A Christmas Wish — Protect Children Seeking Refuge — Let Them Out of Jail — Get Them Lawyers — Treat Them As If They Were Ours — Because They Are

http://immigrationimpact.com/2016/12/23/wish-holiday-season/

In this article which I found on Immigration Impact, Katie Shepard says:

“The 19 children who will likely be spending the holidays in detention range in age from three to fifteen-years-old. In fact, just last week, the youngest child being held in the Berks detention facility turned three. This little boy fled Honduras with his mother after being targeted by the gangs and threatened with kidnapping and violence. He has spent more than half his life in detention.

Imagine going through such a harrowing journey to then have those you’ve asked to protect you, fail you. I don’t believe this nation can or should allow the most vulnerable among us to be held for prolonged periods, robbed of their access to a fair and just process, and left without protection. We can and must do better.

My wish this holiday season is that we find a way to do right by these families. My wish is that they, like me and many of you, will be able to live safe and happy lives with the people they love.”

I had similar thoughts.  During the Christmas Eve service at our church, we offered the following prayer:  “Tonight we give thanks for every child among us.  Each new birth — regardless of circumstances — reminds us of the preciousness of life, the potential of tomorrow, the promise of God.”

We say these words, but our country is falling short in its humanitarian and human obligation to protect vulnerable children.  We treat them as statistics, a “border surge,” an “enforcement problem,” a plague that should be deterred and discouraged.  In plain terms, we seek to dehumanize the most vulnerable and needy humans among us.  We detain them, expedite their cases, and tell Federal Courts that they can represent themselves in complicated, life determining, legal proceedings that baffle many smart attorneys, judges, and scholars.  Where is the mercy, compassion, kindness, humility, and championship of the downtrodden shown by Christ?

As I have previously said in my own op-ed:

“Children are the future of our world. History deals harshly with societies that mistreat and fail to protect children and other vulnerable individuals. Sadly, our great country is betraying its values in its rush to ‘stem the tide.’ It is time to demand an immigrant justice system that lives up to its vision of ‘guaranteeing due process and fairness for all.’ Anything less is a continuing disgrace that will haunt us forever.”

You can read my full op-ed which has been published in LexisNexis Immigration Community by clicking on this link:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/newsheadlines/archive/2016/10/18/saving-child-migrants-while-saving-ourselves-hon-paul-wickham-schmidt-ret.aspx?Redirected=true

Its is also posted on the index and information toolbar of this Blog.

PWS

12/26/16

 

 

Former Deputy Attorney General Heymann Slams DOJ Handling of Criminal Case Arising From Iowa Immigration Raid

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/107-former-justice-officials-think-this-case-was-handled-unjustly-doj-must-act/2016/12/26/71203530-c6e6-11e6-bf4b-2c064d32a4bf_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.39a0e3fb838c

An unusually harsh criticism of the Justice Department and Attorney General Loretta Lynch in this Washington Post op-ed by Phillip Heymann, who was the Deputy AG during the Clinton Administration.  The case was generated by a controversial immigration raid on a Kosher Meat plant in Iowa that netted hundreds of undocumented workers and resulted in the business’s bankruptcy.  Heymann represents the views of 107 former DOJ officials, including former Attorneys General.

PWS

12/26/16

 

 

Trump Administration Will Have Huge Influence on Federal Courts — Particularly the U.S. Immigration Court

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-to-inherit-more-than-100-court-vacancies-plans-to-reshape-judiciary/2016/12/25/d190dd18-c928-11e6-85b5-76616a33048d_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_trumpjudges805p:homepage/story&utm_term=.3eb2c51133dc

According to this article from today’s Washington Post, the incoming Trump Administration is preparing to fill more than 100 lifetime Federal Judicial appointments in addition to an existing vacancy on the Supreme Court.  That’s almost twice the number of vacancies that were available to the incoming Obama Administration eight years ago.  The article points out that since these appointments require Senate confirmation, Democrats might have some bargaining power.  But, with Republicans in the majority, that’s likely to be quite limited.

However, there might be an even bigger opportunity available for the incoming Administration —  reshaping the U.S. Immigration Court System for many years to come.  Plagued by a self-created ponderously glacial selection and hiring process, and a badly outdated and ineffective  court structure and administration, the Obama Administration is on track to leave nearly 100 out of the just under 400 authorized U.S. Immigration positions “on the table.”  Additionally, there currently are two vacancies on the critically important Immigration Appeals Court (known as the “Board of Immigration Appeals”), which is effectively the “Supreme Court” of immigration law, with authority to decide tens of thousands of appeals annually and to set binding precedents for our nation’s more than 50 U.S. Immigration Courts.  Beyond that, a significant number of the most experienced Immigration Judges are “baby boomers” who are currently eligible to retire or will become eligible shortly.  For most of the Obama Administration, Immigration Judge hiring has barely exceeded the retirement replacement rate.

The bulk of the currently unfilled vacancies were relatively recently authorized by a bipartisan Congressional effort.  But, not so recently that they could not have been filled by a management process that treated them as what they are — probably the most important large group of senior career Civil Service positions in Government and certainly within the U.S. Department of Justice, the repository for the Immigration Courts.  Beyond helping to authorize the additional positions, however, Congressional Democrats have paid scant attention to the public unraveling of our Immigration Court system during the past eight years.

With over 500,000 pending cases, the Immigration Court System actually has a larger caseload that the entire U.S. District Court System — Civil and Criminal Dockets — with only about 60% of the authorized number of judges.  Moreover, unlike U.S. District Court Judges, who are appointed by the President for life with Senate confirmation required, U.S. Immigration Judges are civil servants appointed by the Attorney General, and they serve at his or her pleasure.  Consequently, Democrats cannot point the collective finger at Republicans for the high vacancy rate and the dismal state of justice in our largely dysfunctional Immigration Court System.  Republicans generally have supported more resources for the overburdened Immigration Courts, and the hiring process has been within the sole control of the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice.

Assuming confirmation, new Attorney General Jeff Sessions potentially could select approximately 25% of the Immigration Judiciary, with more down the road.  No Senate confirmation is required, and the new Attorney General would not be bound to follow the current hiring practices.

Because Due Process — the Immigration Courts’ one and only mission — should be a nonpartisan, nonpolitical issue, I hope that Attorney General Sessions will establish an efficient, strictly merit based hiring system that will be transparent and provide opportunity for meaningful input and participation from all segments of the immigration community, including  practitioners, clinicians, and non-governmental organizations, as well as government entities involved in the administration of our immigration laws.  For example, the board-based merit selection processes used for U.S. Magistrate Judges and U.S. Bankruptcy Judges have won widespread acclaim for putting professional qualifications and demonstrated excellence before partisanship.

But, if that doesn’t happen, and Democrats don’t like the results, they will have only themselves to blame for failing to pay attention and make the needed administrative and structural improvements to our critically important Immigration Court System over the past eight years.

PWS

12/26/16

 

 

 

 

George Will Blasts Jeff Sessions for His Position on Civil Forfeiture.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-very-bad-reason-jeff-sessions-is-very-unhappy/2016/12/23/213a3cb8-c86d-11e6-bf4b-2c064d32a4bf_story.html?utm_term=.dbac3501fb9b

In this op-ed, conservative pundit George Will rips AG Designate Senator Jeff Sessions for his views on civil forfeiture proceedings.   Interestingly, immigration, on which Senator Sessions also has expressed strong opinions, like civil forfeiture is a nominally civil proceeding with quasi-criminal features and sanctions which in many cases exceed those which could be imposed in a criminal prosecution.

Here’s the key portion of Will’s broadside at Sessions:

“There might somewhere be a second prominent American who endorses today’s civil forfeiture practices, but one such person is “very unhappy” with criticisms of it. At a 2015 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on forfeiture abuses, one senator said “taking and seizing and forfeiting, through a government judicial process, illegal gains from criminal enterprises is not wrong,” and neither is law enforcement enriching itself from this. In the manner of the man for whom he soon will work, this senator asserted an unverifiable number: “95 percent” of forfeitures involve people who have “done nothing in their lives but sell dope.” This senator said it should not be more difficult for “government to take money from a drug dealer than it is for a businessperson to defend themselves in a lawsuit.” In seizing property suspected of involvement in a crime, government “should not have a burden of proof higher than in a normal civil case.”

IJ’s Robert Everett Johnson notes that this senator missed a few salient points: In civil forfeiture there usually is no proper “judicial process.” There is no way of knowing how many forfeitures involve criminals because the government takes property without even charging anyone with a crime. The government’s vast prosecutorial resources are one reason it properly bears the burden of proving criminal culpability “beyond a reasonable doubt.” A sued businessperson does not have assets taken until he or she has lost in a trial, whereas civil forfeiture takes property without a trial and the property owner must wage a protracted, complex and expensive fight to get it returned. The Senate Judiciary Committee might want to discuss all this when considering the nominee to be the next attorney general, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions.”

Merry Christmas (to some) and Happy Holidays (to all).

PWS

12/24/16