United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) – Page 27

THE GIBSON REPORT — 06-22-20 – Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group – WORLD REFUGEE DAY WAS JUNE 20 – AMERICA’S TRUMP REGIME CELEBRATED BY ADVANCING A DISINGENUOUS RACIST ATTACK ON WORK AUTHORIZATION FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS – Just A Few Days After 8 Justices of Supremes Claimed Cluelessness About Trump’s Racist Immigration Agenda! (See, Item #2 Under “Top News”)

COVID-19
Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify the latest policies on the relevant government websites and with colleagues on listservs as best you can.

New
• Opening dates for some non-detained courts: The Honolulu Immigration Court resumed hearings in non-detained cases on Monday, June 15, 2020. The Boston, Buffalo, Dallas, Hartford, Las Vegas, Memphis, and New Orleans Immigration Courts will resume hearings in non-detained cases on Monday, June 29, 2020. Hearings in non-detained cases at all other immigration courts are postponed through, and including, Thursday, July 2, 2020. All immigration courts will be closed Friday, July 3, 2020, in observance of Independence Day. The Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Saipan, and San Diego Immigration Courts will resume hearings in non-detained cases on Monday, July 6, 2020.
• USCIS Reopening
o Newark Asylum Office Remains Closed due to unresolved facility issues unrelated to COVID-19
o New York City and Brooklyn field offices are listed as closed to public, emergency services only

Closures
• EOIR Operational Status & Standing Orders
• EOIR Case Status
• EOIR Updates via Twitter
• ICE Updates (Including ERO and Detention)
• USCIS Updates
• Consular Updates
• NY Courts Updates

Guidance:
• IJ Email Filings
• BIA Email Filings
• EOIR Standing Orders
• EOIR Electronic Signature Guidance
• EOIR Update Regarding EOIR Practices Related to the COVID-19 Outbreak
• USCIS’s Signature Policy Update
• USCIS Announces Flexibility for Requests for Evidence, Notices of Intent to Deny

TOP NEWS

Trump suggests another attempt at rolling back DACA
Roll Call: The president in a series of tweets said the administration “will be submitting enhanced papers shortly in order to properly fulfil the Supreme Court’s ruling & request of yesterday.” See also DACA ‘unlawful’ despite Supreme Court ruling, acting Homeland Security chief says.

The Trump Administration Will Soon Deny Work Permits For Asylum-Seekers Who Enter The US Without Authorization
BuzzFeed: The policy, which was first reported by BuzzFeed News in August, will make asylum-seekers who do not cross into the country at a port of entry ineligible for a work permit in most cases. It will also delay the time it takes for those who apply for asylum — either while already in the US or after crossing the border and referred to immigration court — to become qualified to get a work permit, from 150 days to 365 days. Asylum-seekers who do not file for protections within one year of arriving in the US will also be denied a permit.

Businesses Brace for Possible Limits on Foreign Worker Visas
NYT: Citing the economic slump, the president could act this week to limit H-1B, L-1 and other visas as well as a program allowing foreign students to work in the United States after they graduate. See also Chasing Down the Rumors: Possible Extension and Expansion of Presidential Proclamation Suspending Entry of Certain Immigrants into the United States (Updated 6/19/20).

Representation at Bond Hearings Rising but Outcomes Have Not Improved
TRAC: Despite the rising rate of representation, bond grant rates have not improved. During FY 2015 and FY 2016, immigration judges granted bond at 56 percent of these hearings. This fell to 50 percent during FY 2018. Since FY 2018 grant rates have fallen to 48 percent where they have remained for the last three years.

Immigration attorneys face courtroom challenges amid pandemic
Roll Call: Even when courts remain open, to limit personal contact, most procedures are being conducted by video or phone, lending themselves to technical problems that have made it difficult, if not nearly impossible, for lawyers to effectively consult with clients.

Under Threat & Left Out: NYC’s Immigrants And The Coronavirus Crisis
CUF: Immigrant New Yorkers are enduring unprecedented economic pain from the pandemic—and yet they have been almost completely shut out of government programs created for those in need, CUF research and interviews with two dozen nonprofit leaders reveals.

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

Supreme Court Upholds DACA, Says DHS’s Decision to Rescind Was Arbitrary and Capricious
On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that DHS’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, also known as DACA, was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. (DHS v. Regents of the University of California) AILA Doc. No. 20061801

CA2 Remands CAT Claim of Petitioner Who Fled El Salvador After Threats from MS-13 Gang
The court held that the IJ erred as a matter of law in penalizing the petitioner for her prompt flight from El Salvador after members of the MS-13 gang threatened her, and thus remanded her Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim to the BIA. (Martinez De Artiga v. Barr, 6/10/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061702

Naturalization Applicants File Lawsuit Seeking to Compel USCIS to Conduct Immediate Administrative Naturalizations
The plaintiffs, who have been unable to complete the naturalization process due to the COVID-19 pandemic, filed a class action lawsuit seeking to compel USCIS to conduct immediate administrative naturalizations pursuant to INA §337(c). (Campbell Davis, et al. v. USCIS, et al., 6/10/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061602

BIA Issues Decision on K-1 Visas and INA §204(c)(2)
The BIA ruled that an individual who has conspired to enter into marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws by seeking to secure a K-1 fiancé(e) nonimmigrant visa is subject to the bar under INA §204(c)(2). Matter of R.I. Ortega, 28 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 2020) AILA Doc. No. 20061909

BIA Reverses Finding That Misdemeanor Conviction Was a Particularly Serious Crime
Unpublished BIA decision reverses finding that conviction for third degree assault under N.Y.P.L. 120.00(01) was a particularly serious crime because offense was a misdemeanor unaccompanied by any unusual circumstances. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of G-G-G-, 2/27/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061608

BIA Upholds Termination of Proceedings Based on Regulatory Violation
Unpublished BIA decision upholds termination of proceedings based on DHS’s violation of 8 C.F.R. 287.3(d), which requires ICE to decide within 48 hours of arrest whether to grant bond and issue an NTA. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Pablo-Nicolas, 2/25/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061607

BIA Holds Florida Aggravated Battery Does Not Require Use of Force
Unpublished BIA decision holds that aggravated battery under Fla. Stat. 784.045(b) does not require the use of force because it encompasses simple battery against a pregnant victim. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Campbell, 2/19/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061606

CA1 Finds Salvadoran Petitioner Was Denied Her Statutory Right to Counsel
The court concluded that the IJ had denied the Salvadoran petitioner her statutory right to be represented by the counsel of her choice, and found that the assistance of a lawyer likely would have affected the outcome of her removal proceedings. (Hernandez Lara v. Barr, 6/15/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061905

CA4 Reverses District Court with Instructions to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaints in Travel Ban Case
In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii, the court reversed the district court’s order of May 2, 2019, denying the government’s motion to dismiss, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaints with prejudice. (IRAP v. Trump, 6/8/20) AILA Doc. No. 17031332

CA5 Upholds BIA’s Denial of Asylum to Petitioner from Trinidad and Tobago Who Alleged Membership in Three PSGs
The court held that petitioner had failed to demonstrate a legal or constitutional error in BIA’s denial of his application for asylum based on membership in three alleged particular social groups (PSGs), including children unable to leave a family relationship. (Alexis v. Barr, 6/8/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061704

CA6 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Salvadoran Who Was Found to Be a UAC at Time of Entry
The court held that the IJ had properly exercised jurisdiction over the case of the petitioner, who had entered the United States when he was 18 years old and had been found by an immigration official to be an unaccompanied child (UAC) at the time of his entry. (Garcia v. Barr, 6/8/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061811

CA9 Holds Petitioner’s Conviction for Being Under the Influence of Amphetamines in California Rendered Him Removable
The court held that a conviction for being under the influence of a controlled substance in violation of California Health and Safety Code §11550(a) is divisible with respect to controlled substance and thus the modified categorical approach applied and was satisfied. (Tejeda v. Barr, 6/8/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061913

CA9 Rejects Petitioner’s Equal Protection Challenge to Former Derivative-Citizenship Statute
The court dismissed the petition for review, rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the second clause of INA §321(a)(3) discriminates by gender and legitimacy and thus violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. (Roy v. Barr, 6/4/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061912

CA11 Upholds Denial of Motion to Remand Based on Ineffective Assistance Where Petitioner Did Not Substantially Comply with Lozada
The court held that petitioner had failed to meet the three Lozada requirements for presenting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, finding that his attorney lacked actual notice of allegations that his assistance had been ineffective. (Point Du Jour v. Att’y Gen., 6/4/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061914

AILA and Partners Send Letter to EOIR on Premature Decision to Resume the Non-Detained Docket
AILA, the Council, CLINIC, HRF, NIJC, and NIPNLG sent a letter to EOIR recommending that the overwhelming majority of non-detained hearings be postponed for the duration of the national public health emergency. Additional recommendations include a moratorium on the issuance of in absentia orders. AILA Doc. No. 20061500

DHS Extends Flexibility in Requirements Related to Form I-9 Compliance
DHS announced that it has extended the flexibilities in rules related to Form I-9 compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic by an additional 30 days. The accommodations, which now expire on July 19, 2020, include discretion to defer physical presence requirements and extension for NOIs served in 3/20. AILA Doc. No. 20032033

DHS Acting Secretary Announces Extension of Border Restrictions
DHS Acting Secretary Chad Wolf announced that DHS will continue to limit non-essential travel at U.S. land ports of entry with Canada and Mexico due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that DHS’s Canadian and Mexican counterparts agree with the need for this extension. AILA Doc. No. 20042031

DHS Announces Imposition of Visa Sanctions on Burundi
DHS announced that it has imposed visa sanctions on Burundi “due to lack of cooperation in accepting its citizens and nationals ordered removed” from the U.S. As of 6/12/20, the Bujumbura U.S. embassy has discontinued issuance of all NIVs, with exceptions, for Burundian citizens and nationals. AILA Doc. No. 20061903

RESOURCES

• Post-Supreme Court Decision DACA Guidance
• ILRC: Understanding the 2020 Supreme Court Decision on DACA
• ILRC: All Those Rules About Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (June 2020)
• Practice Alert: Impact of the Supreme Court Decision Blocking DACA Rescission
• Practice Alert: Submitting Initial Evidence and Documentation with Form I-485
• Practice Alert: COVID-19 and the Public Charge Rule
• Practice Alert: Presidential Proclamations Suspending Entry Due to 2019 Novel Coronavirus
• Think Immigration: Fight Back Against Chevron Deference in Asylum and Withholding Cases
• DHS Releases Fact Sheet on Measures on the Border to Limit the Further Spread of Coronavirus
• Bite-Sized Ethics: Dual Representation and Secrets Between Clients
• OIG: CBP Struggled to Provide Adequate Detention Conditions During 2019 Migrant Surge
• COVID-19 IN ICE CUSTODY Biweekly Analysis & Update
• Practice Advisory: Criminal Consequences Updates from the BIA and the Ninth Circuit

EVENTS

Note: Check with organizers regarding cancellations/changes
• 6/22/20 The Supreme Court Ruling on DACA: What the Decision Means and What’s Next
• 6/24/20 I-730 Petition Training
• 6/24/20 Thought Getting an EAD Was Straightforward? Think Again!
• 6/26/20 Our Asylum System at Grave Risk: What You Can Do
• 6/29/20 Climate Change and Migration: Converging issues, diverging funding
• 7/7/20 Winning Withholding of Removal and Convention Against Torture Cases
• 7/15/20 Understanding Motions to Reopen Based on Changed Country Conditions
• 7/16/20-7/30/20 Webinar Series: Navigating Refugee and Asylee Issues in Turbulent Times
• 7/20/20 2020 AILA Virtual Annual Conference on Immigration Law
• 7/22/20 Tax Issues in Immigration Cases
• 7/23/20 Defending Immigration Removal Proceedings 2020
• 7/30/20 How to File a Successful Travel Ban Waiver
• 8/5/20 Unraveling Aggravated Felonies and Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude
• 8/18/20 Strategies for I-601 Waivers in Adjustment of Status Cases
• 8/26/20 Immigration Legal Services in Rural America
• 8/27/20 Crafting a Winning Particular Social Group for an Asylum Case
• 9/14/20 Working with Domestic Violence Immigrant Survivors: The Intersection of Basic Family Law, Immigration, Benefits, and Housing Issues in California 2020
• 9/22/20 Defenses to Denaturalization
• 9/23/20-10/7/20 3-Part Webinar Series: Integrating Technology to Improve Your Immigration Legal Services
• 10/1/20 Representing Children in Immigration Matters 2020: Effective Advocacy and Best Practices

ImmProf

Monday, June 22, 2020
• Immigration Article of the Day: Banished and Overcriminalized: Critical Race Perspectives of Illegal Entry and Drug Courier Prosecutions by Walter Goncalves
Sunday, June 21, 2020
• Will President Trump Make the Supreme Court’s DACA Decision a 2020 Presidential Campaign Issue?
• Immigration Article of the Day: Discriminatory Cooperative Federalism by Ava Ayers
Saturday, June 20, 2020
• “DREAMers” versus the Labels Used in Government Documents and Judicial Opinions in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California by Professor Maritza Reyes
• The Equal Protection Claim in the DACA Cases
• World Refugee Day – June 20, 2020
Friday, June 19, 2020
• DACA Victory at Supreme Court Is Precarious at Best
• Immigration Article of the Day: Injustice and the Disappearance of Discretionary Detention Under Trump by Robert Koulish
• DACA, College and University Students, and the Future of U.S. Immigration Law
• Guest Post: Minyao Wang, The Supreme Court Decides DACA Rescission Case on Administrative Law Grounds, Avoids Deciding Lawfulness of DACA
Thursday, June 18, 2020
• Responses to Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California
• Breaking News: DACA Lives Another Day: Supreme Court Vacates Rescission of DACA
• Some more good news: DACA recipients and noncitizens win two lawsuits that provide financial assistance
• Proposed rule bars colleges from granting covid-relief funds to DACA recipients [Updated 6/17/20]
• Immigration Article of the Day: Law Enforcement in the American Security State by Wadie Said
Wednesday, June 17, 2020
• From the Bookshelves:Mary Jordan, The Art of Her Deal: The Untold Story of Melania Trump
• Immigration Article of the Day: Making Litigating Citizenship More Fair
• UVA to Enroll Students Regardless of Immigration Status
Tuesday, June 16, 2020
• From The Bookshelves: Dominicana by Angie Cruz
• Immigration and Economic Recovery Symposium
Monday, June 15, 2020
• White House attributing covid-19 increase to travel from Mexico
• Lessons learned in the journey from Prop. 187 to DACA to the Supreme Court
• Supreme Court Denies Cert in United States v. California, State Sanctuary Law Case
• Supreme Court Grants Review in Immigration Detention Case
• DACA Decision Today?
• “Trump is quietly gutting the asylum system amid the pandemic President Trump’s election-year push to foreground immigration is officially in full swing.”

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

Just so we understand the work authorization fraud perpetrated by Trump, currently individuals who seek asylum at ports of entry are “rocketed” to the exceptionally dangerous countries of Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (none of which have a fair or functional asylum system) without any hearing, meaningful inquiry, or a chance to apply for asylum in the U.S. So, no work authorization for them.

Those who recognize the futility of trying to use our now-fraudulent legal system to seek protection might therefore cross the border and turn themselves in to DHS or, if they get to the interior, turn themselves in to USCIS to apply for asylum. They also will be denied work authorization under the latest Trump scheme.

So you, or some Federal Judge actually interested in upholding the law, might ask: “Who gets employment authorization under Trump’s shell game?” The answer: “Pretty much nobody.”

So, you might then ask, isn’t this government fraud, or at least grotesque dishonesty? Of course, but but “it’s only refugees not real humans.” For the most part, courts have allowed Trump, Miller, and company to run roughshod over the legal rights and humanity of migrants, with particular emphasis on looking the other way while refugees, women, and children are abused. So, it’s OK. Until Trump strips you of your humanity without recourse.

As if to punctuate the Constitutional malpractice and moral vapidity of everyone on the Supremes save Justice Sonia Sotomayor, on Saturday Trump headed off to Tulsa, Oklahoma, the site of one of the worst White-led race massacres in U.S. history, one day after the Juneteenth Celebration of African American liberation in America. Given the timing and the mood in the nation, it appeared to be a rather thinly disguised attempt by Trump to provoke some type of racial confrontation that he thought would benefit him politically.

Failing that, and faced with a smaller-than-expected audience of cultists, Trump turned the evening into a celebration of lies, hate, insults, and racism – denying the reality and justice of the cause of equal justice under law, using an offensive racist slur against Asians, and “joking” about 120,000 dead Americans and his totally incompetent response to COVID-19, to name just a few of his very public and intentional transgressions against our nation and human decency.

America can’t go any further with Trump and the GOP in charge and promoting an agenda of racism, hate, division, and inequality. But, it’s also worth asking how far we can get with eight Justices who are willfully blind to Trump’s obvious racism, his and his lawyers’ lack of honesty and ethics, and the toxic agenda of prolonging and deepening institutional racism in America that he and his supporters so ardently back and, to be frank, only exists because the Supremes and other government institutions have assisted it for more than a century.

Over more than two centuries, America has failed over and over again to deal honestly, ethically, courageously, and realistically with racism. At some point, the failures will become fatal for our republic. A house divided against itself and with rot in its structural integrity cannot stand for much longer.

Those in charge might claim cluelessness; but you should have your eyes open to the pernicious effects of malicious incompetence and systemic racism.

Some day, the full ugly truth of the Trump regime, its unbridled racism, its total dishonesty, its selfishness, its cowardice, its “crimes against humanity,” and our disgraceful national complicity will come out. It always does. Then, those in charge who were derelict their duties and looked the other way in the face of tyranny and needless human suffering will claim “just doing my job” or “how could I have known?” Don’t let them and/or their apologists get away with the “Nuremberg Defense!” We know; they know! It’s time to end the willful blindness and deal with the truth!

Due Process Forever! Complicit Institutions, Never!

PWS

06-22-20

JULIA PRESTON @ THE MARSHALL PROJECT: Despite Court Order, Trump Likely To Shaft Some Applicants For DACA Protection

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/06/19/immigrant-teens-left-out-when-trump-ended-daca-are-in-limbo-after-supreme-court-ruling

Immigrant Teens Left Out When Trump Ended DACA Are In Limbo After Supreme Court Ruling.

The justices ruled the

president illegally suspended

the Dreamers program. But

it’s unclear if Trump will let

more eligible applicants in.

FILED 3:05 p.m. 06.19.2020

Maria García finished high school in Tempe, Arizona, this May. BRENDA SUGEY GARCÍA MUÑOZ

By JULIA PRESTON

Young immigrants across the country were elated after the Supreme Court’s favorable ruling Thursday for DACA, the program that temporarily shields about 650,000 undocumented people from deportation. But Maria Garcia is not cheering—at least not yet.

Garcia, who is 17 and just finished high school in Tempe, Arizona, has everything needed to be eligible for DACA. She was 4 years old when her Mexican parents sent her across the border with a smuggler—“some random lady,” as she remembers it. She has never been in legal trouble and graduated with a 4.0 grade point average. She is two years older than the program’s lower age limit of 15.

Yet Garcia has not been able to apply for DACA. After President Trump’s decision to cancel the program in 2017, and the court fights that followed, immigrants who already had two-year permits under DACA have been allowed to renew them. But no new applications were accepted.

She is in a cohort of foreign-born teenagers, part of a group sometimes called Dreamers, who turned 15 after the program was terminated on Sept. 5, 2017. They are coming of age without legal papers, facing fears, frustrations and roadblocks that immigrants just a few years older have avoided with DACA. There are about 66,000 of them, according to an estimate by the Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan research center, and they could be eligible to apply for DACA after the Supreme Court decision.

But it is not clear that Trump will let them in.

Lawyers are debating the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling. In a 5-to-4 decision, the court found that the Trump administration acted unlawfully in ending the program, failing to follow procedural rules or to take into account the hardships for immigrants who had built their lives around it. The court sent the matter back to the Department of Homeland Security “so that it may consider the problem anew,” and sent three cases back to lower courts for further action.

Trump, who once called DACA holders “incredible kids,” immediately threatened to cancel the program again.

Donald J. Trump

✔

@realDonaldTrump

As President of the United States, I am asking for a legal solution on DACA, not a political one, consistent with the rule of law. The Supreme Court is not willing to give us one, so now we have to start this process all over again.

141K

1:20 PM – Jun 18, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

65K people are talking about this

Chad Wolf, the acting secretary of Homeland Security, said the ruling “usurps the clear authority of the executive branch to end unlawful programs.” But administration officials issued no guidance on how they planned to proceed.

Some legal scholars argued that the administration is required to restore the program with no delay and begin taking new applications. “The effect of the ruling is we go back to life as it was before September 2017,” said Marisol Orihuela, a professor at Yale Law School.

Others predicted the administration would not accept new applications unless, after further court battles, a judge orders them to re-open the program completely. If Trump moves to end DACA again, bureaucratic procedures and court fights would likely leave the current configuration in place past the election in November.

The legal fog was bewildering to young people who could be receiving DACA’s protections but are still left out.

“What happened is one step,” Garcia said guardedly of the Supreme Court’s ruling, by phone from her home in Phoenix, “but we still have a way to go.”

Reyna Montoya, who lives in Gilbert, Arizona, knows her own DACA permit is preserved for now, but she worries about undocumented students. MATT YORK/ASSOCIATED PRESS

The Obama administration created DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, in 2012, and the program doesn’t grant a formal immigration status. For undocumented immigrants who came here as children, it offers temporary protection from deportation and a two-year, renewable work permit with a Social Security number. But the program removed obstacles many young people faced because of their lack of legal status, opening door after door.

“Within a year, they were already taking giant steps,” said Roberto Gonzales, a professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education who has studied the program since it started. “They found new jobs. They increased their earnings. They acquired driver’s licenses. They began to build credit through opening bank accounts and obtaining credit cards.”

Sign up for the latest news.

Daily news and opinion about criminal justice

A weekly roundup of top stories from the web

New and notable Marshall Project stories

Essays from people involved in the system

SUBSCRIBE

Email list managed by Mailchimp

For Garcia, however, Trump’s cancellation of DACA just when she was old enough to apply was a painful blow.

Aside from her schoolwork, she started running track for her Tempe high school. By senior year she was the school’s top runner, she said. But as she applied to colleges and scholarships, she received only impersonal form letters of rejection because she didn’t have a Social Security number.

“I basically didn’t know where I was going in my life,” she said. “I wanted to give up.”

At the last minute she discovered a scholarship program called TheDream.US, which provides financial aid for college even if students are undocumented. She was approved and plans to attend Arizona State University in the fall, hoping to study aerospace engineering.

As protesters are marching against police brutality and demanding reforms, Garcia said she is even more aware of her fears of government authorities anytime she goes out into the street. To get to school she sometimes has to drive, and with no license because of her immigration status, her anxiety spikes when she sees a police car.

Garcia said she doesn’t fear “being shot and actually dying” in a police encounter. “But we do have that fear of being deported.”

Reyna Montoya, a DACA holder who is 29, created Aliento, an organization in Phoenix that provides support for immigrant youth. More than 500 teenagers who have been shut out of DACA have come to the group for legal and financial help, and solace.

“I feel I can finally catch my breath,” Montoya said on Thursday, knowing her own DACA permit is preserved for now. But she remains surrounded by students “like my past undocumented high school self, who was so sad and depressed about my future.”

One is Milagros Heredia, 18, whose mother carried her across the border to Arizona when she was nine months old. Her mother, Rosa Alcantar, is 36 and has a DACA permit.

Milagros Heredia and her mother, Rosa Alcantar, in 2019. COURTESY OF MILAGROS HEREDIA

Heredia’s childhood was spent in hospitals and chemotherapy after doctors found a large tumor in her brain. Her worry then was the mortification of losing her hair. “Appearances were everything in third grade,” she said.

Doctors determined the tumor was growing but benign. In high school Heredia became an honors student and a leader of a Latinx student organization. Having won a scholarship from TheDream.US, she plans to enroll at Grand Canyon University in August.

She was relieved Thursday to learn that her mother’s DACA permit remains in place. But Heredia still can’t work or drive legally. She has to be careful looking for part-time jobs to help her family.

“You’re never sure who’s with you and who’s against you,” she said.

She’s been watching the police protests in Phoenix. “In the back of my head I always know the police could stop me,” she said, and because of her undocumented status, “I potentially could lose everything.”

Julia Preston covered immigration for The New York Times for 10 years, until 2016. She was a member of The Times staff that won the 1998 Pulitzer Prize for reporting on international affairs, for its series that profiled the corrosive effects of drug corruption in Mexico. She is a 1997 recipient of the Maria Moors Cabot Prize for distinguished coverage of Latin America and a 1994 winner of the Robert F. Kennedy Award for Humanitarian Journalism.

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

Always an honor to feature Julia, a “First Ballot Hall of Famer” among journalists, on Courtside. Few in America have done more to show the human side and human effects of immigration law and their inextricable ties to the continuing battle for social justice for all.

One of many great things about retirement is having a chance to get to know the “real persons behind the mastheads and bylines” among immigration and justice reporters. They are right up there with pro bono immigration lawyers and human rights activists among those who embody the very best and most courageous our nation has to offer.

Notwithstanding the Chief Justice’s fantastic claim, incredibly joined by seven of his intellectual-honesty-and-basic-Con-Law-challenged colleagues, that there was no showing of racial animus in the DACA repeal, that is, of course, untrue, as almost any honest observer recognizes.

Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor had the courage, integrity, and decency to acknowledge the overt bigotry and racism that motivates every Trump immigration policy. It’s almost like the other eight Justices don’t know who Stephen Miller is and what he stands for. Or, they never heard Trump spew out his racist dog whistles at his rallies or on Twitter. Or, they have never compared the faces of those behind Trump at his rallies with pictures of White hate at the Museum of African American History or the pictures from Hitler rallies at the Holocaust Museum. Or, they weren’t able to comprehend Dana Milbank’s recent exposition of Trump’s racism in Trump’s own words. But, of course, they do know all these things. Full well! There’s ignorance. Then there is willful ignorance by those who know better!

Every aspect of the Trump regime’s vicious attack on the legal rights and humanity of migrants has been motivated by an ugly combination of racism, bigotry, White Nationalism, and wanton cruelty. You need to look no further than Trump’s contemptuous, belligerent, and ignorant reaction to the ruling to see that nothing except racism and using Dreamers as “hostages” for race-driven immigration “reforms” was ever behind the attack on DACA.

For Justices, who are law school grads and members of the bar, to take seriously the regime’s patently bogus claim of prosecutorial illegality (actually rationality) on the part of the Obama Administration from an Administration that has actively chosen not to enforce a myriad of duly enacted environmental, civil rights, voting rights, healthcare, ethics, consumer safety as well as immigration benefits laws while declining to prosecute serious crimes and devoting prosecutorial time to punishing border crossers is, of course, beyond preposterous. The bad faith and dishonesty dripping from Justice Thomas’s absurdist dissent in DHS v. Regents shows why the Court as an institution has become disreputable during the Trump Administration.

As pointed out by Adam Serwer in The Atlantic, https://apple.news/Akv4yN8i5Qv-Rz6r79m_O7Q, Roberts essentially begged Trump to take the time and effort to create some, minimal non-racist, totally bogus but facially rational “pretext” for the termination, so that he and other righty judges would have some “cover” for future votes to uphold or enable invidiously racist policies directed against the Latino and Black communities, as they had dutifully done in the past. He also implicitly suggested that Trump keep his big mouth shut, lock Stephen Miller in the White House basement, and let the Noel Franciscos, Billy Barrs, Cooch Cooches, and other members of Trump’s ethics-and-morality-free “legal team” finish the hatchet job on the Dreamers. Additionally, he hinted that Trump would do well to “bury” this issue till after the election.

I don’t see this regime as giving any quarter to Dreamers. Since their malicious incompetence has bankrupted once-flush USCIS, which they are now, outrageously, “holding for ransom” that the House Dems should refuse, I doubt that Trump will bother to comply with any part of the ruling unless specifically ordered to do so under penalty of contempt in an individual case. Maybe not even then. After all, since his corrupt acquittal by the Senate he has openly advertised that he now is above any law. He’s too busy spreading disease, dismantling the justice system, and trying his hardest along with Billy Barr to provoke racial strife throughout the nation. Why bother with the mere “mechanics” of government of which he knows nothing and cares even less.

Roberts has asked little of an Administration that he has basically allowed to operate outside the law and human morality, for the most part. His “ask” in this case is exceedingly modest. In an earlier case where Trump failed to deliver, Roberts only wanted him not to use perjured testimony of a Cabinet Member as a cover for a racially motivated attack on the census. It’s a mark of the deep contempt in which Trump holds Roberts, judges, the Constitution, the rule of law, and humanity that he has chosen to “spit in the Chief Justice’s face,” not to mention the faces of the many young Dreamers who are our path to a better future as a nation.

That would be a nation where the likes of Trump, his GOP toadies, and their enablers are banished from power and public office by the voters, forever. And, a nation that eventually achieves a Supreme Court with Justices who uniformly believe in Constitutionally-required “equal justice for all” and enforce it, rather than just looking for ways to skirt and avoid it while disingenuously hiding their misdeeds behind obvious (sometimes even actively solicited) pretexts and obtuse right-wing “philosophies.” The latter are essentially thin intellectual cover for attacks on humanity and looking the other way when the powerful abuse the vulnerable.

We’re a long way from where we need to be as a nation. But, if we don’t get started on the path this November, the “grand American experiment” will come crashing down in a heap. I doubt that this “Clown Show” can continue, even with Supreme complicity as an ally.

PWS

06-20-20

🏴‍☠️☠️KAKISTOCRACY W/ CRUELTY: TRUMP PROMISES RENEWED RACIST ASSAULT ON DREAMERS — Apparently Inspired By Supremes’ Clearly Erroneous Finding That Original Racist Assault Wasn’t Racist At All! — Worst Prez in U.S. History Shows Once Again That There’s No End To His Creepy Racist Cruelty, Stupidity, & Willingness to Waste Taxpayers’ Money!

Astrid Galvin — Astrid Galvan
AP Journalist

https://apple.news/A8axfX18tSJerFjEt643BbA

Astrid Galvin and Deb Riechmann report for AP:

Undeterred by this week’s Supreme Court ruling, President Donald Trump said Friday he will renew his effort to end legal protections for hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the United States as children.

Trump denounced the high court’s ruling that the administration improperly ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in 2017. Splitting with Trump and judicial conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four liberal justices in the 5-4 vote Thursday.

Through executive action, Trump could still take away the ability for 650,000 young immigrants to live and work legally in the United States. But with no legislative answer in Congress in sight, uncertainty continues for many immigrants who know of no other home except America.

In a tweet Friday morning, Trump said, “The Supreme Court asked us to resubmit on DACA, nothing was lost or won. They “punted”, much like in a football game (where hopefully they would stand for our great American Flag). We will be submitting enhanced papers shortly.”

Ken Cuccinelli, acting head of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said Friday that the administration was starting over. “We’re going to move as quickly as we can to put options in front of the president,” but those are executive branch options, he told “Fox & Friends.”

“That still leaves open the appropriate solution which the Supreme Court mentioned and that is that Congress step up to the plate,” he said.

Cuccinelli said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., made some positive comments in that direction on Thursday so the administration thinks it’s possible for a constructive conversation with Congress. But experts say there isn’t enough time to knock down the 8-year-old program before the November election and doubt the government would try because DACA is popular with voters.

Trump’s tweet on Friday was less confrontational than the one on Thursday when he slammed the high court ruling. “These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives.” He apparently was referring to DACA and an earlier ruling this week where the court said it’s illegal to fire people because they are gay or transgender.

Activists are vowing to keep fighting for a long-term solution for young immigrants whose parents brought them to the United States when they were children. They not only face a White House that’s prioritized immigration restrictions but a divided Congress that is not expected to pass legislation giving them a path to citizenship anytime soon.

The court decision still elicited surprise, joy and some apprehension from immigrants and advocates who know it’s only a temporary solution.

“This is a huge victory for us,” Diana Rodriguez, a 22-year-old DACA recipient, said through tears.

Rodriguez, who works with the New York Immigration Coalition, said she hasn’t been to Mexico since she was brought to the U.S. at age 2. The ruling means young immigrantscan keep working, providing for their families and making “a difference in this country,” she said.

But the work isn’t over, Rodriguez said: “We can’t stop right now, we have to continue fighting.”

Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, appeared satisfied to let the court’s decision stand as the law of the land for now.

While Republicans protested that now, if ever, was the time for Congress to clarify the immigration system, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made it clear that Democrats were done with their legislation before the summer break and had little interest in meeting GOP demands to fund Trump’s long-promised border wall as part of any comprehensive immigration overhaul.

“There isn’t anybody in the immigration community that wants us to trade a wall for immigration,” she said.

Pelosi was reminded that Trump has said he wants immigration reform. “We’ll see,” she said, noting how few days remain on the legislative calendar. “I don’t know what the president meant — maybe he doesn’t either.”

Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden said that if elected, he would send lawmakers proposed legislation on his first day in office to make DACA protections permanent.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link.

Right now, Mark Joseph Stern’s prediction @ Slate that the Supremes’ failure to call out the Trump Administrations’s unconstitutional racial bias will come back to haunt America is looking pretty accurate. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/john-roberts-daca-racist-policies-equal-protection.html

There will be no racial reconciliation, equality, and equilibrium in the U.S., nor will our nation reach its full potential, until Trump and the GOP are permanently expelled from power the power they have so grotesquely and dishonestly abused.

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

PWS

06-19-20

VOX IMMIGRATION REPORTER NICOLE NAREA CONTINUES TO WIN PRAISE FOR HER ANALYSIS — ImmigrationProf Blog Highlights Nicole’s “Trenchant Criticism” of Regime’s Outrageous Proposal to Repeal Asylum Protections by Regulation!

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2020/06/trump-is-quietly-gutting-the-asylum-system-amid-the-pandemic-president-trumps-election-year-push-to-.html

Dean Kevin Johnson writes on ImmigrationProf Blog:

Nicole Narea on Vox has a trenchant criticism of the asylum rules proposed by the Trump administration last week. Here is the the criticism in a nutshell:

“The Trump administration has proposed a regulation that would deliver its biggest blow to the US asylum system yet, vastly expanding immigration officials’ authority to turn away migrants. If enacted, it would all but close America’s doors to asylum seekers — a signature policy for a president desperately trying to rally his base in an election year.

The regulation, which was announced Wednesday, would allow immigration officials to discard asylum seekers’ applications as “frivolous” without so much as a hearing, and make it impossible for victims of gang-related and gender-based violence to obtain protection in the US. It would also refuse asylum to anyone coming from a country other than Canada or Mexico, or who does not arrive on a direct flight to the US, as well as anyone who has failed to pay taxes, among other provisions.

President Donald Trump has been working to dismantle the asylum system for years, but this latest regulation is part of an election-year push to curtail immigration. In recent months and under the pretext of responding to the coronavirus pandemic, his administration has closed the US-Mexico border, begun rapidly returning asylum seekers arriving on the southern border to Mexico, and issued a temporary ban on the issuance of new green cards — policies that are now being challenged in court.”

The 30 day public comment period starts on June 15.

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

Nicole cuts through the BS and exposes 160+ pages of the regime’s legal gobbledygook, evil intent, and White Nationalist racism for exactly what it is. No surprise for those of us who have been avid readers of Nicole’s outstanding reporting, first at Law360 and now at Vox News.

Keep on the story, Nicole! Don’t let the White Nationalist kakistocracy continue to hide their vile and unconstitutional program directed against asylum seekers of color behind a barrage of opaque legalese!

Following the Supreme’s lifeline to Dreamers, some commentators are heralding the triumph of the “rule of law” over Trump. That’s total wishful thinking. It’s great that the Court got a couple of cases right this week. Lives saved are lives saved. That’s actually what they are supposed to do all the time.

Meanwhile, the existence of Remain in Mexico, misuse of COVID-19 to return asylum seekers to potential death, baby jails, kids in cages, family separation, the New American Gulag, Star Chambers in the DOJ that call themselves “courts,” and the elimination of the legal immigration system without legislation show just how ineffectual the Article III Courts have been overall in enforcing due process, equal justice, and human rights in the face of Executive tyranny and grotesque misfeasance.

The folks who launched these fantastically illegal and disingenuous proposals to eliminate asylum, harm, and kill vulnerable individuals deserving protection largely based on White Nationalist racial animus obviously have deep disrespect not only for the rule of law but for humanity as a whole. That they they can get away with it and continue to openly promote their false and illegal agenda shows how little the Article III Courts actually have done to stem the unconstitutional tide of irrational, race-based actions by a thoroughly corrupt Administration over the past three years.

Ask folks rotting in Mexico, orbited to torture without hearings, separated from their family members, suffering in squalor and disease in the Gulag for no crime, or watching their chance to immigrate legally go down the drain how that “rule of law” is working out for them. Until the Article III Courts as an institution confront the real problems here: Trump’s dishonesty, White Nationalism, xenophobia, and institutional racism, all of which violate the Constitution, the “rule of law” will only be a reality for some. America deserves better from our Article III judges. I can only hope that some day we will get it.

PWS

06-19-20

🇺🇸🗽😎👍🏼⚖️BREAKING: SOCIAL JUSTICE EEKS OUT A SUPREME VICTORY: CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS FINALLY RISES TO OCCASION, BACKS HUMANITY, SAVES LIVES, HEADS OFF FURTHER SOCIAL UNREST FOR NOW — Four GOP Justices Remain Shills For White Nationalist Regime, Its Invidiously Motivated Racially-Driven Immigration Agenda, & Promoting Social Injustice Under Law! — DHS v. Regents of U. of Cal. — This Might Be Roberts’s Finest Hour As Chief Justice!

DHS V. Regents of U. of Cal., U.S. Supreme Court, 06-18-20

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf

Supreme Court Syllabus:

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ET AL. v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 18–587. Argued November 12, 2019—Decided June 18, 2020*

In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a memo- randum announcing an immigration relief program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which allows certain unauthor- ized aliens who arrived in the United States as children to apply for a two-year forbearance of removal. Those granted such relief become eligible for work authorization and various federal benefits. Some 700,000 aliens have availed themselves of this opportunity.

Two years later, DHS expanded DACA eligibility and created a re- lated program known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). If implemented, that program would have made 4.3 million parents of U. S. citizens or lawful perma- nent residents eligible for the same forbearance from removal, work eligibility, and other benefits as DACA recipients. Texas, joined by 25 other States, secured a nationwide preliminary injunction barring im- plementation of both the DACA expansion and DAPA. The Fifth Cir- cuit upheld the injunction, concluding that the program violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which carefully defines eligi- bility for benefits. This Court affirmed by an equally divided vote, and

——————

*Together with No. 18–588, Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al., on certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and No. 18–589, Wolf, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. v. Batalla Vidal et al., on certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

2

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY v. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CAL.

Syllabus

the litigation then continued in the District Court.

In June 2017, following a change in Presidential administrations,

DHS rescinded the DAPA Memorandum, citing, among other reasons, the ongoing suit by Texas and new policy priorities. That September, the Attorney General advised Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine C. Duke that DACA shared DAPA’s legal flaws and should also be rescinded. The next day, Duke acted on that advice. Taking into consideration the Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court rulings and the At- torney General’s letter, Duke decided to terminate the program. She explained that DHS would no longer accept new applications, but that existing DACA recipients whose benefits were set to expire within six months could apply for a two-year renewal. For all other DACA recip- ients, previously issued grants of relief would expire on their own terms, with no prospect for renewal.

Several groups of plaintiffs challenged Duke’s decision to rescind DACA, claiming that it was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and infringed the equal protec- tion guarantee of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. District Courts in California (Regents, No. 18–587), New York (Batalla Vidal, No. 18–589), and the District of Columbia (NAACP, No. 18–588) all ruled for the plaintiffs. Each court rejected the Government’s argu- ments that the claims were unreviewable under the APA and that the INA deprived the courts of jurisdiction. In Regents and Batalla Vidal, the District Courts further held that the equal protection claims were adequately alleged, and they entered coextensive nationwide prelimi- nary injunctions based on the conclusion that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their APA claims. The District Court in NAACP took a different approach. It deferred ruling on the equal protection chal- lenge but granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their APA claim, finding that the rescission was inadequately explained. The court then stayed its order for 90 days to permit DHS to reissue a memorandum rescinding DACA, this time with a fuller explanation of the conclusion that DACA was unlawful. Two months later, Duke’s successor, Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen, responded to the court’s or- der. She declined to disturb or replace Duke’s rescission decision and instead explained why she thought her predecessor’s decision was sound. In addition to reiterating the illegality conclusion, she offered several new justifications for the rescission. The Government moved for the District Court to reconsider in light of this additional explana- tion, but the court concluded that the new reasoning failed to elaborate meaningfully on the illegality rationale.

The Government appealed the various District Court decisions to the Second, Ninth, and D. C. Circuits, respectively. While those ap- peals were pending, the Government filed three petitions for certiorari

Cite as: 591 U. S. ____ (2020) 3 Syllabus

before judgment. Following the Ninth Circuit affirmance in Regents, this Court granted certiorari.

Held: The judgment in No. 18–587 is vacated in part and reversed in part; the judgment in No. 18–588 is affirmed; the February 13, 2018 order in No. 18–589 is vacated, the November 9, 2017 order is affirmed in part, and the March 29, 2018 order is reversed in part; and all of the cases are remanded.

No. 18–587, 908 F. 3d 476, vacated in part and reversed in part; No. 18– 588, affirmed; and No. 18–589, February 13, 2018 order vacated, No- vember 9, 2017 order affirmed in part, and March 29, 2018 order re- versed in part; all cases remanded.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV, concluding:

1. DHS’s rescission decision is reviewable under the APA and is within this Court’s jurisdiction. Pp. 9–13.

(a) The APA’s “basic presumption of judicial review” of agency ac- tion, Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 140, can be rebut- ted by showing that the “agency action is committed to agency discre- tion by law,” 5 U. S. C. §701(a)(2). In Heckler v. Chaney, the Court held that this narrow exception includes an agency’s decision not to insti- tute an enforcement action. 470 U. S. 821, 831–832. The Government contends that DACA is a general non-enforcement policy equivalent to the individual non-enforcement decision in Chaney. But the DACA Memorandum did not merely decline to institute enforcement proceed- ings; it created a program for conferring affirmative immigration re- lief. Therefore, unlike the non-enforcement decision in Chaney, DACA’s creation—and its rescission—is an “action [that] provides a focus for judicial review.” Id., at 832. In addition, by virtue of receiving deferred action, 700,000 DACA recipients may request work authori- zation and are eligible for Social Security and Medicare. Access to such benefits is an interest “courts often are called upon to protect.” Ibid. DACA’s rescission is thus subject to review under the APA. Pp. 9–12.

(b) The two jurisdictional provisions of the INA invoked by the Government do not apply. Title 8 U. S. C. §1252(b)(9), which bars re- view of claims arising from “action[s]” or “proceeding[s] brought to re- move an alien,” is inapplicable where, as here, the parties do not chal- lenge any removal proceedings. And the rescission is not a decision “to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders” within the meaning of §1252(g). Pp. 12–13.

2. DHS’s decision to rescind DACA was arbitrary and capricious un- der the APA. Pp. 13–26.

(a) In assessing the rescission, the Government urges the Court to consider not just the contemporaneous explanation offered by Acting Secretary Duke but also the additional reasons supplied by Secretary

4

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY v. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CAL.

Syllabus

Nielsen nine months later. Judicial review of agency action, however, is limited to “the grounds that the agency invoked when it took the action.” Michigan v. EPA, 576 U. S. 743, 758. If those grounds are inadequate, a court may remand for the agency to offer “a fuller expla- nation of the agency’s reasoning at the time of the agency action,” Pen- sion Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp., 496 U. S. 633, 654 (emphasis added), or to “deal with the problem afresh” by taking new agency action, SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U. S. 194, 201. Because Sec- retary Nielsen chose not to take new action, she was limited to elabo- rating on the agency’s original reasons. But her reasoning bears little relationship to that of her predecessor and consists primarily of imper- missible “post hoc rationalization.” Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402, 420. The rule requiring a new decision before considering new reasons is not merely a formality. It serves important administrative law values by promoting agency accounta- bility to the public, instilling confidence that the reasons given are not simply convenient litigating positions, and facilitating orderly review. Each of these values would be markedly undermined if this Court al- lowed DHS to rely on reasons offered nine months after the rescission and after three different courts had identified flaws in the original ex- planation. Pp. 13–17.

(b) ActingSecretaryDuke’srescissionmemorandumfailedtocon- sider important aspects of the problem before the agency. Although Duke was bound by the Attorney General’s determination that DACA is illegal, see 8 U. S. C. §1103(a)(1), deciding how best to address that determination involved important policy choices reserved for DHS. Acting Secretary Duke plainly exercised such discretionary authority in winding down the program, but she did not appreciate the full scope of her discretion. The Attorney General concluded that the legal de- fects in DACA mirrored those that the courts had recognized in DAPA. The Fifth Circuit, the highest court to offer a reasoned opinion on DAPA’s legality, found that DAPA violated the INA because it ex- tended eligibility for benefits to a class of unauthorized aliens. But the defining feature of DAPA (and DACA) is DHS’s decision to defer re- moval, and the Fifth Circuit carefully distinguished that forbearance component from the associated benefits eligibility. Eliminating bene- fits eligibility while continuing forbearance thus remained squarely within Duke’s discretion. Yet, rather than addressing forbearance in her decision, Duke treated the Attorney General’s conclusion regard- ing the illegality of benefits as sufficient to rescind both benefits and forbearance, without explanation. That reasoning repeated the error in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm— treating a rationale that applied to only part of a policy as sufficient to rescind the entire policy. 463 U. S. 29, 51. While DHS

Cite as: 591 U. S. ____ (2020) 5 Syllabus

was not required to “consider all policy alternatives,” ibid., deferred action was “within the ambit of the existing” policy, ibid.; indeed, it was the centerpiece of the policy. In failing to consider the option to retain deferred action, Duke “failed to supply the requisite ‘reasoned analysis.’ ” Id., at 57.

That omission alone renders Duke’s decision arbitrary and capri- cious, but it was not the only defect. Duke also failed to address whether there was “legitimate reliance” on the DACA Memorandum. Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A., 517 U. S. 735, 742. Certain features of the DACA policy may affect the strength of any reliance interests, but those features are for the agency to consider in the first instance. DHS has flexibility in addressing any reliance interests and could have considered various accommodations. While the agency was not required to pursue these accommodations, it was required to assess the existence and strength of any reliance interests, and weigh them against competing policy concerns. Its failure to do so was arbitrary and capricious. Pp. 17–26.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, joined by JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded in Part IV that respondents’ claims fail to establish a plausible inference that the rescission was motivated by animus in violation of the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 27–29.

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV. GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined that opinion in full, and SO- TOMAYOR, J., joined as to all but Part IV. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which ALITO and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., and KAVANAUGH, J., filed opinions concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

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

Whew! Disaster avoided, at least for now! That was close for America and 800,000 of our most promising young people. A good day for justice, humanity, and common sense. The Supremes finally slow down the White Nationalist immigration juggernaught.

Thanks Chief Justice Roberts! Thanks for having the legal acumen, moral courage, independence, and human decency to get to the correct result. This could be your finest moment, where you have saved America from further social upheaval and outrage at a time of national instability and lack of credible leadership. That’s actually what your job is all about. You have missed some opportunities in the past, but better late than never in one of our darkest and most difficult hours as a nation! Justice without mercy and humanity is not justice at all. Thanks for recognizing that in this particular case.

In Plain English: Cutting Through The Legalese:

Roberts’s Majority: It would be insane, inane, and inhumane to do this to our kids at this point in time.

Sotomayor’s Concurring/Dissenting: Come on guys, you don’t have to be rocket scientists to connect the dots between the Administration’s racist approach to immigration and possible violations of constitutional Equal Protection.

Thomas’s Dissenting/Concurring: Stupidity, inhumanity, and injustice need no justification so long as they are directed against vulnerable migrants. Never let your sense of justice, practicality, or human decency interfere with right-wing ideology.

As an Immigration Judge I saw the justice, beauty, practicality, and real life positive results for America and for humanity from DACA. Lives saved! Cases that never should have been brought in the first place, taken off overcrowded dockets! Human potential unleashed! Fair, professional, uniform nationwide administration by USCIS! A “big win” for America, humanity, and everyone involved! Probably the best thing the Obama Administration achieved in its otherwise largely inept, lackadaisical, and tone-deaf approach to justice for immigrants.

The reprieve is narrow and temporary. It will become a pyrrhic victory for social justice if we don’t remove Trump and the GOP from power in November.

This November, vote like your life and the lives of many others depend on it! Because they do!

PWS

06-28-20

SUZANNE MONYK @ LAW360: Experts Say New Asylum Rule Unconstitutional Because It Guts Due Process🏴‍☠️, Effectively Repeals Asylum Statute, Will Result in Near 100% Denial Rate — While Denials & Illegal “Deportations to Death☠️” Will Soar, Asylum Seekers Not Likely to be Deterred From Coming, Meaning That Court Backlogs & Avoidable Litigation Will Continue to Mushroom!

Suzanne Monyak
Senior Reporter, Immigration
Law360

https://www.law360.com/articles/1282494/planned-asylum-overhaul-threatens-migrants-due-process

Analysis

Planned Asylum Overhaul Threatens Migrants’ Due Process

By Suzanne Monyak | June 12, 2020, 9:34 PM EDT

The Trump administration’s proposed overhaul of the U.S. asylum process, calling for more power for immigration judges and asylum officers, could hinder migrants’ access to counsel in an already fast-tracked immigration system.

The proposal, posted in a 161-page rule Wednesday night, aims to speed up procedures and raise the standards for migrants seeking protection in the U.S. at every step, while minimizing the amount of time a migrant has to consult with an attorney before facing key decisions in their case.

“It certainly sets a tone by the government that fairness, just basic day-in-court due process, is no longer valued,” said Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, director for the Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Penn State Law, University Park, Pennsylvania.

The proposed rule, which will publish in the Federal Register on Monday, suggests a slew of changes to the U.S. asylum system that immigrant advocates say would constitute the most sweeping changes to the system yet and cut off access for the majority of applicants.

Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell University Law School, said that it was as if administration officials took every precedential immigration appellate decision, executive order and policy that narrowed asylum eligibility under this administration and “wrapped them all in one huge Frankenstein rule that would effectively gut our asylum system.”

Among a litany of changes, the rule, if finalized, would revise the standards to qualify for asylum and other fear-based relief, including by narrowing what types of social groups individuals can claim membership in, as well as the very definitions of “persecution” and “torture.”

In doing so, the proposal effectively bars all forms of gender-based claims, for example, as well as claims from individuals fleeing domestic violence.

These tighter definitions and higher standards would make it difficult even for asylum-seekers who are represented to win their cases, attorneys said.

“I worry about how a rule like this can cause a chilling effect on private law firms, or even BigLaw, from even engaging with this work on a pro bono level because it’s just so challenging and this rule only puts up those barriers even more,” said Wadhia.

But for migrants without lawyers, the barrier to entry is particularly profound. For instance, the rule permits immigration judges to pretermit asylum applications, or deny an application that the judge determines doesn’t pass muster before the migrant can ever appear before the court.

This could pose real challenges for migrants who may not be familiar with U.S. asylum law or even fluent in English, but who are not guaranteed attorneys in immigration court.

“If you’re unrepresented, give me a break,” said Lenni B. Benson, a professor at New York Law School who founded the Safe Passage Project. “I don’t think my law students understand ‘nexus’ even if they’ve studied it,” she added, referring to the requirement that an individual’s persecution have a “nexus” to, or be motivated by, their participation in a certain social group.

Dree Collopy of Benach Collopy LLP, who chairs the American Immigration Lawyers Association‘s asylum committee, told Law360 that she thought the pretermission authority was the most striking attack on due process in the proposal, noting that some immigration judges have asylum denial rates of 90% or higher.

“Giving all judges the authority to end an asylum application with no hearing at all is pretty jaw-dropping,” she said. “Those 90%-denial-rate judges are doing that with the respondent in front of them who’s already testifying about the persecution they’ve suffered or their fear.”

The proposal also allows asylum officers, who are employed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and are not required to have earned law degrees, to deem affirmative asylum applications frivolous, and to do so based on a broader definition of “frivolous.”

Currently, applicants must knowingly fabricate evidence in an asylum application for it be deemed frivolous. But the proposal would lower that standard, while expanding the definition of “frivolous” to include applications based on foreclosed law or that are considered to lack legal merit.

The penalty for a frivolous application is steep. If an immigration judge agrees that the application is frivolous under the expanded term, the applicant would be ineligible for all forms of immigration benefits in the U.S. for making a weak asylum claim, Collopy said.

“And under the new regulation, everything is a weak application,” she added.

Benson also said that allowing asylum officers to deny applications conflicts with a mandate that those asylum screenings not be adversarial.

When consulting for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security during the Obama administration, Benson had once supported giving asylum officers more authority to grant asylum requests on the spot when migrants present with strong cases from the get-go. But with this proposal, DHS “took that idea,” but then went “the negative way,” she said.

. . . .

“I can’t even think of a single client I have right now that could get around this,” Collopy said.

“It’s a fairly well-crafted rule,” said Yale-Loehr. “They clearly have been working on this for months.”

But it may not be strong enough to ultimately survive a court challenge, he said.

The proposal was met with an onslaught of opposition from immigrant advocates and lawmakers, drawing sharp rebukes from Amnesty International, the American Immigration Council and AILA, as well as from House Democrats.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., who leads the committee’s immigration panel, slammed the proposal in a Thursday statement as an attempt “to rewrite our immigration laws in direct contravention of duly enacted statutes and clear congressional intent.”

If the rule is finalized — the timing is tight during an election year — attorneys said it would likely face a constitutional challenge alleging that it doesn’t square with the due process clause by infringing on an individual’s right to access the U.S. asylum system.

And while the administration will consider public feedback before the policy takes effect, attorneys said it could still be vulnerable to a court challenge claiming it violates administrative law.

Benson said the proposed rule fails to explain why its interpretation of federal immigration law should trump federal court precedent.

“They can’t just do it, as much as they might like to, with the wave of a magic wand called notice-and-comment rulemaking,” she said.

Yale-Loehr predicted a court challenge to the policy, if finalized, could go the way of DHS’ public charge rule, which was struck down by multiple lower courts, and recently by a federal court of appeals, but was allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court to take effect while lawsuits continued.

If the policy is in place for any amount of time, it will likely lead to migrants with strong claims for protection being turned away, attorneys said. But Yale-Loehr didn’t believe it would lead to fewer asylum claims.

“If you’re fleeing persecution, you’re not stopping to read a 160-page rule,” he said. “You’re fleeing for your life, and no rule is going to change that fact.”

–Editing by Kelly Duncan.

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

Read Suzanne’s full analysis at the above link.

Although nominally designed to address the current Immigration Court backlog by encouraging or even mandating summary denial without due process of nearly 100% of asylum claims, as observed in the article, the exact opposite is likely to happen with respect to backlog reduction.

As Professor Steve Yale-Loehr points out, finalization of these regulations would undoubtedly provoke a flood of new litigation. True, the Supreme Court to date has failed to take seriously their precedents requiring due process for asylum seekers and other migrants. But, enough lower Federal Courts have been willing to initially step up to the plate that reversals and remands for fair hearings before Immigration Judges will occur on a regular basis in a number of jurisdictions.

This will require time-consuming “redos from scratch” before Immigration Judges that will take precedence on already backlogged dockets. It will also lead to a patchwork system of asylum rules pending the Supreme Court deciding what’s legally snd constitutionally required.

While based on the Court Majority’s lack of concern for due process, statutory integrity, and fundamental fairness for asylum seekers, particularly those of color, shown by the last few major tests of Trump Administration “constitutional statutory, and equal justice eradication” by Executive Order and regulation, one can never be certain what the future will hold.

With four Justices who have fairly consistently voted to uphold or act least not interfere with asylum seekers’ challenges to illegal policies and regulations, a slight change in either the composition of the Court or the philosophy of the majority Justices could produce different results.

As the link between systemic lack of equal justice under the Constitution for African Americans and the attacks on justice for asylum seekers, immigrants, and other people of color becomes clearer, some of the Justices who have enabled the Administration’s xenophobic anti-immigrant, anti-asylum programs might want to rethink their positions. That’s particularly true in light of the lack of a sound factual basis for such programs.

As good advocates continue to document the deadly results and inhumanity, as well as the administrative failures, of the Trump-Miller White nationalist program, even those justices who have to date been blind to what they were enabling might have to take notice and reflect further on both the legal moral obligations we owe to our fellow human beings.

In perhaps the most famous Supreme Court asylum opinion, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 436-37 (1987), Justice Stevens said:

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.

These proposed regulations are the exact opposite: without legislation, essentially repealing the Refugee Act of 1980 and ending U.S. compliance with the international refugee and asylum protection instruments to which we are party. Frankly, today’s Court majority appears, without any reasonable explanation, to have drifted away from Cardoza’s humanity and generous flexibility in favor of endorsing and enabling various immigration restrictionist schemes intended to weaponize asylum laws and processes against asylum seekers. But, are they really going to allow the Administration to overrule (and essentially mock) Cardoza by regulation? Perhaps, but such fecklessness will have much larger consequences for the Court and our nation.

Are baby jails, kids in cages, rape, beating, torture, child abuse, clearly rigged biased adjudications, predetermined results, death sentences without due process, bodies floating in the Rio Grande, and in some cases assisting femicide, ethnic cleansing, and religious and political repression really the legacy that the majority of today’s Justices wish to leave behind? Is that how they want to be remembered by future generations?

Scholars and well-respected legal advocates like Professor Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr, Professor Lenni Benson, and Dree Collopy have great expertise in immigration and asylum laws and an interest in reducing backlogs and creating functional Immigration Courts consistent with due process and Constitutional rights. Like Professor Benson, they have contributed practical ideas for increasing due process while reducing court backlogs. Instead of turning their good ideas, like “fast track grants and more qualified representation of asylum seekers, on their heads, why not enlist their help in fixing the current broken system?

We need a government that will engage in dialogue with experts to solve problems rather than unilaterally promoting more illegal, unwise, and inhumane attacks on, and gimmicks to avoid, the legal, due process, and human rights of asylum seekers.

As Professor Yale-Loehr presciently says at the end of Suzanne’s article:

“If you’re fleeing persecution, you’re not stopping to read a 160-page rule,” he said. “You’re fleeing for your life, and no rule is going to change that fact.”

Isn’t it time for our Supreme Court Justices, legislators, and policy makers to to recognize the truth of that statement and require our asylum system and our Immigration Courts to operate in the real world of refugees?

Due Process Forever! Complicity Never!

PWS

06-16-20

KAKISTOCRACY KORNER: Catherine Rampell @ WashPost Shows How Regime’s Maliciously Incompetent White Nationalist Stupidity @ USCIS Has Bankrupted Once-Profitable Agency! PLUS: Once Again, Failed Supremes Big Part of The Problem! — What’s The Purpose of A Court That Promotes Injustice And Fails To Resist Evil?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-so-set-on-harassing-immigrants-that-his-immigration-agency-needs-a-bailout/2020/06/11/52c2ae06-ac1b-11ea-9063-e69bd6520940_story.html

Catherine writes:

The immigration agency admonishing immigrants to pull themselves up by their bootstraps seems to have destroyed its own boots.

For three years, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — the federal agency that processes visas, work permits and naturalizations — has lectured immigrants about how they should become more self-sufficient. It has alleged, without evidence, that too many immigrants are on the dole. (Actually, immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in federal benefits, and the foreign-born use fewer federal benefits than do their native-born counterparts.)

The agency implemented a broad, and likely illegal, rule allegedly designed to weed out immigrants who might ever be tempted to become a “public charge” and try to benefit from taxpayer largesse.

Well, now USCIS is broke — and is trying to become a “public charge” itself, by begging Congress for a bailout.

The agency is funded almost entirely by user fees, rather than congressional appropriations. But under President Trump’s leadership, it has mismanaged its finances so badly that it has sought an emergency $1.2 billion infusion from taxpayers.

Unless it get a bailout, the agency will furlough three-quarters of its workforce next month, Government Executive reported Thursday.

The agency claims it’s a novel coronavirus victim. No doubt, the covid-19 pandemic has disrupted operations. But USCIS was in financial trouble long before the virus’s outbreak.

[[Full coverage of the coronavirus pandemic]]

It acknowledged as much in public documents last fall, when it proposed a massive increase in user fees because of large projected budget deficits.

It didn’t have to be this way. When Trump took office, USCIS inherited a budget surplus. Last year, the agency saw record highs in both revenue and revenue per user.

So what went wrong?

The administration has frittered away funds on phantom cases of immigration fraud — which, like the president’s allegations of voter fraud, it has struggled to prove is an actual widespread problem that’s been going undetected.

USCIS has siphoned resources to create a denaturalization task force, which strips citizenship from immigrants found to have lied or otherwise cheated on applications. Last year, the agency revealed intentions to double the size of its fraud detection unit.

The bigger drain on resources, though, is its deliberate creation of more busy work for immigrants and their lawyers — as well as thousands of USCIS employees. These changes are designed to make it harder for people to apply for, receive or retain lawful immigration status.

For instance, the agency has demanded more unnecessary documentation (“requests for evidence”) and more duplicative, mandatory in-person interviews. Previously, staffers had more discretion to determine whether these interviews were necessary.

Staffers have been directed to comb through applications looking for minor (frivolous) reasons to reject otherwise eligible applicants.

. . . .

The American Immigration Lawyers Association and the American Immigration Council offer a few obvious suggestions, including eliminating some of the stupid processing requirements that raise costs for both applicants and USCIS without actually adding value. Other ways to reduce costs include holding virtual naturalization oath ceremonies and allowing electronic payments for everything.

Congress could also demand the agency raise more money on its own, without gouging, say, poor asylum seekers. For instance, it could expand the cash cow known as “premium processing” (faster processing, for a fee) to more types of its applications.

Finally, get rid of the “public charge” rule. It’s a perfect example of everything that got USCIS into this mess: an expensive-to-administer — and, again, likely illegal — solution in search of a problem, whose only purpose is to punish immigrants just trying to follow the law.

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

Read the rest of Catherine’s article at the link.

Wow, what a terrific analysis! The “problems” were self-created by a regime with an irrational, White Nationalist, racist agenda. The solutions are actually quite obvious and readily available, as Catherine points out. But, they won’t happen until Trump is removed from office.

Catherine also raises a larger problem in America’s abject failure to insist on constitutionally-required social justice for everyone, regardless of color, status, or ethnicity. Stephen Miller’s racist changes in the public charge regulations never should have happened. It’s not rocket science. It’s Con Law 101, Administrative Law 101, with a dose of common sense and human decency thrown in.

In fact, the lower Federal Courts spotted the “racist stink-bomb” in Miller’s idiotic public charge changes right from the “git go” and properly stopped the change in its tracks. But, a GOP Supremes’ majority improperly granted Solicitor General Francisco’s unethical and blatantly disingenuous request for a stay of the injunction, providing no reasoning for their outrageous conduct. Four Justices dissented, led by Justice Sotomayor who lodged a vigorous dissent exposing the unlawful favoritism shown by her GOP colleagues to the Trump/Miller racist immigration agenda. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/02/22/complicity-watch-justice-sonia-sotomayor-calls-out-men-in-black-for-perverting-rules-to-advance-trump-miller-white-nationalist-nativist-immigration-agenda/

The current racial crisis, failure to achieve Constitutionally-required equal justice for all, and perhaps worst of all pandering to obviously fabricated pretexts for the Trump regime’s racist agenda, particularly as it has targeted asylum seekers and migrants of color, can be laid to no small degree at the feet of five GOP-appointed Supreme Court Justices disgracefully led by our failed Chief Justice.

They have failed to achieve and enforce equal justice for all because they don’t believe in what our Constitution requires. Millions of individuals who are neither lawyers nor judges know exactly what our Constitution requires and what morality and simple human decency mandates. It’s the exact opposite of what Trump stands for.

But, a Supremes’ majority that neither believes in Constitutional due process and equal justice for all nor possesses the guts and human decency to stand up to an overtly racist President and his toadies will continue to be part of the problem, rather than the solution to the blatant injustices that currently plague our society.

I’m certainly not the only former judge to recognize the intellectual dishonesty and moral corruption at the heart of today’s failed Supremes!

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/03/12/u-s-district-judge-lynn-s-adelman-channels-courtside-blasts-roberts-company-for-aiding-the-forces-seeking-to-destroy-our-democracy-instead-of-doing-w/

America needs and deserves better Justices who believe in and stand up for equal justice. Our Supremes’ institutional failure isn’t an exercise in legal academics or legitimate intellectual differences of opinion, like the majority often pretends.

No, bad judging injures, maims, and kills people every day. It undermines the health and safety of America every day. It allows baby jails and star chambers to flourish in our midst. It allows the illegal return of refugees to the dangerous countries they fled without any process at all, let alone “due” process. In enables corrupt Government officials to propose an outrageously unlawful, malicious, bogus, misogynist, and evil “administrative repeal” of asylum accompanied by a battery of racist-inspired lies because they know there is no legal accountability for their reprehensible conduct so long as the J.R. Five is there to protect their misdeeds. It allows police officers to act believing they won’t be held accountable for killing George Floyd.

It’s no wonder that democracy is crumbling before our eyes when the majority of Justices charged with protecting it place loyalty to a political party and its immoral, unqualified leader, perhaps the greatest threat to our democracy and the rule of law in our history, above the common good.

Due Process Forever. Complicit, Racism-Enabling Courts, Never!

PWS

06-12-20

🏴‍☠️🤮☠️⚰️AS U.S. JUSTICE SYSTEM FAILS, BARR & DHS GO FOR “ADMINISTRATIVE REPEAL” OF DUE PROCESS & REFUGEE ACT IN 156-PAGE SCREED OVERFLOWING WITH B.S. & FALSE CLAIMS! — A White Nationalist “Manifesto of Lies & Misrepresentations” Masquerading As “Proposed Regulations”

Bigoted Bully Billy Barr Brutalizes Justice as Federal Courts Fail

Here they are:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-12575.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

When the rule of law disappears, courts fail, and institutions disintegrate, bad things happen.

This November, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does!

PWS

06-10-20

SUPREME FAILURE: HOW THE SUPREMES ENABLED STEPHEN MILLER’S RACIST ATTACK ON VULNERABLE IMMIGRANTS AND AMERICANS’ HEALTH, AT THE WORST POSSIBLE TIME – America Needs & Deserves Better From Our Life-Tenured Justices! – This Isn’t Rocket 🚀 Science — The Illegality and Immorality Are Clear – What’s Disturbingly Missing Is The Courage & Will to Stand Up To Trump, Miller, and Other Members of The Regime Who Are Running Roughshod Over Our Justice System & Our National Values 🏴‍☠️!

https://apple.news/A7DwtaicORlSZg-2eIijU5g

Jeremy Raff reports for The Atlantic:

On a Friday afternoon in mid-April, Gladys Vega received a disturbing message: A woman hospitalized with COVID-19 needed food for the 11-year-old daughter she’d left at home. Worried that the girl would go hungry, Vega rushed out of her office and into the tangle of downtown Chelsea, Massachusetts, a 1.8-square-mile city across the Mystic River from Boston. The 52-year-old Vega, wearing a black tracksuit, a highlighter-yellow T-shirt, and a little bit of matching eye glitter, jumped out of the car so quickly, I could barely keep up. She approached a narrow brick apartment building and asked the people on the stoop to open the front door. “You don’t have to worry; I’m not immigration,” Vega said in Spanish. “Let me in.”

Vega was accustomed to convincing fearful Chelsea residents to trust her. More and more restrictive federal immigration measures had motivated some locals—day laborers, food-factory workers, janitors, and other employees now deemed “essential”—to leave as few traces of their presence as possible: using P.O. boxes instead of their own mailboxes at home, and steering clear of public buildings where Immigration and Customs Enforcement had made arrests.

In late February, new Trump-administration regulations took effect that radically expand whom immigration officials judge to be a “public charge”—permanently dependent on government aid—and thus ineligible for a green card. The rules allow officials to deny green-card applicants if they have used food stamps, Medicaid, housing assistance, or other safety-net programs that were previously exempt from consideration.

Vega, the executive director of a social-justice organization called the Chelsea Collaborative, believes that these measures have made it more difficult for immigrants to get the care and support they need to stop the spread of COVID-19. Out of fear of triggering the new public-charge rule, immigrants in Chelsea have been disenrolling from public services, worsening the overcrowding, food insecurity, and poor access to health care that make the area so vulnerable to the coronavirus.

By mid-April, the infection rate in Chelsea was six times higher than the state average, comparable to the rate in the hardest-hit boroughs of New York City. With the support of local officials, Vega is trying to use the credibility she’s earned over decades of fighting slumlords, predatory bosses, and scammers to persuade the hardest-hit families to use a makeshift social safety net—and to go to the hospital despite their fear that doing so will be weaponized against them later.

“Because they’re afraid of their status,” Vega said, “they will not speak up.”

The message about the girl in need of food, Vega learned, was outdated: Her mother had returned home earlier that day, after spending a week in the hospital. Still wheezing, the woman stood in the doorway wearing pajama pants, a gray overcoat, and a surgical mask. She told me she had deferred care for two weeks, and went to the hospital only when she could no longer breathe. Vega had prepared a box of bread, corn flour, beans, cookies, cooking oil, and milk. “God bless you,” the woman said. One floor below, several families who appeared sick were crammed into a handful of rooms. Vega gave them a box too.

Forty-two years ago, in the midst of the blizzard of 1978, Vega’s parents moved her from a farm in Puerto Rico to their own cramped apartment in Chelsea. The city, the climate, the language—it was “a nightmare,” she told me.

Her cousins in town spoke only English, so she became close with the other Spanish-speaking kids in school—mostly children who had fled the Central American civil wars of the 1980s with their families. Vega came to understand that her classmates didn’t see parents or relatives left behind for years at a time, because of immigration restrictions. “My passion for organizing came from those classrooms,” she said. By seventh grade, Vega was protesting cuts to bilingual education with a 700-student walkout she’d organized.

The newly formed Chelsea Collaborative hired her as a receptionist in 1990, when she was 21. From the beginning, she was a troublemaker. “I liked to challenge the status quo,” she told me. She set about trying to “manage up,” and to persuade her boss, the executive director, to put Latinos on the board. Her playbook: She’d gently inquire about a retirement party for a current board member. Then she’d line up a replacement, drop hints about all the funding her new pick could bring in, and order a plaque for the presumptive retiree. She tried to make it effortless for her boss to take her advice. “That’s how I moved out all of these older white men,” she said with a laugh.

Vega witnessed the first major wave of immigrant disenrollment from safety-net programs when Congress passed the Clinton administration’s welfare-reform law in 1996. The legislation, along with an immigration bill passed the following month, restricted green-card holders from using some federal benefits during their first five years in the country. Vega was working as a community organizer for the Chelsea Collaborative by then, holding large meetings at the Saint Rose of Lima Catholic church, where she was connecting immigrants with employment and educational opportunities. After the new laws passed, Vega recalled, immigrants felt that “to take any public assistance, you needed to bleed for [the government] to trust you. It was similar to what is happening now in terms of public charge.”

[Read: ‘We are like sitting ducks’]

Around the same time that Vega was organizing at Saint Rose, Michael Fix, who is now a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, received a sheaf of data from public-health officials in Los Angeles County that showed just how many noncitizens used public benefits before and after the laws took effect. The impact was apparent immediately, he recalled when we spoke. “I thought, Holy hell, what’s going on here?” Immigrant participation in health services had dropped sharply even among those who technically still qualified. Refugees, for instance, were unaffected by the new rules, but their participation in Medicaid fell 39 percent.

Fix and other researchers began to study these spillover consequences, concluding that they represented a chilling effect. Even immigration authorities were worried, especially about what the chilling effect would mean for public health. “Growing confusion is creating significant, negative public health consequences across the country,” the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which granted green cards at the time, wrote in 1999. “This situation is becoming particularly acute with respect to … the treatment of communicable diseases.”

Last summer, as the Trump administration’s beefed-up version of the public-charge rule sped toward approval, doctors and social workers at Massachusetts General Hospital’s clinic in Chelsea contacted Vega because they were concerned that immigrants were avoiding health care. The chilling effect was at work again. She brought clinic representatives to a street fair at Saint Rose full of food stalls and kids playing games on a warm evening. They walked around greeting attendees. “Please come back to MGH Chelsea,” Vega recalled the providers saying. “We miss you as patients.”

The expansion of the public-charge rule, Fix told me, is best understood as a way to favor affluent immigrants without having to go through Congress—a major victory for immigration hard-liners. According to an estimate by the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the new standards are so restrictive that if they were applied to everyone in the United States, up to half of all Americans could be deemed a public charge and thus not qualify to settle in the country.

The current chilling effect has not been measured. But Tiffany Joseph, a sociologist at Northeastern University who studies health access in Boston’s immigrant neighborhoods, told me, “You should not underestimate how much the fear of ICE raids and the public-charge rule worsened the pandemic in Chelsea.”

Jessica Zeidman, a primary-care doctor at MGH Chelsea, told me that she saw disenrollment continue to intensify in the months before the pandemic hit. In December, for instance, a newly pregnant patient ended a checkup with a goodbye: She told Zeidman that she wouldn’t be seeing her anymore, for fear of triggering the rule, which would go into effect two months later. Zeidman tried to persuade her not to withdraw from WIC, the federal nutrition program for women, infants, and children, because the new restrictions wouldn’t apply to pregnant women.

“Most of the patients I have that have talked about disenrolling are not even actually affected by the rule; they just think they are,” Zeidman told me. “Part of its power is [that] it affects many, many more people than it’s actually written to affect.”

Around the same time, another one of her patients, a man in his 50s, opted to remove his name from a public-housing waiting list, even though he was eligible for the benefit, because he was afraid of somehow triggering the rule and preventing other family members from obtaining green cards. As the pandemic spread, Zeidman wondered whether he was still stuck in overcrowded housing, risking infection By early April, immigrant patients showed signs of serious illness, after waiting as long as possible to seek care, Zeidman said. Almost all of them had labored breathing and a high fever.

“We’re reaping what we’ve sown,” she said.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link.

This isn’t rocket science! The irrationality, invidious motives, and danger to the public health of the Administration’s White Nationalist attack on vulnerable immigrants was obvious “from the git go.” Lower Federal Courts figured it out quickly and properly enjoined the illegal regulations change.

That’s hardly surprising given that the overwhelming majority of the 210,000 comments on the proposed change opposed it on public health and rational governance grounds, many coming from public health experts. The vile racism of Stephen Miller is also a matter of public record.

Nor is it surprising that the various “exemptions” are largely meaningless, given DHS’s and this regime’s complete and totally deserved lack of credibility in the immigrant community. It’s a commonly known fact of which any immigration practitioner or community worker would be aware, but of which members of our highest Court feign ignorance.

So, when we wonder “how we got to this point,” we can’t ignore the lack of practical understanding of human problems, absence of empathy, and the abandonment of fundamental principles of due process and equal justice for all represented by a Supremes’ majority that unleashed an illegal, ill-advised, invidiously discriminatory travesty like the “Stephen Miller’s public charge regulations” on our nation and some of our most vulnerable members of society – many of whom are actually suffering and even dying to bring us the essential goods and services that have kept us afloat during the pandemic.

A group of younger people that I work with raised these regulations with me recently. They appeared to have a very clear understanding of the adverse legal, ethical, practical, moral, and historical consequences of allowing one misguided group to inflict this type of invidious harm on another group in our society, thereby diminishing the general welfare. Pity that a majority of those serving on our highest Court lacked those same clear insights and values.

Actions and inactions have consequences. And, as we are now seeing, they can be quite ugly. A better Executive and a better Senate are keys to better Federal Courts, from the Supremes down to the Immigraton Courts. If nothing else, Trump has shown us how broken and feckless our current institutions are in the face of tyranny and “malicious incompetence.” We need regime change at all levels.

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

PWS

06-02-20

🤮KAKISTOCRACY KORNER: Trump Regime’s “Malicious Incompetence” 🤡 Bankrupts Once-Self-Supporting Government Agency — With No Mission, No Leadership, No Integrity, & Low to No Morale, USCIS Seeks “Taxpayer Bailout” 💸🔥 From Congress!

CNN Digital Expansion 2019, Geneva Sands

https://apple.news/AOZfzNDVvT0Oxx63CeRSlyw

Geneva Sands & Phil Mattingly report for CNN:

Federal immigration agency to furlough employees unless Congress provides funding

6:05 PM EDT May 26, 2020

US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the federal agency responsible for visa and asylum processing, is expected to furlough part of its workforce this summer if Congress doesn’t provide emergency funding to sustain operations during the coronavirus pandemic.

“Unfortunately, as of now, without congressional intervention, the agency will need to administratively furlough a portion of our employees on approximately July 20,” USCIS Deputy Director for Policy Joseph Edlow wrote in a letter sent to the workforce on Tuesday.

Earlier this month, the agency — which has 19,000 government employees and contractors working at more than 200 offices — requested $1.2 billion from Congress due to its budget shortfall.

Since then, the agency, a component of the Department of Homeland Security, has been working with members of Congress and their staffs to educate Capitol Hill on the agency’s finances and operations.

Communications from the agency to Congress have grown more urgent as the threat of potential rolling furloughs could number in the thousands, according to one source familiar with the discussions.

The goal would be to attach the needed funds to the next coronavirus relief bill, which lawmakers plan to negotiate next. Still, with both parties far apart on any resolution, there is currently no clear pathway for lawmakers to fulfill the emergency request.

The immigration agency is primarily fee-funded and typically continues most operations during lapses in funding, such as last year’s government shutdown. However, during the pandemic the agency suspended its in-person services, including all interviews and naturalization ceremonies.

“Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, USCIS has seen a dramatic decrease in revenue and is seeking a one-time emergency request for funding to ensure we can carry out our mission of administering our nation’s lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity, and protecting the American people,” said a USCIS spokesperson.

The agency proposed a 10% surcharge on USCIS application fees to reimburse taxpayers at a later time. USCIS previously estimated that application and petition receipts will drop by approximately 61% through the end of fiscal year 2020, exhausting funding this summer, according to the agency.

Sarah Pierce, a policy analyst for the US Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute, told CNN earlier this month that USCIS’ depleted funds are the “inevitable result” of the administration’s policies, which decreased the number of petitions — and thus fees — received by the agency.

“Between the end of fiscal years 2017 and 2019, USCIS received nearly 900,000 fewer petitions. This decrease was largely driven by the administration’s own decisions, such as ending Temporary Protected Status for nationals of several countries or drastically decreasing the number of refugees admitted to the United States,” she said.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link.

Sarah Pierce of MPI is totally right! This self-created “emergency” has to do mostly with the Trump regime’s ill-advised decision to turn what was supposed to be an agency providing impartial, expert, professional services to the public, and specifically the immigrant community, into a “junior branch of DHS enforcement.”

The need for a bailout or huge fee increases appears specious. How about giving USCIS the money that the regime illegally reprogrammed for Trump’s unneeded wall or the money used to maintain unfilled detention spaces and unneeded detention programs?

Right now, USCIS is engaged in improperly “slow walking” naturalization applications to prevent new citizens from being able to vote in the Fall 2020 elections. As a minimum requirement for further bailout, Congress should require that the “Naturalization Program” be removed from USCIS and returned to the supervision of the Article III Federal Courts.

I actually was once a “big fan” of “administrative naturalization,” believing that it could be done most efficiently and with the best public service by adjudicators serving within the Examinations Branch of the “Legacy INS” which eventually “morphed” into USCIS. I supported the concept and helped lay the groundwork for it during my time at the “Legacy INS.”

The Trump kakistocrats have proved me wrong. The function is too important, too politicized, and too tied into the White Nationalist anti-immigrant agenda to remain within the Executive Branch. It also requires competent, professional, apolitical leadership which does not exist within today’s “DHS mass of disastrous politicized incompetence.”

PWS

05-27-20

😎JUST THE FACTS: The Reality Of Immigrants’ Essential Contributions To America Has Nothing To Do With Trump’s White Nationalist False Narratives & Racist Rants!

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/immigrants-in-the-united-states

FACT SHEET

Immigrants in the United States

Economics of Immigration State by State

AddThis Sharing Buttons

Share to Facebook

Share to Twitter

Share to Print

Share to Email

Share to More

1.2K

April 21, 2020

Download PDF
with Citations

Download Infographic

The United States was built, in part, by immigrants—and the nation has long been the beneficiary of the new energy and ingenuity that immigrants bring. Today, 14 percent of the nation’s residents are foreign-born, over half of whom are naturalized citizens. Nearly 75 percent of all immigrants, who come from diverse backgrounds across the globe, report speaking English well or very well.

Immigrants make up significant shares of the U.S. workforce in a range of industries, accounting for over a third of all farming, fishing, and forestry workers—as well as nearly 25 percent of those working in computer and math sciences. The highest number of immigrants work in the health care and social service industry, with over 4 million immigrants providing these services. As workers, business owners, taxpayers, and neighbors, immigrants are an integral part of the country’s diverse and thriving communities and make extensive contributions that benefit all.

One in seven U.S. residents is an immigrant, while one in eight residents is a native-born U.S. citizen with at least one immigrant parent.

In 2018, 44.7 million immigrants (foreign-born individuals) comprised 14 percent of the national population.

The United States was home to 21.9 million women, 20.3 million men, and 2.5 million children who were immigrants.

The top countries of origin for immigrants were Mexico (25 percent of immigrants), India (6 percent), China (5 percent), the Philippines (4 percent), and El Salvador (3 percent).

In 2018, 39.4 million people in the United States (12 percent of the country’s population) were native-born Americans who had at least one immigrant parent.

Over half of all immigrants in the United States are naturalized citizens.

22.6 million immigrants (51 percent) had naturalized as of 2018, and 8.4 million immigrants were eligible to become naturalized U.S. citizens in 2017.

The majority of immigrants (74 percent) reported speaking English “well” or “very well.”

Immigrants in the United States are concentrated at both ends of the educational spectrum.

Nearly a third of adult immigrants had a college degree or more education in 2018, while over a fourth had less than a high school diploma.

Education Level Share (%) of All Immigrants Share (%) of All Natives

College degree or more 32 33

Some college 19 31

High school diploma only 22 28

Less than a high-school diploma 27 8

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.

Millions of U.S. citizens live with at least one family member who is undocumented.

10.7 million undocumented immigrants comprised 24 percent of the immigrant population and 3 percent of the total U.S. population in 2016.

16.7 million people, including 7 million born in the United States, lived in the country with at least one undocumented family member between 2010 and 2014.

During the same period, 1 in 12 children in the country was a U.S. citizen living with at least one undocumented family member (5.9 million children in total).

The United States is home to over 652,000 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients.

Approximately 652,880 active DACA recipients lived in the United States and its territories as of 2019, while DACA has been granted to over 2.5 million people in total since 2012.

As of 2019, 49 percent of DACA-eligible immigrants in the United States had applied for DACA.

An additional 363,000 people in the United States would satisfy all but the educational requirements for DACA, and another 39,000 would be eligible as they grew older.

One in six U.S. workers is an immigrant, together making up a vital part of the country’s labor force in a range of industries.

28.4 million immigrant workers comprised 17 percent of the U.S. labor force in 2018.

Immigrant workers were most numerous in the following U.S. industries:

Industry Number of Immigrant Workers

Health Care and Social Assistance 4,124,557

Manufacturing 3,437,569

Accommodation and Food Services 3,022,991

Retail Trade 2,979,800

Construction 2,858,953

Source: Analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community Survey 1-year PUMS data by the American Immigration Council.

The largest shares of immigrant workers were in the following U.S. industries:

Industry Immigrant Share (%)
(of all industry workers)

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting 26

Construction 23

Administrative Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services 22

Other Services (except Public Administration) 21

Accommodation and Food Services 20

Source: Analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community Survey 1-year PUMS data by the American Immigration Council.

Immigrants are an integral part of the U.S. workforce in a range of occupations.

In 2018, immigrant workers were most numerous in the following occupation groups:

Occupation Category Number of Immigrant Workers

Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 2,683,238

Sales and Related Occupations 2,580,721

Management Occupations 2,529,218

Office and Administrative Support Occupations 2,494,354

Construction and Extraction Occupations 2,487,351

Source: Analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community Survey 1-year PUMS data by the American Immigration Council.

The largest shares of immigrant workers were in the following occupation groups:

Occupation Category Immigrant Share (%)
(of all workers in occupation)

Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations 38

Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations 31

Construction and Extraction Occupations 25

Computer and Mathematical Occupations 24

Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 22

Source: Analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community Survey 1-year PUMS data by the American Immigration Council.

Undocumented immigrants comprised 5 percent of the workforce in 2016.

Immigrants in the United States contribute billions of dollars in taxes.

Immigrant-led households across the United States contributed a total of $308.6 billion in federal taxes and $150 billion in combined state and local taxes in 2018.

Undocumented immigrants in the United States paid an estimated $20.1 billion in federal taxes and $11.8 billion in combined state and local taxes in 2018.

DACA recipients and those meeting the eligibility requirements for DACA paid an estimated $1.7 billion in combined state and local taxes in 2018.

As consumers, immigrants add over a trillion dollars to the U.S. economy.

In the United States, residents of immigrant-led households had $1.2 trillion in collective spending power (after-tax income) in 2018.

Immigrant entrepreneurs in the United States generate tens of billions of dollars in business revenue.

3.6 million immigrant business owners accounted for 21 percent of all self-employed U.S. residents in 2018 and generated $84.3 billion in business income.

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

Unfortunately, reality often has less “grabbing power” than the sensationalist White Nationalist BS narratives ☠️🤮👎 peddled by Trump, his toadies, and some of his backers.

The bottom line is actually pretty simple: America was built by immigrants and depends on the essential contributions of new immigrants, regardless of status, for survival and prosperity. 🇺🇸👍

That makes Trump’s dark nativist vision of America look like a “suicide pact” rather than a path to “greatness.” It’s particularly important for members of the younger generation to reject the Trump regime’s dark dishonest plans 🏴‍☠️ that write many of them, their friends, colleagues, and loved ones out of America’s future in favor of a “kakistocracy of corrupt grifters.”

This November, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does!

PWS

05-23-20

CHILD ABUSE BY COWARDLY REGIME OFFICIALS RAMPS UP AS COURTS TANK IN FACE OF LATEST ASSAULT ON RULE OF LAW & HUMANITY ☠️ — “This incredibly callous treatment of young migrants as well as their families is part of the Trump administration’s attempt to erase any vestige of due process at the border with Mexico.“

https://apple.news/AfPeFLsDGQTyTuvEeyuQsIg

Esther Wang writes in Jezebel:

Another day, another extreme cruelty: according to a report in the New York Times, the Trump administration has deported almost 1,000 migrant children and teens during the past two months of the covid-19 pandemic, sending them out of the United States alone and at times putting them on a flight without even telling their family members. Stephen Miller, who is unfortunately still alive, must be thrilled.

Trump’s latest tactic in the service of slashing immigration is, as the New York Times points out, a complete 180 from past policy:

The deportations represent an extraordinary shift in policy that has been unfolding in recent weeks on the southwestern border, under which safeguards that have for decades been granted to migrant children by both Democratic and Republican administrations appear to have been abandoned.

Historically, young migrants who showed up at the border without adult guardians were provided with shelter, education, medical care and a lengthy administrative process that allowed them to make a case for staying in the United States. Those who were eventually deported were sent home only after arrangements had been made to assure they had a safe place to return to.

But now, not even children who are already in the United States with pending asylum cases are safe from deportation. As the Times reported, in addition to the more than 900 children and teens who were deported in March and April shortly after arriving at the border, 60 young people who were already being held in government shelters were also abruptly sent out of the United States, at times “rousted from their beds in the middle of the night.”

According to the Times, even young children have been put on flights by themselves. Take the case of Sandra Rodríguez and her 10-year-old son Gerson, whom she sent across the southern border with the expectation that once Gerson arrived in the United States, he would be able to eventually live with Rodríguez’s brother in Houston. But instead, shortly after entering the U.S., Gerson was sent to Honduras alone.

This incredibly callous treatment of young migrants as well as their families is part of the Trump administration’s attempt to erase any vestige of due process at the border with Mexico. Citing the pandemic, immigration officials have used provisions in the 1944 Public Health Act as justification to essentially close the United States to all asylum seekers who cross the border. The impact has been severe: In an almost two-month period from mid-March to May, only two people seeking protection on humanitarian grounds at the border were allowed to stay within the United States.

“What is happening at the border right now is a tragedy. We are abandoning our legal commitment to provide asylum to people whose lives are in danger in other countries,” Kari Hong, an immigration attorney and Boston College law school professor, told the Washington Post. “By invoking these emergency orders, the Trump administration is simply doing what it’s wanted to do all along, which is to end asylum law in its entirety,” she said.

While Trump administration officials have justified their likely illegal use of emergency orders in the name of public health, the fact that officials have also deported children and teens who were already in the care of the federal government sure indicates that something else is going on here. I wonder what that could be.

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

Who would have thought that America would become a nation of child abusers and that Federal Courts would be so feckless and complicit in the face of such clear abuses? Three years of concerted failure, led by John Roberts and the Supremes, to give meaning to Due Process and Equal Protection in the face of the “New Jim Crow” have emboldened the regime’s White Nationalist, anti-American abusers while kneecapping democratic and constitutional institutions.

Then, there’s the extreme, wanton cruelty and dehumanization inflicted on the mostly vulnerable among us that has come to symbolize our nation in the Age of Trump. Like all the other abuses by the regime, it’s been “normalized” by feckless legislators and judges: “Another day, another extreme cruelty!” ☠️⚰️🤮🏴‍☠️

Somewhere down there in the fires of the underworld, Chief Justice Roger Taney, author of the infamous “Dred Scott Decision” must be feeling totally vindicated by Roberts and his gang!

Is this really how we want to be remembered by future generations? If not, vote ‘em out this November!

PWS

05-21-20

🏴‍☠️CHILD ABUSE/“CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY”☠️ – Scofflaw DHS Officials Scheme to Avoid Flores, Separate Kids, Put Families in New American Gulag (“NAG”) – Julia Edwards Ainsley Reports for NBC News!

Julia Ainsley — Julia Edwards Ainsley
Investigative Reporter, NBC News

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/family-separation-back-migrants-u-s-mexican-border-say-advocates-n1208186

Julia writes:

WASHINGTON — Several immigrant rights organizations are outraged by a new choice U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is presenting to migrant parents: Separate from your child or stay together in detention indefinitely.

Starting on Thursday, the groups claim, ICE began distributing a form in all three of its family detention centers that would allow parents to apply for their minor children to be released. The form, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, states that it is in compliance with the Flores court agreement, which prohibits ICE from holding minors for more than 20 days.

The released children are placed with family members, sponsors or placed in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Trump administration faced intense criticism for a Zero Tolerance policy in 2018 in which undocumented migrant children were separated from parents who had illegally crossed the order. The policy was implemented in May 2018 but reversed after an outcry in June.

Click here to see the form.

The current, “voluntary” concept was previously termed “binary choice,” but has never been fully implemented. Now, lawyers representing clients in ICE family detention say parents may be persuaded to separate from their children if they are worried about exposing them to COVID-19 in detention.

The timing is no coincidence, said Shayln Fluharty, director of the Dilley Pro Bono Project, which provides legal services for families in detention in Dilley, Texas. A federal judge recently told ICE it was not in compliance with the Flores agreement, and the forms, said Fluharty, are a way for ICE to show that these parents have chosen to keep their children in detention.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Julia’s article at the link.

Just another “in your face” unlawful move by DHS officials sending a strong message of contempt to the Federal Judges handling various aspects of the regime’s intentional child abuse, family separation, and punishing asylum seeking families by needless imprisonment in the New American Gulag (“NAG”).

Yes, the District Court Judges handling these matters have ordered the Government to take various forms of corrective action. But, even where the judges use forceful language, it’s largely ineffective to change illegal policies. The regime and its officials just play “hide the ball” and develop schemes and “work arounds” to violate the law and court orders in other ways. That they continue to do this over and over – a strategy known as “malicious compliance” – shows their total disrespect for the Federal Courts and that they share Trump and Miller’s belief that they are above the law.

So far, particularly in the immigration and refugee area, the scofflaws have largely prevailed. They have dismembered immigration and asylum laws with neither legislative enactments nor meaningful judicial consequences. They have publicly and arrogantly “thumbed their noses” at court orders they don’t like. Unless and until the Federal Judges back up their orders by holding Chad Wolf and other scofflaw officials in contempt – real contempt – jail time not just meaningless fines – the abuse and the open disregard for the rule of law and for the authority of Federal Judges will continue.

The law, our Constitution, and human rights will continue to be mocked. Even the best of Federal Judges will appear feckless unless and until they start treating immigration officials as the lawless criminals they actually are!

Undoubtedly, some of the children and families intentionally being abused, dehumanized, and punished by the Trump regime as Federal Courts play bystander won’t survive long enough to tell their stories. But, some will. While those officials, legislators, and judges enabling, or in some cases masterminding and encouraging, these abuses appear likely to escape “temporal” legal accountability for their actions, moral and historical accountability are a different matter altogether. Lots of folks who believe they are “operating under the radar screen” are going to look very bad when the light of history shines on the grotesque human rights, moral, and constitutional violations at our borders and in our Gulags and those who carried them out or failed to effectively halt them.

Due Process Forever. Feckless Courts Never!

PWS

05-18-20

🏴‍☠️SCOFFLAW NATION, SCOFFLAW REGIME: Asylum Law Dies ☠︎ At The Border, Asylum Seekers Will Also ⚰️ , As Congress, Article III Courts Abandon Rule of Law In Face of White Nationalist Push – Trump To Declare Bogus “Emergency Extension” of Border Closings Even As He Urges Americans to Return to Daily Activities!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/border-refuge-trump-records/2020/05/13/93ea9ed6-951c-11ea-8107-acde2f7a8d6e_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_the_daily_202&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_daily202

Nick Miroff reports for the WashPost:

The Trump administration’s emergency coronavirus restrictions have shut the U.S. immigration system so tight that since March 21 just two people seeking humanitarian protection at the southern border have been allowed to stay, according to unpublished U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data obtained by The Washington Post.

Citing the threat to public health from the coronavirus, the Trump administration has suspended most due-process rights for migrants, including children and asylum seekers, while “expelling” more than 20,000 unauthorized border-crossers to Mexico under a provision of U.S. code known as Title 42.

Illegal border crossings fell dramatically in April

Department of Homeland Security officials say the emergency protocols are needed to protect Americans — and migrants — by reducing the number of detainees in U.S. Border Patrol holding cells and immigration jails where infection spreads easily. But the administration has yet to publish statistics showing the impact of the measures on the thousands of migrants who arrive in the United States each year as they flee religious, political or ethnic persecution, gang violence or other urgent threats.

AD

The statistics show that USCIS conducted just 59 screening interviews between March 21 and Wednesday under the Convention Against Torture, effectively the only category of protection in the United States that is still available to those who express a fear of grave harm if rejected. USCIS rejected 54 applicants and three cases are pending, according to the data, which does not indicate the nationality of those screened or other demographic information.

U.S. deportees go through ‘disinfection tunnel’ in Mexico

Mexican authorities sent U.S. deportees through “disinfection tunnels” on April 16 at a border crossing in Reynosa, Mexico. (Tamaulipas Migrant Institute)

Lucas Guttentag, an immigration-law scholar who served in the Obama administration and now teaches at Stanford and Yale universities, said the border measures “are designed to pay lip service” to U.S. law and international treaty obligations “without providing any actual protection or screening.”

“The whole purpose of asylum law is to give exhausted, traumatized and uninformed individuals a chance to get to a full hearing in U.S. immigration courts, and this makes that almost impossible,” Guttentag said. “It’s a shameful farce.”

U.S. is deporting infected migrants back to vulnerable countries

Among migrants who sought protection to avoid being deported, U.S. immigration courts granted asylum to 13,248 in 2018, according to the most recent DHS statistics.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Nick’s article at the link.

A “shameful farce” to be sure, as Lucas Guttentag says. But, with those whose job it is to protect the rule of law from a corrupt Executive’s overreach having largely “fled the field,” or “buried their heads in the sand,” it’s a farce that isn’t likely to abate until we get “regime change.”

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

PWS

05-14-20

“GOOD ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK?” — Any Ol’ Notice Will Do! — BIA Continues To “Fill In The Blanks” In Aid Of “Partners” @ DHS Enforcement — MATTER OF HERRERA-VASQUEZ, 27 I&N DEC. 825 (BIA 2020)

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

Matter of HERRERA-VASQUEZ, 27 I&N DEC. 825 (BIA 2020)

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1274901/download

BIA HEADNOTE:

The absence of a checked alien classification box on a Notice to Appear (Form I-862) does not, by itself, render the notice to appear fatally deficient or otherwise preclude an Immigration Judge from exercising jurisdiction over removal proceedings, and it is therefore not a basis to terminate the proceedings of an alien who has been returned to Mexico under the Migrant Protection Protocols. Matter of J.J. Rodriguez, 27 I&N Dec. 762 (BIA 2020), followed.

PANEL: BEFORE: Board Panel: MANN, Board Member; MORRIS,* Temporary Board Member; Concurring Opinion: KELLY, Board Member.

* Immigration Judge Daniel Morris, Hartford CT Immigration Court, Temporary Board Member/Appellate Immigration Judge

OPINION BY: Judge Ana Mann

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

The lesson of this case: The DHS intentionally puts superfluous information on its form NTA so it doesn’t make any difference whether they fill it in or not. The BIA is there to “fill in the blanks” and help their DHS buddies rack up maximo removals, preferably without in person hearings because it’s faster and helps fulfill “quotas,” under the Let ‘Em Die in Mexico Program (a/k/a “jokingly” as the “Migrant ‘Protection’ Protocols” (“MPP”) — which, of course, serve to intentionally endanger and discourage, not protect, asylum seekers).

This follows Matter of J.J. Rodriguez where the BIA found that the DHS wasn’t required to put a usable mailing address for the respondent on the NTA. I can only imagine what would have happened in the Arlington Immigration Court if a respondent had given me “Fairfax County, Virginia, USA” as his one and only address! The former is actually probably a “better” address than “Known Domicile, Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico” which was used in this case. What a farce! But, of course, it’s not very funny when it’s your life, or that of a loved one or client that is going down the tubes☠️.

There actually is an old legal axiom of construing problems against the drafter of a document, particularly when the drafter is in a more powerful position than the recipient. It even has a fancy legal name: Contra proferentem. But, today’s EOIR follows a much simpler maxim: The respondent always loses, particularly in precedent decisions.

I suppose at some point the BIA will be called upon to enter an in absentia removal order in a case where the NTA is blank except for the respondent’s name. I have no doubt, however, that they will be “up to the job.”

To his credit, Judge Edward Kelly entered a brief “concurring opinion” specifically noting that the statutory or constitutional authority for the so-called MPP was not at issue. In plain terms, that means, thanks in large measure to a complicit Supremes’ majority, even if that program, certainly a illegal and unconstitutional hoax, were later found to be unconstitutional, it would be far too late for those already removed, extorted, kidnapped, maimed, tortured, sickened 🤮, or dead ⚰️ thereunder. But, of course, the BIA, like Trump himself, will take no responsibility for any of the deadly fallout of their actions.

Great way to run a government! But, it’s the “New America” under Trump. Most of those in a position to stop the abuse merely shrug their shoulders, look the other way, and plug their ears so as not to have their serenity and complicity, as well as their paychecks, bothered by the screams and fruitless pleas of the abused. Except, of course, for true sadists ☠️ like Stephen Miller and his White Nationalist cronies 🏴‍☠️ who actually “get off” on the death, ⚰️ torture, abuse, and suffering of “others” they believe to be of “inferior stock” and therefore deserving of dehumanization and death⚰️.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the BIA is advertising for an additional Vice Chair/Deputy Chief Appellate Judge to help insure that the deportation assembly line in Falls Church moves smoothly and that due process and fundamental fairness never get in the way of enforcement. https://www.justice.gov/legal-careers/job/deputy-chief-appellate-immigration-judge-vice-chair

Apparently, the “Tower Rumor Mill” @ EOIR HQ says that Acting Chief Immigration Judge Christopher Santoro will soon be replaced by a permanent Chief Immigration Judge hand selected from among DOJ political hacks by none other than one of the American taxpayers’ most highly paid, unelected White Nationalists, White House Advisor Stephen Miller. The name of Gene Hamilton, like Miller an uber restrictionist former sidekick of “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, still kicking around the DOJ, has been bandied about. However, other parts of the “rumor mill” have expressed skepticism about whether Hamilton really wants the job. He might be able to score more “kills” from his current job, whatever it is.

Stay tuned! In the absence of a functioning Congress or a courageous Federal Judiciary, the “killing fields”⚰️⚰️⚰️⚰️⚰️👎 are just getting rolling @ EOIR. Under the Trump regime, EOIR is now on a breakneck pace to write one of the most dismal, disgusting🤮, and disturbing 😰chapters in modern American legal history involving a catastrophic failure of integrity, courage, and humanity spanning all three rapidly disintegrating branches of our flailing democracy.

Due Process Forever! Complicity Never!

PWS

05-13-20

Education Level	Share (%) of All Immigrants	Share (%) of All Natives
College degree or more	32	33
Some college	19	31
High school diploma only	22	28
Less than a high-school diploma	27	8
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.

Industry	Number of Immigrant Workers
Health Care and Social Assistance	4,124,557
Manufacturing	3,437,569
Accommodation and Food Services	3,022,991
Retail Trade	2,979,800
Construction	2,858,953
Source: Analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community Survey 1-year PUMS data by the American Immigration Council.

Industry	Immigrant Share (%) (of all industry workers)
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting	26
Construction	23
Administrative Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services	22
Other Services (except Public Administration)	21
Accommodation and Food Services	20
Source: Analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community Survey 1-year PUMS data by the American Immigration Council.

Occupation Category	Number of Immigrant Workers
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations	2,683,238
Sales and Related Occupations	2,580,721
Management Occupations	2,529,218
Office and Administrative Support Occupations	2,494,354
Construction and Extraction Occupations	2,487,351
Source: Analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community Survey 1-year PUMS data by the American Immigration Council.

Occupation Category	Immigrant Share (%) (of all workers in occupation)
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations	38
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations	31
Construction and Extraction Occupations	25
Computer and Mathematical Occupations	24
Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations	22
Source: Analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community Survey 1-year PUMS data by the American Immigration Council.

Due Process Forever! Complicit Institutions, Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

Related posts:

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life and the lives of many others depend on it! Because they do!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicity Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever. Complicit, Racism-Enabling Courts, Never!

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does!

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

Related posts:

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever. Feckless Courts Never!

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicity Never!

Related posts: