Department of Homeland Security – immigrationcourtside.com

🇺🇸⚖️🗽 “REVISITED: U.S. Immigration & Asylum Policies In The Twilight Of The Biden Administration”

In September 2024, I was invited to address a group of prospective social workers on immigration policy in the Biden Administration. They had read my previous published article “An Overview and Critique of US Immigration and Asylum Policies In The Trump Era” (2018). They requested an “update” on that article to cover significant developments during the Biden Administration.

While, obviously, things have changed since the election, I believe this speech still has relevance. Therefore, I publish it in a revised and updated version.

REVISITED VERSION 3

REVISITED: U.S. Immigration & Asylum Policies In The Twilight Of The Biden Administration

Originally Delivered in September 2024

Edited and Revised, Nov. 4, 2024

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

I call on you to join our NDPA, use your skills, commitment, and power to resist the haters, oppose the wobbly enablers, expose political bullies who trade away lives and rights that aren’t theirs, and fight to finally deliver on our nation’s yet-unfulfilled promise of due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all in America!

INTRODUCTION

Good evening, and thanks for inviting me. Please listen very carefully to the following important announcement.

In the next hour, you will hear no party line, no bureaucratic doublespeak, no sugar coating, no BS, or other such nonsense. Just the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, of course as I define truth and see it through the lens of my five decades of work with and in the American immigration system.

The views expressed herein are mine, and mine alone. They also do not represent the position of any group, organization, individual, or other entity with which I am presently associated, have associated with in the past, or might become associated with in the future.

But, that’s not all folks! Because today is Wednesday and you are such a wonderful audience, I give you my famous, “industry best,” absolute, unconditional, money back guarantee that the following presentation will be free of power points, split screens, and all other forms of distracting modern technology that might interfere with your comprehension and total listening enjoyment. For the next hour, I will be your “power point.”

Congratulations and my deep appreciation for your noble choice of social work as a career. Your skills and talents are desperately needed in our society. As you might imagine, as an Immigration Judge I heard and relied upon expert testimony from professional social workers, among others.

I am also well aware of the important behind the scenes efforts of social workers to get individuals and families beyond their often-traumatic situations here and abroad, to adjust to and be able to function in our society, and thereby to have the confidence and devote the necessary attention to working with their legal representatives to present the best cases possible in court. As a decision-maker, sound information cogently presented is the key to getting it right and doing justice.

You are fortunate to have some great, inspirational examples to guide you.

Three of my personal heroes come to mind. First, Aimee Miller who owns and operates a group practice called Interconnect: Counseling and Consulting, LLC, dedicated to conducting psychosocial and mental health evaluations and providing expert testimony and reports for immigration proceedings. She also teaches at the University of Michigan, School of Social Work.

My friend Joan Hodges Wu, a licensed social worker, is the founder and CEO of AsylumWorks in Washington, D.C. Her organization is devoted to helping newly arrived asylum seekers and their families navigate the legal, language, employment, educational, and other potential hurdles of adjusting to a new life while facing the uncertainties of the future.

Another friend, Hanna Cartwright, received dual degrees in social work and law from Catholic University in D.C. She was an intern at the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court and a “charter member” of what I call the “New Due Process Army,” or “NDPA.” This is a group of outstanding professionals, many of them former students of mine at Georgetown Law, interns, and judicial law clerks at the Arlington Court, who are committed to social justice and “fighting the good fight” to force our nation to deliver on its promise of due process for immigrants. Hannah has had a varied career and has risen to become the co-founder and Director of Mariposa Legal in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Additionally, I am proud to be on the Advisory Council of
AYUDA, a community group serving the needs of asylum seekers and other immigrants in the D.C. metro area. AYUDA attorneys appeared before me pro bono when I was on the bench. Social work is one of the major service divisions of AYUDA, in addition to legal and language services.

These are all great and inspiring examples of individuals and organizations that “put it all on the line,” every day, to make their communities, America, and the world better places. And certainly, as you will find, there are many more of these throughout America.

I recently read an article in the Washington Post about the struggles and divisions in a small community in Massachusetts with resettling, on a temporary basis, a limited number of pregnant women, children, and families. Most of those at issue are recent arrivals to the U.S., many camping in a concourse at Logan Airport for weeks or even months. ^[1]

We need better resettlement programs. For some inexplicable reason, the Biden Administration thought that it would be a good idea to essentially “outsource” resettlement to restrictionist GOP governors like Abbott and DeSantis. They, in turn, bussed, or in some cases even flew, recently-arrived asylum seekers to locations in so-called “blue states,” where they believed they would overload local resources and cause problems, thereby inflaming xenophobic resentment.

Instead of such inexcusable nonsense, we need asylum resettlement programs that are “dressed for success” – some type of “national clearing house” to match asylees in an orderly fashion with locations across the U.S. where their skills are needed and they would be welcomed. Then, these communities and the asylum seekers must have support services to insure a mutually beneficial transition and reduce misunderstandings and resentments on both parts.

These organized programs should concentrate on preparing, supporting, informing, educating, and communicating with communities and migrants, requirements that are often overlooked or inadequate today. Change is an inevitable part of life, but that doesn’t mean everybody will like or accept it. We need better ways of “getting over the hump together.”

Tragically, neither political party appears interested in investing in the successful resettlement efforts that will benefit our nation and those seeking refuge through asylum. Therefore, it is likely to fall to the private/NGO sector to “model success” and innovative thinking. Certainly, social work services are an important part of this multi-disciplinary approach.

Now, to the main part of my presentation. You have read my 2019 article “An Overview and Critique of US Immigration and Asylum Policies in the Trump Era.” You have asked me to update you on the current status of the four “membership categories” that I posited in that article: full members; associate members, friends, and outcasts. So, here goes.

FULL MEMBERS

With respect to full members, essentially U.S. citizens, I’m pleased to report that naturalizations are up under the Biden Administration. As of this summer, more than 3.3 million new citizens had been naturalized as opposed to a little under 3 million during the entire Trump Administration. ^[2]

I think this is the result of ending the misallocation of resources and intimidation tactics used by the bureaucracy under Trump to discourage naturalization. The end of COVID also played a role. Plus, the Trump Administration’s message of hate, lies, and overt xenophobia probably convinced many lawful permanent residents that they would be safer with the protections of U.S. citizenship and the ability to vote on their political leaders.

Of course, you have probably heard of Trump’s outrageous threat to mess with birthright citizenship under the 14^th Amendment. Since this is a constitutional right, it legally can’t be abridged by either executive action or legislation. The intent here appears to be to harass, dehumanize, and spread fear among our ethic communities and to basically cast doubt on the status of many loyal Americans, mostly of color, who obtained citizenship in this manner notwithstanding the immigration status of their parents.

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS

Turning to “associate members,” basically green card holders, refugees, and asylees, admissions and adjustments to lawful permanent residence are up. Again, this probably stems largely from the end of COVID and the elimination of some bureaucratic hurdles, as well as some efforts to address backlogs at USCIS.

There has been a significant improvement and revival of U.S. overseas refugee programs. They are now on target to exceed 100,000 refugee admissions, although probably falling a bit short of the 125,000 announced target number. Compare that with the paltry fewer than 12,000 admissions in the final fiscal year of the Trump Administration.^[3]

Still, refugee programs are underutilized and not targeting all our real needs. For example, while the Administration has significantly improved refugee admissions from Latin America and the Caribbean, they are still well below the number necessary to meet actual demand. Of the top five refugee admission countries, DRC, Syria, Afghanistan, Burma, and Guatemala, only the latter is in the Western Hemisphere.

Worse yet, has been the cowardly bipartisan attack on our legal asylum system at the Southern Border. This culminated in some of the most draconian anti-asylum executive actions ever in relatively recent regulations issued over the strenuous, well-founded objections of experts, advocates, and NGOs with actual experience in the plight of asylum seekers.

Disgracefully, the Biden Administration is considering extending these legally questionable provisions, now under attack in litigation. At the same time, V.P. Harris has pledged that if elected she would attempt to resurrect a horrible, anti-asylum “Bipartisan Border Bill” aimed at accomplishing much of the same damage. For his part, Trump has long demeaned and dehumanized legal asylum seekers and would happily seek to eliminate or further restrict their admission.

Neither party seems interested in “doing the right, and obvious, thing” – building an asylum screening and adjudication system that actually works in a fair, generous, and timely manner. The Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), an agency of the USDOJ that contains the Immigration Courts, where I once worked, is a particularly dysfunctional mess, with out-of-control backlogs burgeoning to nearly 4 million cases. It also produces wildly inconsistent results with asylum grant rates ranging from approximately 0% to 100% among nearly 700 Immigration Judges.

Essentially, both parties seek to improperly punish and demean legal asylum seekers for their bipartisan failure to fix the asylum adjudication system across more than two decades. That’s what “bipartisanship” has come to mean in immigration: Basically, a race to the bottom to find the lowest common denominator!

FRIENDS

With respect to so called-friends, those with limited permission to be here, but no clear path to permanent residence or citizenship, nonimmigrant visas have rebounded with the lifting of COVID restrictions.

However, so-called “Dreamers” remain in limbo. There is no foreseeable prospect for legislative relief and a “red-state” challenge to the legality of their DACA status is in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, likely headed for the Supremes.

The Biden Administration used executive actions to create some new “legal pathways” programs allowing up to 30,000 per month pre-screened individuals with U.S. sponsors to be “paroled” into the U.S. for an initial two-year period. This program has proved somewhat successful in reducing pressure at the Southern Border.

However, it is limited to nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. That plus the numerical limitations diminish its ameliorative effect. In addition, the program had to be temporarily paused to look into allegations of sponsorship fraud.

Moreover, unlike those admitted in refugee or asylum status, those paroled have no statutory path to green cards and eventual U.S. citizenship. They would need special legislation to gain lawful permanent status.

But, given strong GOP opposition to these humanitarian programs, these individuals are likely to remain in “limbo,” and become “political footballs” subject to the whims of the next Administration. Many have been, or will be, forced into the already backlogged asylum adjudication system, thereby defeating part of the original purpose of these parole programs.^[4]

Remarkably, the Administration also chose to use parole, rather than the refugee system, to allow large numbers of our Afghan allies to come to the United States following the Taliban takeover. These also remain in limbo, in the absence of a legislative path to permanent status.

Unlike Trump, who tried to restrict and eliminate so-called
Temporary Protected Status, or “TPS” wherever possible, the Biden Administration has made relatively robust use of TPS. The Administration has also made some improvements in the timely issuance and renewal of important “Employment Authorization Documents” (“EADs”) for those awaiting adjudication of applications filed with USCIS and EOIR.

OUTCASTS

With respect to those “outcasts” who don’t fit within any of the three foregoing categories, sometimes called “undocumented,” their numbers are probably around 10 to 12 million. ^[5]It is certainly not the bogus 20 million figure that GOP politicos and the right-wing media like to throw around. It’s also unclear to me whether this figure subsumes the many asylum applicants who actually are neither “undocumented” nor “illegal,” but here with Government permission to pursue their legal asylum applications before the USCIS Asylum Office and/or EOIR.

The Biden Administration tried to help noncitizen spouses and stepchildren of USCs regularize their status with a widely-hailed practical, humanitarian program called “Parole in Place” (“PIP”). However, perhaps predictably, a Trump-appointed Federal Judge blocked the PIP Program, at least temporarily. He acted at the request of “red states” with anti-immigrant agendas. So, while PIP registrations are still taking place, the fate of the program is unclear at this juncture.

Perhaps, worst of all, as I mentioned earlier, the Immigration Courts remain a dismal mess, with nearly 4 million case backlog that has grown exponentially under A.G. Garland. Instead of fixing EOIR and standing up for the legal and human rights of asylum seekers, Garland has instituted “built to fail” gimmicks like “expedited dockets” and approved regulations barring most asylum claims at southern border in violation of the statutory right, not to mention human right, to seek asylum “regardless of status.”

NGOs, practical experts, and advocates who, unlike Garland and his lieutenants, actually work with asylum seekers at the border and elsewhere, have documented how these tone-deaf policies increase deaths and abuses of asylum seekers in Mexico and beyond. However, truth has been to no avail in this appalling situation. I’d argue that most of the Administration’s misguided “maximum enforcement/no due process” at the border has been in response to their abject failure to bring long-overdue reforms to EOIR and the AO. They now seek to “cover-up” this massive failure by scheming to avoid the system entirely, rather than fixing it.

Trump outrageously threatens mass deportations. These would not only violate laws guaranteeing due process, but also sow fear and terror in many ethnic communities, which is, of course, the real point of such threats: essentially “dehumanization” or “de-personification” of wide swarths of our society going far beyond immigrants. At the same time, he would waste money, misdirect law enforcement resources, and likely tank our economy, which depends heavily on the labor of immigrants, both legal and undocumented. Not a pretty picture.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Biden Administration has been a “mixed bag” on immigration, human rights, civil rights, and the rule of law. Basically, it has been “one step forward, and two steps back.”

A number of the Administration’s ameliorative programs for immigrants, like retention of DACA, humanitarian parole, increased refugee admissions, and “Parole in Place” have been too timid, limited, or blocked by restrictionist litigation.

On the other hand, bad border policies and largely ignoring the due process crisis in the Immigration Courts have undermined the rule of law, promoted the “bipartisan demonization and dehumanization of asylum seekers and other migrants at the border,” squandered scarce resources in the private/NGO sector, and wrecked death, despair, and untold misery on some of our most vulnerable fellow humans.

In extremely unfortunate ways, we are now replicating the very pre-1980 programs and disorganized, ad hoc, often-biased approaches that the Refugee Act of 1980 and the creation of EOIR were intended to solve.

Refugee provisions are avoided when dealing with so-called “emergencies,” leading to the mass parole of Afghans, limbo status, and the need for Congressional action for permanent status. Asylum determinations are basically reverting to ad hoc, often arbitrary and capricious, decisions that favor some nationalities and ethnicities over others based on US internal politics and foreign policy concerns. Humanitarian parole programs, while potentially a step in the right direction, deny individuals the stability and clear route to green cards and citizenship as well as some of the protections that come with refugee, asylum, and other types of legal admissions. It also makes them “political footballs” for the restrictionist right.

Making EOIR an independent entity within DOJ, back in 1983, a process I was involved in, was supposed to advance quasi-judicial independence and professionalism. Instead, after decades of bipartisan misdirection and mismanagement, the Immigration Courts have essentially resumed some of their pre-EOIR characteristics of being perceived, and often acting, as politicized arms of DHS enforcement, too often lacking professionalism, expertise, consistency, practical problem-solving abilities, and compassion.

I recently posted on Linkedin an article by Eduardo Porter that summarized the current gloomy and disturbing state of our national non-debate on immigration:

Consider immigration, the epicenter of zero-sum thinking in voters’ minds. It’s an issue that is critical to the United States’ future and a topic that is easily demagogued as a struggle between endangered Americans and some predatory “other.” Harris, like Biden, has worked to distance herself from Trump’s most implausible ideas (such as expelling 11 million people). Still, she leads a Democratic Party that believes one of its paramount challenges is stopping immigrants from coming to the United States.
^[6]

That’s a rather sad, yet fundamentally true, commentary on how our nation of immigrants now thinks and acts. The GOP demonizes, dehumanizes, and lies about immigrants; the Dems roll over and want to change the subject. As you witnessed in the Presidential “debate,” actually more of an exercise in “performative entertainment” than a serious discussion of issues, we don’t know November’s winners, but we already know the losers: Immigrants, due process, and social justice advocates.

Few, if any, politicos on the national level have the moral courage and clear vision to mount a well-justified, evidence-based defense of asylum seekers and other migrants. Likewise, few of them advocate for investing in achievable improvements in the system. Instead, they seek partisan political advantage, on the backs of the desperate and disenfranchised, by eagerly and cynically pouring money and manpower into cruel, ultimately ineffective, enforcement and “deterrence” gimmicks.

The latter, not incidentally, have spawned a highly profitable and politically potent industry that benefits from every deadly, failed border deterrence “enhancement.” No wonder positive change and creative problem solving are so elusive, and so many of our politicos lack the guts effectively to protect immigrants’ lives, human dignity, and rights at the border and beyond!

More than 50 years of experience working in our immigration systems, at different levels, and from many angles, tell me the following inalienable truths:

Human migration is real;
Forced migration is exactly that;
It won’t be stopped by walls, prisons, deterrents, or other cruelty;
Asylum is a human and legal right;
Immigrants are good for America; and
Due process for all persons in the U.S. is essential.

My time on the stage is winding down. But, yours, my friends, is just beginning. I call on you to join our NDPA, use your skills, commitment, and power to resist the haters, oppose the wobbly enablers, expose political bullies who trade away lives and rights that aren’t theirs, and fight to finally deliver on our nation’s yet-unfulfilled promise of due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all in America!

Thank you for listening, and due process forever!

(11-04-24)

^[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2024/migrant-shelter-norfolk-massachusetts-immigration-debate/.

^[2] https://truthout.org/articles/trump-backlogged-citizenship-process-biden-has-halved-the-time-it-takes/

^[3] https://www.wrapsnet.org/admissions-and-arrivals/

^[4] Indeed, after this speech was delivered, but before the election, the Biden Administration announced plans to abandon more than 530,000 individuals paroled into the U.S. under these “lawful pathways” programs. Upon expiration of their current parole, they will be forced to either leave the U.S. or apply for some type of relief, the primary one being the asylum adjudication system which is already absurdly backlogged. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.nyic.org/2024/10/advocates-outraged-by-president-bidens-refusal-to-extend-humanitarian-parole-for-immigrants-in-the-u-s/&ved=2ahUKEwjdx-jssoyKAxU-F1kFHd_XGCYQFnoECB4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1D3gxxQl0uOawGZ7HkwLBT

^[5] https://ssri.psu.edu/news/mpi-issues-latest-estimates-size-and-origins-us-unauthorized-immigrant-population

^[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/09/03/politics-trump-biden-trade-immigration/

😎 COURTSIDE ON SABBATICAL — After 7 1/2 Years, It’s Time! 🏜️

Sabbitical — Gone on sabbatical
IMAGE: Public Realm

Well, friends, since “inception” on December 22, 2016:

Neatly 7 1/2 years elapsed;
Three different Administrations;
5,526 posts (including this one);
1,152 comments;
43 “Pages;”
403 subscribers;
Over 1,000,000 “views” (estimated);
More than 140,400 “blocks” by my hard-working “spam catcher!”

It’s time for me to take a break from Courtside to “rest, refresh, and refocus” as they say in the “sabbatical business.” After all, I’ve been “retired” since June 30, 2016, going on eight years!

To mark the occasion, here’s a “reprint” of one of my favorites from that first month, December 2016:

Family Detention, Raids, Expediting Cases Fail To Deter Scared Central Americans!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/central-americans-continue-to-surge-across-us-border-new-dhs-figures-show/2016/12/30/ed28c0aa-cec7-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.077ef694fd73

“Immigration advocates have repeatedly criticized the Obama administration for its increased reliance on detention facilities, particularly for Central American families, who they argue should be treated as refugees fleeing violent home countries rather than as priorities for deportation.

They also say that the growing number of apprehended migrants on the border, as reflected in the new Homeland Security figures, indicate that home raids and detentions of families from Central America isn’t working as a deterrent.”

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

The “enforcement only” approach to forced migration from Central America has been an extraordinarily expensive total failure. But, the misguided attempt to “prioritize” cases of families seeking refuge from violence has been a major contributing factor in creating docket disfunction (“Aimless Docket Reshuffling”) in the United States Immigration Courts.

And, as a result, cases ready for trial that should have been heard as scheduled in Immigration Court have been “orbited” to the end of the docket where it is doubtful they ever will be reached. When political officials, who don’t understand the Immigration Court and are not committed to its due process mission, order the rearrangement of existing dockets without input from the trial judges, lawyers, court administrators, and members of the public who are most affected, only bad things can happen. And, they have!

PWS

12/31/16

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

True today as it was then!

🇺🇸 Thanks for reading and engaging, best wishes and, of course, “Due Process Forever!”

😎PWS🏜️🌄🌅🖼️

05-31-24

⚖️👍 CONGRATS TO JENNIFER BADE, ESQUIRE ON A RARE BIA VICTORY FOR THE “GOOD GUYS!” — Issues: Venue, Choice of Law — Matter of M-N-I-, 28 I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 2024)

Jennifer C. Bade, EsquireFounder & Managing Partner Bade Law Group Brookline, MA PHOTO: Bade Law Group — Jennifer C. Bade, Esquire
Founder & Managing Partner
Bade Law Group
Brookline, MA
PHOTO: Bade Law Group

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis:

https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-05/4076.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/bia-on-venue-choice-of-law-matter-of-m-n-i-

Since choice of law is dependent on venue in Immigration Court proceedings, the controlling circuit law is not affected by a change in the administrative control court and will only change upon the granting of a motion to change venue. Matter of Garcia, 28 I&N Dec. 693 (BIA 2023), followed.

“In a decision dated October 24, 2023, the Immigration Judge denied the respondent’s application for deferral of removal under the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The respondent, a native and citizen of Morocco, has appealed that decision. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has not responded to the appeal. Because we agree with the respondent that additional fact-finding and analysis are needed and the Immigration Judge misapplied choice of law precedent, we will remand these proceedings for the entry of a new decision. … The record reflects that the respondent has been detained at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center (“Moshannon”) in Philipsburg, Pennsylvania, throughout these proceedings. The proceedings commenced with the filing of a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) on April 18, 2023, at the Cleveland, Ohio Immigration Court, which is within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. … After the respondent’s individual hearing on October 20, 2023, the Immigration Judge applied Third Circuit law and denied deferral of removal under CAT. … The respondent argues that the Immigration Judge erroneously applied Third Circuit law rather than Sixth Circuit law. We review this issue de novo. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (2020). For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the respondent that the Immigration Judge applied the incorrect circuit’s law. … On remand, the Immigration Judge should reevaluate the respondent’s claim under Sixth Circuit law and apply relevant Board precedent, with consideration to the respondent’s appellate arguments concerning the respondent’s gender identity and sexual orientation. See Matter of C-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 740, 745 (BIA 2023) (explaining that “when considering future harm, adjudicators should not expect a respondent to hide” the respondent’s sexual orientation).”

[Hats off to Jennifer C. Bade!]

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

Great job, Jennifer! Once again, it’s worth asking ourselves how successful arguments of this kind could ever be made by an unrepresented respondent. If, as is painfully obvious to even a casual observer, the answer is “they couldn’t,” then where is the due process in an overloaded, corner-cutting court system where lack of representation is actually on the increase, despite truly heroic efforts by the private and pro bono bars?

I also find the last sentence of the above summary very helpful. While it certainly states the correct rule regarding sexual orientation cases, my sense is that this part of the Matter of C-G-T- precedent is often ignored at the Immigration Court level and not always corrected by the BIA on appeal. So, it’s certainly worth re-emphasizing!

The BIA’s opinion was written by Appellate Immigration Judge Gorman for a panel that also included Appellate Immigration Judge Greer and Temporary Appellate IJ Crossett.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-30-24

🇺🇸🗽🤯 HISTORY: 100 YEARS AGO, AMERICA TRIED, BUT ULTIMATELY FAILED, TO STAY “WHITE & PROTESTANT” WITH THE 1924 IMMIGRATION ACT — Many Were Hurt Or Died From This Bias In The Interim — Now Trump & The Nativist Right Want To Revive One Of The Worst Eras In U.S. History — Will Indifference & Ignorance From Dems & So-Called “Centrists” Let Them Get Away With Turning Back The Clock? ⏰☠️🤮 — Two Renowned Authors Offer A View Of A Biased, Deadly, & Ultimately Highly Counterproductive Past That Still Poisons Our Politics & Threatens Our Future As A Beacon Of Hope! — PLUS: Kowalski & Chase Take On The “False Scholars” 🤮 Who Disingenuously Attempt To “Glorify” Xenophobia & Racism!🤯

1924 Act — The 1924 Immigration Act vilified, dehumanized, and barred many of those immigrants who have made America great, like Italian Americans being demeaned in this cartoon. Yet, some descendants of those unfairly targeted appear oblivious to the mistakes of the past and willing to inflict the same immoral lies, harm, and suffering on today’s migrants.
IMAGE: Public Realm

Eduardo Porter writes in WashPost:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/interactive/2024/immigration-history-race-quota-progress/

“I think that we have sufficient stock in America now for us to shut the door.”

That sounds like Donald Trump, right? Maybe on one of his campaign stops? It certainly fits the mood of the country. This year, immigration became voters’ “most important problem” in Gallup polling for the first time since Central Americans flocked to the border in 2019. More than half of Americans perceive immigrants crossing the border illegally as a “critical threat.”

Yet the sentiment expressed above is almost exactly 100 years old. It was uttered by Sen. Ellison DuRant Smith, a South Carolina Democrat, on April 9, 1924. And it helped set the stage for a historic change in U.S. immigration law, which imposed strict national quotas for newcomers that would shape the United States’ ethnic makeup for decades to come.

. . . .

The renewed backlash against immigration has little to offer the American project, though. Closing the door to new Americans would be hardly desirable, a blow to one of the nation’s greatest sources of dynamism. Raw data confirms how immigrants are adding to the nation’s economic growth, even while helping keep a lid on inflation.

Anyway, that horse left the stable. The United States is full of immigrants from, in Trump’s memorable words, “s—hole countries.” The project to set this in reverse is a fool’s errand. The 1924 Johnson-Reed immigration law might have succeeded in curtailing immigration. But the restrictions did not hold. From Presidents Johnson to Trump, efforts to circle the wagons around some ancestral White American identity failed.

We are extremely lucky it did. Contra Sen. Ellison DuRant Smith’s 100-year old prescriptions, the nation owes what greatness it has to the many different women and men it has drawn from around the world to build their futures. This requires a different conversation — one that doesn’t feature mass expulsions and concentration camps but focuses on constructing a new shared American identity that fits everyone, including the many more immigrants who will arrive from the Global South for years to come.

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

Gordon F. Sander, journalist and historian, also writes in WashPost, perhaps somewhat less optimistically, but with the same historical truth in the face of current political lies and gross misrepresentations:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2024/05/24/johnson-reed-act-immigration-quotas-trump/

. . . .

Johnson and Reed were in a triumphant mood on the eve of their bill’s enactment. “America of the melting pot will no longer be necessary,” Reed wrote in the Times. He remarked on the new law’s impact: “It will mean a more homogenous nation, more self-reliant, more independent and more closely knit by common properties and common faith.”

The law immediately had its intended effect. In 1921, more than 200,000 Italians arrived at Ellis Island. In 1925, following the bill’s enactment, barely 6,000 Italians were permitted entry.

But there were less intended consequences, too, including on U.S. foreign relations. Although Reed insisted there was nothing personal about the act’s exclusion of Japanese people, the Japanese government took strong exception, leading to an increase in tensions between the two countries. There were riots in Tokyo. The road to Pearl Harbor was laid.

During the 1930s, after the eugenics-driven Nazis seized control of Germany, the quotas established by the act helped close the door to European Jews and others fleeing fascism.

At the same time, the law also inspired a small but determined group of opponents led by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-N.Y.), who were committed to overturning it. Celler’s half-century-long campaign finally paid off in 1965 at the Statue of Liberty when, as Celler looked on, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act, which ended national origin quotas.

But with anti-immigration sentiment on the rise and quotas once again on the table, it’s clear that a century after its enactment, the ghost of Johnson-Reed isn’t completely gone.

Gordon F. Sander is a journalist and historian based in Riga, Latvia. He is the author of “The Frank Family That Survived: A 20th Century Odyssey” and other books

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

Many thanks to my friend and immigration maven Deb Sanders for alerting me to the Sander article. I strongly urge everyone to read both pieces at the links above.

Perhaps the most poignant comment I’ve received about these articles is from American educator, expert, author, and “practical scholar” Susan Gzesh:

And because of the 1924 Act, my grandparents lost dozens of their siblings, parents, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews to the Holocaust in the 1940s because Eastern European Jewish immigration to the US had been cut off. They would have been capable of sponsoring more family to come to the US in the late 1920s and 30s, but there was no quota for them.

I have no words to describe my feelings about so-called experts who would praise the 1924 Act. I know that Asian Americans must feel similarly to my sentiments.

Well said, Susan!

Susan Gzesh
American scholar, educator, expert, author
PHOTO: U. Of Chicago

I’ll leave it at that, for you to ponder the next time you hear Trump, DeSantis, Abbott, and the like fear-monger about the bogus “invasion,” spout “replacement theory,” and extoll the virtues of extralegal cruelties and dehumanization inflicted upon “the other” — typically the most vulnerable who are seeking our legal protection and appealing to our senses of justice and human dignity! And, also you can consider this when the so called “mainstream media” pander to these lies by uncritically presenting them as “the other side,” thereby echoing “alternative facts!”

It’s also worth remembering this when you hear Biden, Harris, Schumer, Murphy, and other weak-kneed Dem politicos who should know better adopt Trumpist White Nationalist proposals and falsely present them as “realistic compromises” — as opposed to what they really are — tragic acts of political and moral cowardice!

Eventually, as both of the above articles point out, America largely persevered and prospered over its demons of racism, anti-Catholicism, and anti-immigrant nationalism. But, it would be wrong to view this “long arc” analysis as “zeroing out” the sins and horrors of our past.

Susan Gzesh’s relatives died, some horribly and painfully, before their time. That can’t be changed by future progress. Nor can the children they might have had or the achievements they never got to make to our nation and the world be resurrected.

As Susan mentions, the 1924 Act also reinforced long-standing racism and xenophobia against Asian Americans that led to the irreversible harm inflicted by the internment of Japanese American citizens, continuing Chinese Exclusion, and a host of state laws targeting the Asian population and making their lives miserable. Belated recognition of the wrongfulness and immorality of these reprehensible laws and actions does nothing for their past victims.

Many Irish, Italian, and other Catholics and their cherished institutions died, lost property, or were permanently displaced by widespread anti-Catholic riots brought on and fanned by the very type of biased and ignorant thinking that undergirded Johnson-Reed. They can’t be brought back to life and their property restored just by a “magic wave of the historical wand.”

U.S. citizens of Mexican-American heritage were deported and dispossessed, some from property their ancestors had owned long before there was even a United States. Apologizing to their descendants and acknowledging our mistakes as a nation won’t eliminate the injustices done them — ones that they took to their graves!

Despite the “lessons of the Holocaust,” America continues to struggle with anti-Semitism and anti-Islamic phobias and indifference to human suffering beyond our borders.

And, of course, the poisonous adverse impacts of slavery on our nation and our African-American compatriots continue to haunt and influence us despite disingenuous claims to the contrary.

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

My friends immigration experts Dan Kowalski and Hon. Jeffrey Chase also had some “choice words” for the “false scholars” who extol the fabricated “benefits” of White Nationalism and racism embodied in “laws” that contravened the very meaning of “with liberty and justice for all” — something to reflect upon this Memorial Day. See https://dankowalski.substack.com/p/true-colors.

That prompted this response from Susan:

Susan Gzesh

11 hrs ago

Thank you, Dan! In memory of my Gzesh, Wolfson, Kronenberg, and Kissilove relatives who were victims of the Holocaust – after their U.S.-based relatives failed to get visas for them.

I also recently weighed in on the horrors of the 1924 Act in a recent article by Felipe De La Hoz, published in The New Republic: https://immigrationcourtside.com/2024/05/02/🏴☠%EF%B8%8F🤯🤮-a-century-of-progress-arrested-the-1924-immigration-act-rears-its-ugly-nativist-head-again-felipe-de-la-hoz-in-the-new-repub/.

Heed the lessons of history, enshrine tolerance, honor diversity, and “improve on past performance!” We have a choice as to whether or not to repeat the mistakes of the past — to regress to a darker age or move forward to a brighter future for all! Make the right one!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-27-24

🇺🇸⚖️🗽 IMMIGRATION GURUS DAN KOWALSKI & PROFESSOR KAREN MUSALO SLAM NYT’S DAVID LEONHARDT’S DANGEROUS☠️, “TONE DEAF,” IRRESPONSIBLE REPACKAGING OF NATIVIST IMMIGRATION LIES & MYTHS!🤯🤮 — Like The Pandering Nativist Politicos He Echoes, Leonhardt Makes Himself Part Of The Problem, While Ignoring The Truth-Based Solutions Offered By Experts!

Dan writes on Substack:

https://dankowalski.substack.com/p/when-journalists-stray

When Journalists Stray Or: Next Time, David Leonhardt, Check With Experts Before Writing About Immigration

DAN KOWALSKI

MAY 23, 2024

Immigration law and policy are very complex, and truly boring for everyone except those who have to deal with them. But we live in an instant gratification, fast food culture. Immigration is a Hot Topic, folks want a Solution Now, so journalists naturally write about it…some better than others.

David Leonhardt, a senior writer at the New York Times, is a smart fellow who has won awards. But his “wheelhouse,” as the kids say, is mostly business and economics. I wish he (and/or his editors…where were they?) had consulted a panel of experts before hitting “send” on this piece.

Thanks for reading Dan’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Pledge your support

Now, I’m not an expert, but I did practice immigration law for almost 40 years, and today my social media feeds and email listservs are burning up with negative reactions to Leonhardt’s piece from true immigration experts.

Responding to every one of the problems in the piece would make this post too long, and would put you to sleep rather quickly, so I’ll touch on just a few highlights that really chapped my professional hide.

First, Leonhardt said, “Biden … changed the definition of asylum to include fear of gang violence.” That is simply false. The definition of who qualifies for asylum is based on the “refugee” definition, is fixed by statute, and only Congress can change that. Congress did NOT make any such change, and neither Biden nor any president could. Fear of gang violence as a basis for an asylum claim is a continuing subject of litigation at the Board of Immigration Appeals and in the federal courts, but the statute remains unchanged.

Second, Leonhardt states that Biden could have issued executive orders to mitigate the situation at the border. Oh, but “Yes, federal judges might block some of these policies… .” Maybe because they are illegal orders? No matter, “sending a message” is more important than legality.

Third, on the matter of admission into the U.S. via “parole,” Leonhardt implies that Biden expanded the use of parole beyond its “case-by-case” legal limits. Maybe Leonhardt did not know that “parole was … used to resettle over 360,000 Indochinese refugees between 1975 and mid-1980” and that “[b]etween 1962 and the end of May 1979, over 690,000 Cuban nationals were paroled into the country, “the largest number of refugees from a single nationality ever accepted into the United States.” ” – Amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court in Clark v. Martinez.

Finally, the overall thrust of Leonhardt’s piece seems to be that the border is a “problem” that can and should be “solved” by some combination of legal and physical deterrents. This is a misperception common to educated elites as well as regular folks, and it is based on an ignorance of the full panoply of historical, economic, geographic and political forces that combine to make true border “control” a fantasy. Go to the border, look at the miles of desert, mountain and river and you will conclude that border walls are nothing more than a contractor’s financial wet dream. Talk to a woman from Central America who has risked everything to come here and you will conclude that no laws, no walls, no “message” would have deterred her.

I usually ignore much of what the MSM publishes about immigration, but the Times and Leonhardt carry a certain weight, so here I am, typing away. You’re welcome.

[The Comments are open, so fire away!]

Thanks for reading Dan’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Pledge your support

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

Here’s the letter that Professor Karen Musalo, Director of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at Hastings Law wrote to the NYT:

Re: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/23/briefing/addressing-immigration.html

by David Leonhardt, May 23, 2024

Before David Leonhardt writes another piece on immigration, he should make sure he has his facts straight. He erroneously claims Biden “changed the definition of asylum to include fear of gang violence.” Biden did no such thing. What his Justice Department did was overturn a Trump-era ruling attempting to foreclose asylum claims by victims of domestic and gang violence, regardless of their legal merits. That decision was widely criticized, including on your pages in an op-ed I co-authored with Jane Fonda. Attorney General Garland rightfully vacated it, leaving the issue to be resolved by regulations [which to date have not been issued].

Leonhardt is incorrect in his assertion that more “aggressive” moves will mitigate challenges at the border, or score points with voters who overwhelmingly oppose cruel and exclusionary policies. The Senate bill touted as a step in the right direction would have codified failed policies that only create more chaos.

Executive actions reportedly under consideration would similarly exacerbate operational challenges and inevitably get tied up in litigation.

And yes, Republicans’ sabotage of the bill was “transparently cynical.” Just as cynical, however, was the president’s choice to back anti-immigrant legislation he knew was doomed. In their attempts to out-Trump Trump, the president and his allies have betrayed their values and the voters who put them in office.

Karen Musalo

San Francisco, CA

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

Thanks, Dan and Karen! Turning Leonhardt loose on a subject he’s obviously unqualified to write about — “stunning ignorance” in the words of one world-renowned expert — is nothing short of journalistic malpractice on the part of the NYT!

Immigration is a serious topic with life or death implications for migrants and the future of our nation. It deserves serious, informed, professional journalism by experts who are familiar with the plight of forced migrants and the actual legal requirements for asylum and due process as well as the realities of the border and the anti-immigrant absurdities of our dysfunctional Immigration Courts and non-legally-compliant asylum adjudication system.

There are lots of well-qualified folks around who could inform the public. Needless to say Leonhardt is not one of them. Unhappily, few “mainstream media” journalists have the necessary creds. That’s one reason the toxic national debate is so dominated by right wing White Nationalist media spreading lies and myths with little critical pushback from the “MSM.”

Rachel SiegelEconomics Reporter Washington Post PHOTO: WashPost — Rachel Siegel
Economics Reporter
Washington Post
PHOTO: WashPost

Ironically, the same day’s Washington Post had an article by Rachel Siegel about how robust immigration of all types has saved the U.S. economy and how many economists believe Trump’s mindless, restrictionist, and likely illegal nativist policies could slow growth, devastate the U.S. workforce, and exacerbate inflation! https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/05/20/trump-immigration-undocumented-economy/. At the same time, he would create chaos and waste billions in public funds.

Recently, I published a number of articles by experts debunking many of the very anti-immigrant myths that Leonhardt disingenuously repeats or enables:

🤯☠️🤮👎 POLITICOS’ “BIPARTISAN” LIES & FEAR MONGERING ABOUT IMMIGRATION MAKES THINGS WORSE! — “Rebuilding the U.S. immigration system to be both functional and humane requires dismissing harmful myths and inflammatory rhetoric in favor of truth and facts. Here’s the truth!” — The Vera Institute Of Justice ⚖️ Reports! 🗽

🇺🇸⚖️🗽 EXPLODING THE NEGATIVE “BIPARTISAN MYTHS” ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS: TRAC’S 10-YR. STUDY SHOWS THAT HUGE MAJORITY (2/3) OF ASYLUM SEEKERS GET FAVORABLE RESULTS IF (A BIG “IF”) THEY CAN GET A DECISION FROM EOIR — Representation Is Critical To Success — Hundreds Of Thousands Who Deserve To Stay Languish In Garland’s Endless Backlogs, While He Continues To Enable “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”), The Bane Of Due Process, Fairness, & Efficiency!

⚖️🗽 REV. CRAIG MOUSIN @ LAWFUL ASSEMBLY PODCAST URGES US TO TELL THE ADMINISTRATION & CONGRESS TO WITHDRAW ANTI-ASYLUM PROPOSED REGS: “Let’s give courage to those who recognize the benefits of a working asylum system. There are many positive ways to cut down on inefficiencies at the border!”

🇺🇸🗽👍 NICOLE NAREA @ VOX CORRECTS TOXIC “BORDER MYTHS” THAT DRIVE OUR LARGELY ONE-SIDED POLITICAL “DIALOGUE” ON IMMIGRATION!

🤯 MORE BAD ASYLUM POLICIES COMING? — Jeez, Joe, Stop The “Miller Lite” Nativist Nonsense & Fix Your Broken Asylum Adjudication System With Due Process Already! 🤯

🗽⚖️ EXPERT URGES U.S. TO COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONAL NORMS ON GENDER-BASED PROTECTION — Current “Any Reason To Deny” Restrictive Interpretations & Actions Are A Threat To Women Everywhere & Unnecessarily Bog Down Already Burdened System With Unnecessary Legal Minutia, Says Professor Karen Musalo In New Article!

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2024/05/03/%f0%9f%87%ba%f0%9f%87%b8%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%97%bd%f0%9f%91%8d-uw-law-professor-erin-barbato-speaks-to-the-milwaukee-journal-sentinel-gutsy-practical-scholar-goes-where-politico/.

In one of many bad moments, Leonhardt uncritically “parrots” the oft-debunked fiction that changes in U.S. immigration policies and “deterrents” like walls, detention, and racially-driven cruelty are primary long-term “drivers” of forced human migration. Undoubtedly, in the complex interrelated world of migration, such policies do have some fairly marginal, largely short-term effects, causing changes in migration paths, adjustments in smuggling methods, changes in smuggling fees, more deaths and unreported irregular entries (when enforcement “gimmicks” are irresponsibly expanded), and enough “statistical variance” to allow proponents of these futile policies to falsely claim “victory” before the system reverts to a new “equilibrium.”

But the truth is inescapable, even if inconvenient for Leonhardt and other dilettantes: Human migration is a complex worldwide phenomenon driven by forces beyond the ability of any single nation, even one as powerful and influential as the U.S., to control by harsh deterrence and restriction, no matter how cruel, deadly, and wasteful. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/about.php (“Migrants will continue to flee bombs, look for better-paying jobs and accept extraordinary risks as the price of providing a better life for their children. . . . No wall, sheriff or headscarf law would have prevented [forced migrants] from leaving their homes.”).

As cogently stated by Robert McKee Irwin, an immigration scholar at U.C. Davis:

Research shows that the United States’ immigration policies have never deterred migrants from coming to the country; they have only made the immigration process longer and more difficult.

https://www.ucdavis.edu/blog/curiosity/conversation-immigration-policies-do-not-deter-migrants-coming-us

Indeed, Leonhardt quite disingenuously ignores the fact that misguided “uber enforcement” policies are not only futile, but also increase trauma, suffering, and death for those seeking only to exercise their legal right to seek asylum. See, e.g., Human Rights First, “Trapped, Preyed Upon, and Punished: One Year of The Biden Administration Asylum Ban,” https://link.quorum.us/f/a/guoNlRSTVRVbYZ3FDvlfbA~~/AACYXwA~/RgRoMPIbP0RCaHR0cHM6Ly9odW1hbnJpZ2h0c2ZpcnN0Lm9yZy9ldmVudHMvcmVwb3J0YnJpZWZpbmctMXllYXJhc3lsdW1iYW4vVwNzcGNCCmZGIm1OZko_DEZSEmplbm5pbmdzMTJAYW9sLmNvbVgEAAAAAA~~.

Leonhardt also suggests, quite incorrectly, that Biden’s (limited) attempts to increase pathways for legal immigration and return to the rule of law at the border somehow benefitted and encouraged smugglers and cartels. NOTHING could be more wrong-headed!

It is Trump and his restrictionist allies and enablers who have been a huge boon for human smugglers! As legal pathways are eliminated or unreasonably restricted, the entire “protection” system falls into the hands of smugglers and other trans-border criminal organizations who become “the only game in town” for those seeking protection! Smuggling prices go up and the risks to migrants increase, even as profit margins for the smugglers skyrocket! Equally bad, law enforcement is diverted from real criminals to playing a bogus “numbers game” at the expense of those who seek only to have their life-determining claims heard fairly, timely, and humanely in accordance with the rule of law!

If our country builds a fair, timely, and humane system for considering asylum claims, something that succeeding Administrations have shamefully eschewed, the majority of asylum applicants will use it, which at the same time would allow border law enforcement to focus on real security issues rather than contrived ones. Similarly, more realistic and robust paths for legal immigration, both temporary and long term, will reduce the pressure and incentives for irregular migration. These measures would also tap into the truth about migration being ignored by politicos of both parties:

These [restrictionist] political reactions fail to grapple with a hard truth: in the long run, new migration is nearly always a boon to host countries. In acting as entrepreneurs and innovators, and by providing inexpensive labor, immigrants overwhelmingly repay in long-term economic contributions what they use in short-term social services, studies show. But to maximize that future good, governments must act -rationally to establish humane policies and adequately fund an immigration system equipped to handle an influx of newcomers.

http://time.com/longform/migrants/

Notably, the Biden parole program criticized by Leonhardt not only has been upheld in Federal Court, but has generally been praised and recognized by experts as a great, largely under appreciated, success in both creating an orderly process and reducing border pressures while benefitting American families and fueling our economy. See, e.g., https://www.fwd.us/news/chnv-parole/. (I’ll admit to not initially being a “fan,” but hey, results matter so I’ve come around). The most legitimate criticism is that it has been too limited both in terms of numbers and nationality restrictions!

Bad journalism promoting myths like those spouted by Leonhard misleads the public and enables politicos to get away with policies that are not only illegal, but often harm and even kill the very vulnerable migrants we are supposed to be protecting, or at the very least treating with fairness, respect, and human dignity. America and the migrants who still (against the odds) see us as a beacon of hope in a cruel world deserve better from the NYT!

There are sane, humane ways of solving complex immigration problems. See, e.g., https://immigrantjustice.org/staff/blog/humane-solutions-work-10-ways-biden-administration-should-reshape-immigration-policy. Ignoring them in favor of fear mongering and cruelty is irresponsible. Or, check out this thoughtful “reality based” proposal by Paul Hunker, until recently a Chief Counsel at ICE Dallas. https://www-dallasnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2024/05/22/rethinking-asylum-applicants-should-not-be-released/?outputType=amp.

Professors Erin Barbato, Sarah McKinnon, and Jorge Osorio of the University of Wisconsin – Madison (one of my alma maters) are actually working with forced migrants in the Darien Gap and Mexico to provide better information, care, and alert them to other viable pathways before they reach the U.S. border through their innovative interdisciplinary organization “Migration in the Americas Project.” See https://immigrationcourtside.com/2024/04/22/%F0%9F%87%BA%F0%9F%87%B8%F0%9F%97%BD%F0%9F%91%8F-filling-the-gap-migration-in-the-americas-project-u-w-madison-creative-interdisciplinary-approach-seeks-to-provide-migrants-with-better-info/.

My UW Law ‘73 classmate retired Wisconsin Judge Tom Lister and I have proposed “Judges Without Borders” as a step that should be high on the the bipartisan “immigration to do list” for Congress. See https://immigrationcourtside.com/2024/04/22/%F0%9F%87%BA%F0%9F%87%B8%F0%9F%97%BD%F0%9F%91%8F-filling-the-gap-migration-in-the-americas-project-u-w-madison-creative-interdisciplinary-approach-seeks-to-provide-migrants-with-better-info/.

Judge Lister also has a plan to donate patented “healthy, sustainable textile technology” developed during the pandemic that could be used to create good jobs in Mexico and other countries beyond our borders.

Professor Michele Pistone at Villanova Law has developed a “scalable” online training course (“VIISTA Villanova”) that is currently being used to graduate more highly-qualified non-lawyer “Accredited Representatives” to close the burgeoning and critical representation gap in Immigration Court, thus “delivering due process with efficiency.” She believes that with more funding, this program could be “ramped up” to produce 10,000 new Accredited Representatives annually! See, e.g., https://www1.villanova.edu/university/professional-studies/academics/professional-education/viista.html.

The Sharma-Crawford Clinic in Kansas City, MO, now has sent more than 150 “alums” of its “Immigration Court Trial Litigation College” out into the “real world” where they are defending due process, winning cases, saving lives, and training and inspiring others. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2024/04/28/%F0%9F%87%BA%F0%9F%87%B8%F0%9F%97%BD%E2%9A%96%EF%B8%8F%F0%9F%91%8D-report-from-kansas-city-the-sharma-crawford-clinic-immigration-court-trial-advocacy-college-reaches-new-heights/.

With so many brilliant, informed, and involved experts out here, with creative positive ideas for improving immigrant justice and restoring the rule of law, it is very disappointing that the NYT and Leonhardt have chosen to uncritically recycle and repeat cruel, failed, legally problematic proposals by irresponsible politicos that would make things worse. Rather, the media should be consulting the experts actually involved in immigration at the “grass roots level” and pressing politicos on both sides of the aisle and the Administration as to why they aren’t concentrating and investing in humane potential solutions rather than deadly and discredited “deterrence through cruelty!”

As Erica Bryant of the Vera Institute of Justice, someone who, unlike Leonhardt, is actually qualified to write about migration, stated in an article I recently republished:

This November, and beyond, voters need to reject lies that demonize immigrants and demand policies that treat each person with dignity and fairness, no matter where they were born.

🤯☠️🤮👎 POLITICOS’ “BIPARTISAN” LIES & FEAR MONGERING ABOUT IMMIGRATION MAKES THINGS WORSE! — “Rebuilding the U.S. immigration system to be both functional and humane requires dismissing harmful myths and inflammatory rhetoric in favor of truth and facts. Here’s the truth!” — The Vera Institute Of Justice ⚖️ Reports! 🗽

Obviously, neither Leonhardt nor the NYT editors got the message. They should!

Thanks again, Dan and Karen, for being the first to speak out and challenge Leonhardt’s dangerous, misleading, and highly irresponsible nativist nonsense!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-24-24

🇺🇸⚖️🗽👍👏 CELEBRATE A HUGE GOOD GUYS’ “ROUND 1” WIN OVER WHITE NATIONALIST FL “GOV” RONNIE D!

Adina Appelbaum of CAIR Coalition reports on LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/adina-appelbaum_immigrationlaw-immigrationupdate-legalupdate-activity-7199090235421401088-qNiK?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios

🚩 Federal court knocks down key part of Florida’s anti-immigrant law temporarily – a massive win for immigrants’ rights against anti-immigrant state laws!

Today, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit challenging the main provision of Florida’s anti-immigrant law SB1718. This means this part of the law is temporarily stopped while the full case continues to get litigated.

Spearheaded by anti-immigrant Governor Ron DeSantis, SB1718 has attacked immigrants in Florida in a multitude of ways, including the provision at issue in this lawsuit, which made it a crime to transport anyone into Florida who had not been “inspected” by the US government.

This had the effect of the state of Florida, through state criminal law, unlawfully enforcing federal immigration law, which hundreds of years of case law makes clear is a matter reserved for the federal government. The district court judge agreed (finding the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their conflict- and field-preemption claims).

Congratulations to the ACLU, SPLC, AIC, and AIJ who have led litigation on this case as well as my colleagues Immigration Impact Lab Senior Attorneys F. Evan Benz and Daniel J. Melo and AILA’s amicus committee for writing an excellent amicus brief in support of the lawsuit.

What can you do?

1. Spread the word. Help educate others about the importance of fighting for immigrants’ rights.

2. Celebrate. As we see more and more states seek to pass anti-immigrant laws at the state level following Florida and Texas’ lead, this decision is a milestone moment in advocates’ efforts to fight back. 🎉

#immigrationlaw #immigrationupdate #legalupdate #immigration

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

Thanks, Adina, and way to go NDPA Team! The case is Farmworker Association of Florida v. Moody, No. 23-cv-22655 (Southern District of Florida, May 22, 2024). Expect Florida to appeal to the 11th Circuit, so, unfortunately, this isn’t the end of the matter.

Here’s a link to the decision by U.S. District Judge Roy K. Altman (Trump appointee):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16nz3m5egOWHK4ZTp2oa2t-7kWFj3sjdj/view?usp=sharing

Even as the national (non) debate on immigration deteriorates into lies, myths, and hate, there are still victories to be won by great, motivated lawyers dedicated to defending individual rights and the rule of law against political scofflaws like DeSantis and his nativist ilk!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-23-24

🤯☠️🤮👎 POLITICOS’ “BIPARTISAN” LIES & FEAR MONGERING ABOUT IMMIGRATION MAKES THINGS WORSE! — “Rebuilding the U.S. immigration system to be both functional and humane requires dismissing harmful myths and inflammatory rhetoric in favor of truth and facts. Here’s the truth!” — The Vera Institute Of Justice ⚖️ Reports! 🗽

Erica Bryant, Associate Director of Writing:

https://www.vera.org/news/debunking-the-lies-politicians-say-about-immigrants

As critical elections approach, voters are being bombarded with harmful myths, misrepresentations, and outright lies about people who are immigrants. More than 45 million people living in the United States were born elsewhere. Despite their proven contributions to communities nationwide, people seeking office call them “invaders” and make campaign promises for the “largest domestic deportation operation in history.” Inflammatory talking points about “border security” and the “migrant crisis” come from candidates across the political spectrum.

What is missing from this rhetoric is simple: the truth. The United States has failed to align its immigration laws and practices with 21st-century realities, leaving a system that is cruel, dysfunctional, and widely criticized. Bringing the country’s approach to immigration in line with the needs of the moment and building an immigration system that is both functional and humane will require serious effort. False information distracts from the solutions that we know work.

Here’s the truth.

It is perfectly legal to request asylum. People who come to the United States border to ask for help are not breaking the law.

Asylum is a form of protection that allows people to remain in the United States and avoid deportation back to a country where they fear persecution or harm because of their identity, religion, or political beliefs. Under both U.S. and international law, people who face danger in their homelands have the right to go to other nations to seek safety and to have their requests for asylum considered.

Asking for asylum is not a “free ticket” into the United States.

Applying for asylum is a long and complex process. Asylum cases completed in fiscal year 2019 or later took an average of 5.2 years to resolve, according to unpublished analysis of government data conducted by Vera. Currently-pending removal cases have been on the docket for an average of 1.9 years. Dangerous conditions around the world have forced record numbers of people to flee their homes and seek safety. This increase in need, exacerbated by a decades-long lack of investment in infrastructure and capacity to humanely process asylum claims, has created an enormous backlog in processing requests. Vera’s unpublished analysis of government data showed that, as of January 31, 2024, there were 3,353,199 cases pending removal proceedings in the United States.

Undocumented people have far lower crime rates than U.S. citizens.

Political candidates often falsely link undocumented people to crime in the United States. Yet an extensive study of crimes in all 50 states and Washington, DC, from 1990 to 2014, found that undocumented immigration does not increase violent crime. A study of arrests in Texas found that, relative to undocumented people, U.S.-born citizens are more than twice as likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and more than four times more likely to be arrested for property crimes. Another study in Texas found that the criminal conviction rate for undocumented immigrants was 45 percent below that of native-born Texans. Immigrants of any legal status are typically found to be less involved in violence than native-born Americans.

Undocumented people pay taxes and help prop up social security by paying into the system—without receiving benefits.

Undocumented people pay an estimated $31 billion dollars in federal, state, and local taxes each year, including billions of dollars into a social security system from which they can draw very few, if any, benefits. The Social Security Administration (SSA) itself estimated that it collected $13 billion in payroll taxes in 2010 from workers without documentation, while only disbursing about $1 billion in payment attributable to unauthorized work. In a 2013 report, SSA estimated that “earnings by unauthorized immigrants result in a net positive effect on Social Security financial status generally. . . . We estimate that future years will experience a continuation of this positive impact on the trust funds.”

Virtually no fentanyl has been seized from people seeking asylum.

Fentanyl overdoses are increasing in the United States, and real solutions will require investments in treatment and preventative health care infrastructure. Instead, far too many politicians seek cheap political points by falsely blaming people seeking asylum at the southern border for this serious problem. In fact, virtually no fentanyl has been seized from people seeking asylum. In 2023, 93 percent of fentanyl seizures occurred at official border crossings or legal checkpoints. Nearly all of these seizures involved people permitted to cross the border, and more than 70 percent were U.S. citizens.

People with pending immigration cases show up to their court hearings.

Evidence clearly shows that, over the past two decades, most immigrants have shown up for the immigration court hearings that determine whether they have legal standing to remain in the United States. They do not slip into the country and disappear, as some political leaders claim. In fact, those who attend immigration court outside detention, on what are known as “non-detained” dockets, almost always continue to appear for their hearings when they are able to secure legal representation. There is no need to confine people in costly and inhumane immigration prisons.

Not all people at risk of deportation cross the border without documentation. Visa holders, long-term permanent residents, and even U.S. citizens are at risk.

While the spotlight often shines on people who cross the southern border without documentation, there are many ways that people can face the threat of deportation in the United States. Indeed, there are 22 million people in the United States who are at risk of being separated from their families and sent to countries where they may face danger. Tens of thousands of children who were adopted from outside the United States, for example, do not have documentation and are vulnerable to deportation because their complex citizenship paperwork was improperly filed. Additionally, more than one million people were brought to the United States as children by parents who entered the country without documentation or overstayed their visas. And, in 2022, more than 850,000 people from countries around the world overstayed their visas, making their continued presence in the United States unauthorized. Lawful permanent residents, current visa holders, and even U.S. citizens have been subjected to the risk of deportation and forced to defend their right to remain home with their families and in their communities.

Many people at risk of deportation actually have a legal right to remain in the United States—but are deported anyway.

Unlike in criminal court, people facing deportation in immigration court are not entitled to an attorney if they cannot afford one. Immigration attorneys can cost thousands of dollars, making them unaffordable for many. As a result, people seeking asylum, longtime legal residents, parents of U.S. citizens, and even small children are forced to appear in immigration court without an attorney to protect their rights. This makes it much more likely that they will be deported, even if they could have established a legal right to stay in the United States. The Fairness to Freedom Act, which was introduced in Congress last year and would establish a right to federally funded attorneys for all people facing deportation, would help fix this injustice.

Immigrants participate in the labor force and start businesses at higher rates than the native-born population.

One in six people in the United States workforce are immigrants. In fact, immigrants participate in the labor force at a higher rate than the U.S.-born population. Immigrants are also more likely to start businesses than native-born U.S. citizens. Furthermore, millions of people in the United States are employed by immigrant-founded and immigrant-owned companies.

People in the United States view immigration as a positive that benefits the country, and they support protections for people fleeing danger.

The majority of the public believes that immigration brings benefits to the United States, including economic growth and enriching culture and values. Nearly three-quarters of people polled said that people immigrate to the United States for jobs and to improve their lives, and more than half say that the ability to immigrate is a “human right.” Multiple polls show that the majority of people in the United States support protections for people who are trying to escape persecution and torture in their homelands. According to one Pew Research Center poll, 72 percent believe that accepting civilians trying to escape war and violence should be an important goal of U.S. immigration policy.

The United States has much work ahead to reform its dysfunctional and often cruel immigration system. This November, and beyond, voters need to reject lies that demonize immigrants and demand policies that treat each person with dignity and fairness, no matter where they were born.

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

Erica’s “spot on” last sentence is certainly worth repeating:

This November, and beyond, voters need to reject lies that demonize immigrants and demand policies that treat each person with dignity and fairness, no matter where they were born.

While migrants might be the “easy target” of politicos and nativists, because they are vulnerable and “the usual scapegoats” for problems created or fostered by those very politicos and nativists themselves, in the end we ALL are the targets of those who want to inflict gratuitous cruelty while destroying our precious democracy.

As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Each of us has a vested interest in “not looking the other way” while our fellow humans unfairly are stripped of their rights and humanity with “harmful myths, misrepresentations, and outright lies.” YOU could be “next on the list!”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-22-24

🇺🇸⚖️🗽 EXPLODING THE NEGATIVE “BIPARTISAN MYTHS” ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS: TRAC’S 10-YR. STUDY SHOWS THAT HUGE MAJORITY (2/3) OF ASYLUM SEEKERS GET FAVORABLE RESULTS IF (A BIG “IF”) THEY CAN GET A DECISION FROM EOIR — Representation Is Critical To Success — Hundreds Of Thousands Who Deserve To Stay Languish In Garland’s Endless Backlogs, While He Continues To Enable “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”), The Bane Of Due Process, Fairness, & Efficiency!

Austin Kocher, Ph.D.
Research Assistant Professor
TRAC-Syracuse
PHOTO: Syracuse U.

From Professor Austin Kocher @ Linkedin:

New Report! “Two-Thirds of Court Asylum Applicants Found Legally Entitled to Remain.”

Out of 1M+ asylum cases decided by immigration judges over the past decade, 685,956 (66%) were legally entitled to remain in the United States due to asylum or other relief.

https://trac.syr.edu/reports/742/

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

Remember, this is in a system that has, over decades, been intentionally rigged, manipulated, and skewed AGAINST legal asylum seekers, particularly those of color from certain arbitrarily “disfavored” countries! (Think Haiti, The Northern Triangle, and many African Nations). While this anti-asylum bias has “peaked” in GOP Administrations, Dems have also been guilty including the Biden Administration’s flailing, legally problematic efforts to abuse the asylum adjudication system as a “deterrent” to those legally seeking asylum!

Trial By Ordeal — The U.S. Asylum system over the past two decades has prided itself in making the experience of asylum seekers as restrictive, difficult, complex, arcane, arbitrary, and “user unfriendly” as possible for many of the most vulnerable. Even so, courageous asylum seekers who can actually get a decision persevere and succeed against the odds! What if Administrations of both parties worked to make the system fair and timely, rather than trying to use it as a false “deterrent?” Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal”
17th Century Woodcut
Public Realm
Source: Ancient Origins Website
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160

Austin’s post triggered this exchange between Beckie “Deportation Defender” Moriello and me on LinkedIn:

BECKIE: It’s really higher than that, once we factor in all the wrongfully denied cases for clients who can’t afford to appeal.

PWS: Thanks for speaking truth, Beckie! If true asylum experts were on the BIA, IJs were experts who applied or were held by the BIA to the Cardoza, Mogharrabi, Kasinga, 8 CFR 208.13 framework, the asylum adjudication system had dynamic leadership, and individuals were competently represented, many more cases would be granted much more efficiently and backlogs would eventually come under control and start to diminish. In fact, individuals should be considered eligible for asylum even where persecution on a protected ground is “significantly less than probable” — the 10% rule! Moreover, asylum seekers who testify credibly are supposed to be given “the benefit of the doubt.” These and the presumption of future persecution established by past persecution, thereby shifting the burden to DHS, are still too often ignored, misapplied, or manipulated against asylum seekers. There is nothing that will make a backlog at least a decade in the making disappear overnight. But, a legitimate, legally compliant, properly generous asylum adjudication system would benefit all involved. It’s sad that Biden, Harris, Garland, and Mayorkas are afraid to comply with the rule of law for asylum seekers and other migrants!

Beckie “Deportation Defender” Moriello ESQUIREPHOTO: Linkedin — Beckie “Deportation Defender” Moriello ESQUIRE
PHOTO: Linkedin

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-21-24

⚖️🗽 REV. CRAIG MOUSIN @ LAWFUL ASSEMBLY PODCAST URGES US TO TELL THE ADMINISTRATION & CONGRESS TO WITHDRAW ANTI-ASYLUM PROPOSED REGS: “Let’s give courage to those who recognize the benefits of a working asylum system. There are many positive ways to cut down on inefficiencies at the border!”

Listen here:

https://www.lawfulpod.com/restrictions-to-an-already-compromised-asylum-system/

MAY 17, 2024

Restrictions To An Already Compromised Asylum System

This week we talk about a proposed rule from the Biden Administration that may change asylum proceedures and allow adjudicators to turn away people without proper research on their background.

Read the proposed rule: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/13/2024-10390/application-of-certain-mandatory-bars-in-fear-screenings

Read the NIJC’s breakdown: https://immigrantjustice.org/press-releases/nijc-denounces-new-biden-rule-adding-restrictions-already-compromised-asylum-system

Contact your Representative: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

Contact your Senator: https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm

Craig’s paper he mentions: Health Inequity and Tent Court Injustice

Next week we should have a call to action with templates for you to help submit your comment. Watch this space!

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

Thanks, Craig, for speaking up! Why does the Administration keep proposing likely unlawful restrictionist regulations that won’t help the situation at the border?

As Craig notes, there are “many positive ways” to improve the treatment of legal asylum seekers and promote fair and efficient consideration of their claims! Why is the Biden Administration “tuning out” the voices of those with border expertise who are trying to help them make the legal asylum system work?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-20-24

⚠️ “SIR JEFFREY” OF THE ROUND TABLE ⚔️🛡 SAYS THAT SUCCESSIVE ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE UNDERMINED THE RULE OF LAW BY CONTRAVENING BINDING INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE STANDARDS: “[I]t is only when international law becomes normalized in the process that our asylum law will function as it should.” — Stop Mocking The Rule Of Law At The Border! ☠️

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/proposed-asylum-bar-regs-are-at-odds-with-international-law-and-why-that-matters

Proposed Asylum Bar Regs Are At Odds With International Law (And Why That Matters)

In 2003, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees published Guidelines for applying the bars to asylum known internationally as the “exclusion clauses” (because they exclude an applicant from being recognized as a refugee under international law). Addressing the proper procedure for applying these bars, the UNHCR Guidelines state:

Given the grave consequences of exclusion, it is essential that rigorous procedural safeguards are built into the exclusion determination procedure. Exclusion decisions should in principle be dealt with in the context of the regular refugee status determination procedure and not in either admissibility or accelerated procedures, so that a full factual and legal assessment of the case can be made.1

This week, the Biden Administration published a proposed rule seeking to do precisely the opposite of what UNHCR advises.2 The rule would empower USCIS asylum officers to apply certain bars to asylum eligibility up front, at the border, as part of a preliminary admissibility determination. The goal is to effect the immediate deportation of certain asylum seekers, foreclosing their ability to have their eligibility for asylum decided by an Immigration Judge pursuant to a full-fledged hearing.

Advocates have already pointed out the dangers of the proposed approach, which will require quick decisions on highly complex issues at a point at which applicants very rarely have access to lawyers or evidence; their responses should be read.3 However, I would like to focus here on the rule’s conflict with international law, and why this is problematic.

Since 1804, the Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy 4 has required domestic statutes to be interpreted consistently with international law whenever possible.5

This general requirement carries a particular urgency in its application to refugee law. The purpose of the 1951 Refugee Convention (which applied to those made refugees by World War II), and the 1967 Protocol (which extended the 1951 Convention’s definitions and protections to all) was to create a single, universal refugee standard to replace the patchwork of protections that reflected individual states’ own political preferences and biases.

This is not a small matter. International refugee law scholars James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster have warned that “[i]nconsistency and divergence in interpretation of the Convention definition would clearly undermine the principled goal of ensuring a single, universal standard for access to refugee protection.”6 They further quote a decision of the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal in support of this contention: “[i]nconsistency is not merely inelegant; it brings the process of deciding into disrepute, suggesting an arbitrariness which is incompatible with commonly accepted notions of justice.”7

Congress apparently agreed with this approach when enacting the 1980 Refugee Act. In its landmark 1987 decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the Supreme Court pointed this out:

If one thing is clear from the legislative history of the new definition of “refugee,” and indeed the entire 1980 Act, it is that one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.8

And in adhering to Congress’s clear intent, the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca looked for guidance in interpreting the 1980 Refugee Act to UNHCR, citing its Handbook first issued in 1979 as an important tool for interpreting the Convention’s provisions. In a footnote, the Court found that while it was not binding, “the Handbook provides significant guidance in construing the Protocol, to which Congress sought to conform. It has been widely considered useful in giving content to the obligations that the Protocol establishes.”9

As leading scholar Deborah E. Anker has noted, “One of the most important developments in U.S. asylum law is the weight that U.S. authorities – including the USCIS Asylum Office, the Board, and the federal courts – give to the UNHCR’s interpretation of the refugee definition contained in its 1979 Handbook….” Anker noted that UNHCR has issued other interpretive documents since 1979 that “complement and expand on the Handbook.”10 I would argue that those other documents (which include the 2003 guidelines addressing the exclusion clauses that is quoted above) are deserving of the same interpretive weight.

So given (1) the Supreme Court’s Charming Betsy doctrine mandating conformity with international law whenever possible; (2) the stated intent of Congress to bring U.S. asylum law into conformity with international refugee law (as recognized in Cardoza-Fonseca); and (3) the purpose of the 1951 Convention to “ensure a single, universal standard” for refugee status, according great weight to UNHCR guidance in interpreting the Convention provides the best means of adhering to all of the above requirements.

However, another leading scholar, Karen Musalo, provided a recent reminder of how far U.S. law has strayed from international law standards for determining nexus (i.e. when persecution is “on account of” a statutorily protected ground), and in determining the validity of particular social groups. Musalo posits that realignment with international standards would resolve the erroneous interpretations that have arisen under present case law, and would remove unwarranted barriers to protection that presently exist.11 But with its new proposed regulations, the government instead seeks to veer even further off course in its procedures for determining bars to asylum eligibility.

In December 2020, I presented in a blog post a “wish list” for the incoming Biden Administration. One of the items on my list was to create a “Charming Betsy” regulation requiring adherence to international law refugee standards. It included the hope “that the Biden Administration would codify the Charming Betsy doctrine in regulations, which should further require the BIA, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to consider UNHCR interpretations of the various asylum provisions, and require adjudicators to provide compelling reasons for rejecting its guidance.”12

I am not so naive to expect that a regulation like this will be proposed anytime soon. But I do believe that the direct contradiction of the proposed regs with international law guidance should be included in comments and talking points by those both inside and outside of government. Through these rules, the Biden Administration seeks to engage in the type of politically-motivated action that the Refugee Convention and 1980 Refugee Act sought to eliminate. For the above reasons, such action would violate the intent of Congress, our treaty obligations, and over two centuries of U.S. case law.

Moving forward, whether an asylum-related law, rule, policy, or case holding conforms with international law should instinctively be the first question asked by all of us. When refugee protection is viewed in such neutral, legal terms, the urge to politicize decisions will be lessened.

As those scholars referenced above have been saying far longer and more articulately than myself, it is only when international law becomes normalized in the process that our asylum law will function as it should.

Copyright 2024 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Notes:

UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection: Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 4 Sept. 2003, https://www.unhcr.org/us/media/guidelines-international-protection-no-5-application-exclusion-clauses-article-1f-1951 (emphasis added).

Application of Certain Mandatory Bars in Fear Screenings, 89 FR 41347 (May 13, 2024), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/13/2024-10390/application-of-certain-mandatory-bars-in-fear-screenings.

See, e.g., American Immigration Council, “The Biden Administration’s Proposed Regulations On Asylum Bars: An Analysis,” (May 10, 2024), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/biden-administration-proposed-regulation-asylum-bars-analysis; Human Rights First Press Release (May 9, 2024) https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/human-rights-first-opposes-new-asylum-proposals-that-would-deny-asylum-hearings/.

6 U.S. 64 (1804).

See Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 32 (1982) (noting that construing federal statutes to avoid violating international law has “been a maxim of statutory construction since the decision” in Charming Betsy).

James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status (Second Ed.), (Cambridge, 2014) at 4.

Hathaway and Foster, supra at n.18 (quoting Brennan, J., in Re Drake and Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 (Aus. AAT, Nov. 21, 1979) at 639.

480 U.S. 421, 436-37 (1987).

Id. at 439.

Deborah E. Anker, Law of Asylum in the United States (2023 Ed.) (Thomson Reuters) at 20-21.

Karen Musalo, “Aligning United States With International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims,” International Journal of Refugee Law (2024).

Jeffrey S. Chase, “A Wish List for 2021,” https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/12/14/a-wish-list-for-2021 (Dec. 14, 2020).

MAY 16, 2024

Reprinted by permission.

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

The Charming Betsy — The schooner Charming Betsy sailed into Supreme Court history. Hon. Jeffrey Chase and other legal experts aren’t “charmed” by AG Merrick Garland’s approach to binding international standards for asylum!
PHOTO: The Constitutional Law Reporter

Thanks, “Sir Jeffrey” for a great and timely analysis!

For the second successive Administration, we have an Attorney General who does not take seriously his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States when it comes to those seeking asylum.

Garland has too often signed off on regulations and policies that are clearly at odds with domestic and international law as well as our Constitution. The current abominable proposed regulations, referenced by Jeffrey and opposed by all experts on asylum law and human rights, are just the latest example. Those politicos behind these toxic policies won’t confront in person or acknowledge the well-documented unnecessary human trauma and degradation caused by scofflaw actions and policies that intentionally fail to make fair, humane, safe, and timely asylum processing available to all who come to legal ports of entry as required by law (not to mention human decency)!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-17-24

🇺🇸⚖️🗽HUNDREDS GATHER FOR MPI’S GALA CELEBRATION OF THE INCOMPARABLE DORIS MEISSNER, THE CONSUMMATE “PRACTICAL SCHOLAR/PUBLIC SERVANT!”

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Exclusive

May 16, 2024

Washington, D.C. — More than 300 “movers and shakers” of the migration world came together last night at the Intercontinental Hotel — Wharf in Washington D.C., to recognize and celebrate the continuing life’s work and leadership of Doris M. Meissner, former Commissioner of Immigration and a Justice Department policy official under administrations of both parties. The event was sponsored by Doris’s current employer, the Migration Policy Institute (“MPI”) where she is Senior Fellow and Director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program.

I first met my fellow Wisconsinite and University of Wisconsin alum in 1975, during the Ford Administration, when she was a White House Fellow assigned to the Attorney General, and I was a young attorney working in the “Legacy” Immigration & Naturalization Service (“INS”) Office of General Counsel, then part of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”). Our careers intertwined, and Doris was one of my role models and inspirations over five decades of work to make fairer and better immigration, justice, and human rights policies for America. Those are values we both believed in and strived to promote!

The gala raised over $1,000,000 for the newly-established Doris Meissner Innovation Fund” at MPI.

Somewhat predictably, the “Honorary Co-Chairs,” Former President Bill Clinton and Former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, did not attend in person, although Senator Simpson contributed a video tribute. Nevertheless, there were plenty of prominent speakers including Muzzafar Chishti (Senior Fellow, MPI), The Honorable Roberta Jacobson (Chair, MPI Board of Trustees), Anthony D. Romero (Executive Director, ACLU), Helene D. Gayle (President, Spelman College, by video), Soren Bjorn (CEO, Driscoll’s, which donated fresh raspberries for the dessert), Andrew Selee (President, MPI), and The Honorable Alejandro Mayorkas (Secretary, DHS).

The highlight of the evening was a short video starring some of Doris’s fellow social justice luminaries sharing their personal recollections of her many achievements and her impact on them. That was followed by some “family commentary” from Doris’s daughter, Christine Meissner and her brother Andy that also brought into the equation the work of their father and Doris’s beloved husband, the late Charles “Chuck” Meissner. “Teamwork” is critical to success, particularly on the family level!

In her remarks, Doris emphasized the influence of family on her work and the cosmic continuing importance of robust migration policies to our “nation of immigrants.” Among the most touching recollections were of those Americans she encountered later in life who had gotten their start as immigrants and naturalized citizens during her tenure at INS. One was a talented physician who performed essential surgery for both Doris and her daughter.

My main “takeaway” was her challenge to “keep the dream alive” — even through tough times — and her recognition of and lifelong commitment to “the human potential of migrants.”

On a personal level, it was great to see many friends and colleagues who had served as senior executives at INS, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), and “Main Justice” during my 35 years at the Department, spanning five decades, as well as folks I worked with during my time in private practice.

I was particularly delighted to chat with my and Doris’s long-time mutual friend and colleague Jean Lujan. Jean, Doris, and Delia Combs Riso were part of the famous (or infamous) “Asylum Sisters’ Trio” who occasionally entertained at “Legacy INS” events! Sadly, MPI didn’t include an “encore performance” on the night’s program!

It was also wonderful that Doris got this well-deserved acclaim and recognition while her career is ongoing and she is actively inspiring those around her. Too often, I fear, we wait until the “truly great ones” are gone to recognize what we gained by their lives and lost upon their departure. Doris promised that she isn’t going anywhere for a long time! That’s fine and dandy with all of us!

At the same time, I experienced a bit of wistfulness. Here we were in a gathering of perhaps the best minds and problem solvers in the history of American immigration; yet, both the messages of the past and the potential promise for the future are being lost on today’s feckless political leaders and media pundits as they spout myths, spread fear, and recycle failed cruel, ineffective, and wasteful “mega enforcement and rights’ reductions or outright violations” on today’s migrants.

Indeed, some of those in the room had likely come to Washington for “dual purposes:” Not only to honor Doris, but also to valiantly try to inform and convince Congress and the Administration of the cruel, inhuman, and too often deadly results of years of “brain dead” enforcement policies and suppressing or eradicating the due process and human rights of migrants, all while intentionally eschewing enlightened, achievable, common sense reforms to our badly outdated and often intentionally dysfunctional immigration system.

One would search in vain for political leaders with the intellectual prowess, moral courage, human decency, and practical problem solving abilities of Doris Meissner among those driving, influencing, and seeking to dictate today’s misguided, ineffectual, and wildly inconsistent Government immigration policies. Without a moral compass on deck, the ship is veering badly and dangerously off course!

I am, of course, hopeful and encouraged that the new Doris Meissner Innovation Fund at MPI will fulfill its vision of creating “new opportunities to advance pragmatic solutions that work in the interests of all segments of society.” Yet, I am objectively fearful that such essential and potentially transformational efforts will “go in one ear and out the other” of our current political leaders and “pass over the heads” of the voting public which, in the overwhelming majority, owe their very existence to the phenomenon of human migration — of all kinds, types, and populations. How soon we forget where we all came from, and where we are going!

Thanks again, Doris, my friend and fellow Badger, for your unyielding efforts to “keep us on the high road!”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-16-24

🇺🇸🗽👍 NICOLE NAREA @ VOX CORRECTS TOXIC “BORDER MYTHS” THAT DRIVE OUR LARGELY ONE-SIDED POLITICAL “DIALOGUE” ON IMMIGRATION!

https://apple.news/AAc884xMISF-k-4-Wd1HGAw

America’s misunderstood border crisis, in 8 charts
For all the attention on the border, the root causes of migration and the most promising solutions to the US’s broken immigration system are often overlooked.
There is a crisis on America’s border with Mexico.

The number of people arriving there has skyrocketed in the years since the pandemic, when crossings fell drastically. The scenes coming from the border, and from many US cities that have been touched by the migrant crisis, have helped elevate the issue in voters’ minds.
But for all the attention the topic gets, it is also widely misunderstood. The last few decades have seen a series of surges at the border and political wrangling over how to respond. The root causes of migration and why the US has long been ill-equipped to deal with it have been overlooked. Understanding all of that is key to fixing the problem.

Yes, border crossings are up. But the type of migrants coming, where they’re from, and why they’re making the often treacherous journey to the southern border has changed over the years. The US’s immigration system simply was not designed or resourced to deal with the types of people arriving today: people from a growing variety of countries, fleeing crises and seeking asylum, often with their families. And that’s a broader problem that neither Biden, nor any president, can fix on their own.

Here’s an explanation of the border crisis, broken down into eight charts.
. . . .

**********************************
I highly recommend reading Nicole’s entire excellent article, with informative charts, at the link.

When both sides in the political debate eschew truth in favor of dehumanization, scapegoating, and pandering to nativist interests, it’s easy to see why real solutions to immigration issues are elusive. But, it needn’t be this way if politicos, the public, and the mainstream media looked for humane, practical, solutions that dealt with the realities of forced migration in the 21st Century, including the inherent limitations of “deterrence,” overt cruelty, disregard of known consequences, and unilateral actions.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS
05-15-24

⚖️👩🏻‍⚖️👨🏽‍⚖️ GARLAND’S LATEST 20 JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS LEAN TO GOVERNMENT SECTOR BY ALMOST 2-1!

Here’s the link to the official announcement by EOIR:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1351546/dl?inline

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

Among the “exceptions” to the trend:

Jenny Vi Beverly, Immigration Judge, Lowell Immigration Court

Jenny Vi Beverly was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2024. Judge Beverly earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2010 from the University of California, Los Angeles, and a Juris Doctor in 2013 from the University of Maine School of Law. From 2014 to 2024, she was in private practice as an attorney partner from 2014 to 2017 and as principal attorney from 2017 to 2024, representing noncitizens before EOIR and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. During her time in private practice, she volunteered as pro bono counsel for the Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project in Maine. Judge Beverly is a member of the Maine State Bar.

Mark D. Donovan, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

Mark D. Donovan was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2024. Judge Donovan earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1992 from The Catholic University of America, a Master of Business Administration in 2001 from Northeastern University, and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from New England Law – Boston. From 2012 to 2024, he was an associate at Considine & Furey LLP in Boston, practicing civil litigation and criminal defense. From 2008 to 2012, he was an assistant district attorney in the Bristol County District Attorney’s Office in Bristol County, Massachusetts. Judge Donovan is a member of the Massachusetts Bar.

Nina J. Froes, Immigration Judge, Lowell Immigration Court

Nina J. Froes was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2024. Judge Froes earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2003 from the University of. Massachusetts Dartmouth and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from Roger Williams University School of Law. From 2013 to 2024, she was a solo immigration law practitioner at the Law Office of Nina J. Froes in New Mattapoisett, Massachusetts. From 2012 to 2013, she was a clinical fellow at the Immigration Law Clinic, School of Law, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. From 2010 to 2011, she was the legal director of the Immigrant Victims Representation Project, Immigration Department, Catholic Social Services of Fall River, Catholic Charities USA, in Fall River, Massachusetts. From 2008 to 2011, she was a fellow in the immigration unit at the Legal Assistance Corporation of Central Massachusetts in Worcester, Massachusetts. Judge Froes is a member of the Massachusetts Bar and the Rhode Island Bar.

Roopal B. Patel, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

Roopal B. Patel was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2024. Judge Patel earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2003 from Harvard University and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from New York University School of Law. From 2014 to 2024, she was a senior staff attorney at Manhattan Legal Services where she worked on a wide variety of cases, including immigration cases. From 2011 to 2013, she was a staff attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice. Judge Patel is a member of the New York State Bar.

Sarah F. Torres, Immigration Judge, Concord Immigration Court

Sarah F. Torres was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2024. Judge Torres earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2004 from the University of California, Berkeley and a Juris Doctor in 2007 from the University of California, Davis School of Law. From 2019 to 2024, she was the managing attorney of the immigration legal services program at Opening Doors Inc., in Sacramento. From 2015 to 2019, she was a partner at Tomlinson & Torres PC. From 2008 to 2014, she practiced immigration law in private practice. Judge Torres is a member of the State Bar of California.

Joan B. Geller, Appellate Immigration Judge

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Joan B. Geller as an appellate immigration judge in May 2024. Judge Geller earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1990 from the University of Wisconsin and a Juris Doctorate in 1994 from the Georgetown University Law Center. From 2003 to 2024, Judge Geller served as an attorney advisor with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and in 2015, 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2021 she served as a temporary Appellate Immigration Judge with the BIA. From 2002 to 2003, she was deputy staff counsel at the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. From 1996 to 2002, she was a staff attorney at the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. From 1994 to 1996, she was a court law clerk at the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Judge Geller is a member of the Maryland State Bar and the District of Columbia Bar.

Homero López Jr., Appellate Immigration Judge

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Homero López Jr. as an appellate immigration judge in May 2024. Judge López earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2007 from Southern Methodist University and a Juris Doctorate in 2010 from Tulane University Law School. From 2018 to 2024, Judge Lopez worked with the Immigration Services and Legal Advocacy (ISLA) in New Orleans, which he cofounded, serving as legal director from 2021 to 2024 and executive director from 2018 to 2020. From 2015 to 2018, he worked with Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New Orleans, serving as managing attorney of Immigration Legal Services from 2015 to 2018 and as supervising attorney for the Unaccompanied Children’s Program in 2015. From 2011 to 2014, he worked with Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Baton Rouge, serving as a staff attorney from 2011 to 2014 and as a supervising attorney in 2014. Judge López is a member of the Louisiana Bar.

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

The appointments of Judges Lopez and Geller to the BIA were previously announced on “Courtside.”

Congratulations, best wishes, and good luck to these and all of the other new Judges! Remember, beyond all the bureaucratic nonsense that EOIR might throw at you, the name of the game, the ONLY game, is due process, fundamental fairness, and correct results! With lives at stake, our country and humanity are counting on you to help lift EOIR out of its “downward spiral” and to permanently change the “any reason to deny” culture!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-14-24

🇺🇸⚖️🗽 W&M IMMIGRATION CLINIC STUDENTS SHOW ESSENTIAL ROLE OF GREAT REPRESENTATION IN A SYSTEM GEARED TO “REJECT, NOT PROTECT!”

https://wmimmigrationclinicblog.com/2024/05/07/our-clients-story-sang-instead-of-whispered-immigration-clinic-students-represent-client-in-asylum-trial/

From the William & Mary Law School Immigration Clinic Blog:

“Our Client’s Story Sang Instead of Whispered”: Immigration Clinic Students Represent Client in Asylum Trial

7MAY 2024

Caitlin Parets, J.D. ’24 (left) and Alison Domonoske, J.D. ’24 (right) after their trial in Immigration Court (Spring 2024).

During the last week of Law School classes, Immigration Clinic Students Caitlin Parets, J.D. Class of 2024 and Alison Domonoske, J.D. Class of 2024 represented their client in a four-hour asylum trial. The students traveled with Clinic Professors Nicole Medved and Stacy Kern-Scheerer to appear before the Department of Justice on behalf of the Clinic’s client, Ms. B*.

Ms. B fled to the United States from Central America after suffering death threats at the hands of the powerful maras. After moving to Hampton Roads to find safety with her family, Ms. B reached out to the Immigration Clinic for assistance with her case before the Immigration Court.

Simply having representation in a case before the Immigration Court makes a difference in an asylum seeker’s case. Currently, there is no right to an appointed lawyer in Immigration Court. This means that, if someone cannot afford an attorney or find a nonprofit or law school clinic to represent them, they must represent themselves in court. As of January 2024, less than half of all immigrants facing deportation in immigration court in Virginia had a lawyer. Those who do have representation are significantly more likely to win their case. A 2016 study by the American Immigration Council “found that immigrants were five times more likely to obtain legal relief if they were represented by counsel.” Knowing the impact of representation on cases like Ms. B’s, the Clinic accepted Ms. B as a client.

In the Fall 2023 semester, Alison Domonoske, J.D. Class of 2024, was assigned to work with Ms. B on her asylum case. Alison first got to work preparing to take pleadings in the Immigration Court at Ms. B’s first hearing, called a Master Calendar Hearing. At that hearing, after pleadings were taken, the Immigration Judge scheduled Ms. B for her trial, known as an Individual Hearing, on April 25, 2024. Now, with the trial scheduled, the Clinic jumped into action. At the beginning of the Spring 2024 semester, Caitlin Parets, J.D. Class of 2024, joined the case to prepare for the trial.

In every asylum case, country conditions evidence is critical to provide context for each asylum seeker’s claim, helping the adjudicator understand why an asylum seeker deserves protection. Federal Courts of Appeals again and again have found this information critical in their decisions. In Central American cases, especially those involving violence by the maras like MS-13 and Barrio 18, country conditions are essential to helping judges consider the case beyond American conceptions of “gangs” and “gang violence.” Dr. Thomas Boerman, an expert on Central American gangs best summarized these misunderstandings in his 2018 article in Immigration Briefings:

“[U]nless one has extensively researched and witnessed firsthand the ways in which gang culture manifests in Central America, it is not possible to possess a comprehensive understanding of their influence, the level of control that they exert, or the level of terror, trauma, desperation, and helplessness that they engender in the population in areas under their control.”

These general misunderstandings of life in Central America presented unique challenges to Alison and Caitlin in preparing Ms. B’s case. Not only did they have to show how the facts of Ms. B’s case meet the high standards for asylum, but they also had to overcome misunderstandings of Central American gang violence in order to make their case.

Alison and Caitlin faced these challenges head-on. They conducted extensive country conditions research and legal research to write a brief in support of Ms. B’s case for asylum. They also met regularly with Ms. B to better understand her experience and focus their research. Alison and Caitlin also met weekly with their supervising attorney, Professor Nicole Medved, to discuss each step of their progress.

“Alison and Caitlin worked so hard to prepare a thorough, detailed, and nuanced record for the case,” said Professor Medved. “Preparing a record for trial, always with an eye toward preserving the record for appeal, is difficult for practicing attorneys. It is even moreso difficult for law students as they work on their cases, classwork, and other responsibilities as law students. In spite of all of this, Alison’s and Caitlin’s work product on this case was exemplary.”

“I could not have appreciated at the beginning of the semester how much our understanding and our arguments would evolve and grow in stature and creativity until we were left with the robust and finely crafted case we presented to the judge,” shared Caitlin.

After submitting their brief and supporting evidence, Alison and Caitlin prepared the case for trial. Alison carefully drafted direct examination questions for Ms. B, while Caitlin wrote the closing argument to address the complex legal issues and the extensive evidence in the record. Throughout April, Alison and Caitlin continued to meet regularly with Professor Medved to review their progress.

Alison (left) and Caitlin (right) during the mock hearing (Spring 2024).

As part of their preparation, Caitlin and Alison also had a mock hearing in mid-April. Ashley Warmeling graciously volunteered her time to serve as the judge for their mock hearing, Professor Kern-Scheerer was opposing counsel, and classmate Christina Kim, J.D. Class of 2024 served as the client. After the hearing, Ms. Warmeling provided feedback on the case and what they could expect from a judge in court and offered her advice on their preparation. This mock hearing was a critical step in the students’ preparation for the April 25 trial.

“I was impressed by the students’ preparation and commitment to their client,” said Ms. Warmeling. “This mock hearing–especially when played out in a courtroom setting–gave them a safe space to respond to unexpected curveballs that could come up at their actual trial. Without the Clinic’s intervention, this client would have likely had to navigate the immigration system alone. She would not have been able to assert the creative arguments set forth by these law students. No matter the outcome, this client is so fortunate to have had the advocacy of such a devoted legal team.”

During the trial, Alison and Caitlin represented Ms. B under Professor Medved’s supervision in a four-hour hearing. Alison conducted direct examination of Ms. B through an interpreter and asked redirect questions after cross-examination. Through her questions, she laid the factual foundation needed for closing argument. At the end of the hearing, Caitlin gave her closing argument, showing how Ms. B’s testimony, the record evidence, and Fourth Circuit case law supported a grant of asylum. At the end of the hearing, the Immigration Judge decided to issue a written decision in the case, which will be sent to the Clinic at a later time.

“I’m very grateful for the learning experience of clinic and being able to see Ms. B’s case from the beginning in the Clinic through her individual hearing,” said Alison. “That feels unique since it was such a quick turn-around with the individual hearing date. I’m also happy that I feel like I built good rapport with Ms. B through our interviews and that she trusted me as an advocate. It was challenging but I’m really proud of what we were able to do.”

“As I sat in the courtroom and watched the proceedings unfold, I kept thinking about all the people who do not have an attorney in immigration court,” said Caitlin. “Ours was a case that the judge probably would not have bat an eye at denying after first glance, but because we were able to fully listen to our client’s story, peel back its layers, dig into the facts, and articulate the nuances of her case, our client’s story sang instead of whispered.”

“I could not be prouder of Alison and Caitlin and all of their hard work this semester,” said Professor Medved. “Alison and Caitlin put in so many hours to prepare so thoroughly to be such extraordinary advocates for our client. Trials are always a roller coaster, requiring advocates to be nimble and responsive to the Judge’s concerns and opposing counsel’s arguments. Alison and Caitlin never broke their stride and advocated thoughtfully and zealously for our client. I am so proud of everything they accomplished. Regardless of the judge’s decision, Alison and Caitlin gave Ms. B the best chance possible at winning asylum.”

Experiences like these are made possible by the Clinic’s generous supporters. You can make more student experiences like this possible by donating to the Immigration Clinic.

The Clinic cannot guarantee any particular results for any particular individual or particular case. While the Clinic celebrates our victories and hard work, we recognize that each case is unique. Every noncitizen should consult with a licensed attorney about their case if they are concerned about their situation or are interested in applying for any form of immigration relief. The Clinic cannot promise any particular outcome or any timeframe to any client or potential client.

*All client names and initials have been changed for confidentiality and security

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

This is a great illustration of why more gimmicks, such as the ones recently proposed by the Biden Administration, intended to cut off access to both representation and a hearing process at which proof and informed legal arguments can overcome anti-asylum biases built into the system, will result in more denials of due process, wrong decisions, and improper returns of bona fide refugees.

The Biden Administration and Congress should be focusing on improving our asylum adjudication system so that it provides fundamentally fair, timely, and correct decisions. Instead, far too much attention and too many resources are devoted to a futile attempt to institutionalize cruelty and over-denial as “deterrents.”

Congrats and great appreciation to the students and faculty at the W&M Law Clinic for “getting the message on due process,” even if our political leaders ignore it! The “youth brigade” of the NDPA is our hope for America’s future! 🇺🇸

🇺🇸 DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

PWS

05-13-24

🗽⚖️ MORE LEGAL PATHWAYS FOR MIGRATION? — THE ANSWER IS STARING YOU IN THE FACE, JOE! — Fix Your Legal Asylum System!

Most experts view the Biden Administration’s approach to asylum, human rights, and racial justice in America as disturbingly short-sighted! Forcing “natural allies” to sue you is a huge boon to Trump and the nativist right!
Mr. Magoo
PHOTO: Gord Webster
Creative Commons License

From LinkedIn:

BREAKING NEWS: Al Otro Lado, the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, and Texas Civil Rights Project, have filed a lawsuit compelling Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to release information on its policies and practices relating to CBP One and its adherence to laws preventing discrimination based on disability.

CBP One, the error-ridden smartphone application that asylum seekers are forced to use in order to request asylum in the U.S., is fraught with malfunctions and inaccessible features and is an insurmountable barrier for countless people, especially those with disabilities. Getting an appointment can take up to seven months, leaving vulnerable asylum seekers trapped along the border in some of the most dangerous cities in the world. CBP One also requires a high level of technological proficiency to install and use.

Al Otro Lado has worked with clients with schizophrenia, blindness, deafness, cerebral palsy, and intellectual and developmental disabilities because their disability prevented them from successfully using the app. For them, getting a CBP One appointment so that they may seek asylum in the U.S. is practically impossible.

Our lawsuit against CBP is a pivotal action to safeguard the rights of people with disabilities and to ensure government accountability and transparency. The right to save one’s life shouldn’t depend on a glitchy app or one’s physical or mental capabilities. Full stop.

Link to the filing can be viewed here: https://lnkd.in/gEpXhdtT

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

Wow! What an incredible, totally avoidable, squandering of legal resources by the Administration and Garland’s DOJ! What if these resources were devoted to solving problems rather than forcing advocates to sue and then engaging in disingenuous, perhaps unethical, “defenses of the indefensible!” No wonder the Biden Administration is “running scared” on immigration!

This is what the Administration could and should be fixing, rather than thinking of more “gimmicks” to deter and deny legal asylum seekers. Applying for asylum at a port of entry is a “legal pathway!” And, the “CBP One Debacle” was both predictable and totally avoidable by the Biden Administration. Obviously, some politicos and bureaucrats view “technological incompetence” as a “deterrent” to legal immigration!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-09-24

Related posts:

Well, friends, since “inception” on December 22, 2016:

To mark the occasion, here’s a “reprint” of one of my favorites from that first month, December 2016:

🇺🇸 Thanks for reading and engaging, best wishes and, of course, “Due Process Forever!”

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Eduardo Porter writes in WashPost:

Gordon F. Sander, journalist and historian, also writes in WashPost, perhaps somewhat less optimistically, but with the same historical truth in the face of current political lies and gross misrepresentations:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan writes on Substack:

Here’s the letter that Professor Karen Musalo, Director of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at Hastings Law wrote to the NYT:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Adina Appelbaum of CAIR Coalition reports on LinkedIn:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Erica Bryant, Associate Director of Writing:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Professor Austin Kocher @ Linkedin:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Listen here:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Proposed Asylum Bar Regs Are At Odds With International Law (And Why That Matters)

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽HUNDREDS GATHER FOR MPI’S GALA CELEBRATION OF THE INCOMPARABLE DORIS MEISSNER, THE CONSUMMATE “PRACTICAL SCHOLAR/PUBLIC SERVANT!”

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Exclusive

May 16, 2024

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the link to the official announcement by EOIR:

Related posts:

From the William & Mary Law School Immigration Clinic Blog:

“Our Client’s Story Sang Instead of Whispered”: Immigration Clinic Students Represent Client in Asylum Trial

🇺🇸 DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

Related posts:

From LinkedIn:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts: