"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
Public and private contractors running immigration jails violated federal detention standards thousands of times in recent years — including failing to report allegations of sexual assaults and staff misconduct to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — but were fined only twice, according to a report issued Friday.
The Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general called on ICE to improve oversight of facilities that detain roughly half the 45,000 immigrant detainees held every day across the United States, and to do a better job holding federal contractors accountable for their health and safety.
ICE defended its oversight in a letter to the Inspector General that was included in the report, and said generally it can terminate contracts or relocate immigrants if it believes facilities are unsafe.
ICE documented 14,003 violations from Oct. 1, 2015 through June 30 at 106 facilities nationwide, the report said. The fines assessed by the agency amountedto $3.9 million, or 0.13 percent of the more than $3 billion ICE paid to the contractors during that period.
One facility was fined after “a pattern of repeat deficiencies over a 3-year period, primarily related to health care and mental health standards,” the report said. Another fine followed a Labor Department order against the facility for failing to pay proper wages.
In other cases, the inspector general found, immigration officials granted waivers allowing some contractors to bypass detention standards or avoid punishment for violations. From September 2016 through July, 65 waivers were approved — most for indefinite time periods.
One waiver authorized a facility to use CS gas, or tear gas, even though it is 10 times as toxic as pepper spray.
Another allowed a facility to house detainees who hadserious criminal records alongwith others who had minor records or only immigration violations, a practice that is normally prohibited “to protect detainees who may be at risk of victimization or assault.”
The inspector general said immigration officials lacked formal policies to oversee waivers and that some officials “without clear authority” were granting them.
“Key officials admitted there are no policies, procedures, guidance documents, or instructions to explain how to review waiver requests,” the report said.
The inspector general issued a series of recommendations urging ICE to shore up its oversight of detention facilities and ensure paperwork is included in contracts that will make clear when the agency should impose penalties on contractors that fail to follow federal rules.
In a letter to the inspector general that was included in the report, ICE agreed to make improvements but countered that it has taken strong steps in the past to safeguard immigrant health and safety, even shutting down some facilities because of violations.
“ICE has a strong record of holding detention facilities accountable when deficiencies are identified,” spokesman Matthew Bourke said in a statement.
He said the waiver process in the inspector general’s report is a “rarely used mechanism.”
The report comes as the White House and Congress are preparing for a heated battle over detention funding, building a wall on the southern border and other aspects of President Trump’s immigration crackdown. This week, Democratic lawmakers unveiled a proposal to “significantly” reduce ICE detention beds, require more detention facility inspections, and limit ICE’s leeway to detain more immigrants than Congress allows.
As of Jan. 26, the agency wasdetaining an average of 45,670 immigrants a day this fiscal year, which is about 5,000 more than Congress has authorized in the budget.
The 106 facilities in the report housed an average of 25,000 immigrants a day as of fiscal year 2017. They are under ICE’s direct oversight. About 100 other facilities are run by the U.S. Marshals Service and are not included in the report.
ICE contractors are required to comply with detention standards that outline their responsibilities, the services they must provide to immigrants and what each facility must do to provide a “safe and secure detention environment for staff and detainees,” the report said.
*********************************
No doubt in my mind that DHS is lying and covering up malfeasance, perhaps criminal activity.
Time for 1) some House oversight, 2) accountability for those at DHS and their contractors responsible for these abuses, and 3) Congressional action to phase out and strictly limit DHS’s grossly overused and under supervised detention function.
The Trump administration may have separated thousands of migrant children from their parents at the border for up to a year before family separation was a publicly known practice, according to a stunning government review of the health department’s role in family separation.
A report by the health department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) published Thursday said officials at the health department estimated “thousands of separated children” were put in health department care before a court order in June 2018 ordered the reunification of 2,600 other children.
“The total number of children separated from a parent or guardian by immigration authorities is unknown,” the report said.
In 2017, officials at the health department’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) observed a steep increase in the number of children referred to ORR care who had been separated from their parents or guardians by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), according to the report.
In response to the increase, officials began informally tracking separations. “Thousands of children may have been separated during an influx that began in 2017, before the accounting required by the court, and HHS has faced challenges in identifying separated children,” the report said.
US attorney general Jeff Sessions announced the “zero tolerance” policy that made family separations possible in April 2018, but advocacy groups had been warning for months that family separations were already taking place.
In June 2018, a federal judge ordered 2,600 children to be reunited with their parents, but the health department said in the five months following the order, it was still identifying children who should have been considered separated but were not being clearly tracked in government systems.
At the Berks Family Residential Center, an immigrant detention facility in Leesport, Pennsylvania, advocates and former detainees say it’s normal for children held there to have health problems.
One mother, who asked to use her middle name Arely, told the Guardian that children often had fevers or vomited when she was detained at Berks. She said she watched helplessly as her two-and-a-half-year-old daughter threw up blood for three days.
Another woman – who asked to be referred to only by her middle name Fernanda because she still fears her antagonists in her home country – remembered children with the flu and respiratory illnesses, and how the on-site medical professionals would take their temperatures but never give out medicine. When Fernanda’s own daughter had fever, she had to go to the hospital just to get Tylenol, she said.
Since attorney Jacquelyn Kline began representing immigrant families detained at Berks in the summer of 2014, she said the majority of her clients have gotten sick. Usually, the illnesses have been minor. But sometimes, when common problems have gone ignored or untreated, they have spiraled to become something more.
“In my experience, [the staff] do the bare minimum and they don’t want to do more than that unless it becomes a situation where they have to do it,” Kline said. “Because they don’t address things when there are minor issues, it allows them to become more serious issues.”
One Berks resident wrote to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) in late 2015 that though her son’s skin disease had spread to his genitals and bled when scratched, the clinical team had not provided him with medication.In May 2016, a three-year-old boy who had been suffering from fevers and loss of appetite for months was finally diagnosed with an intestinal parasitism after his mother found a worm in his diaper.
Berks did not respond to a request for comment. Ice’s public affairs officers are out-of-office for the duration of the government shutdown, according to an automated email from the Pennsylvania officer’s account. Ice confirmed that he is currently furloughed.
Relatives cry over the coffin of seven-year old Jakelin Caal, who died in a Texas hospital on 8 December, two days after being taken into custody by US border patrol agents.Photograph: Johan Ordóñez/AFP/Getty Images
The fact that serious medical conditions occur and go untreated for days, weeks or months while immigrant children are under the government’s protection may come as a surprise to many. But advocates who have been on the ground at detention facilities under the purview of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are well acquainted with stories such as these that point to a wider trend.
“I am surprised that more children or parents have not died while in DHS custody, given the systemic failure on the part of the government to provide medical services,” said Kathryn Shepherd, national advocacy counsel for the Immigration Justice Campaign at the American Immigration Council.
In late 2018, the deaths of two migrant children while in US custody near the southern border made national headlines and refocused attention on immigrant children who are in the country illegally. First, seven-year-old Jakelin Amei Rosmery Caal Maquin died from cardiac arrest associated with dehydration on 8 December after being apprehended by DHS’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Then, on Christmas Eve, eight-year-old Felipe Gómez Alonzo became the second child in a matter of weeks to succumb to illness after being taken into custody by CBP. It was later determined that he had the flu.
At first glance, the deaths appeared an exceptional phenomenon. Homeland security secretary Kirstjen M Nielsen has said that before last December, an immigrant child had not died in CBP custody in more than a decade.
But for those familiar with the ways in which DHS holds immigrant families beyond the border through Ice, the deaths felt part of a long medical history of neglect, misdiagnoses and close calls associated with undocumented children. This history dates to at least 2014, when the department ramped up mass incarceration of immigrant families under President Barack Obama.
“I don’t think that this is a new problem,” said Shepherd. “I think that this is something that’s been a problem for a long time.”
Before accepting her current post, Shepherd served as managing attorney for a pro-bono project representing asylum-seeking families at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas. Women and children detained there have beenairlifted or rushed to a hospital in an ambulance on a number of occasions, she said. Last summer, Vice News reported that a toddler had died six weeks after leaving the Ice detention center, where she contracted what started as a common cold but evolved into a deadly virus.
Eight-year-old Felipe Gómez Alonzo died on Christmas Eve after being taken into custody by DHS’s Customs and Border Protection.Photograph: Catarina Gomez/AP
Brad Berman, a clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of California- San Francisco and fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said the DHS facilities he is aware of that hold immigrant families crossing through the US’s southern border appear to be “providing inadequate or substandard medical care”.
“They are violating their own standards – federal standards, as well as state standards, as well as ethical standards,” he said.
Vincent Picard, deputy assistant director to Ice public affairs, said that Ice spends more that $250m annually on healthcare for their charges. He cited the June 2017 DHS inspector general’s report that found the agency’s family residential centers to be “clean, well-organized and efficiently run”.
“Ice takes very seriously the health, safety and welfare of those in our care,” Picard said in a statement. “Ice is committed to ensuring the welfare of all those in the agency’s custody, including providing access to necessary and appropriate medical care. Comprehensive medical care is provided to all individuals in Ice custody.”
An independent medical evaluation Berman did tells a different story. He found that “the standards of pediatric medical care and mental health evaluations and care” for one immigrant child “were breached during her stay” at Berks, the Ice family detention center in Pennsylvania, in 2016. The girl, whose mother Maria requested she be referred to by her middle name Beatriz, was bedwetting after traveling to the US from El Salvador. She was nine years old.
Soon after arriving at Berks, Beatriz had several appointments with Michael Mosko, a psychologist provided by the facility. In his notes from one of the sessions, Mosko wrote that after conferring with an interpreter , he was under the impression that the bedwetting “was related to nothing more than laziness”.
After Beatriz was released from Berks, she visited a pediatric urologist and nephrologist who diagnosed her with chronic renal failure – or loss of kidney function. Though the condition was likely associated with Beatriz’s premature birth, it was exacerbated by a misdiagnosis during her time in detention, Berman said.
Now, Beatriz takes pills every night for her illness, which Maria said can’t be cured.
“She looked good when we were in El Salvador,” Maria said. “It was when she came here that she got sick.”
For Maria and Beatriz – as for many of the families from Central America who have crossed the US-Mexico border in recent years – leaving El Salvador was an attempt at self-preservation. When licensed clinical social worker Kathryn S Miller evaluated Beatriz, her report indicates that Beatriz and Maria shared stories about how the child watched her mother get robbed at knifepoint, experienced a home invasion, and overheard accounts of family friends being murdered by gang members.
Over the course of a year, Miller evaluated a handful of children who were detained at Berks. She said there was no doubt that each of them had been exposed to repeated trauma while in their home countries and had legitimate reasons for requesting asylum.
While families seeking asylum make their case, many of them fall into DHS custody and rely on the medical professionals the department supplies.
“There’s just basic needs that children have,” said Miller. “And if they’re going to be tasked with taking care of vulnerable children, they need to have the training and support to make sure they’re taking good care of them.”
***************************************
The shutdown hasn’t stopped the Administration’s many abuses of migrants and children. Clearly, a Wall is not the answer to forcing the Administration to follow the law.
A reductive, but not incorrect view of the Democratic debacle in the 2016 elections holds that when President Trump took office, centrists lost the present and leftists lost the future. In 2020, Democrats will have a new opportunity to either reach backward for the Obama era, or to lay the foundation for a bolder, progressive future. Deciding which goal to pursue will likely become the chief party fault line as the 2020 primaries approach. My advice to progressives: Don’t back down.
For the party’s center-leaning establishment, a return to the Obama era makes sense. Centrists were happy then — thrilled to witness the passage of health-care reform that did something but not too much (so long, public option!), comfortable with what one might gently label a muscular foreign policy, pleased with the recovery from the 2008 financial crisis, though it came at the expense of homeowners in foreclosure while coddling Wall Street. All in all, things seemed stable and sustainable. Only tweaks and patches lay ahead.
But then, history — presumed dead by those who believed, with socialism extinguished, the future held nothing but increasing gains for liberal democracy — happened again. The 2016 election witnessed a swell of populist disenchantment with the status quo and concluded with the election of Trump. With Trump came a queasy uncertainty that still characterizes politics to this day,leaving old norms dissolved and common sense unequal to its task.
So much of centrist-Democrat fantasizing about 2020 already seems aimed at repeating a golden past. Consider the groundswell of interest in Beto O’Rourke, the Texas congressman who narrowly lost his recent Senate race against Sen. Ted Cruz. For Democrats excited about O’Rourke, his primary draw is his similarity to Barack Obama — both in form and content. O’Rourke has held conversations with the former president about a possible run, to build on a belief that O’Rourke, as my colleague Matt Viser described it, is “capable of the same kind of inspirational campaign that caught fire in the 2008 presidential election.”
O’Rourke’s politics also fall into the same ambiguously centrist zone as Obama’s. “Like Mr. Obama as he entered the 2008 campaign, Mr. O’Rourke can be difficult to place on an ideological spectrum, allowing supporters to project their own politics onto a messaging palette of national unity and common ground,” a recent New York Times report observed. Meanwhile, other candidates straight from Obama’s orbit — such as former vice president Joe Biden and former housing secretary Julián Castro — are also eyeing the nomination, with appeals to unity and centrist perspectives.
When not absorbed in hopes of re-creating the Obama era, Democrats mainly seem intent on beating Trump, with little comment or insight, at least so far, on what they will do with power once they have it. (After I questioned in my last column whether O’Rourke has demonstrated serious commitment to progressive values, some readers responded by arguing they’re glad he hasn’t— that Democrats need to run an Obama-style centrist to win back conservatives who might otherwise favor Trump. “A too-progressive Democratic nominee in 2020,” one reader wrote, “would be a gift to President Trump.”) Likewise, at a recent event in New York, former FBI director James B. Comey implored Democrats to put aside their political projects in favor of an all-consuming focus on simply beating Trump. “I understand the Democrats have important debates now over who their candidate should be,” Comey said, “but they have to win. They have to win.”
Presidential elections provide an opportunity for parties to identify and rally around their principles — and even to radically reshape them. If all the Democrats can manage is to hark back to the past and focus on winning for its own sake, they’re missing an opportunity to lay out a blueprint for the future. I don’t think that putting forth progressive priorities is incompatible with beating Trump; in fact, I think that having a clear and persuasive vision of what a better America can look like is likely to be more attractive to voters than promising them something vaguely like the past. One of the political lessons of recent years is that history is never over. The future is waiting, if we want to build it.
*******************************************
Certainly the Obama Administration was “golden” by comparison with the current corrupt, White Nationalist regime that has made overt racism and hate front and center. However, despite some good things like DACA, stateside processing, and a late stab at wider use of prosecutorial discretion (“PD”), Obama was fairly disappointing from an immigration standpoint.
Under Obama, there was lots of ambiguity and misdirected enforcement, substantial overuse of detention (particularly substandard private detention), and the forerunner of the Trump Administration’s failed “border deterrence” strategy. Obama folks didn’t seek and glory in the cruelty and dehumanization the way that this Administration does. But, in human terms, the results often were similar for the individuals concerned: split families, indefinite detention, kids in jails, a failing U.S. Immigration Court system, and only a smattering of real “immigration pros” in key positions where they too often were not ” driving the train” or being taken seriously.
Can an immigration system based on the reality that immigration is good and necessary for our country, a professionally run independent U.S. Immigration Court dedicated to Due Process with efficiency, a more robust acceptance of refugees, a secure border, cooperation with the international community in solving problems, and treating those who can’t be accepted fairly, humanely, and respectfully be part of winning political strategy?
US judge rules against Trump administration in suit over policing grants to ‘sanctuary cities’
Updated 5:21 PM EST November 30, 2018
Washington
A federal judge ruled against the Justice Department on Friday in a lawsuit over withholding federal money from so-called sanctuary cities, the latest blow to the Trump administration’s hardline immigration tactics.
The lawsuit challenged the Justice Department’s efforts to punish sanctuary cities by withholding a key law enforcement grant the department said was available only to cities that complied with specific immigration enforcement measures.
In July 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that applicants for Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants would have to comply with federal immigration enforcement in ways that were unlike years past, like allowing federal law enforcement agents to have access to detainees in jails for questioning about their immigration status.
According to the ruling, the seven states involved in the lawsuit, as well as New York City, had been receiving the grant money since Congress created the fund for the “modern version of the program in 2006,” and the funds “collectively totaled over $25 million.”
“In 2017, for the first time in the history of the program, the U.S. Department of Justice (‘DOJ’) and Attorney General (collectively, ‘Defendants’) imposed three immigration-related conditions that grantees must comply with in order to receive funding,” wrote Judge Edgardo Ramos, of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, in his ruling.
New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood led the suit and was joined by New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Washington state and Virginia.
Underwood said in a statement on Friday that the ruling was “a major win for New Yorkers’ public safety.” CNN has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.
This isn’t the first ruling of its kind — in April, a panel of three judges from the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling in favor of the city of Chicago that blocked the Justice Department from adding new requirements for the policing grants.
A federal district court judge on Friday denied the Trump administration’s request to block or limit the scope of a ruling that temporarily prohibits the government from enforcing its ban on transgender people serving in the military.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a Clinton appointee on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said the court is not convinced the government will suffer irreparable harm without a stay of the court’s October 2017 preliminary injunction.
The government had asked for a stay pending any potential, future proceedings in the Supreme Court. Bypassing normal judicial order, the Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court last week to review the case before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
Arguments before the appeals court are scheduled for Dec. 10.
At the very least, the government asked the district court to limit the nationwide scope of the injunction while the court weighs in, but Kollar-Kotelly refused. She said the government had not convinced the court that a more limited injunction is appropriate.
“Without supporting evidence, defendants’ bare assertion that the Court’s injunction poses a threat to military readiness is insufficient to overcome the public interest in ensuring that the government does not engage in unconstitutional and discriminatory conduct,” she said.
“After all, ‘it must be remembered that all Plaintiffs seek during this litigation is to serve their nation with honor and dignity, volunteering to face extreme hardships, to endure lengthy deployments and separation from family and friends, and to willingly make the ultimate sacrifice of their lives if necessary to protect the Nation, the people of the United States, and the Constitution against all who would attack them,’ ” she said.
Not surprisingly, policies stemming from racism and homophobia being advanced for crass political reasons aren’t doing very well in Federal Courts. There, the judges tend to prefer cogent legal arguments. The latter is something for which Gonzo was never known. Indeed, a number of the biased based positions he advanced in support of the Administration were so outlandish that the judges actually gave the Government additional time to develop a legal rationale. But, that also proved to be time wasted, because there never was any legal rationale for these policies and legal positions. Just hate and bias, and an ignorance of the real meaning of our Constitution.
There’s lots of irony, indeed total absurdity, in Sessions’s audaciously bogus claim that he “stood for the rule of law.” Safe to say that no Attorney General since “John the Con” Mitchell has done so much to undermine our Constitutional system and the real “rule of law.”
Etowah: the Ice detention center with the goal to ‘make your life miserable’
Campaign is under way to close Alabama facility routinely identified by advocates and detainees as one of the worst in US
Khushbu Shah in Gadsden, Alabama for The Guardian:
The Etowah Detention Center, an all-male facility housing about 300 detainees. Photograph: Adelante Alabama
During his detention in Gadsden, Alabama, Alex Matheus started losing his hair.
It wasn’t just that he was getting older, his hair was falling out in clumps from the stress and frustration of long-term detention in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice).
“That’s very common in Etowah,” the 44-year-old Venezuelan said by telephone from his new, temporary home in Italy, where he is living as he seeks to return to the US.
Housed in the Gadsden county jail since the late 1990s, the gray slab of concrete that is the Etowah Detention Center, is routinely identified by lawyers, advocates and detainees as one of the worst Ice facilities in the United States. It has one of the longest detention times of all Ice facilities.
The all-male facility, housing on average 300 detainees according to Ice data, ranks sixth in the highest number of calls made to the Ice Detention Reporting and Information Line related to sexual and/or physical abuse incidents, according to a study from Freedom for Immigrants. Human Rights Watch documented the “spotty access to healthcare” at Etowah. There is a campaign run by civil, immigrant, and human rights organizations to shut down Etowah.
Alex Matheus the day he left Etowah. Photograph: The Guardian
Sitting next to the sheriff’s office in Gadsden, the detention facility stands out because of the barbed wire wrapped around the wall. There’s not much else around. The average income in town is just under $19,000 and more than a quarter of the community lives in poverty. This decade alone, the population has decreased 4%. So it makes sense the county would like to keep a multimillion dollar endeavor going.
Matheus spent 17 months in Etowah enduring the bare bones facilities. “They don’t have a yard. They don’t have recreational facilities. They don’t have libraries. They don’t have big common areas to hold people.” He wasn’t allowed outside its concrete walls, even for a short walk, for more than 500 days – until his deportation.
A Venezuelan asylum seeker, who had lived in the United States since 2000, Matheus broke commercial laws by shipping gas masks to the government opposition in his home country. He spent time in federal prison and on the day of his release, was taken straight to Ice custody, first at Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia, and then to Etowah.
Kenyan asylum seeker Sylvester Owino arrived at Etowah in 2013, after being in Ice custody for more than seven years in California and Arizona. As a “prolonged detainee”, little should have surprised the Kenyan asylum seeker about his latest detention center.
Protesters at Etowah. There is a campaign run by civil, immigrant, and human rights organizations to shut down the facility. Photograph: Adelante Alabama
But things were done differently in rural Alabama.
In his first weeks, he noticed officers manning the detention facility were selling contraband to detainees. Vodka in plastic water bottles for $50. Weed in letter-sized white envelopes for $400. Cell phones went for $300. Officers sold a pack of cigarettes for $100.
Then there were the bribes.
One day, an officer approached Owino, telling him he didn’t have lunch and asking Owino to make him something to eat. So the detainee used the ramen noodles he had bought through the commissary, and mixed it with tuna for the officer.
“You share the food so they gave you privileges. So instead of being locked down, they let you out. You give him honey buns, you make him coffee,” he said.
With his budget noodle offering, Owino said he was able to watch a soccer game.
The Guardian spoke with a number of detainees – and reviewed a number of lawsuits – who had spent recent months and years in the facility. All complained about the standard of nutrition. In March, Alabama’s al.com reported now-outgoing sheriff Todd Entrekin legally – through a loophole in state law – pocketed nearly $750,000 allocated for food provisions in the jail.
Months later, after national coverage and backlash, Governor Kay Ivey sent a memorandum to the state comptroller rescinding the validity of the law, no longer allowing food services allowances to be made to sheriff’s accounts directly.
A 2016 report from the Department of Homeland Security Office of Detention Oversight Compliance Inspection logged similar instances they called “deficiencies” in food and medical standards.
Ice said Etowah operates in accordance with its standards. “As far as facility conditions, all Ice facilities are subject to regular inspections, both announced and unannounced, and those inspections have repeatedly found the Etowah County Detention Center to operate in compliance with Ice’s rigorous national detention standards. The facility was most-recently inspected in July,” Ice spokesman Bryan Cox told the Guardian in an email.
The almost two years Owino spent in Etowah were the worst years of his detention, Owino said.
Matheus agreed. “When you are anyone in the US, you start to fight your case hard and they send you to Alabama to wear you out,” he said. “I spoke to one [officer] and the guy said, my job is basically to make your life miserable. He told me that straight to my face”
The Etowah County Sheriff’s Office would probably like to change that perception. On a recent Guardian visit to the facility, Captain Mike O’Bryant introduced Jose Alfredo Reyes, 40, who has been in the facility for more than 18 months and had already agreed to an interview.
Reyes had nothing bad to say about the facility, except the lack of sunlight and mediocre food. “I told the captain, don’t worry, I won’t say nothing bad about you!” he said.
According to Christina Mansfield, the co-executive director of Freedom for Immigrants, ‘Etowah is one of the worst immigrant jails in the country.’ Photograph: Adelante Alabama
Advertisement
According to Christina Mansfield, the co-executive director of Freedom for Immigrants, “Etowah County Detention Center is one of the worst immigrant jails in the country. For years we have been documenting and drawing attention to abuses – such as physical assault and medical neglect – at the hands of the sheriff’s office and Ice. Several detained individuals and our volunteers have even been retaliated against for speaking out against these intolerable conditions. It’s time for Etowah to be shut down.”
Cox, in response to the allegations outlined in this story, said: “The allegations you’ve received are contradicted by the inspection findings of numerous entities that include independent third-party inspectors.”
Etowah sheriff’s office did not respond to the Guardian’s request for comments on the allegations put forth by former detainees and activists.
Matheus never had his wife visit from Florida because he said it didn’t make sense for her to visit for 20 minutes and still only talk through a video link.
He was deported in May 2017, back to Venezuela, where he was immediately detained. “They knew everything about me. They had a full folder against me. The US government provided everything to them. I had to pay [a bribe of] thousands of dollars to be released.”
Owino had the same experience as Kenyan authorities have also received his asylum application and related documents. He is out on bond in California, with a hearing coming up in the coming months for his asylum case.
Matheus left Venezuela in early October to seek citizenship in Italy, the home of his grandparents. Now he lives alone, holding onto receding hope he may be able to return to the United States as his case is fought in court. He lives alone, in a small apartment in Calabria, away from his wife in Florida – whom he hasn’t seen in nearly a year. The impact of his time in Etowah remains with him.
“People forget you were a real person, a family guy, a regular person. Basically, you are going back to society and you are supposed to function as a normal person again. The problem with these places is that they dehumanize you so much. They hinder everything. They screw your life,” he said.
************************************************
These are the kinds of abuses that happen when we enable the DHS/ICE “New American Gulag.” It’s time for some oversight and a major reduction in the funds allocated for unnecessary and inhumane immigration detention. It’s also past time for Congress to repeal so-called “mandatory indefinite detention” (before it is held to be unconstitutional).
The House GOP’s near-total abdication of any oversight role has done more than just shield President Trump on matters involving his finances and Russian collusion. It has also resulted in almost no serious scrutiny of the true depths of cruelty, inhumanity and bad-faith rationalization driving important aspects of Trump’s policyagenda — in particular, on his signature issue of immigration.
That’s about to change.
In an interview with me, the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee vowed that when Democrats take over in January, they will undertake thorough and wide-ranging scrutiny of the justifications behind — and executions of — the top items in Trump’s immigration agenda, from the family separations, to the thinly veiled Muslim ban, to the handling of the current turmoil involving migrants at the border.
“We will visit the border,” Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who is expected to chair the committee, which has jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security, told me. “We will hold hearings in committee on any and all aspects of DHS. … We will not back off of this issue.”
This oversight — which could result in calling for testimony from Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump’s immigration agenda — will include scrutiny of the administration’s justifications for its policies. Importantly, Thompson tells me Democrats will seek to grill officials on what went into Trump’s public statements on various aspects of the issue, many of which are falsehoods.
Migrant caravan crisis escalates with tear gas at border fence
U.S. authorities fired tear gas at members of a Central American migrant caravan who had rushed the fencing along the U.S. border with Mexico on Nov. 25.(Video: Drea Cornejo , Blair Guild/Photo: Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters/The Washington Post)
To be clear, Trump has used these rationales to justify actual policies with real-world impact, such as the effort to cruelly restrict asylum-applications to only official points of entry. Trump has also threatened a total border shutdown. Hearings could reveal that the justifications are nonsense, and spotlight their true arbitrary and cruel nature (putting aside for now that their real motive is ethno-nationalism).
“All this innuendo we hear about criminals coming in the caravan, we just want to know, how did you validate this?” Thompson told me, adding that DHS officials would be called on in hearings to account for Trump’s claims. “Policy has to be backed up with evidence. So we will do rigorous oversight.”
This will also include a look at the recent tear-gassing of migrants, and the administration’s public statements about it and justifications, Thompson said. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has defended the fact that tear gas appears to have impacted children by claiming they were used as “human shields.”
The use of the military as a prop
Thompson said such scrutiny could dovetail with an examination of Trump’s use of the military at the border as campaign propaganda, though that might involve the House Armed Services Committee. “We have to get full disclosure in a public setting or a classified setting,” Thompson said. “Under no circumstances will we not get information.”
The overall goal, Thompson said, will be this: “As a nation of immigrants ourselves, we want to make sure that our process of immigration that includes asylum-seekers is constitutional and represents American values.”
Family separations and the travel ban
Thompson told me the committee would also look at the process leading up to the travel ban, which proceeded despite the fact that two internal Homeland Security analyses undercut its national security rationale.
Democrats can demand that DHS officials justify that policy. “What did you use to come up with this travel ban? How did you select these countries?” Thompson said, previewing the inquiry and vowing subpoenas if necessary. “We will ask for any written documentation that went towards putting the ban in place, what individuals were consulted, and what the process consisted of.”
Thompson also said the run-up to the implementation of the family separation policy and its rationale would receive similar scrutiny, as well as at the conditions under which children have been held, such as the reported Texas “tent city.” “Somebody is going to have to come in and tell us, ‘Is this the most efficient way to manage the situation?’” Thompson said. But also: “How did we get here in the first place?”
What can Democrats do?
One big question: What will House Democrats do legislatively against such policies? Thompson told me the goal is to secure cooperation with DHS, but in cases where the agency continues policies that Democrats deem terribly misguided or serious abuses, they can try to legislate against them. That would run headlong into Trump and the GOP-controlled Senate, at which point one could see discussion of targeted defunding of certain policies, though whether that will happen or what that might look like remains to be seen.
“As far as I’m concerned, no option is off the table,” Thompson said. Some more moderate House Democrats who won tougher districts might balk at such a stance, but Thompson said: “Every committee has responsibilities, and we have to carry them out.”
The big story here is that Trump has relied on the outright dismissal of his own administration’s factual determinations to justify many policies, not just on immigration, but also with his drive to weaken efforts to combat global warming despite the big report warning of the dire threats it poses.
The administration will strenuously resist Democratic oversight, and I don’t want to overstate what it can accomplish. But House Democrats must at least try to get into the fight against Trump’s war on facts and empiricism wherever possible. And when it comes to the humanitarian crises Trump has wrought on immigration, this is particularly urgent.
*********************************
Finally, some much-needed, long-overdue accountability, fact-finding, and truth about Trump’s intentionally cruel and usually lawless immigration policies and those sycophants and toadies who implement them and egg him on. No, it won’t necessarily change things overnight. But, having some “pushback” and setting the factual record straight for further action is an important first step. And, I hope that the absolutely avoidable politically created mess in the U.S. Immigration Courts, and their disgraceful abandonment of Due Process as their sole focus, is high on the oversight list!
Trump gambled big on sanctuary cities. Could he lose big?
Tal Kopan
WASHINGTON — On July 1, 2015, a single gunshot rang out on San Francisco’s Pier 14, fatally wounding 32-year-old Kate Steinle. By July 3, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump was tweeting about it.
An undocumented immigrant and five-time deportee who had been released from San Francisco jail was charged with her murder, though he was acquitted two years later. By the time he went on trial, the incident had become a rallying cry for conservatives in general and Trump in particular. He took action just days into his presidency to block federal funds to sanctuary cities, a catch-all term that describes jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
And then Trump’s administration began to lose — repeatedly — in court.
Now, experts say that by continuing to press the issue, the administration’s strategy could backfire — possibly jeopardizing the cooperation that federal authorities now receive from many local governments and preventing Congress from even passing legislation on the topic.
Related Stories
Trump’s first legal setback came in response to the executive order he issued to block any federal funding to sanctuary cities, when a federal judge in San Francisco ruled in April 2017 that he could not broadly withhold money to force cooperation with immigration agents.
Trump, via then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, then tried to impose more targeted punishment, making law-enforcement grant money conditional on cities’ cooperation with immigration enforcement. Courts in Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and San Francisco again blocked his efforts. The Justice Department also sued California to try to pre-empt its state sanctuary law. A federal judge in Sacramento blocked that as well.
But it’s not just the grants that are at stake — the administration is at risk of losing the one law on which it has hung all its efforts.
The key development came in May in an unrelated case, when the Supreme Court ruled that a federal law prohibiting states from legalizing sports gambling was unconstitutional. The justices said the law illegally “commandeers” states to follow federal policy and intrudes on their lawmaking authority.
The decision had major ramifications for sanctuary cities litigation.
The Trump administration’s anti-sanctuary campaign is based on a piece of immigration law commonly referred to by its code number, 1373. That law prohibits state and local governments from restricting information about an immigrant’s status from federal officials.
Former President Barack Obama’s administration made some law enforcement grant money conditional on compliance with 1373. The Trump administration seized on that and sought to expand the interpretation of what was required of cities and states.
The law, government lawyers argued, covered more than just a person’s immigration status. They said it also required local governments to share the date immigrants would be released from custody, so federal agents could pick them up. The law became the underpinning of the government’s lawsuit over California’s sanctuary legislation.
However, lower courts following the Supreme Court’s ruling in the gambling case have applied it to 1373-related lawsuits — and have found that the immigration law also violates local governments’ rights.
A federal judge in Philadelphia ruled in June that not only were the immigration-related conditions on grants unconstitutional, so was 1373 itself. A federal judge in Chicago followed suit in July. In October, U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco agreed, ruling in favor of San Francisco and striking down 1373.
If the administration leaves those cases where they are, the effects will be relatively minimal. Each of those lower court rulings applies only to the cities that sued the Trump administration — they would not become nationally binding precedent unless federal lawyers appeal the decisions to higher courts and lose.
“If I were them, I would not want this at the Supreme Court, and would just leave it, leave these decisions as they are and just let the rest of the country continue to think that 1373 is constitutional,” said Bill Hing, professor of law and migration studies at the University of San Francisco.
Some issues in the cases have been heard on appeal, but those were decided before the Supreme Court’s gambling ruling. The Justice Department has filed a pending appeal in the Chicago case, looking not to overturn the judge’s decision but to seek a ruling that it and the administration’s other courtroom defeats should apply only to the individual cities and not nationwide.
Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston and contributor to the conservative legal group the Federalist Society, argues that winning on the issue of limiting nationwide rulings would be worth it, even if the administration jeopardizes 1373 in the process. He argues that appellate courts can decide these cases without needing to weigh in on 1373, which he called a “useless statute.”
“If that statute’s declared unconstitutional, then so what?” Blackman said. “The government often enacts policies that they know have a greater than average chance of failing, but if it advances the agenda of the executive branch, it’s worth taking the chance.”
Hing, though, called that strategy risky in light of the high court’s gambling decision. If the Trump administration keeps losing, he said, cities that cooperate now with federal immigration authorities could be sued by sanctuary advocates with legal precedent on their side.
Justice Department spokesman Steven Stafford said it was “absurd” to argue that sanctuary jurisdictions should receive federal law enforcement funding. The agency, he says, wants local authorities to “stop actively obstructing federal law enforcement.”
That position “is not only allowed by the Constitution, it is demanded by the Constitution,” Stafford said. “The Supreme Court’s decision in (the gambling case) has no bearing on the federal government’s ability to place conditions on funding.”
Immigration attorney Leon Fresco, who served in the Justice Department under Obama, said the Trump administration may have never believed it would prevail on sanctuary cities, but pursued the case to win a political talking point and potentially spur congressional action. But he warned that if courts make clear it’s unconstitutional for the federal government to force state and local governments to cooperate with immigration agents, it could give congressional Democrats cover for not acting.
“They’re making it easier for Democrats to say, ‘It’s not I’m not for solving this issue, it’s that we legally can’t,’ ” Fresco said. “The more (Trump officials) tease this out and make it true, the more likely they are to lose not just the legal issue, but the political issue.”
******************************************
Bottom line: The Trump Administration essentially is abusing the Federal Courts with largely frivolous litigation to score political points with its base. Seems like fraud, waste, and abuse, as well as unethical behavior on the part of DOJ attorneys.
“Our Gang”of Retired U.S. Immigration Judges continues to play a key role in defending Due Process and advancing the cause of justice in America! Here’s what one of our leaders, Judge Jeffrey Chase, had to say about the latest case decided in accordance with the arguments made in our Amicus Brief:
Hi all: I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving. It seems just before the holiday, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Rodriguez v. Marin (the remand of the Jennings case from the Supreme Court concerning indefinite detention). 20 of us were amici on a brief filed with the 9th Cir. drafted by a team at Wilmer Hale headed by Adriel Cepeda-Derieux.
The Supreme Court remanded for consideration of the constitutional question, which the district court, on remand, will consider in the first instance. The following language by the Circuit Court from its decision is heartening:
Like the Supreme Court, we do not vacate the permanent injunction pending the consideration of these vital constitutional issues. We have grave doubts that any statute that allows for arbitrary prolonged detention without any process is constitutional or that those who founded our democracy precisely to protect against the government’s arbitrary deprivation of liberty would have thought so. Arbitrary civil detention is not a feature of our American government.
Stay tuned! Attached is a link to the full decision, and a PDF copy of our amicus brief. Best, Jeff
Great language from the Ninth Circuit. Sadly, however, unconstitutional conduct and mockery of the rule of law, particularly in connection with immigration matters is a mainstay of this “Scofflaw Administration.” (I will note that the Obama Administration took the same “thumb your nose at our Constitution” position as Trump has in this long-running case.)
Trump and his DOJ lawyers like to advertise that they consider the Supremes “bought and paid for” and that they fully expect the GOP-appointed majority to “take a dive” every time the Administration wants to bend the law or operate in a “Constitution free” zone. As an indication of their total contempt for the judicial process and their belief that the “own” a majority of the Supremes, they have taken the almost unprecedented step in a number of key cases of trying to “short-circuit” the normal judicial process in the lower Federal Courts by going straight to the Supremes with the pleas for intervention.
But, in this case, they are likely to be out of luck. The case has already been to the Supremes and they quite pointedly “punted” it back to the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. District Court. As the Ninth Circuit notes in its remand opinion, the Fifth Amendment constitutional issue is straightforward and was fully briefed by the parties before the Supremes. But, it’s obvious that the Supremes wanted no part of it at that time.
So, it’s highly unlikely that the Supremes will intervene before the case works its way back up through the District Court and the Ninth Circuit, a process that will take months, if not years. Meanwhile, the injunction against indefinite detention without bond hearings remains in effect within the Ninth Circuit, which generates the largest number of immigration cases.
If Chief Justice Roberts really wants to demonstrate judicial independence and fair and impartial justice within the Third Branch this is his chance (along with Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, who both would do well to put some distance between themselves and Trump) to show it in actions, not just rhetoric!
He squandered his opportunity in the “Travel Ban” case. If nothing else, he can now see that rather than respectfully considering his “warning shots,” Trump has specifically ignored them and treated the Chief Justice with the same utter contempt as he treats the spineless lackeys who surround his presidency.
But, the good thing about “judging,” at any level, is that you often get a chance to redeem yourself for past mistakes. Whether Roberts has the judicial integrity and leadership skills to pull it off, remains to be seen.
This also should be a “warning shot” to the DOJ that former AG Sessions’s vile plan (which he left unfinished when Trump unceremoniously axed him) to undo bond for asylum applicants who pass credible fear, on the basis of a clearly bogus and contrived reading of the Supreme’s Jennings v. Rodriguez remand, is likely to be found unconstitutional and therefore “DOA” in the Ninth Circuit.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions resigned on Wednesday at the request of Donald Trump. He served a little less than two years as the head of the Department of Justice. During that time, Sessions used his immense power to make America a crueler, more brutal place. He was one of the most sadistic and unscrupulous attorneys general in American history.
At the Department of Justice, Sessions enforced the law in a manner that harmed racial minorities, immigrants, and LGBTQ people. He rolled backObama-era drug sentencing reforms in an effort to keep nonviolent offenders locked away for longer. He reversed a policy that limited the DOJ’s use of private prisons. He undermined consent decrees with law enforcement agencies that had a history of misconduct and killed a program that helped local agencies bring their policing in line with constitutional requirements. And he lobbied against bipartisan sentencing reform, falsely claiming that such legislation would benefit “a highly dangerous cohort of criminals.”
Meanwhile, Sessions mobilized the DOJ’s attorneys to torture immigrant minors in other ways. He fought in court to keep undocumented teenagers pregnant against their will, defending the Trump administration’s decision to block their access to abortion. His Justice Department made the astonishing claim that the federal government could decide that forced birth was in the “best interest” of children. It also revealed these minors’ pregnancies to family members who threatened to abuse them. And when the American Civil Liberties Union defeated this position in court, his DOJ launched a failed legal assault on individual ACLU lawyers for daring to defend their clients.
As he oversaw family separation, forced birth, and mass incarceration, Sessions found time to degrade LGBTQ Americans and their families. He issued a memo alleging that federal civil rights laws do not protect transgender employees, a position the Justice Department recently reiterated to the Supreme Court. He also argued that these civil rights laws do not protect gay people. His DOJ defended Trump’s ban on open transgender military service by claiming that trans people are disordered deviants. Under his leadership, the DOJ also asked the Supreme Court to rule that many businesses have a First Amendment right to turn away same-sex couples. (Sessions gave a speech to the anti-LGBTQ group that brought that case to SCOTUS, thanking them for their “important work” on behalf of religious liberty.)
The guiding principle of Sessions’ career is animus toward people who are unlike him. While serving in the Senate, he voted against the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act because it expressly protected LGBTQ women. He opposed immigration reform, including relief for young people brought to America by their parents as children. He voted against the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. He voted against a federal hate crime bill protecting gay people. Before that, as Alabama attorney general, he tried to prevent LGBTQ students from meeting at a public university. But as U.S. attorney general, he positioned himself as an impassioned defender of campus free speech.
While Sessions doesn’t identify as a white nationalist, his agenda as attorney general abetted the cause of white nationalism. His policies were designed to make the country more white by keeping out Hispanics and locking up blacks. His tenure will remain a permanent stain on the Department of Justice. Thousands of people were brutalized by his bigotry, and our country will not soon recover from the malice he unleashed.
His successor could be even worse.
*****************************
Can’t overstate the intentional damage that this immoral, intellectually dishonest, and bigoted man has done to millions of human lives and the moral and legal fabric of our country. “The Father of the New American Gulag,” America’s most notorious unpunished child abuser, and the destroyer of Due Process in our U.S. Immigration Courts are among a few of his many unsavory legacies!
The scary thing: Stern is right — “His successor could be even worse.” If so, the survival of our Constitution and our nation will be at risk!
The United States has the dubious honor of maintaining the world’s largest immigration detention system. Other countries may house more refugees and temporarily displaced persons, but we lock up the most people whose right to stay in the country is in dispute. Tens of thousands of people a day are held until they’re deported or granted permission to stay by an immigration judge (or at least released on bond or into a sponsor’s custody pending a further hearing).
It is a shameful aspect of U.S. immigration enforcement that the government denies liberty to so many people who have neither been accused nor convicted of a crime. To be sure, every nation has a right to control its borders and determine who gets to come in, for what reasons, and through what legal mechanism. We don’t believe that the U.S. should maintain open borders, but the government’s historic reliance on detention as a tool for dealing with people accused of arriving or staying here illegally is needlessly expensive, grossly inhumane and unjust to people exercising their legal right to seek asylum
While the current administration has embraced and expanded the practice, this is not a creation of President Trump. Such detentions date to the Immigration Act of 1882, and current detention policies are rooted in the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act. More recently, Cuban and Haitian migrants arriving by boat in the 1970s and ’80s were placed in detention centers, in part to deter their countrymen from similarly setting off to sea on rickety boats. Congress eventually mandated detention for migrants convicted of certain crimes that made them ineligible for admission.
ICE spends nearly $3 billion a year on immigration detention.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 greatly expanded the immigration detention system through contracts with local jails and state and privately run prisons. In fact, most of the 39,000 people incarcerated on any given day in the U.S. for immigration reasons — more than 350,000 pass through the system each year — are held in prison-like conditions in more than 200 locations around the country.
Some local governments have expanded their jails so they can house, for a daily fee, migrants that Immigration and Customs Enforcement wants detained. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has granted $360 million in low-interest loans since 1996 to help rural communities build jails often larger than they need, so local officials can use detainees and the federal fee payments they bring to cover operating expenses, according to a recent report by the nonprofit Vera Institute of Justice.
ICE spends nearly $3 billion a year on immigration detention, according to the Government Accountability Office. About two-thirds of that goes to private prison corporations to operate detention centers and to local jails to reimburse them for housing detainees. Through those efforts the government has expanded an incarceration industry costing an exorbitant amount of tax dollars to deny freedom of movement of people who, in the vast majority of cases, pose no threat to us.
And notably, at least 77% of migrants facing deportation proceedings show up for their hearings, according to reports. Rates are highest among those who find legal help or receive support from community groups, which suggests there are better methods for handling thisthan detention.
There may, of course, be valid reasons for detaining some migrants, such as newly arrived asylum-seekers whose identities have yet to be verified, people facing imminent court-ordered deportation who the government has reason to fear might disappear, or violent felons who pose a realistic threat to public safety.
One of the largest contributors to no-shows is the government’s failure to keep current contact information for migrants during proceedings that can stretch out for years. One approach would be to match migrants to community service groups or sponsors to better keep track of the individuals and ensure they appear for court hearings; sadly, Trump killedan experimental Obama program that did just that.
This administration has chosen instead to double down on detention, and now it reportedly is considering reviving a version of the vile family separations. If family separation and detention worked as a deterrent, the president wouldn’t be tweeting so furiously these days about the current caravan of Central American migrants moving northward through Mexico. Detention-as-deterrence is not only an inhumane approach, it’s a failed one.
The government can neither detain nor deport its way out of this problem. It must find a better way. The fact that it has failed to do so for so long, regardless of which party controlled Congress or the White House, is an embarrassment.
************************************************
Doubling down on the worst, most ineffective, wasteful, and expensive policies. That’s the mantra of the Trump Administration on immigration. What if our Government spent the same amount of time, money, personnel, and effort on solving problems, rather than intentionally and cynically aggravating them?
Judges in the nation’s federal criminal courts increasingly are balking at what they call unlawful efforts by U.S. immigration authorities to continue to detain people charged with entering the country illegally, even after they have been granted bail.
The rulings complicate the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” crackdown on defendants who are charged with illegally crossing the border but whom judges have determined do not pose a flight or safety risk.
The decisions force prosecutors to make a choice — charge defendants with illegal entry or reentry and risk that a federal judge releases them pending trial, or keep suspects locked up in civil detention pending deportation proceedings and forgo criminal prosecution.
A recent ruling by a federal judge in Washington highlights the human and legal issues at stake, the case of a dishwasher from El Salvador who has a wife and two children in the District, where he returned after two deportations.
The surge in such criminal cases stems from an April 2017 announcement by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions prioritizing Justice Department prosecutions of entry and reentry crimes. More than 60,000 people have faced such criminal charges since then, with twice as many new prosecutions this July, the most recent month for which data is available, compared with the same month in 2017, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which monitors cases.
Individuals caught without documents on a first offense can be charged with a misdemeanor, but anyone caught in the United States after a prior deportation can be charged with a felony and face more than a year in prison. Immigration-related prosecutions are now the majority of all federal criminal cases, stretching far beyond states bordering Mexico.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions early this month in Ohio. (Adam Cairns/Columbus Dispatch/AP)
Advocates for immigrants say the recent court rulings may limit the use of the criminal charges to pressure defendants to abandon efforts to stay in the United States. The impact on overall removal efforts remains to be seen, but courts appear to be pushing back at an expansion of authority by prosecutors and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
In the District, one rejection of the tougher tactics came from U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, a 1987 appointee of President Ronald Reagan. On Sept. 26. Lamberth said the government cannot have it both ways — asking federal courts to deny bail to defendants awaiting criminal trial and then, if a judge disagrees, holding them anyway in the immigration system.
The decision came in the case of Jaime Omar Vasquez-Benitez, 38, who court papers say was picking food up at a restaurant in July when D.C. police stopped him for suspected gang activity and turned him over to ICE. Federal public defenders say Vasquez-Benitez had quit a gang and fears for his life if he is deported.
He was charged in August with felony reentry despite deportation orders in 2008 and 2014.
A federal magistrate and district judge ruled Vasquez-Benitez should be released on bail, but U.S. marshals returned him to ICE custody. Defense attorneys moved to enforce the release order, and the case ended up in front of Lamberth after Vasquez-Benitez was indicted.
Lamberth ruled that a landmark 1966 U.S. bail statute specifically covers migrants and must “trump” more-general immigration laws, releasing Vasquez-Benitez into a high-intensity supervision program. He wrote that courts have long “upheld as sacrosanct” the principle that no one can act as prosecutor and judge at the same time, and that the Justice Department cannot ignore bail rulings any more than it can shrug off a defendant’s right to a speedy trial.
The judge said prosecutors can pursue both criminal charges and civil removal cases against defendants but must abide by a judge’s decision to grant bail. Or they can forgo charges and keep defendants locked up in civil detention while pursuing deportation.
People detained without valid immigration documents may well be worse off if uncharged, “languishing” indefinitely without speedy trial or access to bail in ICE detention camps far from families or counsel, the judge noted.
“Nevertheless, the government can do that” under immigration law, Lamberth wrote. “But so long as the government invokes the jurisdiction of a federal court, the government must consent to the Court’s custodial dominion over the criminal defendants before it.”
A decision on whether to appeal is pending. Bill Miller, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office for the District, said the office was reviewing the ruling.
In a July 2017 Justice Department bulletin to 94 U.S. attorney offices nationwide, Oregon federal prosecutor Gregory R. Nyhus said that federal criminal statutes and civil immigration laws “are reconcilable” and that “courts should be encouraged to harmonize these statutes rather than focusing on [one] to the complete exclusion of the other.”
The government’s position — that it can hold Vasquez-Benitez strictly for deportation on a reinstated removal order, unrelated to his prosecution — has yet to be decided by an appeals court.
Rulings by trial judges in similar cases have varied.
Since July 2017, federal judges in Washington, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Detroit, Cleveland and Austin have rejected the government’s approach, drawing on a 2012 district court opinion in Oregon and a similar 2015 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that “the executive branch has a choice to make” between holding an undocumented person for deportation or prosecuting that person under criminal law and the Constitution.
Federal judges in Buffalo and Philadelphia have come down on the other side, saying that criminal and immigration laws can “coexist” on “parallel” tracks. Before the Trump administration, prosecutors would typically drop criminal charges to pursue civil removal if a previously deported defendant won bail.
Yihong “Julie” Mao, staff attorney with the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, said the group was “heartened” by court rulings upholding undocumented immigrants’ right to bail and pretrial release based on family and community ties. She added: “This is fundamentally a separation-of-powers issue. The Department of Justice cannot be both judge and prosecutor.”
Mary Petras, an assistant federal public defender who is representing Vasquez-Benitez in the District, declined to comment.
In court filings, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth Clair Kohl argued that the defendant’s case is not covered by the 2012 ruling, because ICE is holding him solely to deport him, not to prosecute him.
The Salvadoran man was first arrested in 1997, falsely claimed Mexican citizenship and was allowed to go to Mexico, according to court papers. He was deported in 2008 after serving a three-year sentence for felony obstruction of justice in the District and again in 2014, before he was caught for a fourth time this July.
Prosecutors would have prosecuted Vasquez-Benitez even in past years because of what they said in court papers was his “threatening, violent behavior” and felony criminal conviction. Vasquez-Benitez was convicted of obstruction of justice for telling a woman in 2005 she would “pay the consequences” if she called the police, and a 2014 arrest warrant in El Salvador said he has been charged with extortion, prosecutors said.
“There may come a time . . . [when] immigration proceedings have concluded . . . forcing the United States to choose between physical removal and continuation of this criminal case. That time, however, has not yet come,” wrote Kohl and Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth Dewar in an unsuccessful effort to detain the man.
Petras told the court the man is a longtime restaurant worker, and his wife works part time as a hotel housekeeper. Both have family nearby, and the couple’s 3-year-old daughter and 9-year-old son attended a recent court hearing.
Petras argued the man posed no flight risk, because he is seeking to halt his deportation after gang members in El Salvador sent him a message warning that he had “signed his death warrant” by quitting the gang and removing gang tattoos.
The lawyer said the fact that her client has lived in the Washington area for years and returned shows that he “wants to be here and that he has no intent or incentive to flee.”
Read more:
******************************************
Compare what is happening in DC and some other jurisdictions with the “go along to get along” approach by some U.S. District Judges and U.S. Magistrate Judges along the border whom I have criticized in prior posts. The latter have allowed Sessions, Nielsen, and co. to turn their courts into “assembly line justice” — the kind that Session is implementing in his “wholly owned” U.S. Immigration Courts.
It’s pretty clear from the published reports that almost none of those being railroaded through that system actually understand the full immigration implications of their guilty pleas, nor do they understand how they can apply for asylum and what other rights they might have under the “civil immigration system.” Indeed, accepting guilty pleas without insuring that those entering the pleas fully understand the civil immigration situation and implications, including the likelihood of indefinite civil immigration detention and possible denial of a chance for a full hearing before an Immigration Judge, is arguably a violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky.
I also have a “personal recollection” of Judge Royce Lamberth from decades ago when he was the Chief of the Civil Division at the U.S. Attorneys Office for DC and I was the Deputy General Counsel/Acting General Counsel at the “Legacy INS.” On several occasions I had to trek over from the “Central Office” in the “Chester Arthur Building” at 4th and Eye St., NW to the U.S. Courthouse complex on 5th Street to explain and justify the INS position to Royce.
He was known as a formidable individual, even in those days — a chief litigator who brooked no-nonsense from USG Agencies and who was concerned with maintaining the Government’s reputation for integrity and legal excellence before the U.S. Courts. That probably has much to do with how he got nominated and confirmed to be a U.S. District Judge and why he still brooks no-nonsense from the “Masters of Nonsense” in the Trump Administration.
Nick Miroff, Josh Dawsey, & Maria Sacchetti report for WashPost:
The White House is actively considering plans that could again separate parents and children at the U.S.-Mexico border, hoping to reverse soaring numbers of families attempting to cross illegally into the United States, according to several administration officials with direct knowledge of the effort.
One option under consideration is for the government to detain asylum-seeking families together for up to 20 days, then give parents a choice — stay in family detention with their child for months or years as their immigration case proceeds, or allow children to be taken to a government shelter so other relatives or guardians can seek custody.
That option — called “binary choice” — is one of several under consideration amid the president’s frustration over border security. Trump has been unable to fulfill key promises to build a border wall and end what he calls “catch and release,” a process that began under past administrations in which most detained families are quickly freed to await immigration hearings. The number of migrant family members arrested and charged with illegally crossing the border jumped 38 percent in August and is now at a record level, according to Department of Homeland Security officials.
Senior administration officials say they are not planning to revive the chaotic forced separations carried out by the Trump administration in May and June that spawned an enormous political backlash and led to a court order to reunite families.
But they feel compelled to do something, and officials say senior White House adviser Stephen Miller is advocating for tougher measures because he believes the springtime separations worked as an effective deterrent to illegal crossings.
At least 2,500 children were taken from their parents over a period of six weeks. Crossings by families declined slightly in May, June and July before surging again in August. September numbers are expected to be even higher.
While some migrants worried about separations, others felt seeking asylum was worth the risk
For some seeking asylum, family separations were worth the risk: ‘Whatever it took, we had to get to this country’(Zoeann Murphy, Jorge Ribas/The Washington Post)
While some inside the White House and DHS are concerned about the “optics” and political blowback of renewed separations, Miller and others are determined to act, according to officials briefed on the deliberations. There have been several high-level meetings in the White House in recent weeks about the issue. The “binary choice” option is seen as one that could be tried out fairly quickly.
“Career law enforcement professionals in the U.S. government are working to analyze and evaluate options that would protect the American people, prevent the horrific actions of child smuggling, and stop drug cartels from pouring into our communities,” deputy White House press secretary Hogan Gidley said in an emailed statement.
Any effort to expand family detentions and resume separations would face multiple logistical and legal hurdles.
It would require overcoming the communication and data management failures that plagued the first effort, when Border Patrol agents, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials and Department of Health and Human Services caseworkers struggled to keep track of separated parents and children.
The Trump administration believes it is on solid legal ground, according to two officials, in part because U.S. District Judge Dana M. Sabraw, who ordered the government to reunite separated families in June, approved the binary-choice approach in one of his rulings. But a Congressional Research Service report last month said “practical and legal barriers” remain to using that approach in the future and said releasing families together in the United States is “the only clearly viable option under current law.”
‘Administration officials said the CRS report cited earlier legal rulings. But the American Civil Liberties Union, which launched the separations lawsuit, disputed that interpretation and said it would oppose any attempt at expanded family detentions or separations.
“The government need not, and legally may not, indiscriminately detain families who present no flight risk or danger,” ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said in an email. “It is deeply troubling that this Administration continues to look for ways to cause harm to small children.”
Another hurdle is that the government does not have detention space for a large number of additional families. ICE has three “family residential centers” with a combined capacity of roughly 3,000 parents and children. With more than four times that many arriving each month, it is unclear where the government would hold all the parents who would opt to remain with their children.
But Trump said in his June 20 executive order halting family separations that the administration’s policy is to keep parents and children together, “including by detaining” them. In recent weeks, federal officials have taken steps to expand their ability to do that.
In addition to considering “binary choice” and other options, officials have proposed new rules that would allow them to withdraw from a 1997 federal court agreement that bars ICE from keeping children in custody for more than 20 days.
The rules would give ICE greater flexibility to expand family detention centers and potentially hold parents and children longer, though lawyers say this would be likely to end up in court.
Officials have also imposed production quotas on immigration judges and are searching for more ways to speed up the calendar in its courts to adjudicate cases more quickly.
Federal officials arguing for the tougher measures say the rising number of family crossings is a sign of asylum fraud. DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has blasted smugglers for charging migrants thousands of dollars to ferry them into the United States, knowing that “legal loopholes” will force the administration to release them pending a court hearing. Federal officials say released families are rarely deported.
Advocates for immigrants counter that asylum seekers are fleeing violence and acute poverty, mainly in Central America, and deserve to have a full hearing before an immigration judge.
“There is currently a crisis at our southern border,” DHS spokeswoman Katie Waldman said in a statement, adding, “DHS will continue to enforce the law humanely, and will continue to examine a range of options to secure our nation’s borders.”
In southern Arizona, so many families have crossed in the past 10 days that the government has been releasing them en masse to shelters and charities. A lack of available bus tickets has stranded hundreds of parents and children in Tucson, where they sleep on Red Cross cots in a church gymnasium.
At a Senate hearing Wednesday, Sen. John Kyl (R-Ariz.) told Nielsen that migrants were “flooding into the community” and that authorities there had “no ability to do anything about it.”
Nielsen said lawmakers needs to give DHS more latitude to hold families with children in detention until their cases can be fully adjudicated — a process that can take months or years because of huge court backlogs.
DHS officials have seen the biggest increase this year in families arriving from Guatemala, where smugglers called “coyotes” tell migrants they can avoid detention and deportation by bringing a child, according to some community leaders in that country.
On Friday, Nielsen called for a regional effort to combat smuggling and violence in the region and to “heighten our penalties for traffickers.”
“I think there’s more that we can do to hold them responsible, particularly those who traffic in children,” she said in a speech in Washington at the second Conference on Prosperity and Security in Central America.
More than 90,000 adults with children were caught at the southwest border in the first 11 months of fiscal 2018. The previous high for a single year was 77,600 in 2016
********************************************
My recollection is that 1) the DOJ conceded in court that a policy of intentionally separating families is unconstitutional; and 2) Federal Courts have held that detention of individuals who are neither security risks nor likely to abscond for the primary purpose of “deterrence” is illegal.
So, if this facially illegal program is put into action, why shouldn’t Stephen Miller go to jail and be held personally liable for all the damages he causes with his scofflaw racist policies? Why shouldn’t Nielsen, Sessions, and others who are part of the Miller White Nationalist scheme also be held personally liable?
More cruelty, more wasting of taxpayer resources, more abuse of the judicial process by the Trump Administration.
Oh, and by the way. although today’s out of control U.S. Immigration Court backlogs began with “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” during the Bush II and Obama Administrations, Sessions and the Trump Administration have pushed them to astounding new levels with their incompetence and anti-asylum bias. Don’t blame the victims for the Government’s irresponsible actions!
If folks who believe in human decency and the rule of law don’t get out and vote, these abuses and degradations of our national values will continue.
==========================================
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
==========================================
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Greetings. The vast majority (58%) of individuals in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody as of June 30, 2018 had no criminal record. An even larger proportion – four out of five – either had no record, or had only committed a minor offense such as a traffic violation. Case-by-case records on each of these 44,435 individuals held in ICE custody were recently obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University. These data provide a detailed snapshot of ICE custody practices.
Individuals were mainly from four countries. Forty-three percent were from the Central American countries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, while an additional 25 percent were Mexicans. At least 18 percent had resided continuously in the U.S. for ten years or more, and one out of four had been in the country for at least five years.
Many individuals had been held in ICE custody for a relatively short period of time. Forty-one percent had thus far stayed in ICE custody for 30 days or less. At the other extreme, almost 2,000 individuals had been detained for more than a year, and a few individuals had already been continuously detained according to ICE records for over ten years.
The data document the dominance of private for-profit prisons in the large-scale detention of ICE detainees. Overall, fully 71 percent of detainees were housed in facilities operated by private companies. The rest of the facilities were operated by government, including by counties, cities, and the federal government. Texas held 29 percent of all ICE detainees.
Access the brand new free web query tool to examine who ICE has in custody and where they are being held. Details on state, county, facility name, nationality, gender, length of time in the U.S., green card status, if convicted the most serious criminal offense, and much more are available at:
In addition, there are many additional TRAC free query tools – which track Border Patrol arrests, ICE detainers and removals, the Immigration Court’s backlog, the handling of juvenile cases and more. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools go to:
TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the U.S. federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
Suite 360, Newhouse II
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
315-443-3563
*******************************************
Expensive, divisive, often counterproductive, and overall serving no discernible national interest: That’s the Trump immigration policy!
Here’s an excerpt from Justine van der Luen’s much longer article “A Culture of No,” published in the Fall 2018 issue of VQR (quoting me, among many others).
. . . .
“Here in the US, there is democracy, but we still have fear,” he said. “I got asylum but if they want to make a problem, they can do it.” He was terrified that the smallest misstep, no matter how apparently meaningless, how accidental or random, could signal the difference between freedom and imprisonment—and from there, between life and death.
To beat the extreme odds in El Paso, Isaac had spent fifteen months in detention and paid thousands of dollars in legal fees to an elite lawyer who then worked dozens of pro bono hours on his appeal. This feat required an enormous amount of translated and notarized evidence discretely sent overseas by family members in Syria, the emotional and financial support of his brother and his lawyer, and the wherewithal to withstand a complex, taxing, humiliating process. How many asylum seekers could or should have to endure such an ordeal in order to gain internationally recognized rights meant to protect the persecuted?
As Isaac started over in America, other asylum seekers I had been tracking were less fortunate. Jesus Rodriguez Mendoza, the Venezuelan, had been transferred to a notorious detention center in Miami, which his legal team believed was punishment for his public protests; he remained on the El Paso docket, but now was physically separated from his lawyers, his fourth parole request denied. Berta Arias, the Honduran grandmother whose relief Judge Abbott had granted and then quickly rescinded, lost her appeal and was deported without the granddaughter she had raised. The Central American man whose brother, with an identical case, had won protection in New York City, remained in the Camp. It wasn’t only those from the Americas who were out of luck. Cambodians, Cameroonians, Guineans, and Kenyans I’d followed all had their claims denied; they had since been deported or were waiting on appeals.
One young Central American woman who had been repeatedly raped had managed to win relief, but only after her lawyer, unable to bear the thought of her client being sent home to be violated yet again, paid over $2,000 from her own pocket to fly two expert witnesses into Texas to clinch the case.
“I think in El Paso, they want to see that people died,” a young Salvadoran asylum seeker told me. He was an Evangelical Christian, who preached to local kids. Members of MS-13 had shot at him with a machine gun, killing a pedestrian who happened to be standing nearby, and kidnapped and murdered his fifteen-year-old friend who had joined him in proselytizing. The young man, his mother, and his brother made their way to the US. Despite having a devoted pro bono lawyer, he lost his asylum case, as well as his appeal, on the grounds of credibility (the judge believed he was simply an economic migrant who had invented the threats); his mother also struggled to find legal relief in El Paso.
“Maybe if I died, and then my mom asked for asylum, maybe then she can get protection,” he told me calmly. “They tried to kill me, but I didn’t die, so it’s not good enough for them.”
Justine van der Leun is the author of several books, including We Are Not Such Things (Random House, 2016), a New York Times Editors’ Choice and Spectator Book of the Year. Her work has appeared in theNew York Times, Harper’s, the Guardian, and Oprah Magazine. She is an International Women’s Media Foundation reporting fellow and a grantee of the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute.
************************************************
I encourage you to read the full article at the above link, which is accompanied by some great original illustrations by Alan Vest!
Justine highlights the real role of attorneys in our asylum system. Many of them are working on a pro bono or low fee basis or actually paying out of their own pockets! They persist under horrible working conditions and often rude, insensitive, and unprofessional treatment from judges and other government officials that would persuade most other professionals to take up another line of work. The cases are complicated and (unnecessarily) fact intensive, often requiring not only extensive research and legal knowledge, but also skilled use of expert testimony and sources translated from foreign languages.
In courts like El Paso, getting a fair result in an asylum case too often depends on making the record below and then taking an appeal — the latter itself a time-consuming “hit or miss” proposition depending on the BIA “panel” (it could be a single judge) or the Circuit in which the case arose (sadly, the 5th Circuit is notorious for taking a cavalier and tone-deaf attitude toward the law and fundamental fairness in immigration matters).
Indeed, conscientious, dedicated attorneys are far more interested in making the system function in a fair and efficient manner consistent with our Constitution than the DOJ politicos who run today’s broken court system.
Compare the reality with the intentionally false and totally disingenuous picture painted by our White Nationalist Attorney General Jeff Sessions. He refers to “dirty lawyers” who are “gaming” the system.
Apparently, Sessions’s view of “gaming” means providing vigorous and effective representation and forcing him and some of the anti-asylum judges working for him to comply with asylum law!
It’s also painfully clear that no unrepresented asylum applicant would have any chance whatsoever of receiving fairness and Due Process in El Paso.
But, instead of working with the private bar to facilitate representation and repair the damage to the Immigration Courts, Sessions has gone to great lengths to prevent effective representation of asylum seekers. He has arranged for the detention of asylum seekers in horrible conditions in obscure places where there are no lawyers; he has “speeded up” the system to make it more difficult for lawyers to effectively represent their clients; he has used unconstitutional intentional family separation to duress individuals with valid claims into abandoning them; he has made pejorative remarks about asylum seekers and their lawyers in front of Immigration Judges; and he has manipulated the substantive law against bona fide asylum seekers.
Yes, many, many Immigration Judges “buck the odds” to honor their oaths of office and guarantee fairness and Due Process for asylum seekers and other respondents. Justine points out how results differ dramatically in Immigration Courts where judges apply the law and treat respondents and their lawyers in a fair and impartial manner.
So, how can I be such a strong advocate for independence of a system that I know is badly flawed? Those of us who have actually worked in the system know that it can’t be fixed overnight.
But, getting the system out of the hands of Sessions and the DOJ politicos is an absolutely essential first step. With the advent of a true merit judicial hiring system, such as that recommended by Professor Andy Schoenholtz and others, and the establishment of a more diverse and representative Appellate Division that acts like an independent Federal Court to rein in those judges who are unfairly treating asylum applicants and force them to correctly and fairly apply the law, there will be a return of meaningful judicial dialogue and deliberation which leads to progress over time.
Notably, in Isaac’s case, the system actually worked! After many months of expensive, wasteful, and unnecessary detention and an incorrect decision below, the BIA summarily corrected the Immigration Judge’s clearly erroneous denial of Isaac’s asylum case. But corrective action by the BIA to bring anti-asylum judicial “outliers” under control is exactly what Sessions has disabled in his decision in Matter of A-B-. He basically encourages “worst practices” and enables biased Immigration Judges while criticizing the BIA’s modest attempts to bring legality and order to an out of control system. What an outrageous perversion of justice and Due Process by someone who constantly makes bogus claims to be “enforcing the rule of law!”
Additionally, by returning control over dockets and court administrationto sitting judges, rather than non-judicial DOJ politicos and their agency subordinates, an independent Immigration Court can make progress toward reducing backlogs while promoting, rather than “demoting,” Due Process.
The current Immigration Court System is a farce that should outrage and disgust every fair-minded American! It will continue to malfunction and deny Due Process until we have an independent Immigration Court where all judges are required to respect the Constitution and the individual rights of those coming before them.
Join the “New Due Process Army” and force the Immigration Courts and the Article IIIs to live up to their unfilled promise of “guaranteeing fairness and Due Process for all!”
A federal district court judge has ruled Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ conditions on grant funding to force so-called sanctuary cities to cooperate with immigration enforcement efforts as unconstitutional
Judge William Orrick, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, sided with the state of California and city of San Francisco in their lawsuit challenging the requirements in granting their request for summary judgment Friday.
The conditions Sessions set in 2017 require sanctuary cities to give immigration officials access to their jails, notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials of the planned release of a detainee, and follow a law that prohibits state and local governments from restricting how much information is shared with the Department of Homeland Security.
Orrick’s decision was in agreement with every court that has looked at these issues.
The judge said that the challenged conditions violate the separation of power and that the information-sharing law is unconstitutional.
Orrick said he is following the lead of the district court in a similar challenge brought by the city of Chicago and is issuing a nationwide injunction to block the Justice Department from enforcing its requirement and the law. But he said he is putting that stay on hold until the Ninth Circuit addresses the issue on appeal.
“Today’s ruling is a victory in our fight to protect the people of California,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement Friday afternoon.
“We will continue to stand up to the Trump administration’s attempts to force our law enforcement into changing its policies and practices in ways that that would make us less safe.”
Becerra’s office noted that the ruling marks the attorney general’s twenty-second legal victory against the Trump administration.
****************************
When will he ever learn, when will he ever learn? And, how much of our tax money and Federal Court time will he waste with this counterproductive, semi-frivolous, and vindictive litigation.
Given Gonzo’s record of disregarding the law and mocking common sense, California might “top the century mark” in legal wins before the end of this Administration!
