for conservative beliefs about abortion and LGBTQ rights. The evangelical Christian owners of the Hobby Lobby craft stores famously used RFRA to avoid paying for insurance coverage for contraception.

Under Trump, the Department of Justice has urged a narrow reading of RFRA claims made by people of faith who do not share the administration’s policy goals, according to Katherine Franke, faculty director of Columbia University’s Law, Rights, and Religion Project.

“The Trump Department of Justice has taken a biased approach to defending and enforcing religious liberty rights under RFRA, robustly protecting the rights of conservative Evangelical Christians while prosecuting people whose faith moves them to oppose the government’s policies,” Franke told HuffPost in an email.

Michael Bailey, the Trump-nominated U.S. attorney for Arizona, said his team has no issue with Márquez’s finding that strong religious beliefs motivated the defendants’ acts.

“We highly value religious freedom without regard to where on the spectrum one’s beliefs might fall,” Bailey told HuffPost in a statement.

A volunteer for the humanitarian aid organization No More Deaths delivers water along a trail used by undocumented immigrants in the desert on May 10, 2019 near Ajo, Arizona.

Subscribe to the Politics email.

From Washington to the campaign trail, get the latest politics news.

No More Deaths is a Unitarian Universalist ministry. But all four volunteers are technically religiously unaffiliated, which means they are part of a growing group of Americans who decline to identify with any specific religious tradition.

During testimonies, the four described feeling a spiritual calling to volunteer, inspired by beliefs about the sanctity of human life. They also spoke about taking moments of silence in the refuge to reflect on the suffering of those crossing the desert.

Holcomb said that she had constructed a “personal altar” at her home that included a ring of water bottles she picked up in the desert.

“There is … for me, I will say, like a deep spiritual need and a calling to do work based on what I believe in the world,” Holcomb testified, according to the judge’s opinion.

In its response to the volunteers’ appeal, the government argued that their beliefs were not truly religious because they didn’t explain how they fit into a “particular system of religious or spiritual beliefs.” The government also asserted that the volunteers were “draping religious garb” over “secular philosophical concerns.”

In her opinion, Márquez said that the volunteers’ RFRA claims can’t be dismissed just because they described their beliefs in broad terms and don’t belong to an established religion. She pointed out that religious and political motivations overlapped in the Hobby Lobby case. ThatSupreme Court verdict has shown that government faces an “exceptionally demanding” obligation to be minimally restrictive while imposing on a person’s religious exercise, Márquez said.

Ultimately, the government had failed to demonstrate that prosecuting the volunteers was the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental interest, the judge said.

Scott Warren, a volunteer for the humanitarian aid organization No More Deaths, walks into Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument to deliver food and water along remote desert trails used by undocumented immigrants on May 10, 2019, near Ajo, Arizona.

Márquez’s decision comes months after another No More Deaths volunteer, Scott Warren, was acquitted of a federal misdemeanor charge for leaving water jugs in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge for migrants. The judge in that case also acknowledged that Warren’s action was protected by his right to religious freedom. That was one of the first times progressive religious beliefs related to immigration have been protected in this way, the Law, Rights, and Religion Project told HuffPost in November.

Franke said there are other cases where progressive people of faith are making religious exemption claims. The Rev. Kaji Douša, a New York pastor and immigrant rights activist, claims the federal government violated her religious freedom when she was detained and placed on a watch list for ministering to asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. The government has “trivialized” Douša’s RFRA claims and urged the court to dismiss them, Franke said.

In Philadelphia, the DOJ is trying to prevent a faith-based overdose prevention organization from opening a safe injection site, arguing that its “true motivation is socio-political or philosophical — not religious — and thus not protected by RFRA.”

Franke said that when Congress passed RFRA in 1993, the statute was meant to protect the religious liberty of people across a wide spectrum of beliefs, “not just some, and certainly not only those who hold religious beliefs that were shared with the current federal administration.”

Parker Deighan, a spokesperson for No More Deaths, told HuffPost that Márquez’s ruling on Monday reaffirms that “providing humanitarian aid is never a crime.”

“This ruling shows that religious freedom is not just for the Christian right, as the Trump administration would have us believe,” she said. “We hope that that Judge Marquez’s ruling signifies a shift towards religious freedom exemptions being used to protect the work of people and organizations fighting on the side of justice, such as migrant solidarity organizations and indigenous peoples fighting for protection of their sacred lands and traditions, rather than protection for discrimination and bigotry.”

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

So, here’s the deal.

The Trump (the least religious and most immoral President in U.S. History) regime uses a bogus “religious protection” rationale to cloak far-right programs of hate, intolerance, dehumanization, marginalization, and cruelty directed at people of color, the LGBTQ community, migrants, refugees, women, children, Muslims, Jews, and other vulnerable groups. According to the regime, “religious freedom” is limited to the “extremist religious right.”

Then, the regime attempts to misuse “the law” to punish those who actually “show Christ-like love in word and in deed.” To her credit, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Márquez “just said no” to this disingenuous nonsense.

The only way to stop the intellectual dishonesty, mockery of religious humanitarian principles, and misuse of our laws is to oust Trump and his enablers from office at every level. Otherwise, we can expect the persecution and cruelty to continue.

And don’t be surprised if the “J.R. Five” on the Supremes find a way to manipulate the system to enable the persecution of others to continue and grow worse. It’s what complicit “judges” do in the face of tyrants.

While the regime is using your tax dollars to pervert the law to persecute humanitarian workers, they are simultaneously violating our Constitution, our statutes, and our international obligations, with the connivence of the Supremes and Federal Appeals Courts who choose to look the other way rather than standing up for individuals’ rights against authoritarian overreach.

It’s time to stand up for our Constitutional rights, human rights, and human decency. Throw the corrupt and immoral GOP and their collaborators out of office at the next election, and bring in Government officials, legislators, and life-tenured judges who are willing and able to stand up for their oaths of office!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-06-20

10TH CIR. RULES THAT PROVISION OF INA BARRING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPEDITED REMOVAL IN CRIMINAL CASES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL — U.S. v. Gonzalez-Fierro

https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/18-2168/18-2168-2020-02-04.pdf?ts=1580846433

U.S. v. Gonzalez-Fierro, 10^th Cir., 03-04-20, published

PANEL: TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, EBEL, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Judge Ebel

CONCURRING OPINION: Chief Judge Tymkovich

KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY:

In this direct criminal appeal, Defendant Rodolfo Gonzalez-Fierro, a Mexican citizen, challenges his conviction for unlawfully re-entering the United States after a prior removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). That conviction was based in part on Gonzalez-Fierro’s prior expedited removal from the United States in 2009. Due process requires that, before the United States can use a defendant’s prior removal to prove a § 1326(a) charge, “there must be some meaningful review” of the prior administrative removal proceeding. United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828, 837-38 (1987). In light of that, Congress has provided a mechanism, set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d), for a defendant charged with a § 1326(a) offense to challenge the fundamental fairness of his prior unreviewed removal. But, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(1)(D), that § 1326(d) mechanism applies only to prior formal removal orders, and not to prior expedited removal orders like Gonzalez-Fierro’s. Expedited removals apply to undocumented aliens apprehended at or near the border soon after unlawfully entering the United States. Different from formal removals, expedited removals are streamlined—generally there is no hearing, no administrative appeal, and no judicial review before an expedited removal order is executed. Applying the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Mendoza-Lopez, we conclude that § 1225(b)(1)(D) is unconstitutional because it deprives a defendant like Gonzalez-Fierro of due process; that is, § 1225(b)(1)(D) allows the Government to use an unreviewed expedited removal order to convict a defendant of the § 1326(a) offense of unlawfully re- entering the United States after a prior removal.

Unconstrained by § 1225(b)(1)(D), we review here Gonzalez-Fierro’s 2009 expedited removal order. Doing so, we conclude that he has failed to establish that that removal was fundamentally unfair. On that basis, having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM Gonzalez-Fierro’s § 1326(a) conviction.

KEY QUOTE FROM CHIEF JUDGE TYMKOVICH’S CONCURRING OPINION:

I agree with the majority’s determination that Mr. Gonzalez-Fierro’s 2009 expedited-removal order was not fundamentally unfair under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(d)(3). Nevertheless, I do not believe we possess jurisdiction to reach that question.

I would AFFIRM the judgment of the district court that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the prior removal order.

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

I think there are lots of Constitutional problems with “expedited removal.” I’m not sure, however, that this decision will have much immediate impact because:

It’s only one Circuit and a “low immigration volume Circuit” at that;
It’s a “split opinion;”
It’s in the criminal, rather than the civil removal, context;
The court does its own judicial review of the expedited removal order and finds it to be fundamentally fair in this particular case.

On the other hand, and notwithstanding Chief Judge Tymkovich’s concurring opinion, the facial lack of Due Process in the essentially un-reviewable “expedited removal” process seems quite evident.

So, hopefully advocates can eventually leverage this into an overall determination that there must be meaningful judicial review of expedited removal. This is particularly important because the Administration’s attempt to expand expedited removal to its maximum statutory scope is currently “on hold” pending further judicial review.

We’ll just have to wait and see how this plays out.

PWS

02-05-20

COURTSIDE HAS BEEN SAYING IT FOR YEARS: For Survival As A Nation, We Need To Keep All The Law Abiding (95+%) Legal & Undocumented Immigrants Already Here, PLUS Enact A Robust Increase In Legal Immigration In All Categories & Allow Many More Legally Admitted Refugees & Asylees — Unless & Until Congress Works Up The Courage (E.G., “Balls”) To Do This, Even Over The Objection Of The White Nationalist Racist Restrictionists, Large Scale “Civil” Immigration Enforcement Is A Beyond Stupid, Highly Unprofessional, Cruel Hoax — An Abuse Of Authority, & A Grotesque Waste Of Taxpayer Resources That Makes America Infinitely Worse As A Nation — FINALLY, THE SO-CALLED “MAINSTREAM MEDIA” IS STARTING TO “GET IT!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ice-sweeps-are-cruel-without-immigration-reform-theyre-pointless-too/2019/08/11/88d212b8-bad4-11e9-bad6-609f75bfd97f_story.html

From the WashPost Editorial Board:

By Editorial Board

August 11

THE DEPORTATION sweep Wednesday by hundreds of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at several food processing plants in Mississippi left a trail of tears, business jitters and widespread anxiety in places where undocumented immigrants are so tightly woven into communities that the towns would struggle to exist without them. The raids inflicted predictable suffering — especially among children whose parents were suddenly carted off — to such a degree that just 24 hours afterward, ICE had released some 300 of the 680 migrants it had arrested, including those who had no criminal records.

President Trump, whose own family business has for many years employed migrants who entered the country illegally , pronounced the Mississippi action a “very good deterrent ” to unauthorized immigration. The evidence for that assertion is nil. Still, the sweep provided some useful reminders, not least that the United States cannot deport its way out of a dysfunctional immigration system.

First, the raids underline American agriculture’s deep dependency on undocumented workers, who in 2014 accounted for 17 percent of employees in the sector — and considerably more than that on farms and in many food processing plants. Little wonder that plant managers and local residents in towns targeted by ICE last week worried that the raids would sap their businesses and vitality.

The fact is that relatively few Americans want dirty, dangerous jobs that pay $12 per hour, while requiring some employees to report to work at 3 a.m. One study commissioned by the dairy industry suggested 3,500 dairy farms would close if half the country’s foreign-born workers were deported; another survey, from North Carolina, showed that in 2011, a minuscule number of the state’s nearly half-million jobless workers applied for 6,500 available farm jobs, and most of those who were hired couldn’t hack the work; most of the jobs were then filled by Mexicans.

Second, any large-scale enforcement action will inevitably result in families being broken apart — including those whose children are U.S. citizens. In 2017, two-thirds of unauthorized adult migrants had lived in the United States for more than a decade, according to the Pew Research Center; their median duration of residence was 15 years. Officials may not like the optics of crying toddlers and preteens whose parents have been taken away, but they shouldn’t be surprised.

Third, businesses like the ones in Mississippi that employ undocumented workers are subject to federal prosecution. But it was Republican leaders in the House of Representatives last year, on Mr. Trump’s watch, who blocked legislation that would have required private employers to use E-Verify, a data system used to check whether employees are legally present in the country. Farm groups, including those who represent major employers in Republican districts in California and elsewhere, are dead set against requiring E-Verify, knowing it would produce severe labor shortages.

ICE officials and federal prosecutors are right that deportation sweeps are within their purview as lawful enforcement actions. The problem is that the law is so blatantly misaligned with economic, social and political realities that it is magical thinking to believe that enforcement alone, in the absence of sweeping reform of existing laws, can make a dent in the nation’s population of 10.5 million undocumented immigrants.

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

Best Point: Immigrants at the “lower levels” of our economic ladder make just as much, probably more, contribution to the national prosperity, continued existence, and welfare as those at the top. And, certainly they do more for the good of the nation than Trump and the useless civil enforcement authorities at DHS.

While I’m not going to turn away a “rocket scientist” who wants to immigrate, we certainly need more qualified agricultural, home health care, and construction workers than “rocket scientists.” And, yes, logical choices to enforce and administer the law in a rational manner, including declining to enforce useless and counterproductive provisions, and to resist political pandering stemming from racist motives are well within the lawful discretion of all law enforcement agencies.

Quibble: Just because enforcement is technically “lawful” does not mean that it’s prudent or appropriate. Most of today’s civil immigration enforcement is immoral, wasteful, and corruptly intended to support racism and White Nationalism.

I suspect that the majority of the criminal statutes and ordinances now on the books in the U.S. are largely unenforced or only sporadically enforced. That’s good policing, good public policy, and poor legislating.

What if your local police devoted 100% of their resources to “busting” anyone who drove 1 mile over the speed limit while failing to investigate and prosecute homicide, rape, robbery, and other violent felonies? That’s technically “legal,” but both inane and fundamentally corrupt. Those responsible would likely be quickly removed from office.

And, let’s be clear: While DHS resources are being concentrated on White Nationalist nonsense like the “Mississippi Raids,” REAL CRIMES, such as fraud, wage and hour violations, abuse of migrants, hate crimes directed at migrants, human trafficking, drug trafficking, domestic violence, rape, bribery, soliciting of sexual favors by DHS agents, extortion, perjury, tax evasion, and other felonies are NOT being aggressively investigated or prosecuted by Trump’s White Nationalist regime.

That’s basically the way the immigration laws are being (mal)enforced in Trump’s name by folks like McAleenan, Albence, Morgan, Provost, and others. Don’t fall for their nonsensical apologist “we’re only enforcing the law” BS. (Also, what about the laws protecting refugees, asylum seekers, and encouraging legal immigration that these complicit clowns are unlawfully perverting or failing to enforce?)

Instead, vote to insure they and everyone associated with Trump are removed from office, required to make an honest living in the future, and replaced with competent, humane, and ethical folks who will resist and when necessary “out” racism and White Nationalism in all of its toxic forms. Just because enforcement of obsolete, unworkable, and discriminatory laws might be technically “legal” doesn’t make it right, sensible, or moral. And, in the case of the Trump Administration, it’s downright immoral, dishonest, and counterproductive.

PWS

08-12-19

PROFESSOR FITZ BRUNDAGE @ WASHPOST: Can We Regain Our Humanitarian Values In The Age Of Trump? — “We must shine a spotlight on cruel and illegal policies that undermine our national ideals and find the wisdom and the courage to do better.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/05/03/can-united-states-retain-its-humanity-even-crisis

Brundage writes in WashPost:

By Fitz Brundage

Fitz Brundage is the William B. Umstead professor of history at UNC-Chapel Hill and the author of “Civilizing Torture,” which was a finalist for the 2019 Pulitzer Prize in History.

May 3

Does it violate human rights to hold children in fenced enclosures in grim facilities that are bone-chillingly cold for weeks on end? Is separating children from their parents a form of cruel and unusual punishment? When does a crisis justify the kind of treatment normally seen as inhumane?

The furious debate over migrant detention along the nation’s southwest border with Mexico has put these questions front and center in American politics. But they’re not new. The treatment of people on the margins of American life — criminals, immigrants, civilians in overseas war zones — has always proven a challenge to our democratic ideals.

Yet beginning in the 1920s, activists waged a half-century-long struggle to persuade the Supreme Court to stop abusive practices by authorities. After World War II, the United States also committed itself to the promotion of international human rights. These two signal developments have been seriously eroded, first by the excesses of the war on terrorism and now by the Trump administration’s targeting of the unwelcome and powerless, whether they are undocumented immigrants in the United States or asylum seekers. We have returned to a pattern of willful ignorance, one that allows us to avoid grappling with deeply immoral policies.

Threats to our safety, perceived or real, have long justified the kind of “tougher policies” that President Trump has demanded for the southern border. He may not be well versed in history, but the president is joining a long line of elected officials who found that rights and basic norms are easily jettisoned when they collide with demands for greater security. Across our history, from the Indian wars to the war on terrorism, officials were quick to call for “tougher policies” and slow to fill in the details. In 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt ordered military commanders in the Philippines to adopt “the most stern measures” to punish Filipino guerrillas; in a subsequent campaign the Marines followed orders and left a trail of devastation and death across the island of Samar. But such methods were justified as a “military necessity.”

Roosevelt rationalized the brutal treatment of alleged guerrillas by citing the need to stanch the threat to security. This kind of evasive language has repeatedly prevented us from coming to terms with acts of cruelty carried out in the name of national security. We’re seeing that pattern again.

What precisely did Trump officials mean when they announced “a tougher direction” for immigration? They certainly imply more than just the proposals for new fees and regulations reducing the numbers of asylum seekers. Are the American people ready to confront the reality of harsh security measures? Or will we retreat into euphemisms such as a “hardened” border and “zero tolerance” for migrants that covers up the reality of what is actually happening on the border?

As early as 2014, immigrants-rights advocates appealed to the Department of Homeland Security to investigate more than 100 instances of Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents abusing child immigrants. A quarter of the children reported physical abuse, including sexual assault, the use of stress positions and beatings. Many more suffered verbal abuse, including death threats. Since then, goaded by Trump, CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have applied even more extreme measures, including harsh confinement and prolonged separation of families.

We are deciding day by day whether to extend the basic protections of law and civilization to the people arriving on our border. For much of the nation’s history, the prohibition on cruelty and torture in American law rested on the premise that the fundamental decency of Americans, especially empathy for fellow citizens, would make such violations unthinkable.

But our capacity to empathize begins to fray at the margins, and we grow less certain about who, exactly, deserves protection. Those deemed undeserving, unwelcome or powerless — Native Americans, the enslaved, prison inmates and criminal suspects — have commonly suffered forms of violence and abuse that violated our national principles. Some people are inside the protection of the law, and some are cast out from it.

We’re seeing a replay of that ugly history unfold along our southern border. If the Trump administration codifies its get-tough rhetoric into harsher policies, we will see far more allegations of human rights abuses against the men and women charged with securing our border. And we probably will rationalize it by claiming that those responsible are just a few bad apples rather than reckoning with the ways cruelty has been embedded in the policy itself. Like the euphemistic language of security, this choice allows us to avoid uncomfortable questions about our moral values.

In fact, we’ve already seen this pattern. Accusations of cruelty and torture by ICE and CBP agents have been circulating for years, and they follow this well-worn pattern. Official denials are followed by investigations that almost always find limited violations by “a few bad apples,” not the kind of systemic abuse that would call our broader policies into question.

This pattern has long historical roots: When investigations of police brutality in Washington during the 1930s revealed widespread use of abusive interrogation methods, the police superintendent, whose predecessors had dismissed similar allegations for decades, only grudgingly conceded that a few officers may have gone too far in their resolve to protect the public.

By seeing violations of human rights as rare exceptions, unfortunate lapses that don’t challenge our fundamental sense of decency, Americans can avoid any real reckoning with the policies we’ve approved — which often violate our purported values. Very few of the officers and soldiers responsible for the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam in 1968 and none of the architects of the George W. Bush administration’s “enhanced interrogation” policies have faced legal consequences. Even Jon Burge, a notorious ringleader of lawless police in Chicago during the 1970s and 1980s, was convicted of perjury for lying to police investigators rather than torturing countless suspects.

Focusing on bad apples has long allowed us to excuse morally bankrupt policies. We need to realize that human rights abuses on the southern border aren’t spurred by immoral actors in ICE or CBP, but rather because of a political leadership that can’t or won’t come up with humane immigration policies.

Congress needs to do its job and exercise scrupulous oversight of Trump’s immigration policies. But the real solution to our border crisis is to demand that all elected officials, from local sheriffs to senators, responsibly address immigration and human rights. Trump declared that he wants immigration to be a key campaign issue in 2020. His opponents should accept that challenge. We must shine a spotlight on cruel and illegal policies that undermine our national ideals and find the wisdom and the courage to do better.

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

Join the New Due Process Army today and fight for human rights, the rule of law, accountability for Government scofflaws, and a return to basic human decency! Fight for a better future for ALL Americans!

PWS

05-07-19

🤡U.S. CLOWN COURT: Where Justice & Logic Are A Bad Joke, & Those We Should Be Welcoming Are Instead Shown The Door!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/my-immigrant-client-won-a-judges-compassion-ice-still-dumped-him-on-the-border/2019/01/24/7802a800-1e9c-11e9-8b59-0a28f2191131_story.html

Attorney Marty Rosenbluth writes in the Washington Post Sunday Outlook Section:

Attorney ’s client made a passionate case to the judge about our unjust system

This month, I went to court with José. He came to the United States without papers from Mexico when he was 15, in 1999. Now he has a wife, three kids and a job in construction in Raleigh, N.C. It all came apart when police pulled him over and arrested him for driving without a license. He soon landed in the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Ga. He fought his deportation case alone for several months before his family finally called my law firm.

We first told him we couldn’t take his case because he had no chance of winning, so ethically we couldn’t take his money. Most people in deportation proceedings have few if any options to stay in the United States through the immigration courts. I urged him to take voluntary departure, which enables people to leave the country without getting a deportation order on their records, so it is easier to come back legally in the future. But he told me he was certain that, if he could just tell the court his story, the judge would see that letting him stay was right and just and fair. I told him that our immigration system had many rules and laws, but little or no justice.

In truth, I think José knew he had no chance, and he knew he’d have to leave. But he didn’t want to leave quietly. We agreed that I would accompany him — I wouldn’t say “help,” because he could have realized his plan without me, and I didn’t charge a penny — but he would address the judge directly. One of the most important things I do as an attorney is to just be present. Since the immigration laws are so defective, and the judges often play by their own rules (routine bond requests are usually denied, and this Georgia court has one of the lowest approval rates for asylum cases in the country), and the detention/deportation centers are designed to break people’s spirits, often there is not much else that can be done. Based on what transpired, I’m glad I went.

[Civil servants said separating families was illegal. The administration ignored us.]

José’s whole family came to support him — his wife and his kids and a friend. When we sat down at the bench, I told the judge that José would be speaking for himself. In immigration courts, migrants usually just answer questions, so the judge asked me if I was requesting to withdraw. I said I wasn’t: I was staying at the table, but José was going to do all the talking. And the judge, to his credit, heard him out.

The judge explained the law and what José would have to prove in order to win. Before hiring us, José had submitted an application, on his own, for “cancellation of removal.” There are four elements: He had to prove that he had been living here for more than 10 years, that he was a person of good moral character and that he hadn’t broken any laws that would bar him under the statutes from applying. José could show all of these things. But the fourth criterion is the hardest. José would have to prove that if he were deported, it would cause an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a spouse, parent or child who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Usually it means you have a child with cancer, or a spouse with a disability that makes them unable to work or support a family — something on that scale. If you can convince the court merely that your family would be made homeless or that your children would subsist on food stamps, that is not considered sufficient. That is just the usual hardship that deportees’ families experience.

Without missing a beat, José said to the judge, “I have the first three, your honor, but I do not have the fourth.” Turning around to look at his family, with obvious pride, he told the judge: “This is my family. These are my children. Everything I do, I do for them. But thankfully they are all healthy, which for the moment seems for some reason to be bad.” Truly, logic has no place in immigration court.

[I crossed the border seeking safety. Instead, they took my daughter away.]

The judge said that, based on this testimony, he would have to deny his application for cancellation of removal. Still, the judge offered José voluntary departure and explained, as I had, that it would make it easier for him to return.

I had met with José’s wife, Maria, too, and explained “VD,” which is a safer option than exiting the nation through the usual deportation machinery. People who are deported to Mexico from Stewart and many other detention centers are just dumped on the border, where gangs await them. (People deported to other countries are flown.) They are often robbed, kidnapped, raped or killed. Those who take VD, on the other hand, don’t get to leave jail, but they fly back on a regular commercial flight.

The problem with voluntary departure, though, is the cost: You have to buy your own fare, and it is very expensive, currently around $1,250. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will accept only a “Y” class ticket, or a full-cost coach fare, which can often cost more than first class. José thanked the judge and declined. “The tickets cost a lot of money, and my family will need the money after I leave.”

[My family immigrated here legally. I used to think that made us special.]

Maria interjected, crying. “Take the voluntary,” she said. “Take the voluntary!” My client began crying, too, followed by his kids.

I decided to take a chance. I asked the judge if José could talk to his wife over the barrier. Any direct communication and especially physical contact is strictly forbidden in this courtroom. To my surprise, he agreed. So Maria came forward, and she and José started hugging and kissing and crying. The bailiff moved to intervene, but I just shook my head and mouthed the word “Please.”

The couple talked for a few minutes, and then José sat back down and offered that he would take voluntary departure. But he’d gotten to hug his 6-, 8- and 12-year-old children across the barrier. Imagine that. Humanity in what passes for a court. This is not usually how immigration cases go. The judge gave José 30 days to buy his ticket before he would lose the “privilege” of taking VD.

In the end, José sat there smiling. And proud. He was still smiling as his family left the courtroom. And smiling when he gave me a hug. He’d known all along he wouldn’t win, but he wanted to be able to call out the injustice. And the judge, who has low rates of approval for just about anything, heard him out. (Only 31 of 347 judges denied asylum claims at a higher rate, according to the Transitional Records Access Clearinghouse.) It wasn’t a victory, exactly. José wouldn’t be staying with his family. But speaking a truth, to a hostile power, is still a kind of achievement.

[Trump’s attack on asylum is based entirely on false claims]

But it was a discordant one for such a ruthless corner of the law. And eventually the logic of our immigration system superseded his brave act.

This past week, according to a friend of his who called me to share the news, ICE came to his cell early one morning and said it would fly him to Mexico City; he wouldn’t even have to pay for his ticket. Then, that afternoon, officials came and handcuffed him, brought him to a room to wait with other detainees for several hours and deposited him on a bus. Not to the airport, as they had promised. They drove him to the border and dumped him out in Matamoros. I am looking into his legal options, because apparently no act of courage goes unpunished.

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

Thanks Marty, for giving us insight into the “parody of justice” that goes on daily in our Immigration Courts at the direction of a Department of “Justice” that long ago lost both its way and purpose and must be wrested from control of a major dysfunctional court system that it is so ethically and functionally unable to administer in anything approaching a fair and efficient manner.

I give the Immigration Judge credit for taking time to listen and allowing Jose to speak in court. In the toxic age of Trump, Sessions, Whitaker, and likely also Barr, Immigration Judges are pressured to prejudge cases and cut corners by denying claims without listening to the evidence to keep up with artificial “deportation quotas” imposed by Sessions and to keep up “productivity” which has replaced “guaranteeing fairness and Due Process” as the mantra of today’s “Clown Courts.”

On the other hand, there are alternatives available. The BIA precedents on what constitutes “exceptional and extremely hardship” are intentionally vague and subject to interpretation. How do I know? They were issued while I was serving as BIA Chair (one over my dissent).

They were supposed to be part of a group of cases, sometimes knows as the “basket of pain,” defining the term in a number of different contexts. But, after Ashcroft’s “Saturday Night Massacre” at the BIA “took out” those judges, including me, who sometimes ruled in favor of respondent’s positions, the project was abandoned. My remaining colleagues were afraid that ruling on anything so controversial, and particularly granting anything to a respondent, could be “career threatening,” probably with good reason. So, Immigration Judges were left to their own devices. Many of the BIA panels on the other hand, took a pretty hard line, all, of course, in unpublished decisions.

Coming to the Arlington Immigration Court from the BIA, I actually underwent some “culture shock.” In an early cancellation case, I was thinking that the respondents, although great folks who were doing good things for America and their citizen family, probably wouldn’t “make the cut” under the standards that my last BIA panel had been applying. But, when the Assistant Chief Counsel got up to make a closing, after I had given respondents’ counsel a rather “hard time,” I was surprised to hear an impassioned, well-reasoned, and well-supported plea joining counsel’s request for a finding of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” and granting the case. “It’s Recinas, not Andazola,” as we came to say in Arlington, after the names of the BIA precedents that appeared to reach conflicting conclusions.

Some Immigration Judges would have found that deprivation of the support of the “primary breadwinner” is “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” and granted Jose cancellation of removal. And, some ICE Assistant Chief Counsel would have waived appeal. Just shows what a “crapshoot” justice has become in the Immigration Courts.

BS (“Before Sessions”) at the Arlington Immigration Court, the Assistant Chief Counsel would probably have offered “prosecutorial discretion” or “PD” to Jose. And, I would have encouraged Marty to take that offer and “live to fight another day.” I would have given Jose and his family my “bad things will happen if you screw up again in any way speech,'” “administratively closed” the case, and taken it off my docket. The court and both counsel would have saved time and Jose and his family could have gone on living their lives and contributing to America pending good behavior and an eventual legalization program by Congress.

Not a perfect solution to be sure. But, a fundamentally just one that allowed me, ICE, and the private bar to move on and deal with other higher priority cases that really needed my judicial attention.

Trump, Sessions, Nielsen and their White Nationalist Gang have stripped the Immigration Courts of whatever little sense of justice and judicial control remained. They intentionally have turned a struggling system into a totally dysfunctional and fundamentally unjust and unconstitutional one.

We can only hope that at some point the Article III Courts will have seen enough and will put this totally bankrupt system into “receivership;” or that some future Congress and a more competent and honest Administration will create an independent Immigration Court focused, as it should be, on fairness and Due Process. Until then, justice and logic will continue to be a bad joke in the “U.S. Clown Courts.” 🤡

PWS

01-28-19

US DISTRICT JUDGE BRINKEMA CRITICIZES INCREASE IN LOW-LEVEL IMMIGRATION PROSECUTIONS: “I think this is not the best use of judicial or Justice Department resources to keep seeing these types of cases.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/federal-judge-criticizes-prosecutors-over-increase-in-illegal-immigration-cases/2019/01/10/98d4692e-103c-11e9-84fc-d58c33d6c8c7_story.html

Rachel Weiner and John D. Harden report for WashPost:

Federal judge criticizes prosecutors over increase in immigration cases

By Rachel Weiner and

John D. Harden

January 10 at 12:47 PM

A federal judge has spoken out against a sharp increase in Northern Virginia in the prosecution of immigrants who reenter the country after deportation.

“I hope this is not the start of a pattern for this year,” Judge Leonie M. Brinkema said in Alexandria federal court last week, noting that there were six such cases scheduled for the first Friday in January. “I think this is not the best use of judicial or Justice Department resources to keep seeing these types of cases.”

She added that she would like that message to be relayed to U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia G. Zachary Terwilliger.

The defendant before her that morning, Ramon Adrian Ochoa Paz, ended up in federal court after serving time in Prince William County for aggravated sexual battery of a child, a felony. But in federal court, his only alleged crime was coming back into the country after being deported in 2000. And he is something of an outlier; in the majority of the 224 felony reentry after deportation cases filed in the Eastern District last year, the initial arrest involved misdemeanor offenses, most commonly drunken driving. Arrests for misdemeanor assault and public intoxication are also common.

Former attorney general Jeff Sessions made immigration cases a national priority, and the U.S. attorney’s office in Alexandria is one of many that responded to the call. U.S. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted in his 2018 reviewthat there was a 40 percent increase nationally in defendants charged with illegal reentry last year. After drug crimes, immigration offenses are the most common federal charge, and most are illegal re-entries.

The vast majority of these cases are prosecuted at the border, where immigrants are caught crossing illegally. The Eastern District of Virginia ranked sixth among non-border districts in illegal reentry prosecutions last fiscal year.

The federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

The Eastern District of Virginia, a large and high-profile office led by a prosecutor who worked under Sessions, has seen a particularly sharp rise in such cases, from 78 filed in 2017 to nearly three times that number the following year.

The numbers were as high or higher under President Barack Obama through the end of 2014, when the White House took unilateral action to change national deportation priorities. After that move they dropped sharply in Alexandria, along with several other districts across the country.

Terwilliger declined to comment, but in recent months he has begun highlighting cases in which defendants have repeatedly come into the country illegally and committed other crimes while here. They included a Salvadoran man arrested for his fifth drunken driving offense who already had a felony reentry conviction and a Mexican man with a sexual assault and drug record who had previously been deported.

“We are committed to criminal immigration enforcement and will continue to prioritize these cases,” the U.S. attorney wrote in one such news release.

Terwilliger has simultaneously emphasized his support for legal immigration, regularly taking part in the Alexandria courthouse’s monthly naturalization ceremonies. In his first-ever tweet, he wrote, “These individuals exemplify that we are both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws.”

U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia G. Zachary Terwilliger. (Department of Justice)

Most illegal immigrants convicted of coming back into the country after deportation do not have previous felony or extensive misdemeanor records and are usually not sentenced to any incarceration beyond time already served awaiting judgment before they are handed over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to federal court records. The average sentence in fiscal 2018 for those who did get prison time was five months, according to data from Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse — on the low end nationally and a decline from previous years.

In many cases the initial charges are dropped or left hanging because the defendant is already in ICE custody. When the initial crime is more serious, a defendant is more likely to be prosecuted on federal charges after completing a local sentence.

Although the Salvadoran gang MS-13 is a serious problem in Northern Virginia and many of the illegal immigrants are from that country, only four of the 224 defendants prosecuted last year on a reentry charge have been alleged in public court filings to have ties to the gang.

Only a few of those prosecuted were not arrested for any reason other than returning to the country after deportation — for example, a contractor hired to work on a house where FBI agents were serving a search warrant.

Often, defense attorneys in these cases ask to skip as much of the standard court process as possible, hoping to move a case quickly to sentencing. Illegal immigrants rarely have the funds to hire attorneys; most of these cases are handled by taxpayer-funded public defenders.

“The court, prosecutors, and defense lawyers spend considerable time and resources, particularly to hire interpreters, on illegal reentry cases. Yet these defendants almost all face, in addition to prosecution, detention in ICE custody and deportation,” Geremy Kamens, lead public defender for the Eastern District said in a statement. “Particularly for defendants who have little or no criminal record, ICE detention and removal already amount to a significant punishment.”

Brinkema has challenged the Trump administration’s immigration policies before. She issued a preliminary injunction against the White House’s travel ban on seven majority-Muslim countries in 2017, saying there was “unrebutted evidence” that the order was motivated by “religious prejudice.”

But in immigration cases involving a pattern of bad conduct, she has not shied away from imposing relatively long sentences.

Giving one man with a history of domestic violence and drunken driving a 14-month sentence for recrossing the border illegally, she told him, “You’re a menace when you’re in this country.”

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

Under Trump, Sessions, and now Whitaker, the DOJ is no stranger to promoting prosecutorial abuses. Just think of the unconscionable clogging of US District Courts along the border with minor offenders as part of Sessions’s ill-fated “zero tolerance” policy; the Government’s frivolous anti-sanctuary litigation which they have lost everywhere; the abusive “re-calendaring” of previously properly closed “low priority” removal cases on already overwhelmed Immigration Court dockets; and the illegal and unethical use of “AG certification” to rewrite portions of immigration law that weren’t broken in the first place.

On the flip side, the individual actually involved in this particular case sounds (from the facts presented here) like a “bad actor” who would be an enforcement priority in any Administration. I also appreciate U.S. Attorney’s Terwilliger’s public support of naturalization and legal immigration, something which puts him at odds with some other Administration officials and Trump himself who keeps parroting the nativist “we need cuts to legal immigration” party line.

At least Judge Brinkema gets to speak her mind. By contrast,”captive” U.S. Immigration Judges controlled by the DOJ are “muzzled” when it comes to commenting on the politicized mess that this Administration is causing in the Immigration Courts through “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” political meddling with the law by biased Attorneys General, and a total lack of discipline or discernible priorities at DHS Enforcement.

Assuming that the Immigration Courts eventually reopen their doors for non-detained cases (the vast, vast majority of the docket), the additional mess and chaos created in an already dysfunctional and mismanaged system though Trump’s mindless and unnecessary shutdown is likely to be irreparable.

PWS

01-10-19

PROFESSOR KAREN MUSALO: Persecution Of Women In El Salvador On The Basis Of Gender Is Real & Endemic – The Administration’s Attempts To Skew The Law Against Women Refugees Is Totally Dishonest, Immoral, & Illegal!

https://cgrs.uchastings.edu/sites/default/files/Musalo_El%20Salvador_A%20Peace%20Worse%20Than%20War_30%20Yale%20J.L.%20&%20Fem.%203_20018.pdf

Here’s part of the conclusion of Karen’s article “EL SALVADOR–A PEACE WORSE THAN WAR: VIOLENCE, GENDER AND A FAILED LEGAL RESPONSE” published at 30 Yale Journal of Law & Feminism 3 (2018):

Historical and contemporary factors have given rise to the extremely high levels of violence that persist in El Salvador today. Many of the Salvadorans interviewed for this article referred to a “culture of violence” going back to the brutal Spanish Conquest and continuing into more recent history, including the 1932 Matanza and the atrocities of the country’s 12-year civil war. Gender violence exists within this broader context. However, as almost every Salvadoran source noted, violence against women is even more deeply rooted than other expressions of societal violence as the result of patriarchal norms that tolerate and affirm the most extreme forms of domination and abuse of women.

. . . .

Levels of violence, including the killings of women, have continued to rise, while impunity has remained a constant. Criticism of the persistent impunity for gender violence resulted in El Salvador’s most recent legal development: the enactment of Decree 286, which created specialized courts. However, the exclusion of the most commonly committed gender crimes–intrafamilial violence and sexual violence–from the specialized courts’ jurisdiction, and the courts’ hybrid structure, which requires that cases still be initiated in the peace courts, do not inspire optimism for positive outcomes.

Notwithstanding these considerable obstacles, the Salvadorans interviewed for this article, who have long struggled for access to justice and gender equality, maintain the hope and the belief that change is possible. In the course of multiple interviews over a six-year period (2010 to 2016), Salvadoran sources have expressed deep frustration and disappointment but have not articulated resignation or defeat.

. . . .

The Salvadorans who I interviewed for this article have provided information, insights, and perspectives that are simply not available in written reports or studies. Although they come from a range of backgrounds–governmental and non-governmental; legal professionals as well as grassroots activists–they all acknowledge the complex causes of societal violence. As discussed throughout this article, they also have specific critiques and prescriptions for what must be done in order to see any real progress. Discussions of the country’s crisis, as well as of the international community’s response, must start by listening to the voices of the Salvadorans who, despite the seemingly intractable situation of violence and impunity in which they live, have refused to abandon the struggle for justice and equality. They are inspiring in their courage and resilience. By quoting extensively from these sources, this article has sought to amplify their voices.

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

Read Karen’s complete article at the above link.

Compare real scholarship and honest reflection of the experiences of women in El Salvador affected by this seemingly unending wave of persecution with the intentionally bogus picture painted by Jeff Sessions in Matter of A-B-. Hopefully, advocates will be able to use the research and expertise of Karen and others like her to enlighten fair-minded Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges, support their efforts to grant women the protection they merit as contemplated by the Refugee Act and the Convention Against Torture, and force the Article III Courts and eventually Congress to consign Sessions’s intentionally perverted reasoning to the dustbin of “Jim Crow Misogynist History” where it belongs.

Many thanks to my good friend and colleague in “Our Gang,” Judge Jeffrey Chase, for passing this link to Karen’s important scholarship along.

Due Process For All Forever!

PWS

12-31-18

FROM THE ASHES OF CHAOS, GOOD GOVERNMENT REARS ITS HEAD! — Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Bipartisan Criminal Justice Reform Bill Supported By Trump! — But, Time’s Philip Elliott Reminds Us That “It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over!”

POLITICS
The Senate Just Passed a Major Criminal Justice Bill. But the Fight’s Not Over Yet

The US Capitol is seen in Washington, DC on Dec. 17, 2018. Saul Loeb—AFP/Getty Images
PHILIP ELLIOTT @PHILIP_ELLIOTT
December 19th, 2018
In a surprise end-of-the-year move, the Senate late Tuesday passed a sweeping and bipartisan rewrite of the nation’s criminal code with 87 votes in favor of the most ambitious changes in a generation.

Despite the headline-grabbing action, skeptics warned that there are still plenty of ways this can be derailed, especially as Congress is trying to pass a basic measure to keep the government’s doors open before a Friday deadline. The House still needs to accept changes made by the Senate, and President Donald Trump will need to sign it.

But, at least for the moment late Wednesday, a bill that would help low-risk offenders caught up in a sentencing matrix of mandatory minimums seems headed to becoming a law.

Outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan immediately tweeted that he looked forward to helping send the bill to the President for his signature. According to one GOP aide, the House would begin considering the bill on the floor Thursday, although the schedule is fluid. Earlier this year, the House passed a version of this law by a bipartisan 360-59 vote.

And, at the White House, officials said Trump was on-board with a topic championed by West Wing senior adviser Jared Kushner. “I look forward to signing this into law!” the President tweeted in a sign that, maybe, this would be an easy win for advocates of criminal justice reform.

Critics on both sides of the aisle seemed to temper their criticism of the bill for the moment. As passed, the legislation falls short of the ambitious goals outlined for both parties and still leaves behind thousands of inmates. The bill does not address state or local laws, meaning tens of thousands of inmates would not benefit from the changes made at the federal levels. Even so, Congress’ internal think tank estimated that some 53,000 inmates would be affected over the next 10 years out of a federal population of 181,000.

“We’re not just talking about money,” said Sen. John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who is in his final weeks as the No. 2 member of his party in the Senate. “We’re talking about human potential. We’re investing in the men and women who want to turn their lives around once they’re released from prison, and we’re investing in so doing in stronger and more viable communities, and we’re investing tax dollars into a system that helps produce stronger citizens.”

Officially called The First Steps Act, the measure provides anti-recidivism programing for those currently incarcerated, job training and rehabilitation programs for federal prisoners. It also provides an early-release provision for non-violent offenders and removes a disparity between power cocaine and crack, a distinction that is widely seen as racially motivated.

Still, there are landmines ahead. For instance, if Congress votes to aid convicts but not to fund border security, conservative critics will pounce. And liberal groups, who sought more from this measure, will criticize the effort for not doing more to address sentencing laws they see as racist. With many departing members counting their time in Washington in hours and not weeks, the tenuous agreement is largely seen as in peril at best. On top of all of this, many of the lawmakers casting votes were shown the door in November’s elections, a typical criticism of such lame-duck sessions.

These worries did little to mute the enthusiasm seen on the Senate floor Tuesday night. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, was ending his turn as Judiciary Committee chairman on a high note, sporting a red sweater as the vote proceeded. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., was seen enthusiastically shaking hands with and hugging Republican colleagues. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who was personally lukewarm at best on the proposal, cracked a smile as he voted for the measure. Earlier, he was coy about whether he would vote in favor of the measure.

Addressing the criminal justice system has become an unlikely bipartisan meeting of interests. Conservatives see the ballooning federal prison population as an unacceptable cost. Liberals see it as the manifestation of social and racial injustice. Groups with divergent ideological views, such as the conservative network of organizations funded by Charles Koch and the liberal Centers for American Progress, found common ground on this topic.

McConnell agreed to a series of changes in recent days but rejected others. On the floor late Tuesday, lawmakers rejected a series of last-minute additions that were seen as ways to derail the whole package. Their chief authors, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and John Kennedy of Louisiana, watched as the so-called poison-pill amendments were rejected.

If the vote late Tuesday was a sign, it appears the coming two years in Washington under a divided government might not be a complete logjam. McConnell relented to allow a vote and, at least for now, progressive lawmakers did not allow themselves to be derailed in pursuit of the perfect at the cost of the good. Republicans dropped their tough-on-crime rhetoric and Democrats dropped their social-justice arguments. And, at least on Twitter, Trump seemed to break with his all-or-nothing approach to criminals in order to notch a win.

With reporting by Alana Abramson in Washington

Tags

# CONGRESS# CRIMINAL JUSTICE# JUSTICE

Sent from my iPad

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

How do we know this legislation is good for America? It was opposed by Jim Crow White Nationalists Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK). Just shows that if you can keep guys like that out of the way of progress, some good things actually could get done. Doesn’t mean they will; just shows the potential.

Just think of the potential if Trump fired neo-Nazi immigration adviser Stephen “Hairboy” Miller and got some practical, informed, non-racist advice on immigration policy! Unfortunately for America and the world (and, perhaps for Trump too) Miller is one of the few non-Trump-Family “survivors” in the West Wing.

PWS

12-19-19

THE GUARDIAN: THE UGLY TRUTH ABOUT “ZERO TOLERANCE:” “3,121 desperate journeys: Exposing a week of chaos under Trump’s zero tolerance”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2018/oct/14/donald-trump-zero-tolerance-policy-special-investigation-immigrant-journeys?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

BY Olivia Solon , Julia Carrie Wong , Pamela Duncan , Margaret Katcher , Patrick Timmons , and Sam Morris

On 6 April 2018, the US attorney general, Jeff Sessions, issued a memoto federal prosecutors along the US-Mexico border directing them “to adopt immediately a zero-tolerance policy” for violations of a federal law barring “improper entry” into the country. “You are on the front lines of this battle,” Sessions wrote, as if rallying his troops against an invading army.

Over the next six weeks, the collateral damage of the Trump administration’s policy was revealed: some 2,654 children were taken from their parents or guardians in order to fulfill the mandate that they be prosecuted for a criminal misdemeanor. As of 27 September, 219 children whose parents had already been deported remained in government custody.

Zero tolerance pushed serious fraud, drugs and weapons trafficking offences out of the courtroom to make way for the flood of people whose only crime was crossing the border. Between March and June, federal prosecutions referred by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the five districts along the south-west border rose by 74%, from 6,368 to 11,086.

I don’t think this is really about justice anymore Cesar Pierce, defense attorney

Today the Guardian publishes analysis of documents from more than 3,500 criminal cases filed by border district federal prosecutors during a single week of the zero tolerance policy: 13-19 May.

The three-month investigation, the most comprehensive analysis to date of the experiences of thousands of migrants entering the US during that period, shows how:

Zero tolerance churned thousands of migrants through an assembly-line justice system with copy-and-paste criminal complaints converted to hastily accepted guilty pleas.

Just 12.8% of the criminal cases filed by federal prosecutors were the kind of serious crimes – corruption, fraud and trafficking – that citizens expect federal prosecutors to pursue.

Sentence lengths for migrants charged with the same crimes varied dramatically depending on the state where they were arrested.

The court documents shine a spotlight on the migrants’ perilous journeys and the extreme lengths immigration enforcement goes to intercept them. They also reveal the lack of documentation created when children were torn away from families at the point of arrest – a shocking omission.

Four months after thousands were charged, only 23 individuals continue to fight their cases. The overwhelming majority have pleaded guilty, and only one case has actually gone to trial, where the defendant was found guilty.

“I don’t think this is really about justice anymore,” said Cesar Pierce, a defense attorney in Las Cruces, New Mexico, who represented 18 of the individuals in our sample.

“Justice really factors very little into it.”

The week was dominated by low-level immigration charges

Of the cases that we examined, 3,121, or 87.2%, were low-level immigration offences. Only 12.8% of cases were serious crimes like corruption, fraud, and drug or weapons trafficking, or more significant immigration offenses, such as human smuggling.

The majority of prosecutions are for first-time crossers

Of the 3,121 people charged with low-level immigration crimes, the vast majority were accused of illegal entry, a misdemeanor, while 31% were accused of illegal re-entry, a felony. The rest were caught using false immigration documents.

The long, perilous journey

José G left El Salvador for the United States on 3 May. The 43-year-old father had previously been deported from the US and was working as a bus driver, but when a gang threatened his 16-year-old son, Marco, he decided to take the risk of traveling to America again.

“It’s his age,” José said of his son. “It makes me afraid.”

It took six days for father and son to traverse Mexico by car. They were walking across the Rio Grande under a bridge linking Juárez with El Paso, about a mile from the official port of entry, when they were spotted by border patrol and arrested. Even though José had no other criminal record, his “illegal re-entry” after a previous deportation triggered a felony prosecution under zero tolerance.

‘I’ve been separated from my son for four months. I don’t understand why we are still separated’ José G

José was locked up in El Paso county jail to await his criminal case. Marco was sent to a children’s shelter.

“I’ve been separated from my son for four months,” José told the Guardian in mid-September. “I don’t understand why we are still separated.”

José is one of the 3,121 migrants in our sample who risked crossing the border to seek a better life. Just over half were Mexican nationals, closely followed by Guatemalans, Hondurans and Salvadorans. The vast majority are men.

Having made the long, perilous journey from their home countries, some cross at official ports of entry to claim asylum, while others attempt to conceal themselves in trunks of cars, trucks and freight trains.

Many are opting to trek across the border in more remote, dangerous desert and mountain regions. Others wade, raft or swim across the Rio Grande, which defines nearly the entirety of the Texas-Mexico border.

Most came from Latin America

With Mexico dominating, followed by Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. There were also a small number of migrants from China (three), India (nine), Chile (one), Peru (three) and Canada (one).

Number of migrants by country of origin

1

400

800

1200

1600+

In cases where a migrant’s country of origin was not recorded, we used the country to which the individual had previously been deported. We were not able to determine country of origin for another 58 people.

Far more men were arrested than women

Court documents do not record gender so we made educated guesses based on individuals’ first names and the pronouns used in the documents.

Previous deportation is not a deterrent

Of those who have been previously deported, many attempt to come back within a year or two, with 28 attempting the crossing within a matter of days.

Arrest location: a third were caught crossing the Rio Grande

In criminal complaints detailing the river crossings, Border Patrol recorded that 33% crossed by wading, 34% by rafting and 4.6% by swimming.

Number of arrests by county

1

100

200

300

400+

Extreme tactics at the border

The documents reveal the lengths to which the US Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) go to capture migrants.

Border Patrol uses an armory of technology including “seismic intrusion devices” (sensors that send an alert when they detect the vibrations created by footstep), giant towers packed with cameras and sensors, and mobile video surveillance systems – trucks that have extendable masts fitted with an array of cameras, radar and laser range finders, frequently referred to as “scope trucks”.

At least six migrants were arrested during “immigration inspections” of commercial passenger buses at a border patrol checkpoint in Texas – a practice that has been harshly criticized as unconstitutional by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is calling on Greyhound buses to stop allowing border patrol agents on board. All six have pleaded guilty; three received prison sentences ranging from 64 days to four months; the other three are still awaiting sentencing.

Others were arrested at motels, based on anonymous tips or pro-active surveillance. In one case, border patrol agents were surveilling the Cotton Valley Motel in Clint, Texas. After observing “two individuals wet and muddy from the knees down” enter, the agents obtained consent from the motel manager to search the room, where they found six people hiding in the bathroom.

It was a shock for everyone. You had 75 people in chains Daniela Chisolm, El Paso attorney

In some cases, migrants end up turning themselves in. On 16 May, Marin M, a migrant from Guatemala, called 911 from the desert in Otero county, New Mexico, when he and his traveling companions found they could walk no farther.

“Please come get us,” the men can be heard asking in the 911 call, which the Guardian obtained through a public records request. They ask repeatedly for water.

The Otero county sheriff’s department dispatched Border Patrol agents who transported the men to a local hospital for treatment. Marin was then taken to the Alamogordo Border Patrol station for processing, and charged with felony re-entry. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 57 days in federal prison.

Many of those arrested try to claim asylum because they are fleeing from gang violence, corruption, political instability and natural disasters. Those opting to seek asylum the “legal” way, by presenting themselves at a US port of entry, have been thwarted by officials who say they don’t have the capacity to process them. Border Patrol has started blocking anyone without a US passport from stepping onto US soil, leaving a backlog of asylum seekers camping on international bridges between the US and Mexico for weeks as they wait to be processed.

This crackdown on legal asylum is pushing some desperate migrants to enter illegally, say attorneys.

One Tucson-based lawyer, who did not wish to be named, described a client who crossed illegally only after being blocked from seeking asylum at a US port of entry.

“The mafia said if my client didn’t work for them they’d rape his six-year-old son,” she said. “So his only decision was to get to the US. Am I going to leave my child? No, I’m going to bring my child. Anybody would.”

Chaos in the courtrooms

As zero tolerance went into effect, federal courtrooms along the border were beset by an atmosphere of chaos and desperation, dozens of attorneys, judges and advocates told the Guardian.

“People were panicking,” recalled Carlos Quinonez, a defense attorney in El Paso, Texas. “I’ve never seen so many people.”

“It was a shock for everyone,” said Daniela Chisolm, another El Paso attorney. “You had 75 people in chains: 18-year-old girls from Guatemala, 70-year-old men from Honduras … The first day, I had 15 clients, and nine of them had children taken from them.”

Defense attorneys spoke of an “exponential” increase in the number of cases they were assigned, made all the more challenging by their clients’ anxiety after losing their children. “I spent a lot of time having to refocus my clients,” said Quinonez. “They were focused on where their kids were.”

While federal public defenders usually represent indigent defendants charged with felonies, the task of representing the thousands of misdemeanor illegal entry cases often fell to private defense attorneys like Quinonez and Chisolm, whose fees the government pays. Pierce, the Las Cruces defense attorney, said he came to consider those payments “blood money”. “We get paid to do this, but it’s not really what we signed up for,” he said. “You want to defend people in a criminal case, not because someone crossed the border looking for work.”

Maxine Dobro, a defense attorney in San Diego, was one of several defense attorneys to express disgust with what she called “a misguided decision by a misguided administration: the mass scooping up of minnows will go down as one of the darkest hours of our nation.”

“The sharks swim away and the minnows are prosecuted,” she added. Indeed, an analysis by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse found that between March 2018 and June 2018, federal prosecutions of non-immigration crimes fell in the five border districts, both as a percentage of total prosecutions and in absolute terms.

Some defense attorneys, including Jose Troche, an El Paso attorney who represented 11 clients in our sample, were supportive of zero tolerance. “Look, I represent them, but some of these parents need to be prosecuted for child endangerment,” Troche said. “They brought these kids through Mexico, through that pigsty, and dumped them here.” As for the children themselves: “The centers are the safest place these kids have ever been,” he said.

While defense attorneys were struggling to represent the thousands of newly criminalized migrants, federal prosecutors had challenges of their own. In at least 15 cases, the criminal complaints charging migrants with illegal entry included obvious errors suggesting that whoever had filled them out had failed to complete a prepared template.

Ananias B, a migrant from Honduras, was charged with entering the country by “wading the Rio Grande River near, #PLACE OF ENTRY#”. Angel A, from El Salvador, was charged with a crime that “took place on #DATE OF ENTRY#”. Perhaps most egregiously, seven migrants in Arizona were charged based on complaints that included the phrase, “Agents observed the Defendant #DOING WHAT? PICK ONE DELETE THE REST#”, followed by a list of apparently common behaviors.

The Guardian made numerous attempts to contact the federal prosecutors responsible for prosecuting the cases in our sample. None agreed to speak either on or off the record.

Cosme Lopez, a spokesman for the US attorney’s office in Arizona, said by email that one of the incomplete complaints had been filed with Pacer “due to an apparent error in the uploading process”. Lopez said that a “hard copy” was used in court “that included all the necessary information.” Lopez declined to provide a copy of this hard copy, and neither responded to questions regarding the uploading error nor explained how the document in Pacer came to be signed by a judge.

One federal magistrate judge who has handled zero tolerance cases and who spoke to the Guardian on condition of anonymity said that the incomplete complaints certainly represented “shoddy work”, but added that he would not “ascribe to it any sinister motives”.

The mass scooping up of minnows will go down as one of the darkest hours of our nation Maxine Dobro, defense attorney

He compared the criminal justice system to a boa constrictor that can open its mouth wider and wider to swallow increasing numbers of defendants, but cannot increase its capacity to digest those cases. “Historically, the government puts lots of resources into the law enforcement mouth, but the judicial resources to address that lump of new cases don’t get increased correspondingly,” he said.

That judge, like others who spoke with the Guardian, described a dramatic increase in misdemeanor and petty offenses in his courtroom. William P Johnson, the chief US district judge of New Mexico, shared with the Guardian a letter he had sent seeking authorization to fill a vacant magistrate judge position in which he highlighted the “drastic increase” of 1,100% in misdemeanor illegal entry cases from 2017 to 2018.

Within the pages of the more than 6,000 court documents the Guardian examined there is a striking omission: the fact that many migrants were travelling with children at the time of their arrests was recorded in only 10 of the 3,121 cases we examined.

José G is one of those 10. When he appeared in court on 14 May, five days after his apprehension by Border Patrol, the criminal complaint against him included a reference to his child. The fact that his son was in the US, and by then was being kept in a shelter for migrant children in El Paso, was not referenced in the prosecution’s motion asking a judge to deem José a flight risk and detain him without bond – a request that the judge in the case granted.

José spent two months in the El Paso county jail before the case against him was simply dropped. The prosecution’s motion for the case to be dismissed states only that “the government does not wish to prosecute at this time”. José was moved to an immigration detention center to start the separate process of immigration court. He did not pass the “credible fear” interview that would have allowed him to seek asylum.

He is yet to be reunited with Marco.

Assembly-line justice

The right to a fair trial, enshrined as the sixth amendment in the Bill of Rights, is as American an ideal as the Statue of Liberty.

But of the 3,121 migrants whose cases we examined, only one has gone to trial so far. Prosecutors dismissed the charges against 70 defendants – a few times because no translator was available or after a defense attorney filed a motion challenging the prosecution’s case, but largely without providing any explanation. Four migrants were found not competent to stand trial and were committed to mental institutions. Nine cases were terminated without any record of the outcome that we could find.

Over the summer, many migrants pleaded not guilty and remained incarcerated while awaiting trial. That number has dwindled to just 23 as of the end of September, however, as more and more holdouts change their pleas to guilty.

The vast majority – 3,014 – have now pleaded guilty.

Some judges defended the rate of guilty pleas, noting that it is difficult to mount a defense against a charge of improper entry if the defendant is found in the US. But many defense attorneys argued that it was impossible for defendants to make “knowing and voluntary” pleas when they had such limited access to legal advice or were preoccupied with worry for their children.

For those who pleaded guilty, the sentences they received ranged widely. The median time spent incarcerated for those who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor improper entry was five days, but it was significantly longer for those in California (16 days) than in Arizona (two days). Those charged with felony re-entry received a median sentence of 2.5 months (75 days). Here again the length of sentence varies by state, however, with those sentenced in the southern district of Texas receiving a median sentence of 4.3 months (130 days), compared to 1.4 months (43 days) in New Mexico.

As of 30 September, when we completed our data analysis, 266 migrants remained incarcerated, awaiting sentencing. Some were not scheduled to see a judge again until 2019.

Case outcomes: almost all pleaded guilty

Though as of 30 September, 23 continued to pursue their cases.

Most judges sentenced first-time entrants to time served

This meant that the time defendants spent incarcerated varied according to how quickly the court could process cases. For the vast majority, this resulted in less than 30 days in prison.

Those who had previously been deported received longer sentences

The longest sentences went to those with other criminal convictions.

First-time migrants in the southern district of California spent the longest time incarcerated

This is likely because California was not yet using a “fast track” system of prosecuting migrants, resulting in a longer wait for sentencing. California began using the new system, “Operation Streamline”, in July.

The southern district of Texas hands outs the longest sentences for re-entry cases

This data is incomplete, however, because almost all of the 266 migrants still awaiting sentencing were charged with felony re-entry.

Families still separated

After José’s criminal case was dismissed, he was transferred to an Ice immigration detention facility in Sierra Blanca, about 90 miles south-east of El Paso.

Immigration detention is the likely next step for most of the other 3,120 migrants once they complete their criminal sentences, though some are deported immediately after release from prison. For those who are transferred to Ice custody, they can either attempt to claim asylum, mount a case in immigration court that they should be allowed to stay, or be deported. But the paper trail ends with the criminal cases: immigration courts produce no comparable record of their proceedings.

José is allowed visitors, but only from behind a thick plate of glass. He is diminished; his weight has dropped from 180lbs to 152lbs while he has been incarcerated, he says.

“The stress is enormous,” he said, fighting back tears. He has not been allowed to see his son, and though he is allowed to speak to Marco by phone, he lacks the funds to do so. A 20-minute call to a US number from the detention facility costs about $10, with a $3 service fee.

José doesn’t have an immigration attorney and doesn’t know the status of his immigration case. “About a month ago I signed a form saying I want deportation,” he said. “But Ice hasn’t said anything to me about when I will be deported.”

Marco was eventually released to José’s brother in North Carolina, a fact that has both assuaged and increased his anxiety. The Trump administration has begun requiring family members to submit their fingerprints in order to receive family members – potentially placing them at risk of Ice themselves.

“My brother and my sister-in-law are both here without papers,” said José. “They gave up their fingerprints with their consent and in good faith to take in Marco.

“But I’m still here in detention. I haven’t seen Marco and that’s why it’s so bad here. All the time I have spent crying here about the separation,” he added, his voice trailing off.

“Nobody tells us anything. There’s no light at the end of the tunnel.”

Median sentence length for felony illegal re-entry0 days204060801001201401600 días20406080100120140160California southern60 daysArizona60 daysNew Mexico43 daysTexas western105 daysTexas southern130 days

Credits

ReportersJulia Carrie Wong, Olivia Solon, Margaret Katcher and Patrick Timmons

Reporting assistantSimon Campbell

Data AnalysisPamela Duncan

Design and developmentSam Morris

IllustrationKatherine Lam

Copy EditingCharlotte Simmonds

TranslationKatie Schlechter

Special thanks toFrancisco Navas and Chris Taylor

Methodology

One unintended consequence of zero tolerance was to create the means for greater transparency. US immigration courts are notoriously opaque, but proceedings in federal criminal courts are filed in Pacer, an electronic database. By insisting on criminalizing migrants prior to seeking to deport them, zero tolerance created a vast paper trail that sheds light on the mechanics and malfunctions of the policy.

To perform our data analysis for this article, we searched Pacer for all criminal cases filed by the US government in the five border districts during the first six weeks of zero tolerance, 7 May-25 June, the period during which family separations were taking place. The five districts are the southern district of Texas, the western district of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and the southern district of California.

The nearly 25,000 criminal cases filed during that period were more than we had capacity to investigate, so we decided to limit our analysis to one calendar week: 13-19 May. This resulted in a sample of 3,579 cases.

We divided that sample into two groups: those who were charged with low-level immigration offenses and everyone else. The charges that we considered low-level immigration offenses are: 8 USC § 1325; 8 USC § 1326; 9 USC § 1459; 18 USC § 1028, 1544 and 1546.

Because of the way that Pacer works, our sample includes two sets of cases: those that were originally filed during the week in question, and a smaller set of cases that were re-filed in criminal court during that week.

This distinction is the result of the way federal courts handle their workload. Low-level immigration offenses are usually filed in magistrates court where they are overseen by magistrates judges, whose job it is adjudicate minor or petty offenses, while felonies are handled in criminal court by district judges. In many cases, illegal re-entry charges are originally filed in magistrates court, then transferred to criminal court for sentencing.

We decided to keep these transfer cases in our sample because they represent a portion of the caseload that was burdening the courts overall during the week we examined.

We worked with PacerMonitor to download the criminal complaints and judgments for all of the cases in our sample, then used optical character recognition technology to convert as many of the documents as possible into a machine readable format. We then built our own database of the cases and all the information we could glean from the documents, such as demographic information about the migrants themselves, where and how they were arrested, who prosecuted them, and what the outcome of their court cases were. We are referring to migrants by their first names and last initials, and have changed the name of a minor.

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

Go to the original article at the link to get the charts in their proper format.

No amount of doubletalk and false narratives by the Trump Administration will change the reality of what they are doing, its intentional cruelty, and its utter failure to deter migration. Sadly, it’s quite possible, but not necessarily inevitable, that Trump, Sessions, Miller, and the others who have formulated these travesties will escape legal judgement in the present. But, they won’t escape the judgment of history; nor will those who have enabled, or worse yet, actively supported them.

We can can diminish (and are diminishing) ourselves as a nation, but it won’t stop human migration!

PWS

10-16-18

SOME ARTICLE III JUDGES “JUST SAY NO” TO SESSIONS’S “ZERO TOLERANCE” ABUSES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/us-judges-balk-at-ice-detention-of-defendants-granted-bail-under-trump-zero-tolerance-push/2018/10/10/ccd42830-c4f7-11e8-b2b5-79270f9cce17_story.html

Spencer Hsu reports for WashPost:

Judges in the nation’s federal criminal courts increasingly are balking at what they call unlawful efforts by U.S. immigration authorities to continue to detain people charged with entering the country illegally, even after they have been granted bail.

The rulings complicate the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” crackdown on defendants who are charged with illegally crossing the border but whom judges have determined do not pose a flight or safety risk.

The decisions force prosecutors to make a choice — charge defendants with illegal entry or reentry and risk that a federal judge releases them pending trial, or keep suspects locked up in civil detention pending deportation proceedings and forgo criminal prosecution.

A recent ruling by a federal judge in Washington highlights the human and legal issues at stake, the case of a dishwasher from El Salvador who has a wife and two children in the District, where he returned after two deportations.

The surge in such criminal cases stems from an April 2017 announcement by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions prioritizing Justice Department prosecutions of entry and reentry crimes. More than 60,000 people have faced such criminal charges since then, with twice as many new prosecutions this July, the most recent month for which data is available, compared with the same month in 2017, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which monitors cases.

Individuals caught without documents on a first offense can be charged with a misdemeanor, but anyone caught in the United States after a prior deportation can be charged with a felony and face more than a year in prison. Immigration-related prosecutions are now the majority of all federal criminal cases, stretching far beyond states bordering Mexico.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions early this month in Ohio. (Adam Cairns/Columbus Dispatch/AP)

Advocates for immigrants say the recent court rulings may limit the use of the criminal charges to pressure defendants to abandon efforts to stay in the United States. The impact on overall removal efforts remains to be seen, but courts appear to be pushing back at an expansion of authority by prosecutors and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In the District, one rejection of the tougher tactics came from U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, a 1987 appointee of President Ronald Reagan. On Sept. 26. Lamberth said the government cannot have it both ways — asking federal courts to deny bail to defendants awaiting criminal trial and then, if a judge disagrees, holding them anyway in the immigration system.

The decision came in the case of Jaime Omar Vasquez-Benitez, 38, who court papers say was picking food up at a restaurant in July when D.C. police stopped him for suspected gang activity and turned him over to ICE. Federal public defenders say Vasquez-Benitez had quit a gang and fears for his life if he is deported.

He was charged in August with felony reentry despite deportation orders in 2008 and 2014.

A federal magistrate and district judge ruled Vasquez-Benitez should be released on bail, but U.S. marshals returned him to ICE custody. Defense attorneys moved to enforce the release order, and the case ended up in front of Lamberth after Vasquez-Benitez was indicted.

Lamberth ruled that a landmark 1966 U.S. bail statute specifically covers migrants and must “trump” more-general immigration laws, releasing Vasquez-Benitez into a high-intensity supervision program. He wrote that courts have long “upheld as sacrosanct” the principle that no one can act as prosecutor and judge at the same time, and that the Justice Department cannot ignore bail rulings any more than it can shrug off a defendant’s right to a speedy trial.

The judge said prosecutors can pursue both criminal charges and civil removal cases against defendants but must abide by a judge’s decision to grant bail. Or they can forgo charges and keep defendants locked up in civil detention while pursuing deportation.

People detained without valid immigration documents may well be worse off if uncharged, “languishing” indefinitely without speedy trial or access to bail in ICE detention camps far from families or counsel, the judge noted.

“Nevertheless, the government can do that” under immigration law, Lamberth wrote. “But so long as the government invokes the jurisdiction of a federal court, the government must consent to the Court’s custodial dominion over the criminal defendants before it.”

A decision on whether to appeal is pending. Bill Miller, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office for the District, said the office was reviewing the ruling.

In a July 2017 Justice Department bulletin to 94 U.S. attorney offices nationwide, Oregon federal prosecutor Gregory R. Nyhus said that federal criminal statutes and civil immigration laws “are reconcilable” and that “courts should be encouraged to harmonize these statutes rather than focusing on [one] to the complete exclusion of the other.”

The government’s position — that it can hold Vasquez-Benitez strictly for deportation on a reinstated removal order, unrelated to his prosecution — has yet to be decided by an appeals court.

Rulings by trial judges in similar cases have varied.

Since July 2017, federal judges in Washington, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Detroit, Cleveland and Austin have rejected the government’s approach, drawing on a 2012 district court opinion in Oregon and a similar 2015 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that “the executive branch has a choice to make” between holding an undocumented person for deportation or prosecuting that person under criminal law and the Constitution.

Federal judges in Buffalo and Philadelphia have come down on the other side, saying that criminal and immigration laws can “coexist” on “parallel” tracks. Before the Trump administration, prosecutors would typically drop criminal charges to pursue civil removal if a previously deported defendant won bail.

Yihong “Julie” Mao, staff attorney with the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, said the group was “heartened” by court rulings upholding undocumented immigrants’ right to bail and pretrial release based on family and community ties. She added: “This is fundamentally a separation-of-powers issue. The Department of Justice cannot be both judge and prosecutor.”

Mary Petras, an assistant federal public defender who is representing Vasquez-Benitez in the District, declined to comment.

[Trump’s ‘zero tolerance’ at the border is causing child shelters to fill up fast]

In court filings, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth Clair Kohl argued that the defendant’s case is not covered by the 2012 ruling, because ICE is holding him solely to deport him, not to prosecute him.

The Salvadoran man was first arrested in 1997, falsely claimed Mexican citizenship and was allowed to go to Mexico, according to court papers. He was deported in 2008 after serving a three-year sentence for felony obstruction of justice in the District and again in 2014, before he was caught for a fourth time this July.

Prosecutors would have prosecuted Vasquez-Benitez even in past years because of what they said in court papers was his “threatening, violent behavior” and felony criminal conviction. Vasquez-Benitez was convicted of obstruction of justice for telling a woman in 2005 she would “pay the consequences” if she called the police, and a 2014 arrest warrant in El Salvador said he has been charged with extortion, prosecutors said.

“There may come a time . . . [when] immigration proceedings have concluded . . . forcing the United States to choose between physical removal and continuation of this criminal case. That time, however, has not yet come,” wrote Kohl and Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth Dewar in an unsuccessful effort to detain the man.

Petras told the court the man is a longtime restaurant worker, and his wife works part time as a hotel housekeeper. Both have family nearby, and the couple’s 3-year-old daughter and 9-year-old son attended a recent court hearing.

Petras argued the man posed no flight risk, because he is seeking to halt his deportation after gang members in El Salvador sent him a message warning that he had “signed his death warrant” by quitting the gang and removing gang tattoos.

The lawyer said the fact that her client has lived in the Washington area for years and returned shows that he “wants to be here and that he has no intent or incentive to flee.”

Read more:

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

Compare what is happening in DC and some other jurisdictions with the “go along to get along” approach by some U.S. District Judges and U.S. Magistrate Judges along the border whom I have criticized in prior posts. The latter have allowed Sessions, Nielsen, and co. to turn their courts into “assembly line justice” — the kind that Session is implementing in his “wholly owned” U.S. Immigration Courts.

It’s pretty clear from the published reports that almost none of those being railroaded through that system actually understand the full immigration implications of their guilty pleas, nor do they understand how they can apply for asylum and what other rights they might have under the “civil immigration system.” Indeed, accepting guilty pleas without insuring that those entering the pleas fully understand the civil immigration situation and implications, including the likelihood of indefinite civil immigration detention and possible denial of a chance for a full hearing before an Immigration Judge, is arguably a violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky.

I also have a “personal recollection” of Judge Royce Lamberth from decades ago when he was the Chief of the Civil Division at the U.S. Attorneys Office for DC and I was the Deputy General Counsel/Acting General Counsel at the “Legacy INS.” On several occasions I had to trek over from the “Central Office” in the “Chester Arthur Building” at 4th and Eye St., NW to the U.S. Courthouse complex on 5th Street to explain and justify the INS position to Royce.

He was known as a formidable individual, even in those days — a chief litigator who brooked no-nonsense from USG Agencies and who was concerned with maintaining the Government’s reputation for integrity and legal excellence before the U.S. Courts. That probably has much to do with how he got nominated and confirmed to be a U.S. District Judge and why he still brooks no-nonsense from the “Masters of Nonsense” in the Trump Administration.

PWS

10-13-18

TAL @ CNN: Misogyny, Racism, White Nationalism, Intentional Child Abuse @ Heart of Trump/Sessions Ugly Restrictionist Immigration Policies!

Trump’s immigration policies have especially affected women and domestic violence victims

By: Tal Kopan, CNN

The Salvadoran woman could not escape her ex-husband’s abuse. Even after their divorce, he tracked her down in a town two hours away, raped her, and separately had a friend and his police officer brother threaten her directly. So she snuck into the US and applied for asylum.

Then Attorney General Jeff Sessions used her case to make it extremely difficult for her and women like her to get those protections.

The identity of the woman in the case remains anonymous. But her story is too familiar for the advocates and attorneys who work with thousands of immigrant women and immigrant women victims seeking the right to stay in the country.

Despite their stated objectives of cracking down on criminals and fraud, many of the Trump administration’s immigration policies have especially impacted the vulnerable and victims.

One policy change that could deter women victims from reporting their crimes takes effect Monday as the Senate deliberates whether to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh amid assault allegations against him, which he has vehemently denied.

Some of the changes were barely noticed. Others, like Sessions’ overhaul of asylum law, have generated numerous headlines.

But the sum total of those policies could put an already particularly vulnerable population even at risk, advocates who work with women say. And that could empower abusers and predators even further, they add, making everyone less safe.

The policies

A policy takes effect on Monday that could increase the risk of deportation for undocumented immigrant victims or witnesses of crimes. The agency that considers visa applications will begin to refer immigrants for deportation proceedings in far more cases, including when a person fails to qualify for a visa. The policy would also constrain officers’ discretion.

The new US Citizenship and Immigration Services policy specifically applies to visas designed to protect victims of violent crime and trafficking, including some created under the Violence Against Women Act. Those visas will give legal status to victims who report or testify about crimes.

The result: Victims who apply for the special visas but fall short, including for reasons like incomplete paperwork or missing a deadline, could end up in deportation proceedings. Previously, there was no guidance to refer all visa applicants who fall short to immigration court for possible deportation. Under the new policy, it’ll be the presumption. Advocates for immigrants worry the risk will be too great for immigrants on the fence about reporting their crimes.

In the Salvadoran woman’s case, Sessions ruled in June that gang and domestic violence victims generally don’t qualify for asylum, and the Department of Homeland Security applied those rules to all asylum seekers at the border and refugees applying from abroad.

Other policies that especially impact women and victims include:

More: http://www.cnn.com/2018/09/30/politics/trump-immigration-women-victims/index.html

‘I wouldn’t wish it even on my worst enemy’: Reunited immigrant moms write letters from detention

By Tal Kopan, CNN

The women say they were treated like dogs and told that their children would be given up for adoption. They lied awake at night, wondering if their kids were safe.

But even after being reunited with their children, they say their nightmare has not ended.

Their anguish is conveyed in a collection of letters written from one of the few immigrant family detention centers in the country, where some moms and children who were separated at the border this summer are now being held together while they await their fate. The mothers’ writings reflect a mix of despair, bewilderment and hope as they remain in government custody and legal limbo, weeks after they were reunited.

“My children were far from me and I didn’t know if they were okay, if they were eating or sleeping. I have suffered a lot,” wrote a mother identified as Elena. “ICE harmed us a lot psychologically. We can’t sleep well because my little girl thinks they are going to separate us again. … I wouldn’t want this to happen to anyone.”

The letters reflect the scars inflicted at the height of family separations this summer, when thousands of families were broken up at the border and kept apart for weeks to months at a time. They also reflect the ongoing uncertainty and emotional recovery for the families that are still detained.

The letters were collected at the Dilley detention center in Texas. They were provided via the Dilley Pro Bono Project by the Immigration Justice Campaign, a joint effort by leading immigrant advocacy and legal groups to provide access to legal support in immigrant detention centers.

The mothers speak with the Dilley Pro Bono staff in visitation trailers in the evenings and had expressed a desire to tell their stories to the public. The staff suggested writing them down, and the mothers agreed to write the letters, translated from Spanish, under pseudonyms.

More: https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/30/politics/separated-mothers-reunited-letters/index.html

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

Yup. Don’t let all the BKavs commotion distract you from focusing on the daily intentional and gross abuses of human rights and fundamental decency being committed by the Trump Administration.

Think a partisan Trump sycophant like BKavs would ever impartially uphold the rule of law against the abuses of the Trump Administration, particularly when it comes to treatment of women? Not a chance! He’s being put on the Supremes because Trump & the GOP are confident of his predetermined extreme right-wing agenda, his lack of objectivity, and his demonstrated inability to think outside the “box of privilege” which has allowed him to succeed and prosper (often at the expense of others).

No more BKavs for America!

PWS

10-01-18

NPR: “THIS AMERICAN LIFE” – HEAR ABOUT HOW THE WHITE NATIONALIST RESTRICTIONISTS IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ARE GOING ABOUT SYSTEMATICALLY AND DISINGENUOUSLY PERVERTING US IMMIGRATION LAWS – Useless, Counterproductive, & Expensive Prosecutions Of Asylum Seekers – When The Facts Don’t Support Your Decisions, Just Delete Or Misrepresent Them!

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/656/let-me-count-the-ways

Yes, youʼve heard about the family separations. Youʼve heard about the travel ban. But there are dozens of ways the Trump administration is cracking down on immigration across many agencies, sometimes in ways so small and technical it doesnʼt make headlines. This week, the quiet bureaucratic war that’s even targeting legal immigrants.

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

Long, but highly documented, compelling, and well worth the listen if you really want to know about the ugly, depraved policies of Trump, Sessions, Miller, Nielsen, Cissna, Gene Hamilton, and the rest of the White Nationalist Racist Brigade.

Regime Change, Regime Change, Regime Change; Vote, Vote, Vote!

PWS

09-29-18

GONZO’S WORLD: When The Attorney General Of The United States Is An “Equal Opportunity Hater” — NAACP’s Sherrilyn Ifill Says “Attorney General [Jeff] Sessions has made clear that he has no intention of investigating police departments for patterns and practices of discrimination. The Justice Department has essentially all but abandoned civil rights as a priority, and so they are no longer working as a partner with us.”

http://flip.it/fy_RAC

The Lily News

September 21

Adapted from a story by The Washington Post’s Joe Heim.

Sherrilyn Ifill, 54, is a lawyer living in Maryland and New York. She became the president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund just after President Obama was sworn in for his second term. Below, she discusses our current political situation, what gives her hope and more.

On the Justice Department under the Trump administration: “During the Obama administration I was trying to push [Obama] further than whatever the administration was already doing in the civil rights space, because that’s kind of my job. But there’s no question that the Obama administration really worked in many instances as a partner. That is not the case now. Attorney General [Jeff] Sessions has made clear that he has no intention of investigating police departments for patterns and practices of discrimination. The Justice Department has essentially all but abandoned civil rights as a priority, and so they are no longer working as a partner with us.

That means that our work has increased. We have had to function as a kind of private DOJ, trying to take up the slack. The DOJ and the attorney general should be the chief enforcer of the nation’s civil rights law. But what we see with Attorney General Sessions is no attempt to prioritize civil rights. In fact, to the contrary, working against us, working against civil rights implementation, working against the progress of civil rights that we’ve achieved.”

On what she would say to President Trump if he invited her to the White House: “I cannot imagine what the circumstance of that invitation would be, so it’s an impossible question to answer. I don’t do ceremonial visits. I’m interested in substance. So there would be a lot I would have to know in advance about what was going to happen. The president has been so explicitly hostile to civil rights and racial justice that I would have to have a very clear understanding of what reversals he was prepared to make to his policies. And in the absence of those, I can’t imagine a circumstance in which I would attend such a meeting.”

On Trump’s comments that black Americans are doing better economically than ever before: ”He does state that, and I think the figures that he uses are convenient in terms of job numbers. But look more closely at wage stagnation and, in fact, wage decreases. Look at the ways in which the failure to invest in infrastructure has left African American communities stranded in terms of transportation. Look at the voter suppression that disempowers African Americans from being able to even control their own destiny in the places where they live. Look at the assault on education and the ways in which the Department of Education is prepared to leave students who are victims of for-profit colleges stranded. Look at the ways which they are seeking to fight and undercut affirmative action. All of these are also part of economic opportunity. And the president conveniently leaves that out of the narrative. Those are things that are necessary to give African Americans a chance.”

On her book about the legacy of lynchings in America, and what the country needs to heal: “What America does not need, in my view, is one national conversation. The book really makes the case for the importance of local communities engaging in truth and reconciliatory processes. The recognition that racial discrimination, and particularly acts of racial pogroms, which essentially is what happened in the period in which lynching was so prevalent in this country, that those local communities need to deal with that, grapple themselves with that history and themselves take on the responsibility for how you stitch back together a community that has been broken for decades, how you confront a painful truth.”

[ The gang rape was horrific. The NAACP sent Rosa Parks to investigate.]

On what gives her hope: “I’m excited to see the continuous mass mobilization that people have engaged in, beginning with the Women’s March and continuing since then, in which people understand the need to come out of their homes to see one another and to say what they believe in. I’ve also really been encouraged by the ways in which the rule of law, for the most part, has held despite President Trump’s excesses. The crisis of this administration’s governance has compelled people to reimagine what it means to be a real citizen in this country. And that gives me optimism, because I think the other way was not sustainable. The benign citizenship performance that most Americans were engaged in was simply not sustainable. Now people understand that they are needed. Their voice is needed, every vote is needed, their engagement is needed.”

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

Undoubtedly, our Civil Rights Laws were passed to protect African-Americans and similarly situated individuals so that they could enjoy the same advantages and benefits once accorded only to Whites. But, Jeff Sessions believes that civil rights are just about protecting White Power & Privilege against African-Americans, Hispanics, immigrants, LGBTQ individuals and other “uppity” minorities.

Similarly, the Bill of Rights was adopted to protect individual rights against Government overreach. But, Jeff Sessions believes that the right of police to enforce the law using brutality and unnecessary and indiscriminate force is superior to the individual Constitutional rights of people of color.

The solution to restoring reason and the true rule of law (not the perverted “rule of Sessions”): regime change!

PWS

09-23-18

GRIFTER-IN-CHIEF SAYS JUSTICE’S JOB IS TO PROTECT GOP CONGRESSIONAL GRIFTERS FROM JUSTICE! — “The only thing standing between American democracy and Trump’s vision of a Putin-like regime that terrorizes the opposition while nourishing an oligarchy of regime supporters is that much-mocked word: a norm. “

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/trumps-war-on-democracy-department-justice.html

Jonathan Chait writes in NY Maggie:

Over the Labor Day weekend, official Washington staged a celebration of itself through the funeral of John McCain. The insularity on display somewhat understandably enrages critics on the left and right alike. In their treatment of President Trump as a boorish outlier, and a unique personal threat to the health of the Republic, the elites either revealed their implicit conspiracy against the president (according to populists of the right) or their own insularity (according to the populists of the left).

It is certainly true that the bipartisan resistance centered around McCain has registered more self-satisfaction than actual resistance. Still, on the same weekend official Washington was treating Trump as an outcast, Trump was demonstrating what he has done to earn this status. In a revealing weekend tweet, he castigated his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, for allowing the Justice Department to indict a pair of House Republicans.

Trump’s latest declaration of corrupt intent puts a fine point on the question both groups of skeptics have tended to avoid. Right-wing Trump allies have defended his assault on the Department of Justice by picking apart the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation, adopting (for the narrow purposes of defending Trump) a radically pro-civil-libertarian view of FISA warrants, or demanding to know why Trump’s subordinates are being charged with crimes other than collusion with Russia. On the left, some critics have mocked the idea that there is anything worthwhile in the bipartisan defense of democratic norms against Trump.

But Trump’s intention to politicize the Department of Justice frames in sharp detail the question they have largely elided. However one feels about the general merits of the Washington Establishment, here is a threat to a specific governing norm whose value is beyond dispute. Trump objects to the indictments of two House Republicans who have been caught in blatant illegality. Representative Chris Collins, the first House Republican to endorse him, was overheard boasting about making colleagues rich with his inside information. Representative Duncan Hunter not only systematically misappropriated public funds but was recorded in a series of damning emails. These are not marginal cases. Trump’s entire rationale for opposing the prosecutions is that they hurt his party.

And Trump has been repeatedly clear about his objective. He regularly demands that his attorney general protect his personal interests and open investigations into figures he dislikes. Trump tried to sell Sessions on the prospect that he would become a “hero” to the Republican base by locking up Hillary Clinton, and then berated him when he failed to do so. Trump’s lawyers have written a memo defending his prerogative to do so. “The President not only has unfettered statutory and Constitutional authority to terminate the FBI Director,” they argued, “he also has Constitutional authority to direct the Justice Department to open or close an investigation, and, of course, the power to pardon any person before, during, or after an investigation and/or conviction.”

Regardless of the law, there is nobody actually willing to defend such an arrangement on normative grounds. A system in which a president can order up investigations of the opposing party and quash investigations of his own would hand incumbents a weapon so powerful it would make democracy a sham. Vladimir Putin has not needed to cancel elections in order to cement his authority. His most important tool has been selective law enforcement, which has allowed him to court allies with the promise of riches and legal impunity, and to intimidate his critics with with ruinous threats to their reputation, fortunes and freedoms.

A Wall Street Journal editorial earlier this year sneered, “we’re pleased to report that there hasn’t been a fascist coup in Washington.” It hasn’t been for lack of trying, or for lack of support from institutional Republican organs like the Journal. Indeed, despite a handful of criticisms, Republicans in Congress have largely refused to criticize Trump’s demands to control the DOJ.

Neither the law nor the Constitution can do much to stop Trump from fully corrupting the Justice Department. The only thing standing between American democracy and Trump’s vision of a Putin-like regime that terrorizes the opposition while nourishing an oligarchy of regime supporters is that much-mocked word: a norm. It is on this specific question, not some generalized cultural assessment of the Washington elite, that the struggle to defend democracy rests.

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

The first step top getting our “Mussolini Wannabe” out of office, reestablishing “norms,” and recreating a functioning two-party system is to get to the polls and remove the GOP enablers, fellow travelers, cowards, and out ands out White Nationalists from office this fall, at all levels of Government. The grifters must go!

PWS

09-05-18

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Join the New Due Process Army today and fight for human rights, the rule of law, accountability for Government scofflaws, and a return to basic human decency! Fight for a better future for ALL Americans!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

The week was dominated by low-level immigration charges

The majority of prosecutions are for first-time crossers

The long, perilous journey

Most came from Latin America

Far more men were arrested than women

Previous deportation is not a deterrent

Arrest location: a third were caught crossing the Rio Grande

Extreme tactics at the border

Chaos in the courtrooms

Assembly-line justice

Case outcomes: almost all pleaded guilty

Most judges sentenced first-time entrants to time served

Those who had previously been deported received longer sentences

First-time migrants in the southern district of California spent the longest time incarcerated

The southern district of Texas hands outs the longest sentences for re-entry cases

Families still separated

Median sentence length for felony illegal re-entry0 days204060801001201401600 días20406080100120140160California southern60 daysArizona60 daysNew Mexico43 daysTexas western105 daysTexas southern130 days

Credits

Methodology

We can can diminish (and are diminishing) ourselves as a nation, but it won’t stop human migration!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Regime Change, Regime Change, Regime Change; Vote, Vote, Vote!

Related posts:

The Lily News

September 21

Related posts:

Related posts: