Department of Homeland Security – Page 234

WSJ: Tension Between Gen. Kelly & White House As DHS Secretary Resisted Effort To Appoint Kris Kobach As Deputy Secretary!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/homeland-security-chief-and-white-house-clash-1485823301

The WSJ reports:

“WASHINGTON—Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly has clashed with the White House over staffing and other decisions in recent days, people familiar with the matter said, leaving the agency without a second-in-command as it tried to institute a new travel ban during a chaotic weekend at the nation’s airports.

When President Donald Trump selected Mr. Kelly, the pick won broad support from Republicans and Democrats in part because they believed the retired Marine general would be willing to speak up and challenge Mr. Trump.

That tension didn’t take long to materialize. Mr. Kelly hasn’t been able to name the deputy he wants at the agency, people familiar with the matter said, and he fought off attempts by the White House to put Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state known as a hard-liner on immigration, into the position.
Mr. Kelly was also frustrated at not knowing the details of the travel ban earlier, so he could prepare his agency to respond, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Trump signed the executive order that created the ban late Friday afternoon. Mr. Kelly was only informed of the details that day as he was traveling to Washington, even though he had pressed the White House for days to share with him the final language, the people said.”

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

According to the article, President Trump has now decided to nominate Elaine Duke, a former Bush Administration official, to the #2 job at DHS. Have to wonder how long Kelly, a former Marine and a reputed “straight shooter” (in more ways than one) will last in “the circus.”

PWS

01/31/17

Washington Post: Next Trump Targets: Public Charges, Birth Tourists, Foreign Workers!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-circulates-more-draft-immigration-restrictions-focusing-on-protecting-us-jobs/2017/01/31/38529236-e741-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html

The Washington Post reports:

“The Trump administration is considering a plan to weed out would-be immigrants who are likely to require public assistance, as well as to deport — when possible — immigrants already living in the United States who depend on taxpayer help, according to a draft executive order obtained by The Washington Post.

A second draft order under consideration calls for a substantial shake-up in the system through which the United States administers immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, with the aim of tightly controlling who enters the country and who can enter the workforce, and reducing the social services burden on U.S. taxpayers.
The drafts are circulating among administration officials, and it is unclear whether President Trump has decided to move forward with them or when he might sign them if he does decide to put them in place. The White House would not confirm or deny the authenticity of the orders, and White House officials did not respond to requests for comment about the drafts Monday and Tuesday.
If enacted, the executive orders would appear to significantly restrict all types of immigration and foreign travel to the United States, expanding bars on entry to the country that Trump ordered last week with his temporary ban on refugees and people from seven Muslim-majority countries.”

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

For copies of the draft Executive Orders and the full story, go over to the Washington Post at the above link.

PWS

01/31/17

Is President Trump’s EO On Refugees and Visas Legal? Nolan Rappaport of The Hill Says The Statutory Authority Is Clear, If “Clumsily Executed” — Professor David Cole Of Georgetown Law Says It’s Unconstitutional!

Nolan points to section 212(f) of the INA:

“The president’s authority to declare such suspensions can been found in section 212(f) of the INA, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:

‘(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.’
The 90-day suspension can be waived on a case-by-case basis.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has applied this waiver to the entry of lawful permanent residents. He has stated that, “absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations.

. . . .

A federal judge has granted an emergency stay request from the American Civil Liberties Union to bar the deportation of people with valid visas who landed in the U.S. after the EO was issued.

Frankly, I do not understand this judge’s order. The issuance of a visa does not guarantee an alien’s admission into the United States. In fact, this is explicitly stated on the State Department’s Frequently Asked Questions site About Visas – The Basics.

“After I have my visa, I will be able to enter the U.S., correct?
“A visa does not guarantee entry into the United States. A visa allows a foreign citizen to travel to the U.S. port-of-entry, and the Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) immigration inspector authorizes or denies admission to the United States.”
Nevertheless, it is apparent that the EO will inconvenience many people who are coming here for legitimate purposes, and that is unfortunate.

On the other hand, it also is apparent that President Trump did not exceed his statutory authority over alien admissions with the directives in the EO, and that he issued it to protect the United States and its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States.

But was it the best way to accomplish that objective?”

Read Nolan’s full article in The Hill here:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/316871-trumps-immigration-ban-is-clumsy-but-perfectly-legal

David argues that the EO is clearly unconstitutional:

“According to the Supreme Court, “the clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” Larson v. Valente, 456 US. 228, 244 (1982). But that command is apparently not clear enough for President Donald Trump. On Friday he signed an Executive Order on refugees that imposes a selective ban on immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, and at the same time establishes preferential treatment for refugees seeking asylum who are identified with “minority religions” in their country of origin. In case there was any doubt about the latter provision’s intent, Trump told Christian Broadcast News that it was intended to give priority to “Christians” seeking asylum over “Muslims.”

In both respects, the Executive Order violates the “clearest command of the Establishment Clause.” First, as I developed in an earlier post, the Constitution bars the government from targeting Islam. One of the lowest of many low moments in Donald Trump’s presidential campaign was his December 2015 call for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslim immigration. The proposal treated as presumptively suspect a religion practiced by about 1.6 billion people worldwide, nearly a quarter of the globe’s population. Trump soon retreated to talk of “extreme vetting,” but never gave up his focus on the religiohttp://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=891&action=edit#n of Islam. Friday’s executive orders are of a piece with his many anti-Muslim campaign promises.”

Read David’s full article in Just Security here:

We’ll See You in Court: Why Trump’s Executive Order on Refugees Violates the Establishment Clause

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

I see Nolan’s point. But, statutory authority doesn’t necessarily mean it’s constitutional.

On David’s constitutional question, Federal Courts have been willing to intervene at times to protect due process rights of individuals who are physically present in the United States, particularly those who have green cards. The Administration’s ill-thought-out, confusing, and initially heavy handed (or “clumsy” in Nolan’s words) implementation of the EO gave opponents a golden opportunity to score some early temporary victories in cases involving green card holders and others who had valid visas or refugee admission documents at the time the embarked for the United States.

But, beyond that, the EO falls at the intersection of immigration law, foreign policy, and national security, three subjects on which the Federal Courts traditionally have been reluctant to challenge the Executive’s authority. Courts have historically been reluctant to review the Executive’s exercise of authority beyond U.S. territory. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Executive’s authority to engage in “high seas interdiction” of Haitian migrants even though it appeared to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Refugee Act of 1980 and the U.N. Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees. Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155 (1993).

Up until 1965, the U.S. immigration laws blatantly discriminated on the basis of race and national origins. The Supreme Court never held any of those provisions unconstitutional. In fact, it was Congress, not the Supreme Court, which forced the 1965 changes to make the law more equitable.

And, leaving aside the legal and national security policy issues, the politics of this situation are far from clear. The initial NBC-4-DC poll (presumably from the DC Metro viewing area) showed 62% of respondents opposed the President’s order. By contrast, the initial Quinnipiac nationwide poll showed 48% to 42% support for the controversial Executive Order. Perhaps, President Trump is on stronger ground politically than the many nationwide protests and fierce reaction against his Executive Order would indicate.

PWS

01-30-17

BREAKING: DHS Secretary John Kelly Finds Readmission Of LPRs In The “National Interest” — Text Of Statement Below

STATEMENT BY SECRETARY JOHN KELLY ON THE ENTRY OF LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS INTO THE UNITED STATES

WASHINGTON – In applying the provisions of the president’s executive order, I hereby deem the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest.

Accordingly, absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations.

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

According to Chuck Todd on “Meet The Press” this AM, the DHS opposed the inclusion of “green card holders” in the EO, but their objections apparently were ignored by the Trump WH staff who did the drafting (without much thought or consultation, it appears).

I must admit to hoping that Gen. Kelly at DHS and Gen. Mattis at DOD would be the “adults in the room” on some of these issues. The problem might be that they aren’t “in the room” when the decisions are made.

With guys like Steve Bannon, Kris Kobach and Stephen Miller, with well- established track records of poor judgement and divisiveness (and that’s putting it charitably) mis-advising Trump on immigration, it’s likely to be an uphill climb for anyone purporting to be the voice of reason and sound judgment. And, I’m certainly not trying to give Trump a pass here; he selected and empowered this team of spectacularly unqualified senior advisors.

PWS

01/29/17

Copy Of TRO By Judge Leonie Brinkema, EDVA, Prohibiting Removal Of LPRs & Requiring Access To Counsel — Aziz v. Trump

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division

Case No. 1:17-cv-116

Date: January 28, 2017

Ammar Aqel Mohammed Aziz, by their next friend,

Aqel Muhammad Aziz, and

John Does 1-60, Petitioners,

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (“DHS”); U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (“CBP”); JOHN KELLY, Secretary of DHS; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting Commissioner of CBP; and WAYNE BIONDI, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Port Director of the Area Port of Washington Dulles,

Respondents.
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the Court orders that:

a) respondents shall permit lawyers access to all legal permanent residents being detained at Dulles International Airport;

b) respondents are forbidden from removing petitioners—lawful permanent residents at Dulles International Airport—for a period of 7 days from the issuance of this Order.

Dates: January 28, 2017

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

Seems pretty straightforward. Lawful permanent residents (“green card holders”) returning from abroad are entitled to full Removal Hearings before a U.S. Immigration Judge at which the DHS bears the burden of establishing removability by clear and convincing evidence. They are also entitled to representation by counsel of their own choosing (at no expense to the Government) in such a hearing. Therefore, it’s hard to understand the the basis for the apparent DHS claim that they could detain and remove a returning green card holder without a hearing and without allowing him or her access to a lawyer. But, I’ve read and heard reports from local attorneys saying that DHS CBP officials at Dulles International Airport have been slow to comply or resisted complying with Judge Brinkema’s very clear order.

I’ve never personally met Judge Brinkema, who sits in the U.S. District Court a few blocks from our home in Alexandria. But, I’m familiar with her work. Occasionally, one of my custody/bond decisions from the Arlington Immigration Court ended up before her for judicial review by habeas corpus. Sometimes she upheld my decision, sometimes not.

On several occasions, she ordered me to conduct immediate individualized custody hearings for detained individuals notwithstanding BIA precedent to the contrary. I always complied immediately, just as she had ordered. The DHS Arlington Chief Counsel also got on board. Judge Brinkema wasn’t someone you wanted to “mess around with.”

Unlike U.S. Immigration Judges, who were given statutory contempt of court powers by the Congress, only to have that authority withheld by the U.S. Dept. of Justice over three Administrations, Democratic and Republican, Judge Brinkema has authority to hold individuals, including U.S. Government officials, in contempt of court for disobeying her orders. And, I never had the impression that she would be reluctant to do that when necessary.

Additionally, failure to comply with court orders can result in large attorney fee awards against the Government under the Equal Access to Justice Act. If the reports of non-compliance are true, it seems that DHS and their lawyers are “playing with fire” here.

Remember guys, this isn’t Immigration Court. Article III Judges have life tenure, and they don’t work for the President. He’s just another party to them.

PWS

01/29/17

N. Rappaport Explains Trump’s EO On Interior Enforcement In The Hill!

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/316654-on-immigration-trump-will-learn-promises-are-easier-made-than

Nolan concludes:

“President Trump deserves credit for trying to carry out his campaign promises on interior immigration enforcement, but it is a tall order. It always was.”

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

PWS

01/28/17

Time: Administration Doubles Down On Refugee, Visa Bars — Trump Praises Implementation

http://time.com/4652644/white-house-defends-refugee-visa-order/

“Speaking to reporters Saturday, a senior administration official defended the secrecy and surprise surrounding the order’s implementation, arguing that by more fully informing the traveling public, air carriers and ports of entry about the order would have made it easy for those seeking to circumvent it to enter the U.S. Businesses, universities and aid organizations were reportedly left scrambling to rebook travel plans and provide assistance to those stranded overseas by the order.
“Everyone who needed to know was informed,” a the official said.
“This White House conveys its deepest appreciation to everyone involved in the implementation of this order, and that’s been formally conveyed to the managers of both State and Homeland Security,” the official said. The official added that the Trump administration had been working on the order and its implementation for “many weeks” during the transition process, including consultation with State Department and Homeland Security officials.
But even as the administration boasts of the order’s swift execution, there were key details left unfinished, including formalizing the exemptions rules and requirements for the waivers. The official noted that the State Department was also still in the process of defining what “in transit” means for the purpose of the order’s “undue hardship” exception for refugees who had been approved to enter the U.S. — for instance, a refugee temporarily residing in a third country en route to the U.S. The official added that the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection were in the process of finalizing that and other guidance to be released later Saturday.
According to the official, U.S. green card holders from one of the affected countries currently abroad will need to apply for a waiver before being allowed to return to the U.S. The precise process for obtaining the waiver was still being finalized Saturday by the State Department. Green card holders from those countries currently in the U.S. would be required to meet with a consular officer before departing the country, the official added.”

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

Pretty incoherent statement from the Administration. We’re talking about folks who either were already living here with green cards or who had spent months, if not years, being screened abroad, to determine whether they were of “special humanitarian concern to the U.S.” or qualified for special visas that Congress provided for those who helped us during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Go figure.

I’m glad I’m not a refugee. I’m also happy not to have to implement or defend this program.

PWS

01/28/17

Arlington Immigration Court “Chatter” — Local Immigration Attorney Says “New Sheriff In Town” — The End of “PD”

From today’s e-mail “chatter:”

“For all those who said ‘he doesn’t mean what he says’ or ‘it will not be that bad’ that is now officially bullshit. As of this afternoon all DHS Office of Chief Counsel prosecutors have been instructed not to exercise prosecutorial discretion in removal cases. The most recent executive order from the White House lists as enforcement priorities for removal those who have been CHARGED with a criminal offense whether that offense is resolved or not. In immigration offices and courts throughout the US ‘there’s a new Sheriff in town’ is driving denials and deprivation of rights. We have closed our doors to refugees and now will embark on an interior campaign against immigrants. And it is day 6.”

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

Sad, but predictable, based on yesterday’s Interior Enforcement Executive Order. While it lasted, prosecutorial discretion (“PD”) was one of the best and smartest policies ever applied by immigration prosecutors.

It was a “quadruple winner:” prosecutors got low priority cases off their overcrowded dockets; overtaxed Immigration Courts could concentrate on more important cases; respondents with equities, good records, who had lived productive lives, and paid taxes got (limited, but potentially life-saving) humanitarian relief that the courts could not offer; and communities, employers, and families in the United States got to retain individuals who were contributing to our country in large and small ways.

But, as I’ve indicated before, sometimes philosophical roadblocks (including bias and prejudice) blind folks to their own self interest. And, I’m NOT talking about the DHS Counsel here; their hands are tied and clearly nobody asked them before the politicos changed the policies. They are just the “messengers” for policies that they don’t necessarily endorse.

PWS

01/26/17

Fox News: Text Of President Trump’s Executive Order On Interior Enforcement!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/25/text-trump-executive-order-on-enhancing-public-safety-in-interior-united-states.html

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

Wow! Incredibly broad! Probably easier to determine what isn’t a priority (offhand, I’d say something like “undocumented migrants already in the United States who have lived lives completely free from any run-ins with the law” — and, there are definitely quite a few of those) than what is!

Unlike the Border Enforcement Executive Order, which specifically requires detention of arriving migrants with very narrow, case-by-case, exceptions, this order does not specifically direct immigration officials to detain all interior removal “priorities.” But, it certainly is implicit in the President’s Order that all of the stated removal priorities “present a significant threat to national security and public safety.” That’s probably going to result in at least a de facto “presumption of detention” in all priority cases. And, regulations, precedents, or other directives from the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General could specifically establish such a presumption.

So, everyone arriving at the border without documentation is a priority and will be thrown in detention. And, everyone in the interior who is undocumented and has ever been arrested, charged, or committed any crime, no matter how minor, and regardless of whether convicted, will also be prioritized, and most of them will be thrown in detention.

Consequently, almost everybody in Immigration Court will be a “Detained Priority” or an “Enforcement Priority” of some type. That’s going to mean yet another massive re-shuffling of dockets.

And, since almost everyone will be detained, there will be even more excruciating pressure on already stressed and overwhelmed U.S. Immigration Judges to “move” these cases, without much regard to due process, because detention will be costing a fortune (and the Supremes well might place a limit on the duration of “pre-hearing” detention).

In that case, why would anybody interested in being a “real” judge who isn’t already in the system and not eligible to retire, want the Immigration Judge’s job? Yes, I’m sure that there will be many lawyers out there who need jobs and will apply. But, they are likely to be those who see being a “judge” in the Executive Branch under such circumstances as a law enforcement position, rather than a chance to be an impartial “umpire,” scholar, or dispenser of balanced and deliberative due process.

Perhaps, the initiative will be a huge enforcement success; the Article III Courts will sign on and basically dispense with any semblance of “normal” due process for migrants, thus allowing them essentially to be railroaded out of the U.S. Obviously, that’s what the Administration is counting on.

Alternatively, however, the Article III Courts might “dig in” and insist on scrupulously fair hearings, thereby essentially grinding all enforcement to a halt and forcing massive “re-dos” of already “expedited” and “prioritized” cases. In that event, the initiative will turn out to be a colossal and incredibly expensive failure.

I suspect that the Supremes will have to sort this out in the fairly near future. In the past, a Supreme Court with the late Justice Antonin Scalia sitting frequently vindicated the rights of migrants against attempted Government overreaching by Administrations of both parties. So, it’s by no means a “given” that a Supreme Court with a disciple of Justice Scalia as the new Justice would necessarily endorse all aspects of the President’s enforcement initiatives. We’ll just have to wait and see.

And, surprisingly, particularly to those who think that this is a “great” idea, the answer may affect the due process rights of more than just migrants. You never know when you yourself might be in need of a little due process. It often happens to those who least expect it.

Meanwhile, “back at the ranch,” not only is it a great time not to be a refugee, but it’s a really great time to be retired from the USG (and, the U.S. Immigration Court, in particular).

PWS

01/25/17

Vox Reports More Harsh Executive Actions On Migration May Be In The Offing!

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/25/14390106/leaked-drafts-trump-immigrants-executive-order

“On Tuesday, Vox was given six documents that purported to be draft executive orders under consideration by the Trump administration. The source noted that “all of these documents are still going through formal review” in the Executive Office of the President and “have not yet been cleared by [the Department of Justice or the Office of Legal Counsel].”

We were not, at the time, able to verify the authenticity of the documents and did not feel it would be reasonable to publish or report on them.

But on Wednesday afternoon, Trump signed two executive orders on immigration that word-for-word matched the drafts we’d received. Given that our source had early access to two documents that were proven accurate, and that all the orders closely align with Trump’s stated policies on the campaign trail, we are reporting on the remaining four.

The source cautioned that “there are substantive comments on several of these drafts from multiple elements of NSC staff” and “if previous processes remain the norm, there [are] likely to be some substantive revisions.” It is possible these orders will emerge with substantial changes, or even be scrapped altogether.

We sent the White House PDFs of the documents and left voicemails with aides, but did not receive a response.

The two orders released today by the Trump administration, and delivered yesterday by our source, start the process of building President Trump’s famous “wall,” and make it easier for immigration agents to arrest, detain, and deport unauthorized immigrants at the border and in the US. Those policies are explained in detail here.

The four remaining draft orders obtained by Vox focus on immigration, terrorism, and refugee policy. They wouldn’t ban all Muslim immigration to the US, breaking a Trump promise from early in his campaign, but they would temporarily ban entries from seven majority-Muslim countries and bar all refugees from coming to the US for several months. They would make it harder for immigrants to come to the US to work, make it easier to deport them if they use public services, and put an end to the Obama administration program that protected young “DREAMer” immigrants from deportation.

In all, the combined documents would represent one of the harshest crackdowns on immigrants — both those here and those who want to come here — in memory.”

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

See the full Vox story at the link for details on each of the “draft” orders.

PWS

01/25/17

Instant Analysis Of Trump’s Border Orders by Raphael Bernal & Mike Lillis (Not N. Rappaport As I Erroneously Posted Earlier) In The Hill!

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316101-trump-orders-work-to-begin-on-border-wall

Raphael Bernal and Mike Lillis write in The Hill:

“President Trump on Wednesday signed two executive orders on immigration, including one that directs federal agencies to begin construction of a wall on the border with Mexico, his signature campaign promise.

Trump signed the actions during a visit to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as his aides met in the White House with two top Mexican cabinet officials.

“A nation without borders is not a nation,” Trump said during a speech at DHS headquarters. “Beginning today, the United States of America gets back control of its borders.”

The president said his directive “will save thousands of lives, millions of jobs, and billions and billions of dollars.”

One of the orders signed by Trump calls for the construction of “a large physical barrier on the southern border,” according to White House press secretary Sean Spicer.

The other order deals with immigration enforcement and ends the “catch and release” policy that quickly returned border crossers back to Mexico instead of arresting and processing them for deportation. The policy was a fixture of the Bush administration and was later reinstated on an informal basis by former President Barack Obama.

“Federal agents are going to unapologetically enforce the law, no ifs, ands or buts,” Spicer said.

The immigration actions also seek to withhold visas from countries to make sure they take back people in the U.S. illegally who are found to have broken U.S. laws. It would also strip federal grants from “sanctuary” cities and states that do not enforce federal immigration laws.

“We’re going to strip federal grant money from the sanctuary states and cities that harbor illegal immigrants,” Spicer said.”

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

My apologies to Raphael, Mike, and Nolan for botching the byline in the original posting. The “talk” is over; we’re into the “action” phase.

PWS

01/25/17

Trump Signs Border Orders, Promises To Restore Control!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-pledges-to-start-work-on-border-wall-within-months/2017/01/25/dddae6ee-e31e-11e6-ba11-63c4b4fb5a63_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_immigration-2pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a28fc29fd921

Breaking news from today’s Washington Post:

“President Trump signed a pair of executive actions Wednesday to begin ramping up immigration enforcement, including a new border wall with Mexico, vowing that construction on his chief campaign pledge would begin in months.

In an appearance at the Department of Homeland Security, Trump kicked off the rollout of a series of directives aimed at clamping down on the estimated 11 million immigrants living illegally in the United States. Aides said more directives could come later this week, including new restrictions on refugees and immigrants from Muslim-majority countries.

The presidential directives signed Wednesday aim to create more detention centers, add more federal border control agents and withhold federal funds to cities that do not comply with federal immigration laws, Trump aides said.

“We are going to restore the rule of law in the United States,” Trump said, addressing DHS employees after signing the orders. “Beginning today the United State gets control of its borders.”

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

Toward the end of the story, there might be good news for at least some so-called “Dreamers.” Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that President Trump recognized the humanitarian issues at stake here and was developing his solution.

PWS

01/25/17

Quartz Media Reporter Ana Campoy “Nails” The Obama Administration’s Failed Southern Border Strategy — “We like to advertise ourselves as a beacon of liberty and justice; it’s time we acted that way.” (Quoting Me)

THE LAW IS THE LAW
The US doesn’t have an immigration problem—it has a refugee problem
Ana Campoy January 18, 2017

http://trac.syr.edu/whatsnew/email.170117.html

Quote boxes:

“In fact, Trump’s fixation with blocking illegal immigration from Mexico, which has plummeted in recent years, obfuscates the problem. Yes, border patrol agents are apprehending thousands of people every month along the US-Mexico line, but many of them—around half, according to Claire McCaskill, a member of the US Senate’s homeland security and governmental affairs committee—turn themselves in voluntarily asking for help. Government statistics bear this out. The number of immigrants claiming fear of persecution or torture in their home countries is on the rise, and so are the findings that those claims are credible. In order to be considered for asylum by an immigration judge, immigrants first have to go through a “credible fear” screening, in which an asylum officer determines whether the claims they are making have a “significant possibility” of holding up in court.

More than 70% of those who claimed credible fear in the 2016 fiscal year hailed from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, places beset by rampant violence.

Under US law, individuals who are found to have credible fear have the right to due process to determine the validity of their claims in the court. Whether they are Syrians escaping civil war, or El Salvadorans fleeing from criminal gangs, what they have to prove is the same: that they face persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

But US authorities don’t always take Central American immigrants’ fears seriously, studies suggest. One, released by the American Immigration Lawyers Association in 2016, found that not all border patrol agents are asking immigrants if they’re afraid to return to their country, as they are required to do. Other agents refuse to believe them, per the report, which is based on immigrant testimony documented by the group. Another 2016 analysis, by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, a government advisory body, noted, “outright skepticism, if not hostility, toward asylum claims” by certain officers, among other practices that may be resulting in deportations of refugees with a legitimate right to stay.

A US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) spokesman said the agency “strives to treat every person we encounter with dignity and respect.” Anyone with concerns about the treatment doled out by its officers can call the agency, he added.”

. . . .

“The Obama administration’s response has already run up against the law. For example, several courts have shot down the government’s arguments and efforts to justify the detention of children and families while their cases wait to be resolved—a policy meant to convince would-be immigrants to stay home.

On Jan. 13, a coalition of immigrant rights groups filed a formal complaint with the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties accusing CBP officers of turning back people requesting asylum at ports of entry along the US-Mexico border. In what the groups called an “alarming new trend,” the officers have allegedly been telling immigrants that they can’t enter the country without a visa— contrary to US law—and referring them to Mexican immigration authorities.

Trump has framed his border policy as a choice between enforcing existing laws against illegal immigration or skirting them. But the decision facing US leaders is rather more complicated: Should the US continue providing refuge to those who are unfairly persecuted in their home countries?

If Americans are unwilling to do that, perhaps it’s time to do away with the nation’s asylum laws—and remove the famous poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty welcoming the world’s “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Recently retired immigration judge Paul Wickham Schmidt put it this way: “We like to advertise ourselves as a beacon of liberty and justice; it’s time we acted that way.”

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

In my view, Ana Campoy provides a remarkably clear and well-documented analysis of why the Obama Administration’s “get tough” border policies have failed, and why the Trump Administration would be wise to take a more “nuanced” approach that recognizes our obligation to provide due process and protection under our laws to individuals fleeing from the Northern Triangle.

As incoming DHS Secretary Gen. John Kelly has recognized, this problem can’t be solved just by (even more) enhanced enforcement on our end. It will require addressing the systemic problems in the sending countries of the Northern Triangle, which certainly have most of the characteristics of “failed states,” as well as working with other stable democratic nations in the Americas to fashion meaningful protections, inside or outside the asylum system, for those who are likely to face torture, death, or other types of clear human rights abuses if returned to the Northern Triangle at present.

It’s not an easy problem to solve, and there are no “silver bullets.” But, we know what doesn’t work. So, it sure seems like it would be a good idea to try different approaches (and I don’t mean repealing asylum protections as Ana, somewhat facetiously suggests near the end of her article).

PWS

01/19/17

Another Installment In The Schmidt Making America Really Great Series: “Refugees And Due Process Make America Really Great” — Read My Speech From Last Night’s “Refugee Ball”

REFUGEES AND DUE PROCESS MAKE AMERICA REALLY GREAT

Remarks by Paul Wickham Schmidt,

Retired United States Immigration Judge

The Refugee Ball

Sixth & I Synagogue 600 I Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001

Tuesday, January 17, 2017 from 5:00 to 9:00 PM

Good evening, everyone. I’m honored to be here. Lets have a big round of applause for Jason Dzubow and his staff for coming up with the idea and putting this together!

As you can probably tell, it was a battle getting into my “Jones Day Spring Prom Era Tux” tonight. As I walked out the door, my wife Cathy said: “Are you actually going to be able to breathe, let alone speak, in that thing?”

As a “regular” at the Arlington Immigration Court, Jason obviously is quite familiar with my habits. I noted that on the advance program he took the extreme precaution of not only putting me in a “10-minute slot” near the end of the program, but also adding in parentheses in big bold letters “10 minutes max.” So, I get the picture, Jason. I’m going to briefly address two things that make America great: refugees and due process.

I’m pleased to back in the old ‘hood, although it’s hard to recognize. For about twelve years in the 1970s and 1980s I worked in the General Counsel’s Office of the “Legacy INS” in the famous Chester Arthur Building – the only monument in Washington to our great 21^st President –— at 425 Eye St., NW, just down the street. And, one of my most memorable accomplishments during that time was being part of the “team” that helped the Refugee Act of 1980 become law. It was a chance to make a positive difference in America’s future, indeed in the world’s future, while coming into contact with some of the finest intellects in the business: David Martin, Alex Aleinikoff, Doris Meissner, the late Jerry Tinker, and the late Jack Perkins come immediately to mind. So, I have what you might call a “vested interest” in U.S. refugee and asylum system.

I worked with refugees and their cases almost every workday for more than 21 years during my tenure as a trial and appellate judge with the United States Immigration Courts. And, I’ll admit that on many of my “off days” the challenges, stories, human drama, triumph, and trauma of refugees and refugee law bounced around in my head, much to the dismay of my wonderful wife, Cathy.

Although I have the greatest respect and admiration for the inspiring life stories of refugees and their contributions to the United States, I have never, for even one second, wanted to be a refugee. Like all of the speakers tonight, I see refugees as a huge asset to our country. It says something about us as a nation that so many great people from all over the world want to make this their home and to contribute their talents, some of which were on display here tonight, to the greatness of America. So, to all of you out there who came as refugees or asylees, thank you for coming, for your service, and for your dedication to making our great country even greater.

The other topic I want to address briefly, that is near and dear to me personally, is the overriding importance of due process in our refugee and asylum system. Each of you who came as a refugee or asylee is here because an adjudicator at some level of our system carefully and fairly gave you a chance to state your claim, listened to and reviewed the support you provided for your claim, and made a favorable decision in your case.

For some of you, that decision was made by a DHS Refugee Officer or an Asylum Officer. Others of you had to rely on different levels of our system – a U.S. Immigration Judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals, or in some cases, a U.S. Court of Appeals to have your status granted. In all of these instances you received something very precious under our Constitution: due process of law.

Unfortunately, there currently is a “due process crisis” in our overloaded Immigration Court System. With over one-half million pending cases and waiting times of many years in some courts for final hearings to be held, our Immigration Court System is under intense pressure.

Sometimes, that results in approaches that generally have a favorable impact for individuals seeking protection. For example, grants of Temporary Protected Status and work authorization take many cases off the Immigration Court docket and legislation such as NACARA for Central Americans or HIRIFA for Haitians permanently resolves many cases favorably at the DHS without requiring a full-blown asylum hearing before an U.S. Immigration Judge.

But, when backlogs build up and enforcement pressures mount on our Government, less benign approaches and suggestions sometimes come to the fore. Adjudicators can be pressured to do counterproductive things like decide more cases in less time, limit evidence to shorten hearings, and make “blanket denials” based on supposed improvements in country conditions.

Other times, placing more individuals in civil immigration detention is looked at as a way of both expediting case processing and actively discouraging individuals from coming to the United States and making claims for refuge under our laws in the first place. Or, moving cases though the system so quickly that applicants can’t find pro bono lawyers to represent them is sometimes incorrectly viewed as an acceptable method for shortening adjudication times, thereby reducing backlogs.

Another method far too often used for discouraging asylum claims and inhibiting due process is placing asylum applicants in DHS Detention Centers, often privately operated, with “imbedded” Immigration Courts in obscure out of the way locations like Dilley, Texas and Lumpkin, Georgia where access to pro bono attorneys, family members, and other sources of support is severely limited or nonexistent.

When these things happen, due process suffers. So, while I’m always hoping for the best, it is critical for all of us in this room to zealously protect the due process rights of all migrants and insist on full due process being maintained, and, ideally, even enhanced. This includes both supporting individuals in the system by helping them obtain effective legal representation and, where appropriate, vigorously asserting the due process rights of refugees, asylum seekers, and other migrants in the Article III Federal Courts.

Only by insisting on due process for those already in the system will we be able to insure a fair and effective system for future refugees. And, welcoming and fairly treating future refugees is a key to making and keeping America great.

So, that’s my message: due process can’t be taken for granted! It must be nurtured, protected, expanded, and vigorously and proudly asserted! Thanks for listening, good luck, do great things, and due process forever!

(Rev. 01/18/17)

Washington Post: U.S. & Mexican Officials Allegedly Flout U.S. Asylum Law (And International Treaties) At Southern Border!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/us-border-officials-are-illegally-turning-away-asylum-seekers-critics-say/2017/01/16/f7f5c54a-c6d0-11e6-acda-59924caa2450_story.html?utm_term=.4f9b23834fc7

Joshua Partlow writes in the Washington Post:

“I am fleeing my country,” the policeman later recalled telling the guards, explaining that he had survived two attempts on his life. “I am being persecuted in a matter of life and death.”

The policeman said he was told he needed to see Mexican immigration authorities, who would put him on a waiting list to make his case to U.S. officials. But Mexican authorities refused to add him to the list, the policeman said, and he has been stuck in northern Mexico.

The Guatemalan is one of hundreds or perhaps thousands of foreigners who have been blocked in recent months from reaching U.S. asylum officials along the border, according to accounts from migrants and immigration lawyers and advocates.

The details of their cases vary. At the U.S. border crossing between Tijuana and San Diego, numerous asylum seekers from Central America and Mexico have been referred to Mexican authorities for an appointment with U.S. officials — but Mexican authorities often turn them down, according to migrants and immigration lawyers. In other places, migrants have been told by U.S. border agents that the daily quota for asylum cases has been reached or that a visa is required for asylum seekers, a statement that runs contrary to law, immigration advocates say.”

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

The law is very clear: “Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum . . . .” 8 U.S.C. 1158(a).

Also, without getting too much into the particular facts, it appears that the former Guatemalan policeman described in the quote above could have a strong case for asylum under the BIA’s long-standing precedent decision Matter of Fuentes, 19 I&N Dec. 658 (BIA 1988), finding that “former policeman” could potentially be a “particular social group” for asylum purposes.

Part of the problem here is that the U.S. does not have a meaningful “overseas refugee program” for the Northern Triangle. If the present, quite restrictive, program were expanded in both numbers and scope, and if the processing were more timely, more people would probably apply and be screened abroad, rather than coming directly to the border to apply. The U.S. could actually do Northern Triangle refugee processing in Mexico.

Additionally, the U.S. could encourage the Mexican Government to establish a program of temporary protection, similar to our “Temporary Protected Status,” so that individuals from the Northern Triangle who faced death or danger upon return could remain in Mexico even if the did not satisfy all of the technical requirements for refugee status.

Moreover, like the U.S., Mexico is a signatory to the U.N. Convention and Protocol on Refugees, but apparently has not done a particularly effective job of carrying it out. Why not work with the Mexican Government not just on law enforcement initiatives, but also on training adjudicators to provide fair hearings to individuals seeking protection under the Convention?

It might also be possible to work with other “stable” democratic governments in the Americas to share the distribution of those from the Northern Triangle who need protection.

Last, but certainly not least, as the incoming Secretary of Homeland Security, Gen. John Kelly, has suggested, it is important for a more permanent solution to work with governments in the Northern Triangle to provide stability and the rule of law in those “sending countries.”

We know that just throwing more money, personnel, walls, sensors, helicopters, detention centers, moats, etc. at the problem won’t effectively address the continuing flow of “desperate people fleeing desperate circumstances.” And, as our law provides, whether they come to our borders and turn themselves in or enter, legally or illegally, they actually have a right to seek asylum in the United States.

Isn’t it time to try some “smart strategies,” rather than just doubling down on the same old “enforcement only” approaches that have failed in the past and will continue to do so in the future?

PWS

01/17/17

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: