"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Melissa Del Bosque Border Reporter PHOTO: Melissadelbosque.comCaitlyn Yates Fellow Strauss Center for International Law & Security PHOTO: Strauss Center
This podcast from Melissa Del Bosque of The Border Chronicle and Caitlyn Yates, who actually works with migrants in the Darien Gap, gives real life perspective on the humanitarian crisis and all the reasons why more cruelty, punishment, and deadly deterrence isn’t going to solve the flow of forced migrants. But, unhappily, policy makers aren’t interested in the voices of those who actually have experience with forced migrants, nor are they interested in learning from the forced migrants themselves — a logical — if constantly ignored — starting point for making sound policy decisions!
Migration and human rights experts have excelled in court and academia. Yet, they have been consigned to wander the political wilderness, their wisdom, expertise, and real world solutions are routinely ignored or mindlessly rejected by both political parties. Colmar – Unterlinden Museum – The Isenheim Altarpiece 1512-16 by Matthias Grünewald (ca 1470-1528) – Visit of Saint Anthony the Great to Saint Paul the Hermit in the Wilderness Creative Commons
Four “takeaways” on what a consensus on migration should be:
Human migration is real;
Forced migration is largely beyond the unilateral control of any one nation;
Deterrence alone won’t stop migration;
More legal pathways for migration are necessary.
We’re a long way from that needed consensus right now!
Former president Donald Trump denigrated his domestic opponents and critics during a Veterans Day speech Saturday, calling those on the other side of the aisle “vermin” and suggesting that they pose a greater threat to the United States than countries such as Russia, China or North Korea. That language is drawing rebuke from historians, who compared it to that of authoritarian leaders.
“We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections,” Trump said toward the end of his speech, repeating his false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. “They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream.”
Trump went on further to state: “the threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within. Because if you have a capable, competent, smart, tough leader, Russia, China, North Korea, they’re not going to want to play with us.”
The former president’s speech in Claremont, N.H., echoed his message of vengeance and grievance, as he called himself a “very proud election denier” and decried his legal entanglements, once again attacking the judge in a New York civil trial and re-upping his attacks on special counsel Jack Smith. In the speech, Trump once again portrayed himself as a victim of a political system that is out to get him and his supporters.
Yet Trump’s use of the word “vermin” both in his speech and in a Truth Social post on Saturday drew particular backlash.
“The language is the language that dictators use to instill fear,” said Timothy Naftali, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. “When you dehumanize an opponent, you strip them of their constitutional rights to participate securely in a democracy because you’re saying they’re not human. That’s what dictators do.”
Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a historian at New York University, said in an email to The Washington Post that “calling people ‘vermin’ was used effectively by Hitler and Mussolini to dehumanize people and encourage their followers to engage in violence.”
“Trump is also using projection: note that he mentions all kinds of authoritarians ‘communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left’ to set himself up as the deliverer of freedom,” Ben-Ghiat said. “Mussolini promised freedom to his people too and then declared dictatorship.”
“We are still creating [monsters]. We see it in … Russian attitudes toward Ukrainians, in Hindu Islamophobia, and in American racism against Black people,” psychologist David Livingstone, a professor at the University of New England in Maine, told EL PAÍS.
It wasn’t just Germany.
In 1909, a U.S. satirical magazine, Puck, published a cartoon that showed Uncle Sam as a pied piper leading a group of immigrants from Europe. The immigrants were rats. Sending them off: smiling, well-dressed White men.
I appreciate that Marianne LeVine of WashPost was one of the few “mainstream journalists” with the guts to make the painfully obvious connection and comparison between Trump’s insane threats and Hitler, Mussolini, and other horrible dictators!
Marianne LeVine Political Reporter Washington Post PHOTO: WashPost
Even so, it was only “page 2” news in today’s Post, apparently being of far less concern to her editors than the plans of Middle Eastern countries to “upend global sports!” Harkens back to 1936, when participating in Hitler’s “Aryan Showcase Olympics” was more important to the U.S. and other Western Democracies than protesting and condemning Hitler’s ongoing persecution of Jews!
There was a time in the not too distant past when use of racist, neo-Nazi language like Trump’s would have earned an immediate forceful condemnation from politicians across the political spectrum, from the media, and would have ended a candidacy. Now, it’s “just another day at the office.” Hate, lies, racism, and threats by a powerful national politician, a former President no less, cause barely a ripple in our national political dialogue. Not even front page news! Not covered at all by most “legitimate” news outlets! Yet the threat to our nation is real! Very real!
And, in case anyone still doubts the existential threat to American democracy and civilization itself posed by Trump and his anti-American followers, his “plans” include politicization of government, economic chaos, increasing global warming, and destabilization of the U.S. and world economies. See, e.g.,http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=019284ab-7357-40c1-91c7-112654eb687a.
As severe weather patterns intensify, climate change will continue to displace communities across the globe. The World Bank estimates that there could be more than 143 million people internally displaced by slow-onset disasters in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia by 2050. Populations with the least capacity to respond and adapt to a changing climate are more likely to suffer from the worst impacts.
States have a responsibility to ensure that individuals displaced because of climate change impacts are treated with respect and dignity. Yet international law does not recognize climate displacement as a subject warranting special protection or status. The 1951 Refugee Convention only recognizes persecution on account of five protected grounds (nationality, race and ethnicity, political opinion, religion, or particular social group), leaving those fleeing environmental disasters under circumstances not attributable to those specified reasons without protection.
Despite the urgent need for action, governments have been slow in creating pathways to protect climate-displaced people. If anything, increasing militarized approaches to migration flows and national security rhetoric has permeated mainstream discourse on climate migration. Discussions about “economic migrants” and which groups are deserving of international protection distract from real solutions that can provide relief and uplift the dignity of individuals displaced by climate. Also concerning is the fact that authoritarian governments have leveraged the ongoing United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27) to either greenwash their image or exclude environmental advocates from accessing the climate talks.
Although climate migration is not on its official agenda, COP27 offers an opportunity for international climate negotiators and advocates to tackle the issue in three ways: (1) promote changes in domestic legal frameworks that will protect internally displaced populations; (2) raise awareness of how existing legal protections under asylum frameworks intersect with climate change; and (3) guarantee climate finance pledges are met by mobilizing funds dedicated to adaptation and mitigation.
. . . .
*******************
Read Jeffrey’s and Camila’s article “at the link.” Another classic example of timely “practical scholarship” written in plain English and accessible to a wide range of readers.
It’s discouraging, but not surprisingly, that nations, including ours, wasting billions on gimmicks to AVOID their obligations under the existing, inadequate Geneva Refugee Convention and Protocol are not anxious to engage on the real effects of climate migration. But individuals facing death under sand or under water as our climate changes are NOT going to go quietly and submissively into the night.
Nations, like ours, whose politicians think that power, cruelty, denial, and misinformation — the “head in the sand” approach — will win the future eventually must confront the realities of climate change and human migration whether they find it convenient and politically advantageous or not. On the other hand, those nations that are able to recognize both the power and inevitability of migration, and are smart enough to “go with the flow,” rather than futilely attempt to “dam it up” or divert it will eventually gain the upper hand.
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
Forbes: Evidently, USCBP is eliminating the passport entry stamp to streamline the entry process. So now, foreign nationals will only have access to the Form I-94 website as proof of their lawful immigration status.
CBS: The department confirmed the review when asked to respond to accounts from migrants who told “60 Minutes” that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials along the U.S.-Mexico border kept their documents, despite agency policy instructing agents to return migrants’ personal property unless they are fraudulent.
NIJC: More than 130 immigration, criminal justice, and civil rights organizations released a letter today urging the Biden administration to include immigrants in the pardon process.
Law360: More than 100 immigrant rights organizations are urging the Biden administration to fully reinstate visitation at immigration detention facilities, saying in a Thursday letter that visitation is crucial for detainees’ mental health and monitoring human rights violations.
SA Current: The ACLU is condemning the actions of U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents allegedly caught on video firing pepper balls at a group of Venezuelan migrants protesting along the banks of the Rio Grande River near El Paso.
Law360: The Second Circuit on Wednesday declined to review a decision denying an asylum application from a Honduran man and his son who claim they will be killed by gang members if they return home, finding the Board of Immigration Appeals properly reviewed the immigration judge’s decision.
Law360: The Second Circuit on Tuesday backed the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeal’s decision to apply a persecution motive standard used in asylum requests to an Ecuadorian’s withholding of removal request, saying it was reasonable for the agency to do so.
Law360: The Third Circuit on Tuesday knocked down a Guatemalan man’s asylum bid after concluding he failed to back up his fears of violence in the Central American nation based on gang recruitment efforts and his rejection of gangs due to his evangelical Christian faith.
Law360: The Eighth Circuit has upheld a Board of Immigration Appeals ruling that denied a family asylum based on alleged gang threats for lack of evidence that the government of El Salvador could not or would not protect them.
Law360: A Mexican citizen who said police and criminal gangs would torture him for being bisexual and suffering from mental illness if he is deported a third time
Law360: The Ninth Circuit on Thursday backed an order requiring U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to adjudicate Special Immigrant Juvenile petitions within 180 days, rejecting the government’s argument that a lower court relied on “stale evidence” and disregarded hardship considerations.
Law360: Republican state attorneys general accused the Biden administration of violating an injunction requiring it to repel migrants from the border under pandemic-era restrictions, saying a sharp drop in Haitian expulsions indicated the administration was selectively lifting the so-called Title 42 border block.
AILA: On 10/31/22, DHS began limited implementation of the DACA final rule. USCIS will continue to accept and process applications for deferred action, work authorization, and advance parole for current DACA recipients. Due to litigation, USCIS will accept but cannot process initial DACA requests.
AILA: EOIR 30-day notice and request for comments on proposed revisions to Form EOIR-42A and Form EOIR-42B. Comments are due 12/5/22. (87 FR 66326, 11/3/22)
AILA: EOIR 30-day notice-and-comment period for proposed revisions to Form EOIR-31A, which allows an organization to seek accreditation or renewal of accreditation of a non-attorney representative to appear before EOIR and/or DHS. Comments are due by 12/5/22.
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added. If you receive an error, make sure you click request access.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
Supposedly, the main political issues right now are the economy and inflation. But, the economy and inflation are largely determined by the Fed, markets, global conditions, weather, and a certain amount of pure luck — all things beyond the direct control of the political branches of the USG.
As mentioned by Chuck Todd on last Sunday’s NBC “Meet the Press,” many experts say that the most effective tool that the Administration and Congress have to improve the economy without triggering a recession is to increase legal immigration — sooner rather than later. But, neither party is interested. The GOP sees an anti-immigrant stance as a key to political success. And, the Dems are “actively disinterested” in the issue. So, the opportunity passes.
But, the reality is that, in the long run, no amount of shipping containers, walls, prisons, family separations, deportations, exclusions to death or despair, hate rhetoric, or restrictive legal roadblocks will halt the future flow of human migration, and not incidentally, the internal relocation in America as certain areas become “unlivable.”
According to a government report published in today’s Washington Post:
The U.S. can expect more forced migration and displacement
Already, the authors of Monday’s report said, major storms such as Hurricane Maria, as well as extended droughts that strained lives and livelihoods, have led people to leave their homes in search of more-stable places.
In the hotter world that lies ahead, they write, additional climate impacts — along with other factors such as the housing market, job trends and pandemics — are expected to increasingly influence migration patterns.
“More severe wildfires in California, sea level rise in Florida, and more frequent flooding in Texas are expected to displace millions of people, while climate-driven economic changes abroad continue to increase the rate of emigration to the United States,” the report finds.
Such shifts are inherently complicated and fraught.
Several Indigenous tribes in coastal regions, facing fast-rising seas, have already sought government help to relocate, but have struggled to do so without significant hurdles.
“Forced migrations and displacements disrupt social networks, decrease housing security, and exacerbate grief, anxiety and mental health outcomes,” the authors write.
Neither political party appears serious about addressing these migration realities — already underway. The ideas that we can wall ourselves off, invest in “sending countries,” detain, and deport our way out of migration are not “solutions.”
Failure to act boldly and expansively on legal immigration will create a huge class of exploitable, disenfranchised, extralegal residents and plenty of work for border agents, internal police, righty judges, and jailers. It will also be a huge boon to smugglers and cartels who basically will “own” the American migration franchise. But, in the long run, building a large “underground humanity” won’t be enough to offset the “downside” of lacking a robust, realistic, orderly, legal immigration process.
Eventually, those nation-states that figure out how to harness, welcome, and distribute the power of human migration will rule the future. Right now, America’s leaders, of both parties, seem wedded to a “sure to fail” approach of either opposing or ignoring the realities and unlimited potential of human migration. Too bad — for all of us!
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and other Republicans have recently backed proposals to make the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent, as well as to extend or expand several other corporate tax breaks.
Never mind that Americans think corporations already pay too little in taxes, according to many polls. Cutting taxes further is also likely to make inflation worse, for the same reason that Republicans argue that increased government spending can also make inflation worse: Giving people more cash to spend when there’s limited stuff to buy drives prices up.
The scariest part of the recently disclosed GOP economic agenda, however, has largely gone under the radar. It’s the plan to hold the debt ceiling hostage next year, which could easily precipitate a global financial catastrophe.
Republicans have withheld their support from raising the debt limit before, usually framing their hostage-taking as a commitment to fiscal restraint. But the debt ceiling has nothing to do with new spending; rather, it’s a somewhat arbitrary statutory cap on how much the government can borrow to pay off bills that it has already incurred, through tax and spending decisions that Congress has already made. Refusing to raise the debt limit is like going to a restaurant, ordering the lobster and a $500 bottle of wine, and then declaring yourself financially responsible because you skipped out on the check.
Actually, it’s worse than that.
. . . .
Forcing a debt limit crisis, as the world teeters on the verge of recession, is the opposite of what you would pursue if you cared about strengthening the economy. But no matter: Just look at the context-free polls! Surely, under GOP stewardship, the economy will be in good hands.
*******************
Read Catherine’s complete op-ed at the link.
Democrats try hard, if imperfectly, to solve problems for the general good. The GOP, not so much! Their focus is on lining the pockets of their “fat cat” funders, replacing “good government” with chaos,and “beggar thy neighbor” policies.
Gary Sampliner is a director of JAMAAT (Jews and Muslims and Allies Acting Together) and a member of the Bethesda Jewish Congregation, which with Bradley Hills Presbyterian Church and the Maqaame Ibrahim Islamic Center is working to assist arriving migrants and asylum seekers. JAMAAT is a member organization of the Interfaith Immigration Coalition.
Gratitude might not be the reaction Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) was expecting when he began sending frequent busloads of migrants and asylum seekers to the greater D.C. area. But gratitude, warmth and a renewed sense of collective responsibility are the responses I have seen as D.C.-area organizations and faith communities (and, most recently, its government) have stepped up to welcome and support newcomers.
With Abbott’s bus initiative — a costly venture likely to be funded in large part by Texas taxpayers — we’ve seen an apparent strategy to inflict maximum pain on our region and score political points, using vulnerable people as weapons aimed at pressuring the Biden administration into taking more drastic measures to seal our nation’s southern border.
But, despite the deeply cynical nature of Abbott’s plans, we might actually owe him a debt of gratitude.
We know that providing transportation is one part of establishing a dignified reception system for people seeking safety, and we’ve witnessed repeatedly the long-term payoffs to our communities and nation when we offer support to those in need of refuge.
The D.C. area has been generous in welcoming migrants fleeing persecution. With community and government support, Virginia has been the third-highest recipient of recent Afghan refugees to the United States, and Maryland is not far behind. My own synagogue and the church and mosque with whom we share our building have been active in helping welcome Afghan refugees to the area since 2017. The Jewish-Muslim community organization I help to direct has been working to get other interfaith partnerships involved in similar efforts.
Afghan arrivals are not the only ones receiving a warm reception. With the help of some heroic community and faith groups — many of which are part of the Migrant Solidarity Mutual Aid Network — our area has mobilized quickly to welcome the migrants being bused here from the southern border. These tremendous efforts have demonstrated, yet again, the area’s commitment to extending welcome and hospitality to those in need.
As with the public-private, multisector approach used in Afghan and other refugee resettlements, we need all hands on deck to welcome new arrivals to the area. We need as many available resources as possible, including the support of local, state and federal governments, faith groups, nonprofit organizations and community volunteers.
It is heartening to see D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) now stepping up to the challenge and opportunity posed by the arriving migrants. On Thursday, she announced the establishment of an Office of Migrant Services, with an initial allocation of $10 million, to meet the needs of the migrants who are moving elsewhere or intending to reside here. As an official “Welcoming City,” D.C. government assistance should be an essential element of the response to welcome migrants to our region — especially considering that, as a majority of the D.C. Council has told Bowser, D.C. is expected to have a surplus of around $500 million in fiscal 2022 — even though D.C. has good reason to request Federal Emergency Management Agency reimbursement to help satisfy the overriding federal responsibility over immigration matters.
But the need for private and community support for the incoming migrants remains critical for their successful integration into our community. Though my organizations’ work with the Afghan community continues, we’ve begun to provide various types of assistance to the newcomers being bused here. We are pleased to see and strongly encourage fellow faith communities and groups around the area to join us in this important work of welcome and are pleased when they do. This is an opportunity to demonstrate the best of who we are in the face of unprecedented levels of forced dislocations worldwide.
The bottom line is this: If we want to continue to live up to our values, many more of us need to step up to assist the new arrivals. And if we can meet this challenge, we will set an example for the rest of our country to follow.
******************
One frequent mistake is to view this situation as “an emergency” or “temporary.” That leads to “short-term thinking” — throw some money at it, energize volunteers, and “hold the fort” until the so-called “crisis” subsides.
Problem is, money runs out, volunteers burn out or get called to pitch in on other issues, and the media turns its attention elsewhere. But, refugees and asylees will continue to come.
And, the better we treat our new arrivals, the more who will develop ties here and choose the DMV as their U.S. residence. While nativists like Abbott view this as a “crisis” and an “invasion,” I agree with Gary that it’s a great opportunity for us and these migrants. We’ve lived the DMV area for almost 50 years. Most of the growth and prosperity over that time can be linked, directly or indirectly, to recent immigrants, both with and without documents!
In many ways, the situations in other countries that drive migration are worse than at any time since the end of the Cold War. And, it’s not getting better, at least in the short run. Meanwhile, our legal refugee and asylum systems remain a shambles, despite the Biden Administration’s promise to do better than the Trump White Nationalist kakistocracy.
For example, oneof the largest, probably the largest, flow of refugees in the Western Hemisphere is from Venezuela. And, contrary to the restrictionist blather, the vast majority of the six million who have fled Venezuela are NOT in the U.S. Colombia has received at least 1.8 million, where the U.S. has fewer than 350,000.
But, there is no immediate prospect that most Venezuelans will return or stop coming. Nor is there any chance that countries like Colombia are going to “up their share” so that the U.S. can take fewer!
Yet, the Biden Administration has failed to provide consistent, helpful, guidance on Venezuelan asylum at either DHS or DOJ. An improved and better BIA, with expert judges committed to a proper application of asylum law, should have issued appropriate precedents that could have been a basis for getting tens of thousands of grantable Venezuelan asylum cases off the endless backlogs and on the road to green cards.
But, Garland continues to mismanage asylum law at all levels. He employs unfocused politicos, unqualified Trump-era bureaucrats, and judges who got or retained their jobs under Sessions or Barr because of their actual or perceived willingness to unlawfully deny asylum. Nor has DHS implemented any semblance of the necessary, realistic, robust overseas refugee program for Venezuela, Haiti, and the Northern Triangle!
Mayorkas has “beefed up” the TPS program for Venezuela. But, by its own terms, that’s not a long-term solution. They extended TPS for Haitians while denying recent arrivals their legal rights to seek asylum and inexplicably returning thousands to the dangerous, failed state without any process at all. It’s a farce — but one with ugly racial overtones and a horrible message! To say that Biden’s refugee and asylum programs are screwed up would be an understatement!
Refugee flows, including asylum, are both inevitable and continuing. They are an important, beneficial, and essential component of legal immigration.
Those seeking legal refuge can be forced largely into the underground system, as Trump tried to do; largely admitted in an orderly legal fashion as progressive experts urge; or there can be a haphazard “combination of the two” which is what we have now!
Undoubtedly, refugees and asylees are good from America. They will get jobs, make contributions, and have families of U.S. citizens. The tax base and U.S. institutions will benefit.But, that’s the “long view.”
In the short run, migrants need food, affordable housing, orientation, and education. Kids will need more teachers with specialized skills in a time of nationwide teacher shortage and politicized demonization of educators and administrators. School populations will increase. That takes money. Taxpayers and the politicians answerable to them are notoriously focused on the now, rather than the whenever.
So, the pressing issue is how to institutionalize, regularize, and fund successful migrant resettlement. In other words, how do we get from here to there in the absence of effective government leadership, planning, and funding – often on multiple levels?
The essence of life, food has been a unifying force throughout history. Téa Ivanovic and Immigrant Food are using it to welcome and unify America for social justice! PHOTO: IF website
From the September Edition of Immigrant Food:
Editor’s Note – September
Dear Reader,
With November’s midterm elections just around the corner, immigration will (again) become a hot national topic. Is immigration really as controversial as America’s politicians want us to believe? In this month’s issue, we explore the question: “Do Americans Support Immigrants?”.
Official immigrants account for 14 percent (40 million people) of the US population, making them an integral part of American society. Immigrants have always been part of the American identity, contributing to the economy, creating employment, and molding America’s unique culture. After all, unless you’re native American, you or your family came from somewhere.
This month, we speak to Nazanin Ash, CEO of Welcome.US, an incredible new national initiative built to inspire, mobilize, and empower Americans from all corners to welcome and support those seeking refuge. We also spoke with people on the street to understand how real Americans think and feel about welcoming immigrants.
Hope you gain new insights,
Téa
Here’s the link to Téa’s latest great video, “Téa’s Coffee presents:Are Americans Welcoming Immigrants?”
An immigrant herself, social justice dynamo Téa Ivanovic came roaring out of Virginia Tech only eight years ago and hasn’t looked back! No time for anything but moving forward and taking on new challenges!
The former Hokie D-1 tennis player is busy leading, innovating, and using her amazingly broad liberal arts skill set to serve our DMV area and make America better!
She’s a successful businesswoman, media presence, organizer, advocate, historian, ethicist, humanitarian, innovator, journalist, educator, practical scholar, foodie, sportswoman, financial manager, and all around cheerleader for the immigrant community of which she is a part! As you might expect, her omnipresent passion for life and community is tempered by a sense of humor, perspective, and self-awareness.
Tellingly, the themes for the Immigrant Food website and for their logo run heavily to “burnt orange and maroon” undoubtedly a product of her “Hokie heritage.”
“Hokie Nation” might get a certain nostalgic feeling when they visit the Immigrant Food website!
Téa’s a promotional icon for another one of my “crusades” — recognizing and nurturing the enduring value of liberal arts education in America.
That’s NOT the BS, “whitewashed” (in more ways than one) version of education promoted and foisted upon us by the far right and its highly motivated yet badly misguided acolytes, but rather the “real deal.” Honesty about our past, knowledge, applied scholarship, versatility, flexibility, communication, reasoning, debating, critical dialogue, problem solving, business acumen, financial skills, multiculturalism, language skills, agriculture (Tech is Virginia’s “land grant” college), moral courage, sports, scientific and environmental truth, leadership, compassion, creativity, artistry, humane values in action — Téa’s got all of this going on!Folks, she’s the “complete package” – a one-woman “Liberal Artists’ Dream Team.”
Let’s start with first impressions. Clearly a powerful intellect — summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, ACC All-Academic— Téa radiates energy, competence, creativity, personality, kindness, infectious enthusiasm, good humor. Some of it undoubtedly stems from her Hokie varsity tennis days where she also honed her competitiveness, sportsmanship, and performance skills. But, as I’m sure she did on the tennis court, Téa plays hard, to win, but respects the rules of the game.
A formidable presence on and off the court, Téa never achieved the athletic recognition of her Serbian almost namesake, Ana Inanovic, a former World #1. But, Téa is “World Class” in her own right. Somewhere, a whole bunch of Ivanovics must be really proud of their social justice prodigy! PHOTO: coretennis.net
How dynamic, talented, and committed is Téa? Here’s the “lede” on her “official Immigrant Foods bio:”
Téa started as the hyper-talented head of communications for Immigrant Food, but as the pandemic took its toll, it became clear that she had to become Jack of all Trades. So she took on management. And then took on operations. And then took on financial responsibility. So, she became the COO.
In other words, Téa awoke one day and decided “the best way I can help my organization and my team is by taking on the additional responsibility of Chief Operating Officer.” So she did it! No waffling or second thoughts about whether someone less than a decade out of college could pull off this stressful, yet rewarding, “high wire act!”
Walking a tightrope requires skill and courage. Téa’s never afraid of new challenges! PHOTO: Creative Commons
Somewhere along the trip from Blacksburg to DC, Téa picked up a M.A. at Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Born in Belgium, the daughter of former Yugoslavians, she’s fluent in English, Flemish, and Serbian. Téa describes herself as “an immigrant squared” (quite different from a “square immigrant,” which she certainly isn’t).
The first Washington correspondent for Bosnia and Herzogevina’s leading newspaper, Téa has worked at think tanks, written for various online publications, and been a researcher and fellow. She’s lived a lifetime, accomplished great things, undertaken new challenges, and helped lead the charge to blow away the myths and achieve social and legal justice for migrants and everyone else in America. Hers is a life already laser focused on her larger community, making the world better, and helping others!
Folks, Téa’s 30th birthday is still on the horizon! Her “full due process potential” is breathtaking, inspiring, encouraging, and reassuring (particularly for those of us “on the bell lap” of life’s journey, concerned for American’s future)!
Téa is confident, not arrogant or imperious. She’s just as comfortable interviewing some of the “movers and shakers” of the DC area about profound national issues as she is connecting with a recent immigrant working in a bistro about their American experience. And, despite her obvious love of the kitchen, I’m sure the immigrant Food books aren’t “cooked” with Téa as COO!
You can keep up with Téa and her talented band of social justice/good food brothers and sisters by subscribing to Immigrant Food (“IF”) here:https://immigrantfood.com/.
Like “Courtside,” it’s free — making it one of the best bargains in a town not necessarily known for them!
In addition to connecting you with some great local immigrant cuisine, IF also highlights local events and ways to connect with immigrants in the community.
Getting down to business, the food is tasty and tastefully presented! PHOTOS: IF website
For example, each week, the “IF Team” shows you five ways to engage with the immigrant community. It might be through a donation, volunteering, or educating yourself about immigrant issues (Téa’s above video is a terrific example).
There are so many ways you can make a difference! This week’s “Engagement Menu,”features volunteering, donating, and educational opportunities, like supporting the Afghan Adjustment Act! Something good is always “cooking in the kitchen” at IF! Téa Calls it “gastroadvocacy!” What a great concept!
Additionally, IF has partnered with five amazing immigrant justice NGOs in the DMV area: AsylumWorks, AYUDA, CAIR Coalition, APALRC, and CARECEN. Imagine having the expertise, kinetic energy, and social justice firepower of giants like Paula Fitzgerald (AYUDA), Joan Hodges Wu (AsylumWorks), Adina Appelbaum (CAIR Coalition, one of my “best ever” Georgetown Law “Refugee Law & Policy” alums), Laura Trask (AYUDA), Téa, and other immigrants’ rights advocates from these venerable organizations on your side. Truly, a “Social Justice Dream Team.”
As my Georgetown Law students know, I’m always “preaching”about the “big five life values” — fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, and teamwork. Téa, and her equally spectacular colleagues at IF embody all of those. They inspire, energize, and show us how the “new generation” of the NDPA can make an immediate impact in the never-ending battle for social justice in America and help forge a better world.
Maybe it’s time to take “gastroadvocacy” to the next level: a nationwide network — call it the “Social Justice Food Network” (“SJFN”).
Get a YouTube channel! Create an app! Folks can hook up their mobile phones and “eat their way from coast to coast” while promoting unity and equal justice for all!
As somebody who still loves the “American road trip,” the idea of hitting the next roadside eatery where we can get good food (some vegan entrees, please), meet great immigrants, and chat with local folks about social justice is hyper-appealing! Outdoor seating and/or carryout for those of us traveling with our dogs would also be a huge plus!
Duncan, pictured here on the outdoor patio are the Whale’s Tales Pub in Boothbay Harbor, loves road trips and outdoor seating!
Téa, thanks again from all your NDPA colleagues and friends for all you do! I hope that this “mini-profile” will inspire others to get to know you, either online or in person, and join your fight for a better America — one where the unfulfilled promise of “equal justice for all” will finally become a reality!
One thing’s for certain. Téa’s time on the front lines of the fight for social justice is just getting started. I can’t wait to find out what she has up her sleeve next! Whatever it is, I know that it will be creative, energetic, and dedicated to helping others.
There is no mountain that Téa and her team can’t climb. I’m just grateful that she and others like her have chosen to “throw in their lot” with the NDPA! Hats off to you, Téa, and other immigrants, past, present, and future, who “make” our nation!
The Team @ Immigrant Food serves up social justice and good grub! PHOTO: IF website
If, indeed, “we are what we eat,” I encourage everyone to order up an extra big helping of social justice at Immigrant Food!
To close this circle, I started out to write a profile of my friend and NDPA colleague, Téa. By the time I finished, I had connected all kinds of dots from my own life (e.g., my dad was a physician at the student health center at Tech before Téa was born, and remained an avid Hokie fan till the end), my relationships with other NDPA colleagues, former students, NGOs that played a role in my life on and off the bench, public service, “gonzo journalism,” vegan eating, road trips, dogs, the future fight for social justice, and “the heart and soul of America.” That’s what makes the enlightened leadership of folks like Téa so special and generates optimism for a better, more just and unified, America for the future.
But over the airwaves and online, another story is playing out: an absolute torrent of ads meant to frighten and anger voters about immigration.
A new report from the pro-immigration group America’s Voice seeks to document this ongoing phenomenon. One of its key conclusions: “Republicans have made their nativist narrative a top messaging priority.”
In the world of Republican campaign ads, very little has changed since the xenophobic Trump presidency, and some of what’s in these ads is truly repellent.
Three themes dominate these ads, the report finds, and they are all wildly inflammatory and profoundly dishonest: The Biden administration has created “open borders,” undocumented immigrants are responsible for fentanyl overdoses and a full-blown “invasion” is underway.
The borders are anything but open; the Biden administration is pursuing, arresting and deporting people seeking to come to the United States by the thousands. The vast majority of fentanyl that comes in is smuggled through ports of entry in cars, boats and planes, not carried by undocumented immigrants. And as for an “invasion,” that’s no more true now than it was when Trump warned that caravans were about to overrun the country.
But the Republican ads portray horror and chaos — usually with a non-White face. Some ads show pictures of young Black men walking through rivers on their way to “invade” America, with language suggesting this “invasion” brings “terrorists, drugs and crime.”
Other ads say the Biden administration is supposedly “importing 20 million illegals and giving them amnesty” (the image for that one is people in Haiti), which can only be stopped by “a declaration of invasion.”
In some ads it’s not just an open border but a “wide open border” — once again, illustrated with pictures of Haitians. In others we’re told that “human, sex and drug trafficking are out of control because of Democrat governance,” while Democratic candidates “refuse to oppose Biden’s open border policy.”
Of course, there is no open border policy, but why should the fact that it doesn’t exist stop Democrats from opposing it? That just shows how sinister they are, these ads say, because they “want to destroy this country.”
All of this captures something essential about this political moment. For months, Republicans were certain they could spread fears of chaos in order to ride to victory in the midterms. They’d run on crime and immigration, not just to excite the base but also to scare unsettled swing voters.
Yet the dynamic unexpectedly shifted, and now disorder and, dare we say it, crime — as in the potential crimes of Donald Trump and many Jan. 6 defendants — are not necessarily playing in the GOP’s favor. The overturning of Roe v. Wade has unleashed another form of chaos and a host of new dangers threatening women. And all of these things are energizing Democrats.
. . . .
“Republicans are indulging in the worst kind of White nationalist rhetoric,” Frank Sharry, the executive director of America’s Voice, told us. “And an issue they thought would win over swing voters is at best a base mobilizer for voters they already have.”
What makes this all really ugly, however, is that the messaging remaining under the radar — which Democrats bear some blame for, having gone quiet on the issue — allows it to continue mostly unexamined. This, even though its worst incarnations — such as “great replacement theory” — have inspired recent mass shootings.
Along these lines, it’s worth keeping an eye on Blake Masters, the GOP Senate candidate in Arizona. He has trafficked heavily in great replacement theory and has run truly vile ads on immigration, including one that features machine-gun fire at the border. Yet in a place President Biden won by a whisker that’s also a border state, Masters is trailing by a meaningful margin.
As Sharry told us, Masters’s whole “declare an invasion” line “is not working, in a state where one-third of the voters are independents and border security is a top issue.”
Yet whether it works with independents and swing voters, this foul sewage has been flowing unabated. And it will surely continue to do so.
********************
Read the complete article at the link.
The idea that individuals seeking to find a U.S. official who will listen to their asylum cases would be trucking along large amounts of fentanyl in their backpacks is facially absurd.
Ending scofflaw Trump failures to follow asylum and refugee laws at the border and beyond would not halt all illegal entries. No policy will do that, nor has there ever been one that even came close, although illegal incursions have risen and fallen over the years.
But, fair refugee and asylum programs that actually interpreted the applicable domestic and international laws correctly (instead of the “any reason to deny, no matter how wrong attitude” still widespread and tolerated at both Mayorkas’s DHS and Garland’s DOJ) and generously granted protection as was the intention behind the UN Refugee Convention in the first place would certainlyencourage large segments of those now forced to irregularly cross the border instead to apply abroad or at legal ports of entry.
It would also facilitate the USG working with NGOs, the UNHCR, states, and localities to get individuals needed assistance so that their legal claims could be processed in a fair, efficient, and timely manner. The latter objectives seem to have totally eluded both Mayorkas and particularly Garland. They continue to “blow off the experts” and flounder with mindless, “designed to fail,” “deterrence-focused” gimmicks. Talk about a lose-lose!
Also to state the obvious, if CBP were less focused on apprehending individuals who pose no real threat to the U.S., but merely want a fair shot at applying for legal protection — something our laws require that Trump annihilated, the Federal Courts have flubbed,and Biden has done a substandard job of re-instituting — they would have time to focus more resources on drug and human smugglers.
Instead, in perhaps one of the dumbest and most wasteful juxtapositions in recent American history, the CBP focus is on “apprehending” (a term I use lightly, since many individuals “want” to be “found,” so they can get access to the system otherwise improperly denied to them by CBP) thosemerely seeking to comply with the law! To do that, CBP ignores or misses many of those who actually pose threats. At the same time, both DHS and DOJ use methods, attitudes, and legal interpretations that themselves undermine fundamental fairness, the rule of law, and humanity itself.
Immigrants are America’s past, present, and future! Indeed, climate change, rising oceans, drought, starvation, transportation improvements, globalized commerce, wars, religious bigotry, pandemics, and other factors beyond the control of any one government will continue to drive worldwide migration.
Building walls, prisons, hate, resentment, and constructing bogus “invasion myths” will not change the reality of human migration and the necessity to adopt to and harness it in a smart, humane, realistic manner. Doing the opposite, will only diminish us as a nation and inhibit our own chances for future prosperity. But, in the end, it won’t stop human migration.
WASHINGTON — The scenes witnessed by journalists and humanitarian workers in recent months have been striking: In Sudan, swollen-bellied babies are looking for anything to eat. In Yemen, where warring parties have blocked humanitarian aid, hollow-eyed children and their mothers languish on the brink of death from starvation. In Ukraine, the elderly are collecting rancid rain runoff for drinking water.
Malnourishment and hunger were big problems even before Russia invaded Ukraine in February and cut off Europe’s breadbasket from its markets, sparking a flurry of dire warnings about the world’s food supplies. Dozens of countries across the globe are already suffering from devastating food shortages, so much so that the number of people facing starvation more than doubled in just the last two years, to 345 million, according to United Nations figures.
The causes are myriad: drought and flooding, and the interruption of supply chains triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in China. An estimated 20 wars or conflicts — the latest in Ukraine — have also seriously disrupted access to food and water.
“The current food security challenge that we’re facing [is] due to these three Cs: climate, COVID and conflict,” said Ramin Toloui, assistant secretary of State for economic affairs, one of several Biden administration officials tasked to food-security issues.
The bleak situation drew the attention of powerful diplomats Friday when U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and the foreign ministers of six other of the world’s largest economies met in Germany to map out plans for easing global food shortages. Few observers expect real solutions to emerge but hope the summit will highlight the crisis and boost funding for anti-hunger efforts.
The Biden administration has committed about $8.5 billion to emergency food assistance and related programs, focusing initially on the Horn of Africa, Yemen, Lebanon and Haiti, Blinken said.
“We hear all these numbers; we’ve all cited numbers of this growing food insecurity,” Blinken said in Berlin. “But what we know is this: We know that those numbers are people, real people, real lives, real livelihoods, mothers, fathers, children. … As human beings, all of us have to be seized with this.”
The U.N.’s World Food Program calculates that eight of the 10 largest food crises worldwide are being primarily driven by conflict — in Yemen, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Such wars force people from their homes into long desperate treks for safety. They devastate farms and wreak havoc on food distribution systems.
In Latin America, food scarcity is also driving tens of thousands of people to abandon parched or hurricane-leveled farms and migrate to the United States.
These were the disasters already in motion when Russia invaded Ukraine. Now, the U.N. says the Russian blockade of Ukraine’s Black Sea ports could lead 40 million more people to go hungry.
. . . .
Caitlin Welsh, a veteran expert in global food security who heads that program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said hunger and famine have consequences for both health and politics.
Hungry people can be angry people, and the rising price of food or fuel have led to coups throughout history. The health effects of going hungry can be far-reaching and insidious, Welsh said.
“The sudden elevation in prices [of foodstuffs like bread] can make people shift from more nutritious food to items of lower nutrition,” she said. And for pregnant women and young children, that can cause lifelong disabilities, Welsh said.
***************************
Read Tracy’s complete article at the link.
War is bad, particularly when those who needlessly start them for their own amusement, ego, and nationalistic jingoism escape accountability. See, e.g., V. Putin.
Anna Flagg is The Marshall Project’s senior data reporter.
Julia Preston is a contributing writer at The Marshall Project.
This article was published in partnership with The Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization covering the U.S. criminal justice system. Sign up for their newsletters, and follow them on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook.
During their harrowing journey from Venezuela to the Texas border, the three Zaragoza children liked to imagine the refuge they would find when they reached the United States, a place where they would finally be free from hunger and police harassment and could simply be kids
Instead, when they reached the border in March, they were detained — dirty with mud from the Rio Grande and shivering with cold — in frigid cinder block cells. They spent sleepless nights on cement floors, packed in with dozens of other children under the glare of white lights, with agents in green uniforms shouting orders.
The siblings were booked by officers who asked questions they didn’t understand and were told to sign documents in English they couldn’t read. Even after their release three days later, they feared the U.S. would never be the haven they had longed for.
Since early 2017, one of every three people held in a Border Patrol facility was a minor, a far bigger share than has been reported before now, according to an analysis by The Marshall Project of previously unpublished official records. Out of almost 2 million people detained by the Border Patrol from February 2017 through June 2021, more than 650,000 were under 18, the analysis showed. More than 220,000 of those children, about one-third, were held for longer than 72 hours, the period established by federal court rulings and an anti-trafficking statute as a limit for border detention of children.
For most young migrants crossing without documents, the first stop in the U.S. is one of some 70 Border Patrol stations along the boundary line. The records reveal that detaining children and teenagers has become a major part of the Border Patrol’s everyday work. The records also show that conditions for minors have not significantly improved under President Joe Biden. While the numbers of kids in Border Patrol custody peaked in 2019 under former President Donald Trump, they rose again when Biden took office and have remained high.
Those numbers could surge to new highs when the Biden administration eventually lifts Title 42, a public health order that border authorities have used for more than two years to swiftly expel most unauthorized border crossers, including many children.
But the Border Patrol has resisted making changes to its facilities and practices to adapt to children, even while officials acknowledge that the conditions young people routinely face are often unsafe.
“A Border Patrol facility is no place for a child,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the nation’s highest immigration official, has repeatedly said. However, even now, as authorities are scrambling to beef up enforcement and expand detention capacity in preparation for a post-Title 42 influx, the Border Patrol’s basic approach to kids remains the same: Just move them out of custody as fast as possible.
Without broader changes, many thousands of kids seeking protection will remain at risk for harsh, demeaning and sometimes dangerous treatment as their first experience of the United States.
. . . .
*************************************************
Read Anna’s and Julia’s complete, disturbing, infuriating report at the link. Unnecessary, immoral, inappropriate, and just plain stupid and evil! Did I mention stupid and evil?
Thanks, in part, to the Trump Administration’s policies of racist child abuse masquerading as “immigration enforcement,” there is a large body of recent, available, accessible empirical data on the devastating effects on children, families, society, and our world’s future of immigration enforcement that targets children, teens, and other vulnerable groups!
The “perps” of these repulsive policies will “check out” at some point in the future. The Biden Administration, which pledged to do better but disgracefully hasn’t delivered, also can’t and should not escape accountability.
The damage they are inflicting on future generations and the ability of our world to harness and utilize in a cooperative fashion the “human capital” needed for our planet’s and humanity’s survival is totally unacceptable! People of intelligence, courage, energy, innovation, and compassion must work together to stop this disgraceful abuse. Those chosen as responsible leaders and officials in the future must represent “our better angels!” 😇
While those of us in the “senior generation” who believe in social justice and a better future for humanity will continue the fight, our “time on the stage” is inexorably winding down. It will be up to the NDPA and the rest of the upcoming generation — in America and elsewhere — to decide what kind of world they want to live in and what they are willing to do, and sometimes sacrifice, to make it happen.
As I have said many times: “We can diminish ourselves as a nation, but it won’t stop human migration!”
It’s past time for a better, more realistic, more human, and “robustly humane” approach to human migration!😎 One that focuses on the long-term welfare of children and society, NOT short-term mythical “enforcement goals” or fears!
From “We’ve Never Been Smuggled Before” by Matthew Aikins in the NYT:
. . . .
But the plight of Afghan refugees can be an opportunity to rework migration and asylum policies for a future that will increasingly blur the distinction between traditional refugees and migrants fleeing economic and social disasters, including those that are the result of climate change.
It’s not just former translators and journalists who need help. Afghans migrating out of hunger and desperation are also the victims of the West’s failed war. Even if mass starvation is averted, Afghans will continue to leave their country, out of a combination of fear and because they want a better life. The Afghan middle class, which has seen its savings and livelihoods evaporate, will use the resources they have to emigrate. The outflow of Afghan migrants will not end in the short term; nor should it. Indeed, Afghan migration should be seen for what it is, a rational strategy undertaken by people who find agency in the midst of great adversity. Afghans are capable of helping their own communities, if we allow them. Remittances, or money sent home by migrants, contribute three times more to the developing world than international aid.
Whether we meet them with compassion and reason, or prejudice and violence, people will never stop trying to cross borders.
. . . .
**********************
Read the complete article at the link.
The future will belong to countries that figure out how to harness the power of human migration and deal with its inevitability.
Trumpy nativists, posing as fiscal conservatives, want you to question whether the United States can afford to take in Afghan allies and refugees.
The better question is whether we can afford not to.
The Republican Party has cleaved in recent weeks over the issue of Afghan refugees, specifically those who served as military interpreters or otherwise aided U.S. efforts. On the one hand, Republican governors and lawmakers around the country have volunteered to resettle Afghan evacuees in their states. Likewise, a recent CBS News/YouGov poll found that bringing these allies to the United States is phenomenally popular, garnering support from 76 percent of Republican respondents. Influential conservative constituencies are invested in this issue, too, including veterans’ groups and faith leaders.
On the other hand, the Trump strain within the GOP has been fighting such magnanimous impulses with misinformation.
Xenophobic politicians and media personalities have been conspiracy-theorizing about the dangers of resettling Afghan allies here — even though we had previously entrusted these same Afghans with the lives of U.S. troops and granted them security clearances. And even though they go through additional extensive screening before being brought to our shores.
No matter; if you listen to Tucker Carlson and his ilk, you’ll hear that these Afghans are apparently part of a secret plot to replace White Americans, and that untamed Afghan hordes are going to rape your wife and daughter.
Often these demagogues try to disguise their racist objections to refugee resettlement (and immigration more broadly) as economic concerns. Their claim: that however heartbreaking the footage from the Kabul airport, compassion for Afghan refugees is a luxury Americans simply cannot afford.
Refugees are somehow responsible for existing housing shortages, proclaims Carlson. (This is demonstrably false; the reason we have too little affordable housing is primarily because people like Carlson oppose building more and denser housing.) More refugees would sponge up precious taxpayer dollars, according to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). And in general, refugees — like all immigrants — are a massive drain on the U.S. economy, alleges Stephen Miller.
This is nonsense.
. . . .
***********************
Read Catherine’s complete op-ed at the link!
Thanks, Catherine, for once again standing up to and speaking truth against disgraceful, neo-Nazi, nativist racists like Stephen Miller, Tucker Carlson, and Marjorie Taylor Greene!
By contrast, one might well ask what “value added” folks like Stephen Miller and his buddies, (Miller has largely sponged off of taxpayer funds while looking for ways to inflict misery on others and destroy America) bring to the table. None, that I can see!
Moreover, even beyond the undoubted value of robust refugee admissions, there is good reason to believe that large-scale migration presents our best opportunity for salvation and prosperity, rather than the “bogus threat” posited by Miller & Co.
As Deepak Bhargava and Ruth Milkman recently, and quite cogently, wrote in American Prospect:
. . . .
A “Statue of Liberty Plan” for the 21st century could make the United States the world’s most welcoming country for immigrants. Right now, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population lags behind that of Canada, Australia, and Switzerland. In order to surpass them, the United States would have to admit millions more people each year for a decade or longer. We currently admit immigrants to promote family integration, meet economic needs, respond to humanitarian crises, and increase the diversity of our population from historically underrepresented countries. Under this plan, we could dramatically expand admissions in all four categories and add a fifth category to recognize the claims of climate migrants. As a civic project of national renewal, with millions of people playing a role in welcoming new immigrants, such a policy could reweave frayed social bonds and create a healthier, outward-looking, multiracial national identity.
The politics of immigration, however, lag far behind the moral and economic logic of the case for a pro-immigration policy. The immigrant threat narrative has become so pervasive that many liberals have embraced it, if only because they hope to fend off threats from right-wing nationalists. President Obama not only deprioritized immigration reform in his first term but deported record numbers of immigrants, hoping that such a display of “toughness” might win support for legalization of the undocumented immigrants already here. Hillary Clinton advocated liberal immigration policies in her 2016 presidential campaign but later tacked toward restrictionism. Liberals and leftists across the global North, from Austria to France to the U.K., have offered similar concessions to nativism. But mimicking right-wing appeals is a losing gamble that only serves to legitimize the anti-immigrant agenda and its standard-bearers.
There are promising signs of potential for shifting the debate, however, if progressives lean in. Polling shows that Americans increasingly reject the immigrant threat narrative, largely due to Trump’s shameless cruelty. Last year, for the first time since Gallup began asking the question in 1965, more Americans supported increased levels of immigration than supported reduced levels. A telling barometer of how the sands are shifting is that President Biden’s proposed immigration bill is far to the left of what Obama proposed.
The work of shifting gears toward a more welcoming policy can begin right now by fully welcoming immigrants who already reside in our country. A crucial starting point would be to include a path to citizenship for essential workers, Dreamers, farmworkers, and Temporary Protected Status holders in the American Jobs Plan Congress is considering. This is not only a humane approach, but it also will stimulate economic growth and thus help finance other parts of the plan. A separate campaign by the Biden administration (not requiring congressional action) to simplify the naturalization process for nine million eligible green-card holders would help make the nation’s electorate more reflective of its population.
Getting the politics of immigration right isn’t just important for immigrants. Nativism, built upon the sturdy foundation of racism, remains among the most potent tools in the arsenal of right-wing authoritarians. Any program for economic equity or democracy will be fragile in the absence of a coherent immigration agenda. The antidote to authoritarianism is not to duck, cower, or imitate the nativists, but rather to make the case for opening the door to millions more immigrants.
If slavery and genocide were the country’s original sins, its occasional and often accidental genius has been to renew itself through periodic waves of immigration. Once we expose the immigration threat narrative as the Big Lie that it is, it becomes plain that immigration is not a problem to be solved but an opportunity and necessity to be embraced.
This, of course, also casts doubt on the wisdom of our current, wasteful and ultimately ineffective, policy of illegally rejecting legal asylum applicants at our Southern Border, rather than attempting in good faith to fit as many as qualify under our current system, as properly and honestly administered (something that hasn’t happened in the past). Additionally wise leaders would be looking for ways to expand our legal immigration system to admit, temporarily or permanently, those whose presence would be mutually beneficial, even if they aren’t “refugees” within existing legal definitions. In this respect, the proposal to modernize our laws to admit climate migrants is compelling.
Remember, as stated above:
Getting the politics of immigration right isn’t just important for immigrants. Nativism, built upon the sturdy foundation of racism, remains among the most potent tools in the arsenal of right-wing authoritarians. Any program for economic equity or democracy will be fragile in the absence of a coherent immigration agenda. The antidote to authoritarianism is not to duck, cower, or imitate the nativists, but rather to make the case for opening the door to millions more immigrants.
NDPA members, keep listening to Catherine and the other voices of progressive wisdom, humanity, practicality, and tolerance. The key to the future is insuring that the “Stephen Millers of the world” never again get a chance to implement their vile, racist propaganda in the guise of “government policy.”
Happily, many Northern Virginians have listened to our “better angels.” Humanitarian aid and resettlement opportunities for Afghan refugees are pouring in, as shown by this report from our good friend Julie Carey @ NBC 4 news:
Julie Carey NOVA Bureau Chief, NBC4 Washington PHOTO: Twitter
The local couple interviewed by Julie emphasized the impressive “human dignity” of the Afghan refugees! (I also observed this during many years of hearing asylum cases in person at the Arlington Immigration Court.) Compare that with the lack thereof (not to mention absence of empathy and kindness) shown by the nativist naysayers!
Let’s Hope That A New Day Is Dawning , Fueled by Immigrants, For Maine & America After 4 Years of Unrelenting Darkness. The Biden Administration Must Help By Re-establishing Our Legal Asylum Program!
Maine Voices: New U.S. intelligence report suggests how Maine can address global trends
We’re in a good position to improve the lives of people without college degrees, to welcome foreigners to a democratic society and to diversify our workforce.
. . . .
The Global Trends report provides analysis but not policy solutions. Maine could assist by demonstrating that democracy can work here by taking steps to bridge the ideological divide and reduce political polarization. Maine can become a welcoming state for immigrants by easing their entry into the workforce to replace our retiring baby boomers.
Maine can also develop public-private partnerships to teach workforce skills that raise incomes and improve the quality of life for those without a college degree. Finally, Maine can exercise soft power by welcoming foreigners as tourists and recruiting students from China to our high schools and universities, offering an opportunity to experience a democratic society with both its flaws and freedoms, and to forge friendships between the two contested countries.
Joseph W. McDonnell is a professor of public policy and management at the Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service at the University of Southern Maine
********************
You can read Professor McDonnell’s article (along with a couple of comments that show exactly why our hope for the future has to be in immigrants — not that the commenters probably weren’t immigrants of some sort at some point in our history).
B/T/W Congresswoman Omar (D-MN) is a naturalized U.S. citizen — an example of someone who not only immigrated, survived racial and religious bigotry and bullying in school, graduated from college, established a successful career as an educator and civic advocate, and further had the courage and commitment (which most native-born Americans, including me, do not) to successfully seek elective office and work through the system to make America a better place for all, regardless of whether or not one agrees with all of her views.
The vast majority of immigrants of any status “learn the language” (many better than some native-born U.S. citizens) and become at least bi-lingual if not tri-lingual, a skill set that few native-born Americans achieve.
Of course, in an intentionally diverse society, important Government documents should be printed in languages that individuals are most comfortable with. You might have become proficient in French in college, but if involved in a legal dispute in France, most of us would need and expect an English translation to be sure we understood and, in turn, were understood.
I knew enough German to study in Germany during college. I was comfortable going down to the local watering spot and ordering “bauernbrat mit kraut und bier.” But, if I had been involved in a legal proceeding, I wouldn’t have dared to proceed in German.
Also, although undoubtedly some students and foreign workers are exploited by the American system, overall they make huge contributions to both education and our workforce. As an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown Law, my classes are continually enriched by the presence of foreign students and scholars, many of whom are willing to share their own immigration stories and to enlighten us on the culture and legal system they experienced.
Also, if we have learned anything during the pandemic, it is how very dependent we are on our immigrant and ethnic communities, regardless of “status,” for essential workers. The “exploitation” is an “American home grown problem,” not one caused by immigrants! As a society, we need to stop “shooting the messenger!”
Where we spend much of our summers, Boothbay Harbor in the “Mid-Coast Region of Maine,” the tourism, hospitality, recreational, and resort industries that power this town are highly dependent on talented foreign workers. Their upbeat attitudes, eagerness to learn and contribute, and fascinating multiculturalism is one of the primary factors that comes bursting out in town and throughout this area, making this one of the best summer tourist locations in America. (Obviously, it’s “world famous,” since these folks seek to come here from literally around the world.)
Our “next-door neighbors,” here on beautiful Linekin Bay, Larry and Janey Anderson, were long time year around residents of Maine before retiring to “warmer climes” near their family (and us) in Northern Virginia. They were very involved with the African refugee community in Southern Maine, calling me several times for advice on how to get legal help on asylum cases. I well remember on occasions hearing the rhythm of a “drum circle” in which Larry participated with his refugee friends coming from the Anderson cabin.
It actually made me feel good about the lives I had been able to save and the positive progressive legal changes, precedents, and attitudes that I was able to help, at least in some modest way, forge over a 40+ year career in immigration and human rights, most of it with the U.S. Government.
Of course, I was fortunate enough to have retired in 2016, before the institutionalized White Nationalist, racist, misogynistic, xenophobia of the Trump regime arrived. Unfortunately, they undid some of the hard work that many of us had done to improve the system, further due process, and insure fairness and humane treatment for foreign nationals under U.S. laws.
The folks we welcomed under the law, their families, and their descendants continue to make America great despite all the destructive actions and false, misleading hate rhetoric promoted by Tump and his party.
Now, it’s up to the “new generation” of the NDPA to seize the baton and lead the fight to assist migrants of all types in creating a new and better day for Maine, America, and the world! I actually just had inspiring conversations this week with “two of the best out there” in the private/NGO sectors who are competing for positions at EOIR to help return due process, efficiency, practicality, and humanity to a disgracefully dysfunctional and unfair system. These are the folks who are “inspiring a new day for America.” They have already got Professor McDonnell’s message and are working to make it a reality!
America has a not so good history of dealing with climate migration. “Migrant Mom” PHOTO BY: Dorothea Lange Public Realm
Kristin Hannah’s latest novel “The Four Winds” centers on the ordeal of a single Mom struggling to save her family during the “Great Migration” of the 1930’s. PHOTO:WashPost.com
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Today, Earth Day, Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and the University Network for Human Rights released an important White Paper on the issue of climate displacement and its intersection with U.S. immigration laws, including the law of asylum. The report, Shelter from the Storm: Policy Options to Address Climate Induced Migration from the Northern Triangle, is both a call to action by the Biden Administration, and a tribute to the adaptability of international refugee law to address a vast array of serious discriminatory harms, including those related to climate change.
Seventy years after its enactment, the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees has demonstrated its ability to provide protection to victims of domestic violence, female genital cutting, coercive family planning policies, and violence from third-generation gangs, which function in some areas as de facto governments. It has provided status to those targeted because of their sexual orientation or sexual identity. It has served to afford protection to those suffering from physical or mental illnesses or disabilities.
Attention is now turning to those displaced by climate change. The Biden Administration has issued two Executive Orders devoted to the issue of climate change within days of taking office. The second of those, issued on February 4, included the topic of “planning for the impact of climate change on migration.” Section 6 of the order requires the issuance of a report on the topic within 180 days.
To present, the U.S. has responded in some instances to rapid onset climate events such as hurricanes and earthquakes by designating impacted countries for Temporary Protected Status. One of the interesting points raised in the White Paper involves the ordinarily overlooked issue of displacement caused by slow onset climate events. These include desertification, rising sea levels, salinization of farmland, and shifts in precipitation patterns. The issue lends itself to being addressed through an array of legal responses (such as TPS, Deferred Enforced Departure, humanitarian parole, and even the creation of a new climate visa), and the White Paper explains how each of these legal avenues can be employed to provide protection to those displaced by such events. But the White Paper’s discussion of the idea of analyzing some forms of climate-related harm under our asylum laws is particularly intriguing.
Development of the intellectual groundwork for climate change-based refugee law analysis is underway at the international level. As the White Paper notes, in October 2020, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees issued an important document setting forth “legal considerations regarding claims for international protections made in the context of the adverse effects of climate change and disasters.” This follows the 2020 publication of Matthew Scott’s Climate Change, Disasters, and the Refugee Convention, the first full-length treatise on the topic.
It is important to recognize that asylum is not a cure for all harms that arise in the world. As in the other examples cited above, asylum responds to serious human rights violations from which the state cannot or will not protect that discriminate based on the fundamental characteristics of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. As one scholar has stated, “international standards generally require that the harm be severe and related to a core right as understood under evolving human rights norms.”1 But “the evaluation of persecution requires a universal but flexible standard, capable of evolving and responding to changing conditions and international norms.”2
In the climate change context, governments undertake projects that impact climate issues such as the availability of water, or the contamination of air or farmland, that may benefit one segment of the population at the expense of another. Governments also make politicized decisions whether to address slow-onset climate change (which may include decisions regarding whether to regulate non-state industries engaging in business activities with environmental consequences), and in the speed and scope of their relief efforts on behalf of victims of climate-related disasters. Where these decisions particularly impact a segment of the population in a severe way on account of one of the five statutorily protected grounds, the result may constitute persecution protected under our asylum law. While the impact of these policies may cause serious harm standing alone, it may alternatively serve as the “last straw” in triggering flight where the climate change factors accelerated the degree of harm already suffered on account of a protected ground such as gender or indigenous status.3
Furthermore, a government’s punishment of outspoken critics of its climate change policies or lack of adequate response to a disaster may constitute persecution on account of a political opinion, as that term is defined for asylum purposes.4
Climate change could also play a more indirect but still important role in asylum determinations. For example, an asylum applicant who has established a well-founded fear of persecution must also demonstrate that they could not evade persecution through internal relocation within their home country, provided such relocation would be reasonable under all of the circumstances.5 But in its October 2020 Legal Considerations, UNHCR cautions at paragraph 12 that the progressive effect of slow-onset climate change spreading throughout a country may make relocation “neither relevant nor reasonable.”6 Furthermore, where an applicant who has suffered past persecution is shown to have no future fear due to changed conditions, a grant of humanitarian asylum may be merited where the asylum applicant establishes a reasonable possibility of facing “other serious harm” upon return.7 Harm resulting upon return from climate change should arguably constitute “other serious harm” sufficient to meet this standard.8
The White Paper explains that the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are particularly vulnerable to climate change issues, and that the U.S. bears some responsibility for this fact through its high levels of greenhouse emissions and its historical policies in Central America.9 In the 1980s and 90s, the B.I.A. engaged in logical contortions to avoid providing those fleeing civil wars in the Northern Triangle with the asylum protections it willingly extended to those fleeing similar conditions in other parts of the world.10 And more recently, refugees from violence from third-generation gangs and domestic violence in the region have suffered setbacks to refugee protection through similarly bad precedent decisions of the Attorneys General and the B.I.A.11
As the international community addresses the question of refugee determinations involving factors relating to climate change, it is possible for the U.S. to be at the forefront. Hopefully, today’s White Paper will provide the present administration with useful guidance towards that goal.
This report was coordinated and written by teams from the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program (HIRC) and the HLS Immigration Project (HIP) at Harvard Law School (collectively “Harvard”) and the University Network for Human Rights, Yale Immigrant Justice Project, and Yale Environmental Law Association (collectively “University Network/Yale”). The coordinators/authors from Harvard were John Willshire Carrera and Deborah Anker. The coordinators/authors from University Network/Yale were Camila Bustos and Thomas Becker. I am greatly honored to be listed as a co-author for my work with the Harvard team.
The following fellows participated in researching and drafting the report: Yong Ho Song (Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Fellow at Greater Boston Legal Services) and Fabiola Alvelais (Harvard Law School Henigson Human Rights Fellow and University Network for Human Rights Fellow).
The following Harvard students participated in researching and drafting the report: Rachel Landry (HIRC), Grant Charness (HIRC), Justin Bogda (HIRC), Regina Paparo (HIRC), Mira Nasser (HIRC), Lily Cohen (HIRC), Kira Hessekiel (HIRC), Nicholas Dantzler (HIRC), Shaza Loutfi (HIRC), Ariel Sarandinaki (HIRC), Gabrielle Kim (HIRC), Katie Quigley (HIP), Gina Starfield (HIP).
The following students supervised by and in coordination with University Network for Human Rights participated in researching and drafting the report: Natasha Brunstein (Yale), Alisa White (Yale), Aaron Troncoso (Yale), Rubin Danberg Biggs (Yale), Ram Dolom (Yale), A.J. Hudson (Yale), Rekha Kennedy (Yale), Liz Jacob (Yale), Eleanor Runde (Yale), Eric Eisner (Yale), Juan Luna Leon (Yale), Karen Sung (Yale), Abby Sodie (Wesleyan), Ericka Ekhator (Wesleyan), Gabrielle Ouellette (Wesleyan), Jesse de la Bastide (Wesleyan), Stella Ramsey (Wesleyan), and Luis Martinez (Vanderbilt).
The report was edited by: Sabrineh Ardalan, James Cavallaro, Nancy Kelly, Ruhan Nagra, Gina Starfield, Katie Quigley, and Cindy Zapata.
Notes:
Deborah E. Anker, The Law of Asylum in the United States (2020 Ed.) (Thomson Reuters) at § 4.4.
Id. at § 4.3.
White Paper at 35.
Id. at 35.
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B).
White Paper at 36-37.
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(i)(C).
See White Paper at 33; Matter of L-S-, 25 I&N Dec. 705, 714 (BIA 2012) (holding that “other serious harm” requires no nexus to a protected ground, and can be found in “situations where the claimant could experience severe mental or emotional harm or physical injury.”
White Paper at 4.
See, e.g., Matter of Maldonado-Cruz, 19 I&N Dec. 509 (BIA 1988); and cf., e.g. Matter of Vigil, 19 I&N Dec. 572 (BIA 1987) with Matter of Salim, 18 I&N Dec. 311 (BIA 1982)
See, e.g., Matter of A-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 28 I&N Dec. 199 (A.G. 2021); Matter of A-C-A-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 84 (A.G. 2020); Matter of E-R-A-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 767 (BIA 2020); Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019); Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018); Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017); Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 227 (BIA 2014); Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I&NM Dec. 208 (BIA 2014).
Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Republished by permission.
*******************
Such important work! These are the folks who should be running Government policy, not just writing “White Papers,” no matter how brilliant.
In this NBC News video from yesterday, Hallie Jackson highlights upper class “climate migrants” already relocating from places like the Georgia coast to Asheville, NC, to insulate themselves from the worst effects of ongoing climate change and global warming. Things are going to get much more serious when Bangladesh and other sea-level nations and island nations (e.g., Indonesia) start going under water. Probably not so good for Florida either!
Hallie Jackson NBC News Correspondent PHOTO: Sharealike, Creative Commons license
Supremes Sign Death Warrants For Vulnerable Refugees, Trash Refugee Act of 1980Dumping Asylum Seekers in Honduras Artist: Monte Wolverton Reproduced under license“Justice” Star Chamber Style
This is part of What We Learned, a series of reflections on the meaning and legacy of the Trump years.
One of the last things the Trump administration did, while it still had the power to do it, was reportedly kidnap a 9-year-old boy from his family. Customs and Border Protection officials at San Francisco International Airport denied entry to 19-year-old Christian Laporte and his younger brother, Vladimir Fardin, traveling from Haiti on U.S.-issued student and tourist visas respectively last Sunday—and then separated them from each other, declared Vladimir to therefore be an unaccompanied minor, and shipped him off to a detention center.
This was, by this point in Donald Trump’s term, not particularly surprising. Child abuse was at the center of the country’s immigration policy for these past four years, part of an intentional effort to scare people away from trying to come here. Hundreds of children disappeared into custody with no effort to keep track of them or reunite them with their families. A regime that had already been inhumane under President Obama, pushing migrants toward deadly desert crossings, turned fully malignant, with federal agents destroying water supplies and prosecutors targeting humanitarian workers. Asylum laws were cast aside.
On one level, this was straightforwardly racist, joining the goals of white nationalist policymakers like Stephen Miller to the daily bigotry of many border patrol officers. Rhetorically and conceptually, though, it was an effort to roll back the consensus that the United States is a nation of immigrants. The attack extended to legally documented immigration and residency, and on to citizenship itself, breaking precedent to strip people of what had seemed like a secure membership in the nation.
As Adam Serwer indelibly wrote, the cruelty of this was the point. The politics of Trumpism were built around white people sharing in rituals of viciousness and exclusion, coming together to follow their leader’s rejection of their designated enemies and to revel in how far things would go.
But the longer the administration wore on, the more the cruelty seemed to have another, horrifyingly practical point behind it. Trumpism was not just testing how hateful the country could be. It was exploring the limits of America’s capacity for indifference.
By the end, there were no limits to be found. The people thrown into detention at the border or deported at random may have been the first to be treated as nonpersons, but they soon had more company than anyone could count. Hurricane Maria hit U.S. territory in Puerto Rico, and the administration simply failed to respond, leaving hundreds and then thousands of people to die. It was Katrina all over again, except it wasn’t: No real lasting blame attached itself to the government’s deadly failure. The death toll rarely made it to the top of any lists of the president’s wrongdoing.
. . . .
**********************
Read the rest of the article t the link.
Readers of Courtside over the past few years know all about this: “Dred Scottification” — dehumanization of “the other” — often the most vulnerable among us.
It’s the the basic policy of large numbers of GOP politicos, many Federal Judges (including, disgracefully, GOP-appointed Supremes who routinely hide their inhumanity behind wooden, wrong-headed legalisms and complete gobbledygook designed to screen them from the stench of decaying humanity they have betrayed), lots of bureaucrats, and about 74 million American voters who voted to retain a cruel, incompetent, neo-Nazi and his regime based on 30,500 outrageous lies and false narratives, most of them overtly racist, misogynist, bigoted, dehumanizing, or all all of the foregoing.
These are NOT “differences of opinion” or “conservative v liberal philosophy.” Not by any means! They are differences in humanity: how we value truth, justice, and the essence of our fellow humans’ right to exist.
The good news is that there were at least seven million more of those of us willing to give humanity a shot. But, coming to an “equilibrium” in a democracy where nearly half the voting population rejects the basic principles of democracy and indeed the humanity of much of our majority and most of the world beyond us, won’t be easy.
