"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
The 1924 Immigration Act vilified, dehumanized, and barred many of those immigrants who have made America great, like Italian Americans being demeaned in this cartoon. Yet, some descendants of those unfairly targeted appear oblivious to the mistakes of the past and willing to inflict the same immoral lies, harm, and suffering on today’s migrants. IMAGE: Public RealmEduardo Porter Columnist and Editorial Board Member Washington Post PHOTO: WashPost
“I think that we have sufficient stock in America now for us to shut the door.”
That sounds like Donald Trump, right? Maybe on one of his campaign stops? It certainly fits the mood of the country. This year, immigration became voters’ “most important problem” in Gallup polling for the first time since Central Americans flocked to the border in 2019. More than half of Americans perceive immigrants crossing the border illegally as a “critical threat.”
Yet the sentiment expressed above is almost exactly 100 years old. It was uttered by Sen. Ellison DuRant Smith, a South Carolina Democrat, on April 9, 1924. And it helped set the stage for a historic change in U.S. immigration law, which imposed strict national quotas for newcomers that would shape the United States’ ethnic makeup for decades to come.
. . . .
The renewed backlash against immigration has little to offer the American project, though. Closing the door to new Americans would be hardly desirable, a blow to one of the nation’s greatest sources of dynamism. Raw data confirms how immigrants are adding to the nation’s economic growth, even while helping keep a lid on inflation.
Anyway, that horse left the stable. The United States is full of immigrants from, in Trump’s memorable words, “s—hole countries.” The project to set this in reverse is a fool’s errand. The 1924 Johnson-Reed immigration law might have succeeded in curtailing immigration. But the restrictions did not hold. From Presidents Johnson to Trump, efforts to circle the wagons around some ancestral White American identity failed.
We are extremely lucky it did. Contra Sen. Ellison DuRant Smith’s 100-year old prescriptions, the nation owes what greatness it has to the many different women and men it has drawn from around the world to build their futures. This requires a different conversation — one that doesn’t feature mass expulsions and concentration camps but focuses on constructing a new shared American identity that fits everyone, including the many more immigrants who will arrive from the Global South for years to come.
*******************************
Gordon F. Sander Journalist and Historian PHOTO: www.gordonsander.com
Gordon F. Sander, journalist and historian, also writes in WashPost, perhaps somewhat less optimistically, but with the same historical truth in the face of current political lies and gross misrepresentations:
Johnson and Reed were in a triumphant mood on the eve of their bill’s enactment. “America of the melting pot will no longer be necessary,” Reed wrote in the Times. He remarked on the new law’s impact: “It will mean a more homogenous nation, more self-reliant, more independent and more closely knit by common properties and common faith.”
The law immediately had its intended effect. In 1921, more than 200,000 Italians arrived at Ellis Island. In 1925, following the bill’s enactment, barely 6,000 Italians were permitted entry.
But there were less intended consequences, too, including on U.S. foreign relations. Although Reed insisted there was nothing personal about the act’s exclusion of Japanese people, the Japanese government took strong exception, leading to an increase in tensions between the two countries. There were riots in Tokyo. The road to Pearl Harbor was laid.
During the 1930s, after the eugenics-driven Nazis seized control of Germany, the quotas established by the act helped close the door to European Jews and others fleeing fascism.
At the same time, the law also inspired a small but determined group of opponents led by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-N.Y.), who were committed to overturning it. Celler’s half-century-long campaign finally paid off in 1965 at the Statue of Liberty when, as Celler looked on, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act, which ended national origin quotas.
But with anti-immigration sentiment on the rise and quotas once again on the table, it’s clear that a century after its enactment, the ghost of Johnson-Reed isn’t completely gone.
Gordon F. Sander is a journalist and historian based in Riga, Latvia. He is the author of “The Frank Family That Survived: A 20th Century Odyssey” and other books
***********************
Many thanks to my friend and immigration maven Deb Sanders for alerting me to the Sander article. I strongly urge everyone to read both pieces at the links above.
Perhaps the most poignant comment I’ve received about these articles is from American educator, expert, author, and “practical scholar” Susan Gzesh:
And because of the 1924 Act, my grandparents lost dozens of their siblings, parents, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews to the Holocaust in the 1940s because Eastern European Jewish immigration to the US had been cut off. They would have been capable of sponsoring more family to come to the US in the late 1920s and 30s, but there was no quota for them.
I have no words to describe my feelings about so-called experts who would praise the 1924 Act. I know that Asian Americans must feel similarly to my sentiments.
Well said, Susan!
Susan Gzesh American scholar, educator, expert, author PHOTO: U. Of Chicago
I’ll leave it at that, for you to ponder the next time you hear Trump, DeSantis, Abbott, and the like fear-monger about the bogus “invasion,” spout “replacement theory,” and extoll the virtues of extralegal cruelties and dehumanization inflicted upon “the other” — typically the most vulnerable who areseeking our legal protection and appealing to our senses of justice and human dignity! And, also you can consider this when the so called “mainstream media” pander to these lies by uncritically presenting them as “the other side,” thereby echoing “alternative facts!”
It’s also worth remembering this when you hear Biden, Harris, Schumer, Murphy, and other weak-kneed Dem politicos who should know better adopt Trumpist White Nationalist proposals and falsely present them as “realistic compromises” — as opposed to what they really are —tragic acts of political and moral cowardice!
Eventually, as both of the above articles point out, America largely persevered and prospered over its demons of racism, anti-Catholicism, and anti-immigrant nationalism. But, it would be wrong to view this “long arc” analysis as “zeroing out” the sins and horrors of our past.
Susan Gzesh’s relatives died, some horribly and painfully, before their time. That can’t be changed by future progress. Nor can the children they might have had or the achievements they never got to make to our nation and the world be resurrected.
As Susan mentions, the 1924 Act also reinforced long-standing racism and xenophobia against Asian Americans that led to the irreversible harm inflicted by the internment of Japanese American citizens, continuing Chinese Exclusion, and a host of state laws targeting the Asian population and making their lives miserable. Belated recognition of the wrongfulness and immorality of these reprehensible laws and actions does nothing for their past victims.
Many Irish, Italian, and other Catholics and their cherished institutions died, lost property, or were permanently displaced by widespread anti-Catholic riots brought on and fanned by the very type of biased and ignorant thinking that undergirded Johnson-Reed. They can’t be brought back to life and their property restored just by a “magic wave of the historical wand.”
U.S. citizens of Mexican-American heritage were deported and dispossessed, some from property their ancestors had owned long before there was even a United States. Apologizing to their descendants and acknowledging our mistakes as a nation won’t eliminate the injustices done them — ones that they took to their graves!
Despite the “lessons of the Holocaust,” America continues to struggle with anti-Semitism and anti-Islamic phobias and indifference to human suffering beyond our borders.
And, of course, the poisonous adverse impacts of slavery on our nation and our African-American compatriots continue to haunt and influence us despite disingenuous claims to the contrary.
Dan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
My friends immigration experts Dan Kowalski and Hon. Jeffrey Chase also had some “choice words” for the “false scholars” who extol the fabricated “benefits” of White Nationalism and racism embodied in “laws” that contravened the very meaning of “with liberty and justice for all” — something to reflect upon this Memorial Day. See https://dankowalski.substack.com/p/true-colors.
Thank you, Dan! In memory of my Gzesh, Wolfson, Kronenberg, and Kissilove relatives who were victims of the Holocaust – after their U.S.-based relatives failed to get visas for them.
Heed the lessons of history, enshrine tolerance, honor diversity, and “improve on past performance!”We have a choice as to whether or not to repeat the mistakes of the past — to regress to a darker age or move forward to a brighter future for all!Make the right one!
Immigration law and policy are very complex, and truly boring for everyone except those who have to deal with them. But we live in an instant gratification, fast food culture. Immigration is a Hot Topic, folks want a Solution Now, so journalists naturally write about it…some better than others.
David Leonhardt, a senior writer at the New York Times, is a smart fellow who has won awards. But his “wheelhouse,” as the kids say, is mostly business and economics. I wish he (and/or his editors…where were they?) had consulted a panel of experts before hitting “send” on this piece.
Thanks for reading Dan’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Pledge your support
Now, I’m not an expert, but I did practice immigration law for almost 40 years, and today my social media feeds and email listservs are burning up with negative reactions to Leonhardt’s piece from true immigration experts.
Responding to every one of the problems in the piece would make this post too long, and would put you to sleep rather quickly, so I’ll touch on just a few highlights that really chapped my professional hide.
First, Leonhardt said, “Biden … changed the definition of asylum to include fear of gang violence.” That is simply false. The definition of who qualifies for asylum is based on the “refugee” definition, is fixed by statute, and only Congress can change that. Congress did NOT make any such change, and neither Biden nor any president could. Fear of gang violence as a basis for an asylum claim is a continuing subject of litigation at the Board of Immigration Appeals and in the federal courts, but the statute remains unchanged.
Second, Leonhardt states that Biden could have issued executive orders to mitigate the situation at the border. Oh, but “Yes, federal judges might block some of these policies… .” Maybe because they are illegal orders? No matter, “sending a message” is more important than legality.
Third, on the matter of admission into the U.S. via “parole,” Leonhardt implies that Biden expanded the use of parole beyond its “case-by-case” legal limits. Maybe Leonhardt did not know that “parole was … used to resettle over 360,000 Indochinese refugees between 1975 and mid-1980” and that “[b]etween 1962 and the end of May 1979, over 690,000 Cuban nationals were paroled into the country, “the largest number of refugees from a single nationality ever accepted into the United States.” ” – Amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court in Clark v. Martinez.
Finally, the overall thrust of Leonhardt’s piece seems to be that the border is a “problem” that can and should be “solved” by some combination of legal and physical deterrents. This is a misperception common to educated elites as well as regular folks, and it is based on an ignorance of the full panoply of historical, economic, geographic and political forces that combine to make true border “control” a fantasy. Go to the border, look at the miles of desert, mountain and river and you will conclude that border walls are nothing more than a contractor’s financial wet dream. Talk to a woman from Central America who has risked everything to come here and you will conclude that no laws, no walls, no “message” would have deterred her.
I usually ignore much of what the MSM publishes about immigration, but the Times and Leonhardt carry a certain weight, so here I am, typing away. You’re welcome.
[The Comments are open, so fire away!]
Thanks for reading Dan’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Pledge your support
***************
Professor Karen Musalo Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law
Here’s the letter that Professor Karen Musalo, Director of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at Hastings Law wrote to the NYT:
Before David Leonhardt writes another piece on immigration, he should make sure he has his facts straight. He erroneously claims Biden “changed the definition of asylum to include fear of gang violence.” Biden did no such thing. What his Justice Department did was overturn a Trump-era ruling attempting to foreclose asylum claims by victims of domestic and gang violence, regardless of their legal merits. That decision was widely criticized, including on your pages in an op-ed I co-authored with Jane Fonda. Attorney General Garland rightfully vacated it, leaving the issue to be resolved by regulations [which to date have not been issued].
Leonhardt is incorrect in his assertion that more “aggressive” moves will mitigate challenges at the border, or score points with voters who overwhelmingly opposecruel and exclusionary policies. The Senate bill touted as a step in the right direction would have codified failed policies that only create more chaos.
Executive actions reportedly under consideration would similarly exacerbate operational challenges and inevitably get tied up in litigation.
And yes, Republicans’ sabotage of the bill was “transparently cynical.” Just as cynical, however, was the president’s choice to back anti-immigrant legislation he knew was doomed. In their attempts to out-Trump Trump, the president and his allies have betrayed their values and the voters who put them in office.
Karen Musalo
San Francisco, CA
*******************
Thanks, Dan and Karen! Turning Leonhardt loose on a subject he’s obviously unqualified to write about — “stunning ignorance” in the words of one world-renowned expert — is nothing short of journalistic malpractice on the part of the NYT!
Immigration is a serious topic with life or death implications for migrants and the future of our nation. It deserves serious, informed, professional journalism by experts who are familiar with the plight of forced migrants and the actual legal requirements for asylum and due process as well as the realities of the border and the anti-immigrant absurdities of our dysfunctional Immigration Courts and non-legally-compliant asylum adjudication system.
There are lots of well-qualified folks around who could inform the public. Needless to say Leonhardt is not one of them. Unhappily, few “mainstream media” journalists have the necessary creds. That’s one reason the toxic national debate is so dominated by right wing White Nationalist media spreading lies and myths with little critical pushback from the “MSM.”
Rachel Siegel Economics Reporter Washington Post PHOTO: WashPost
Ironically, the same day’s Washington Post had an article by Rachel Siegel about how robust immigration of all types has saved the U.S. economy and how many economists believe Trump’s mindless, restrictionist, and likely illegal nativist policies could slow growth, devastate the U.S. workforce, and exacerbate inflation! https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/05/20/trump-immigration-undocumented-economy/. At the same time, he would create chaos and waste billions in public funds.
Recently, I publisheda number of articles by experts debunking many of the very anti-immigrant myths that Leonhardt disingenuously repeats or enables:
In one of many bad moments, Leonhardt uncritically “parrots” the oft-debunked fiction that changes in U.S. immigration policies and “deterrents” like walls, detention, and racially-driven cruelty are primary long-term “drivers” of forced human migration. Undoubtedly, in the complex interrelated world of migration, such policies do have some fairly marginal, largely short-term effects, causing changes in migration paths, adjustments in smuggling methods, changes in smuggling fees, more deaths and unreported irregular entries (when enforcement “gimmicks” are irresponsibly expanded), and enough “statistical variance” to allow proponents of these futile policies to falsely claim “victory” before the system reverts to a new “equilibrium.”
But the truth is inescapable, even if inconvenient for Leonhardt and other dilettantes: Human migration is a complex worldwide phenomenon driven by forces beyond the ability of any single nation, even one as powerful and influential as the U.S., to control by harsh deterrence and restriction, no matter how cruel, deadly, and wasteful.See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/about.php (“Migrants will continue to flee bombs, look for better-paying jobs and accept extraordinary risks as the price of providing a better life for their children. . . .No wall, sheriff or headscarf law would have prevented [forced migrants] from leaving their homes.”).
As cogently stated by Robert McKee Irwin, an immigration scholar at U.C. Davis:
Leonhardt also suggests, quite incorrectly, that Biden’s (limited) attempts to increase pathways for legal immigration and return to the rule of law at the border somehow benefitted and encouraged smugglers and cartels. NOTHING could be more wrong-headed!
It is Trump and his restrictionist allies and enablers who have been a huge boon for human smugglers! As legal pathways are eliminated or unreasonably restricted, the entire “protection” system falls into the hands of smugglers and other trans-border criminal organizations who become “the only game in town” for those seeking protection! Smuggling prices go up and the risks to migrants increase, even as profit margins for the smugglers skyrocket! Equally bad, law enforcement is diverted from real criminals to playing a bogus “numbers game” at the expense of those who seek only to have their life-determining claims heard fairly, timely, and humanely in accordance with the rule of law!
If our country builds a fair, timely, and humane system for considering asylum claims, something that succeeding Administrations have shamefully eschewed, the majority of asylum applicants will use it, which at the same time would allow border law enforcement to focus on real security issues rather than contrived ones. Similarly, more realistic and robust paths for legal immigration, both temporary and long term, will reduce the pressure and incentives for irregular migration. These measures would also tap into the truth about migration being ignored by politicos of both parties:
These [restrictionist] political reactions fail to grapple with a hard truth: in the long run, new migration is nearly always a boon to host countries. In acting as entrepreneurs and innovators, and by providing inexpensive labor, immigrants overwhelmingly repay in long-term economic contributions what they use in short-term social services, studies show. But to maximize that future good, governments must act -rationally to establish humane policies and adequately fund an immigration system equipped to handle an influx of newcomers.
Notably, the Biden parole program criticized by Leonhardt not only has been upheld in Federal Court, but has generally been praised and recognized by experts as a great, largely under appreciated, success in both creating an orderly process and reducing border pressures while benefitting American families and fueling our economy. See, e.g., https://www.fwd.us/news/chnv-parole/. (I’ll admit to not initially being a “fan,” but hey, results matter so I’ve come around). The most legitimate criticism is that it has been too limited both in terms of numbers and nationality restrictions!
Bad journalism promoting myths like those spouted by Leonhard misleads the public and enables politicos to get away with policies that are not only illegal, but often harm and even kill the very vulnerable migrants we are supposed to be protecting, or at the very least treating with fairness, respect, and human dignity. America and the migrants who still (against the odds) see us as a beacon of hope in a cruel world deserve better from the NYT!
Judge Lister also has a plan to donate patented “healthy, sustainable textile technology” developed during the pandemic that could be used to create good jobs in Mexico and other countries beyond our borders.
Professor Michele Pistone at Villanova Law has developed a “scalable” online training course (“VIISTA Villanova”) that is currently being used to graduate more highly-qualified non-lawyer “Accredited Representatives” to close the burgeoning and critical representation gap in Immigration Court, thus “delivering due process with efficiency.” She believes that with more funding, this program could be “ramped up” to produce 10,000 new Accredited Representatives annually! See, e.g., https://www1.villanova.edu/university/professional-studies/academics/professional-education/viista.html.
With so many brilliant, informed, and involved experts out here, with creative positive ideas for improving immigrant justice and restoring the rule of law, it is very disappointing that the NYT and Leonhardt have chosen to uncritically recycle and repeat cruel, failed, legally problematic proposals by irresponsible politicos that would make things worse. Rather, the media should be consulting the experts actually involved in immigration at the “grass roots level” and pressing politicos on both sides of the aisle and the Administration as to why they aren’t concentrating and investing in humane potential solutions rather than deadly and discredited “deterrence through cruelty!”
As Erica Bryant of the Vera Institute of Justice, someone who, unlike Leonhardt, is actually qualified to write about migration, stated in an article I recently republished:
This November, and beyond, voters need to reject lies that demonize immigrants and demand policies that treat each person with dignity and fairness, no matter where they were born.
Obviously, neither Leonhardt nor the NYT editors got the message. They should!
Thanks again, Dan and Karen, for being the first to speak out and challenge Leonhardt’s dangerous, misleading, and highly irresponsible nativist nonsense!
🚩 Federal court knocks down key part of Florida’s anti-immigrant law temporarily – a massive win for immigrants’ rights against anti-immigrant state laws!
Today, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit challenging the main provision of Florida’s anti-immigrant law SB1718. This means this part of the law is temporarily stopped while the full case continues to get litigated.
Spearheaded by anti-immigrant Governor Ron DeSantis, SB1718 has attacked immigrants in Florida in a multitude of ways, including the provision at issue in this lawsuit, which made it a crime to transport anyone into Florida who had not been “inspected” by the US government.
This had the effect of the state of Florida, through state criminal law, unlawfully enforcing federal immigration law, which hundreds of years of case law makes clear is a matter reserved for the federal government. The district court judge agreed (finding the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their conflict- and field-preemption claims).
Congratulations to the ACLU, SPLC, AIC, and AIJ who have led litigation on this case as well as my colleagues Immigration Impact Lab Senior Attorneys F. Evan Benz and Daniel J. Melo and AILA’s amicus committee for writing an excellent amicus brief in support of the lawsuit.
What can you do?
1. Spread the word. Help educate others about the importance of fighting for immigrants’ rights.
2. Celebrate. As we see more and more states seek to pass anti-immigrant laws at the state level following Florida and Texas’ lead, this decision is a milestone moment in advocates’ efforts to fight back. 🎉
Thanks, Adina, and way to go NDPA Team! The case is Farmworker Association of Florida v. Moody, No. 23-cv-22655 (Southern District of Florida, May 22, 2024). Expect Florida to appeal to the 11th Circuit, so, unfortunately, this isn’t the end of the matter.
Here’s a link to the decision by U.S. District Judge Roy K. Altman (Trump appointee):
Even as the national (non) debate on immigration deteriorates into lies, myths, and hate, there are still victories to be won by great, motivated lawyers dedicated to defending individual rights and the rule of law against political scofflaws like DeSantis and his nativist ilk!
As critical elections approach, voters are being bombarded with harmful myths, misrepresentations, and outright lies about people who are immigrants. More than 45 million people living in the United States were born elsewhere. Despite their proven contributions to communities nationwide, people seeking office call them “invaders” and make campaign promises for the “largest domestic deportation operation in history.” Inflammatory talking points about “border security” and the “migrant crisis” come from candidates across the political spectrum.
What is missing from this rhetoric is simple: the truth. The United States has failed to align its immigration laws and practices with 21st-century realities, leaving a system that is cruel, dysfunctional, and widely criticized. Bringing the country’s approach to immigration in line with the needs of the moment and building an immigration system that is both functional and humane will require serious effort. False information distracts from the solutions that we know work.
Here’s the truth.
It is perfectly legal to request asylum. People who come to the United States border to ask for help are not breaking the law.
Asylum is a form of protection that allows people to remain in the United States and avoid deportation back to a country where they fear persecution or harm because of their identity, religion, or political beliefs. Under both U.S. and international law, people who face danger in their homelands have the right to go to other nations to seek safety and to have their requests for asylum considered.
Asking for asylum is not a “free ticket” into the United States.
Applying for asylum is a long and complex process. Asylum cases completed in fiscal year 2019 or later took an average of 5.2 years to resolve, according to unpublished analysis of government data conducted by Vera. Currently-pending removal cases have been on the docket for an average of 1.9 years. Dangerous conditions around the world have forced record numbers of people to flee their homes and seek safety. This increase in need, exacerbated by a decades-long lack of investment in infrastructure and capacity to humanely process asylum claims, has created an enormous backlog in processing requests. Vera’s unpublished analysis of government data showed that, as of January 31, 2024, there were 3,353,199 cases pending removal proceedings in the United States.
Undocumented people have far lower crime rates than U.S. citizens.
Political candidates often falsely link undocumented people to crime in the United States. Yet an extensive study of crimes in all 50 states and Washington, DC, from 1990 to 2014, found that undocumented immigration does not increase violent crime. A study of arrests in Texas found that, relative to undocumented people, U.S.-born citizens are more than twice as likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and more than four times more likely to be arrested for property crimes. Another study in Texas found that the criminal conviction rate for undocumented immigrants was 45 percent below that of native-born Texans. Immigrants of any legal status are typically found to be less involved in violence than native-born Americans.
Undocumented people pay taxes and help prop up social security by paying into the system—without receiving benefits.
Undocumented people pay an estimated $31 billion dollars in federal, state, and local taxes each year, including billions of dollars into a social security system from which they can draw very few, if any, benefits. The Social Security Administration (SSA) itself estimated that it collected $13 billion in payroll taxes in 2010 from workers without documentation, while only disbursing about $1 billion in payment attributable to unauthorized work. In a 2013 report, SSA estimated that “earnings by unauthorized immigrants result in a net positive effect on Social Security financial status generally. . . . We estimate that future years will experience a continuation of this positive impact on the trust funds.”
Virtually no fentanyl has been seized from people seeking asylum.
Fentanyl overdoses are increasing in the United States, and real solutions will require investments in treatment and preventative health care infrastructure. Instead, far too many politicians seek cheap political points by falsely blaming people seeking asylum at the southern border for this serious problem. In fact, virtually no fentanyl has been seized from people seeking asylum. In 2023, 93 percent of fentanyl seizures occurred at official border crossings or legal checkpoints. Nearly all of these seizures involved people permitted to cross the border, and more than 70 percent were U.S. citizens.
People with pending immigration cases show up to their court hearings.
Evidence clearly shows that, over the past two decades, most immigrants have shown up for the immigration court hearings that determine whether they have legal standing to remain in the United States. They do not slip into the country and disappear, as some political leaders claim. In fact, those who attend immigration court outside detention, on what are known as “non-detained” dockets, almost always continue to appear for their hearings when they are able to secure legal representation. There is no need to confine people in costly and inhumane immigration prisons.
Not all people at risk of deportation cross the border without documentation. Visa holders, long-term permanent residents, and even U.S. citizens are at risk.
While the spotlight often shines on people who cross the southern border without documentation, there are many ways that people can face the threat of deportation in the United States. Indeed, there are 22 million people in the United States who are at risk of being separated from their families and sent to countries where they may face danger. Tens of thousands of children who were adopted from outside the United States, for example, do not have documentation and are vulnerable to deportation because their complex citizenship paperwork was improperly filed. Additionally, more than one million people were brought to the United States as children by parents who entered the country without documentation or overstayed their visas. And, in 2022, more than 850,000 people from countries around the world overstayed their visas, making their continued presence in the United States unauthorized. Lawful permanent residents, current visa holders, and even U.S. citizens have been subjected to the risk of deportation and forced to defend their right to remain home with their families and in their communities.
Many people at risk of deportation actually have a legal right to remain in the United States—but are deported anyway.
Unlike in criminal court, people facing deportation in immigration court are not entitled to an attorney if they cannot afford one. Immigration attorneys can cost thousands of dollars, making them unaffordable for many. As a result, people seeking asylum, longtime legal residents, parents of U.S. citizens, and even small children are forced to appear in immigration court without an attorney to protect their rights. This makes it much more likely that they will be deported, even if they could have established a legal right to stay in the United States. The Fairness to Freedom Act, which was introduced in Congress last year and would establish a right to federally funded attorneys for all people facing deportation, would help fix this injustice.
Immigrants participate in the labor force and start businesses at higher rates than the native-born population.
One in six people in the United States workforce are immigrants. In fact, immigrants participate in the labor force at a higher rate than the U.S.-born population. Immigrants are also more likely to start businesses than native-born U.S. citizens. Furthermore, millions of people in the United States are employed by immigrant-founded and immigrant-owned companies.
People in the United States view immigration as a positive that benefits the country, and they support protections for people fleeing danger.
The majority of the public believes that immigration brings benefits to the United States, including economic growth and enriching culture and values. Nearly three-quarters of people polled said that people immigrate to the United States for jobs and to improve their lives, and more than half say that the ability to immigrate is a “human right.” Multiple polls show that the majority of people in the United States support protections for people who are trying to escape persecution and torture in their homelands. According to one Pew Research Center poll, 72 percent believe that accepting civilians trying to escape war and violence should be an important goal of U.S. immigration policy.
The United States has much work ahead to reform its dysfunctional and often cruel immigration system. This November, and beyond, voters need to reject lies that demonize immigrants and demand policies that treat each person with dignity and fairness, no matter where they were born.
**************************
Erica’s “spot on” last sentence is certainly worth repeating:
This November, and beyond, voters need to reject lies that demonize immigrants and demand policies that treat each person with dignity and fairness, no matter where they were born.
While migrants might be the “easy target” of politicos and nativists, because they are vulnerable and “the usual scapegoats” for problems created or fostered by those very politicos and nativists themselves, in the end we ALL are the targets of those who want to inflict gratuitous cruelty while destroying our precious democracy.
As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Each of us has a vested interest in “not looking the other way” while our fellow humans unfairly are stripped of their rights and humanity with “harmful myths, misrepresentations, and outright lies.” YOU could be “next on the list!”
Austin Kocher, Ph.D. Research Assistant Professor TRAC-Syracuse PHOTO: Syracuse U.
From Professor Austin Kocher @ Linkedin:
New Report! “Two-Thirds of Court Asylum Applicants Found Legally Entitled to Remain.”
Out of 1M+ asylum cases decided by immigration judges over the past decade, 685,956 (66%) were legally entitled to remain in the United States due to asylum or other relief.
Remember, this is in a system that has, over decades, been intentionally rigged, manipulated, and skewed AGAINST legal asylum seekers, particularly those of color from certain arbitrarily “disfavored” countries! (Think Haiti, The Northern Triangle, and many African Nations). While this anti-asylum bias has “peaked” in GOP Administrations, Dems have also been guilty including the Biden Administration’s flailing, legally problematic efforts to abuse the asylum adjudication system as a “deterrent” to those legally seeking asylum!
The U.S. Asylum system over the past two decades has prided itself in making the experience of asylum seekers as restrictive, difficult, complex, arcane, arbitrary, and “user unfriendly” as possible for many of the most vulnerable. Even so, courageous asylum seekers who can actually get a decision persevere and succeed against the odds! What if Administrations of both parties worked to make the system fair and timely, rather than trying to use it as a false “deterrent?” Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Austin’s post triggered this exchange between Beckie “Deportation Defender” Moriello and me on LinkedIn:
BECKIE: It’s really higher than that, once we factor in all the wrongfully denied cases for clients who can’t afford to appeal.
PWS: Thanks for speaking truth, Beckie! If true asylum experts were on the BIA, IJs were experts who applied or were held by the BIA to the Cardoza, Mogharrabi, Kasinga, 8 CFR 208.13 framework, the asylum adjudication system had dynamic leadership, and individuals were competently represented, many more cases would be granted much more efficiently and backlogs would eventually come under control and start to diminish. In fact, individuals should be considered eligible for asylum even where persecution on a protected ground is “significantly less than probable” — the 10% rule! Moreover, asylum seekers who testify credibly are supposed to be given “the benefit of the doubt.” These and the presumption of future persecution established by past persecution, thereby shifting the burden to DHS, are still too often ignored, misapplied, or manipulated against asylum seekers. There is nothing that will make a backlog at least a decade in the making disappear overnight. But, a legitimate, legally compliant, properly generous asylum adjudication system would benefit all involved. It’s sad that Biden, Harris, Garland, and Mayorkas are afraid to comply with the rule of law for asylum seekers and other migrants!
Proposed Asylum Bar Regs Are At Odds With International Law (And Why That Matters)
In 2003, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees published Guidelines for applying the bars to asylum known internationally as the “exclusion clauses” (because they exclude an applicant from being recognized as a refugee under international law). Addressing the proper procedure for applying these bars, the UNHCR Guidelines state:
Given the grave consequences of exclusion, it is essential that rigorous procedural safeguards are built into the exclusion determination procedure. Exclusion decisions should in principle be dealt with in the context of the regular refugee status determination procedure and not in either admissibility or accelerated procedures, so that a full factual and legal assessment of the case can be made.1
This week, the Biden Administration published a proposed rule seeking to do precisely the opposite of what UNHCR advises.2 The rule would empower USCIS asylum officers to apply certain bars to asylum eligibility up front, at the border, as part of a preliminary admissibility determination. The goal is to effect the immediate deportation of certain asylum seekers, foreclosing their ability to have their eligibility for asylum decided by an Immigration Judge pursuant to a full-fledged hearing.
Advocates have already pointed out the dangers of the proposed approach, which will require quick decisions on highly complex issues at a point at which applicants very rarely have access to lawyers or evidence; their responses should be read.3 However, I would like to focus here on the rule’s conflict with international law, and why this is problematic.
Since 1804, the Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy 4 has required domestic statutes to be interpreted consistently with international law whenever possible.5
This general requirement carries a particular urgency in its application to refugee law. The purpose of the 1951 Refugee Convention (which applied to those made refugees by World War II), and the 1967 Protocol (which extended the 1951 Convention’s definitions and protections to all) was to create a single, universal refugee standard to replace the patchwork of protections that reflected individual states’ own political preferences and biases.
This is not a small matter. International refugee law scholars James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster have warned that “[i]nconsistency and divergence in interpretation of the Convention definition would clearly undermine the principled goal of ensuring a single, universal standard for access to refugee protection.”6 They further quote a decision of the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal in support of this contention: “[i]nconsistency is not merely inelegant; it brings the process of deciding into disrepute, suggesting an arbitrariness which is incompatible with commonly accepted notions of justice.”7
Congress apparently agreed with this approach when enacting the 1980 Refugee Act. In its landmark 1987 decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the Supreme Court pointed this out:
If one thing is clear from the legislative history of the new definition of “refugee,” and indeed the entire 1980 Act, it is that one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.8
And in adhering to Congress’s clear intent, the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca looked for guidance in interpreting the 1980 Refugee Act to UNHCR, citing its Handbook first issued in 1979 as an important tool for interpreting the Convention’s provisions. In a footnote, the Court found that while it was not binding, “the Handbook provides significant guidance in construing the Protocol, to which Congress sought to conform. It has been widely considered useful in giving content to the obligations that the Protocol establishes.”9
As leading scholar Deborah E. Anker has noted, “One of the most important developments in U.S. asylum law is the weight that U.S. authorities – including the USCIS Asylum Office, the Board, and the federal courts – give to the UNHCR’s interpretation of the refugee definition contained in its 1979 Handbook….” Anker noted that UNHCR has issued other interpretive documents since 1979 that “complement and expand on the Handbook.”10 I would argue that those other documents (which include the 2003 guidelines addressing the exclusion clauses that is quoted above) are deserving of the same interpretive weight.
So given (1) the Supreme Court’s Charming Betsy doctrine mandating conformity with international law whenever possible; (2) the stated intent of Congress to bring U.S. asylum law into conformity with international refugee law (as recognized in Cardoza-Fonseca); and (3) the purpose of the 1951 Convention to “ensure a single, universal standard” for refugee status, according great weight to UNHCR guidance in interpreting the Convention provides the best means of adhering to all of the above requirements.
However, another leading scholar, Karen Musalo, provided a recent reminder of how far U.S. law has strayed from international law standards for determining nexus (i.e. when persecution is “on account of” a statutorily protected ground), and in determining the validity of particular social groups. Musalo posits that realignment with international standards would resolve the erroneous interpretations that have arisen under present case law, and would remove unwarranted barriers to protection that presently exist.11 But with its new proposed regulations, the government instead seeks to veer even further off course in its procedures for determining bars to asylum eligibility.
In December 2020, I presented in a blog post a “wish list” for the incoming Biden Administration. One of the items on my list was to create a “Charming Betsy” regulation requiring adherence to international law refugee standards. It included the hope “that the Biden Administration would codify the Charming Betsy doctrine in regulations, which should further require the BIA, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to consider UNHCR interpretations of the various asylum provisions, and require adjudicators to provide compelling reasons for rejecting its guidance.”12
I am not so naive to expect that a regulation like this will be proposed anytime soon. But I do believe that the direct contradiction of the proposed regs with international law guidance should be included in comments and talking points by those both inside and outside of government. Through these rules, the Biden Administration seeks to engage in the type of politically-motivated action that the Refugee Convention and 1980 Refugee Act sought to eliminate. For the above reasons, such action would violate the intent of Congress, our treaty obligations, and over two centuries of U.S. case law.
Moving forward, whether an asylum-related law, rule, policy, or case holding conforms with international law should instinctively be the first question asked by all of us. When refugee protection is viewed in such neutral, legal terms, the urge to politicize decisions will be lessened.
As those scholars referenced above have been saying far longer and more articulately than myself, it is only when international law becomes normalized in the process that our asylum law will function as it should.
Copyright 2024 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
See Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 32 (1982) (noting that construing federal statutes to avoid violating international law has “been a maxim of statutory construction since the decision” in Charming Betsy).
James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status (Second Ed.), (Cambridge, 2014) at 4.
Hathaway and Foster, supra at n.18 (quoting Brennan, J., in Re Drake and Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 (Aus. AAT, Nov. 21, 1979) at 639.
480 U.S. 421, 436-37 (1987).
Id. at 439.
Deborah E. Anker, Law of Asylum in the United States (2023 Ed.) (Thomson Reuters) at 20-21.
Karen Musalo, “Aligning United States With International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims,” International Journal of Refugee Law (2024).
The schooner Charming Betsy sailed into Supreme Court history. Hon. Jeffrey Chase and other legal experts aren’t “charmed” by AG Merrick Garland’s approach to binding international standards for asylum! PHOTO: The Constitutional Law Reporter
Thanks, “Sir Jeffrey” for a great and timely analysis!
For the second successive Administration, we have an Attorney General who does not take seriously his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States when it comes to those seeking asylum.
Garland has too often signed off on regulations and policies that are clearly at odds with domestic and international law as well as our Constitution. The current abominable proposed regulations, referenced by Jeffrey and opposed by all experts on asylum law and human rights, are just the latest example. Those politicos behind these toxic policies won’t confront in person or acknowledge the well-documented unnecessary human trauma and degradation caused by scofflaw actions and policies that intentionally fail to make fair, humane, safe, and timely asylum processing available to all who come to legal ports of entry as required by law (not to mention human decency)!
Most experts view the Biden Administration’s approach to asylum, human rights, and racial justice in America as disturbingly short-sighted! Forcing “natural allies” to sue you is a huge boon to Trump and the nativist right! Mr. Magoo PHOTO: Gord Webster Creative Commons License
From LinkedIn:
BREAKING NEWS: Al Otro Lado, the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, and Texas Civil Rights Project, have filed a lawsuit compelling Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to release information on its policies and practices relating to CBP One and its adherence to laws preventing discrimination based on disability.
CBP One, the error-ridden smartphone application that asylum seekers are forced to use in order to request asylum in the U.S., is fraught with malfunctions and inaccessible features and is an insurmountable barrier for countless people, especially those with disabilities. Getting an appointment can take up to seven months, leaving vulnerable asylum seekers trapped along the border in some of the most dangerous cities in the world. CBP One also requires a high level of technological proficiency to install and use.
Al Otro Lado has worked with clients with schizophrenia, blindness, deafness, cerebral palsy, and intellectual and developmental disabilities because their disability prevented them from successfully using the app. For them, getting a CBP One appointment so that they may seek asylum in the U.S. is practically impossible.
Our lawsuit against CBP is a pivotal action to safeguard the rights of people with disabilities and to ensure government accountability and transparency. The right to save one’s life shouldn’t depend on a glitchy app or one’s physical or mental capabilities. Full stop.
Wow! What an incredible, totally avoidable, squandering of legal resources by the Administration and Garland’s DOJ! What if these resources were devoted to solving problems rather than forcing advocates to sue and then engaging in disingenuous, perhaps unethical, “defenses of the indefensible!” No wonder the Biden Administration is “running scared” on immigration!
This is what the Administration could and should be fixing, rather than thinking of more “gimmicks” to deter and deny legal asylum seekers. Applying for asylum at a port of entry is a “legal pathway!” And, the “CBP One Debacle” was both predictable and totally avoidable by the Biden Administration. Obviously, some politicos and bureaucrats view “technological incompetence” as a “deterrent” to legal immigration!
Professor Karen Musalo Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law
Read Karen’s newly-released article “Aligning United States Law with International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims” in the 2024 Edition of the International Journal of Refugee Law. Here’s the abstract:
A B ST R A CT
The protection of women and girls fleeing gender-based harms has been controversial in the United States (US), with advances followed by setbacks. The US interpretation of particular social group and its nexus analysis, both of which diverge from guidance by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), is the most significant barrier to protection. It has become almost impossible for women and girls to rely upon the particular social group ground because of current requirements that social groups not only be defined by immutable or fundamental characteristics, but also be socially distinct and have particularity. Establishing nexus is also a significant obstacle, with the US requirement of proof of the persecutor’s intent. In the first month of his administration, President Biden issued an executive order on migration, which raised hopes that these obstacles to protection would be removed. The order committed to protecting survivors of domestic violence and to issuing regulations that would make the US interpretation of particular social group consistent with international standards. The target date for the regulations was November 2021, but they have yet to issue. This article examines how the evolution of the US interpretation of particular social group and nexus has diverged from UNHCR recommendations. It shows how protection has been denied in gender cases involving the most egregious of harms. The article concludes by providing recommendations for realignment with international standards, which set a benchmark for evaluating the promised Biden administration regulations on the issue.
Karen’s highly readable “spot on” article prompted this additional thoughtful comment from my friend and Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jefferey” Chase:
Hi Karen: Wonderful article! So clear, so logical, and just so correct! Thanks as always for this. (And I’m extremely honored to find myself in several of your footnotes – thank you!)
Create a “Charming Betsy” Reg Requiring Adherence to International Law:Since 1804, the Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy has required domestic statutes to be interpreted consistently with international law whenever possible.As the Supreme Court in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca observed that in enacting the 1980 Refugee Act, “one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,” it would seem that interpreters of our asylum laws should look to international law interpretations of that treaty for guidance.Recent examples in which this has not been the case include the just-published “death to asylum” regulations that will completely gut the 1980 Refugee Act of any meaning; as well as regulations that bar asylum for conduct falling far, far short of the severity required to bar refugee protection under international law (which a federal district court blocked in Pangea v. Barr).
As the Board seems disinclined to listen to the Supreme Court on this point, it is hoped that the Biden Administration would codify the Charming Betsy doctrine in regulations, which should further require the BIA, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to consider UNHCR interpretations of the various asylum provisions, and require adjudicators to provide compelling reasons for rejecting its guidance.
Do you think there is a way to use Karen’s article to make this into a talking point across the advocacy community? I think there’s merit to trying to normalize an idea over time. Just a thought.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
I agree, Jeffrey! Ironically, as Karen shows, “normalizing” refugee and asylum processing to bring it into alignment with the Convention was one of the driving forces behind enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980. Indeed, it’s reflected in a key early interpretation of the Act by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca (successfully argued by our friend and Round Table colleague Hon. Dana Marks, a “Founding Mother of U.S. Refugee Law”). In rejecting the USG’s restrictive interpretation, the Court consulted the U.N. Handbook while making the point that the refugee definition was to be applied generously so that even those with only a 10% chance of persecution could qualify.
I also note that the abandonment of the “Acosta test,” which I relied on in Kasinga, in favor of a more convoluted, restrictive, and ultimately intellectually dishonest approach, went “into high gear” after the “Ashcroft purge” had removed the core of BIA Judges who spoke up for asylum rights and protection, even when in dissent!
Unfortunately, Administrations of both parties have feared honest and robust implementation of the Refugee Act that truly follows the “spirit of Cardoza and its BIA progeny, Matter of Mogharrabi.” They all have had their “favored” and “feared” groups of refugees and asylees, some more than others.
This, of course, breeds huge inconsistencies and arbitrary adjudications, a problem exposed well over a decade ago by Professors Schoenholtz, Schrag, and Ramji-Nogales in their critical seminal work Refugee Roulette describing the largely unprincipled and politicized operation of our system for adjudicating protection claims.
At some level, all Administrations have given in to the false idea that protection of refugees is politically perilous and that consequently the law should be interpreted and manipulated to “deter” the current “politically disfavored” groups of refugees. Not surprisingly, the latter are usually those of color, non-Christian religions, or from poorer countries where the mis-characterization of groups of legitimate refugees as “mere economic migrants” has become routine. Too often, the so-called “mainstream media” accepts such negative characterizations without critical analysis.
Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has regressed from a somewhat enlightened beginning with the never-promulgated “gender based regulation” mentioned by Karen to a position of fear, desperation, and ultimately “false deterrence.” Apparently, they perceive that GOP nativist lies and shamless fear-mongering combined with their own failure to boldly reform and materially improve the asylum processing system under their control are “scoring points” with the electorate.
The latest misguided proposal being considered in the White House would grotesquely miss the mark of addressing the real glaring problems with our asylum system at the border and beyond. That is the overly restrictive interpretations and applications of the refugee definition, too many poorly-qualified and poorly-trained adjudicators, over-denial leading to protracted litigation and inconsistent results, uninspiring leadership, and a stubborn unwillingness to set up the system in compliance with international rules so that significant numbers of qualified refugees applying at the border can be timely and properly admitted to the U.S. where, incidentally, their skills and determination can contribute greatly to our economy and our society.
The latest bad idea is truncating the already overly-summary and poorly run asylum process in apparent hopes of more quickly denying more potentially valid claims with less consideration. See, e.g.,https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/08/biden-migrants-asylum-changes-00156865. Far from being a panacea for the much-feared and highly distorted “border issue,” it eventually will aggravate all of the problems highlighted by Karen.
One thing it won’t do, however, is stop forced migrants from coming to the United States, even if they must abandon our broken legal system to do so. That’s what forced migrants do! Pretending otherwise and misusing our legal protection system for rejection won’t “deter” the reality of forced migration.
Under the Trump administration, most of the people we met there [in immigration detention in the Dodge County Jail] had benefits (some protection against deportation) that they were eligible for. They were asylum seekers, people with family ties, or people with DACA (people who were brought to the U.S. when they were children). It would be shocking every time I went to see the number of people that needed representation. They had strong claims to remain in the U.S. and often had family ties. Some were employed at certain jobs for a very long time and had no criminal record.
. . . .
Everybody deserves a fair chance, and legal representation is part of the fair chance.
Most people who have a conviction for an aggravated felony are not going to be allowed to remain in the U.S. But certain individuals are from countries that are unsafe for them to return to, and our laws say we will never deport anybody that will more likely than not be tortured or killed. And these individuals need representation because the stakes are so high.
No one is perfect, and our legal system certainly isn’t perfect. But without legal representation, we cannot ensure that people have their rights and have a fair due process in immigration proceedings.
. . . .
Every day, I witness the politicization of this topic. And political parties are taking on the rhetoric to fearmonger in a lot of ways. I find that horrifying and discouraging.
I can understand why these ads and messaging incite fear and why people can be scared by the messaging, even though the messaging is often untrue. It scares me that that’s what we’re doing to people that I work with everyday, who are mostly families and children who’ve become part of our communities.
. . . .
Q: Tell me more about the work you’re doing in collaboration with others in Colombia.
A: The program is called Safe Passage. It’s a collaboration with Sara McKinnon at the Department of Communications, us at the Law School, and Jorge Osorio at the Global Health Institute.
People often have to take an extremely dangerous journey just to arrive at the southern border to ask for asylum in the U.S. We are looking at whether some alternative, regular routes for migration can be beneficial in decreasing the pressure on the southern border.
. . . .
The last time I was in Colombia, there were people from all over the world. There were people from Afghanistan who probably had very strong claims for asylum. There were people from China, and they generally have very high approval rates for asylum. But in order to seek the benefits under the law, they have no option but to take a very dangerous journey.
So I think if we were able to expand the safe mobility offices in these other countries to process applications from other people who could potentially be eligible, we could ensure safety and take pressures off of the southern border. I think that’s something that everybody wants.
************************
Read the complete interview at the link.
Here’s a comment about Erin that I recently received from Professor Juliet Stumpf at Lewis & Clark Law:
I had the pleasure of meeting Erin when we both took students to Tijuana to work with asylum seekers at Al Otro Lado in 2020. She is a wise, kind, and collaborative colleague, and I was lucky enough to benefit from her deep experience and her generosity in sharing it.
Tom and I had the honor of appearing at a recent luncheon at U.W. Law hosted by Erin and her colleague Professor Sara McKinnon to discuss our proposal with students.
What a difference it makes to hear from experts like Erin and Sara who actually understand the laws, the realities of forced migration, and deal directly with the human trauma caused by short-sighted government“deterrence only” policies. The latter, promoted by politicos who have lost their moral bearings, intentionally misconstrue or ignore legal protections for migrants while failing to acknowledge or take responsibility for the proven, unnecessary human trauma caused by bad policies like “Remain in Mexico, “Title 42,” and “Mandatory Detention.”
That same report showed that “violence against migrants transit[ing] Mexico is escalating, the study found: 39.2% of interviewees were assaulted in the country, while 27.3% were threatened or extorted – with the actual figures likely higher than the official statistics as victims tend not to report crimes committed against them.”
Yet, despite these facts, politicos of both parties shamelessly press for the reinstitution of these demonstrably harmful, ineffective, immoral, and arguably illegal policies. Never do they acknowledge or discuss the infliction of human carnage they are irresponsibly promoting. Perhaps even worse, the so-called “mainstream media” seldom, if ever, has the integrity to confront these politicos of both parties with the deadly human consequences of the immoral, yet predictably ineffective, actions they advocate!
How a little-known, century-old law perpetuated the odious notion that certain types of immigrants degrade our nation’s character
As radical as the contemporary GOP has become in recent years, it remains generally verboten in mainstream circles to openly call for murder. At least, for all but one demographic: migrants, whom Texas Governor Greg Abbott earlier this year lamented he couldn’t order killed. At best, party officials might argue that they are disease-ridden freeloaders; at worst, that they’re a demographic ticking time bomb engineered to wipe out real, white America.
This rhetoric has often been mistaken as a new turn for American political discourse, but it’s more of a return to an earlier era, one cemented by a law signed a century ago this month by Calvin Coolidge: the Immigration Act of 1924, known as Johnson-Reed after its House and Senate sponsors.
. . . .
“Those of us that sort of thought the ’24 act was in the rearview mirror, you know, I think we’ve been proven wrong,” the former immigration judge [PWS] added.
****************************
Read Felipe’s complete article, containing more quotes from me, at the link.
Abuse of migrants has a long ugly history in Texas and elsewhere along the border. The pushers of the 1924 Immigration Act must be smiling at how their toxic ideas have continued to be accepted and promoted by 21st Century politicos. Public Realm (1948)
Turning back the clock to the worst impulses in American history is bad stuff! It’s as if we have collectively forgotten the lessons of the World War II age and why it was necessary to defeat Nazi Germany.
WASHINGTON — Senators were sworn in Wednesday for their third impeachment trial in four years, this time of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas.
Three hours later, they had voted along party lines to dismiss both counts against Mayorkas.
House Republicans, who say Mayorkas has failed to fulfill his duties in upholding immigration law, pushed for a full Senate trial of the case against him. Senate Democrats called the allegations baseless.
. . . .
“Today’s decision by the Senate to reject House Republicans’ baseless attacks on Secretary Mayorkas proves definitively that there was no evidence or Constitutional grounds to justify impeachment,” Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Mia Ehrenberg said in a statement. “It’s time for Congressional Republicans to support the department’s vital mission instead of wasting time playing political games and standing in the way of commonsense, bipartisan border reforms.”
Ian Sams, a White House spokesperson, added that “President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas will continue doing their jobs to keep America safe and pursue actual solutions at the border.”
Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) sought to accommodate the wishes of Republican colleagues in agreeing to a period of debate before moving to dismiss the case against Mayorkas.
Engaging in a full trial “would be a grave mistake and could set a dangerous precedent for the future,” he said, urging colleagues to save impeachment “for those rare cases we truly need it.”
Schumer said the first impeachment article — for “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” — does not allege conduct that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor and is therefore unconstitutional.
After breaking to discuss how best to proceed, Republicans began stalling by initiating a series of increasingly far-fetched motions, which failed:
. . . .
******************
Read Andrea’s full report at the above link.
I’ve often expressed doubts about whether Mayorkas is the right person for the job at DHS. This has been based primarily on his failure to stand up for and effectively implement the legal and moral right to seek asylum, at the border and in the interior, and his lack of leadership and creativity in addressing backlogs at DHS. But, that’s hardly a basis for impeachment.
The GOP is a party of insurrection and lawlessness, particularly in their attempts to eradicate the rights of asylum seekers, led by a man with absolutely no respect for the rule of law except where it personally benefits him. The GOP House has failed to constructively address a number of important governance issues, including Ukraine aid, while finding time for this wasteful nonsense. For the scofflaw GOP to pursue frivolous charges of impeachment against Mayorkas for not “complying with the law” has to be one of the greatest examples of “chutzpah” in recent political history.
“Do you support American taxpayer dollars being used to fly illegal immigrants from countries like Venezuela and Haiti into America to be settled in cities and towns near you? If so, then vote against me. Vote no to preserve this practice of using taxpayer dollars to charter planes that move and import thousands of illegal aliens into your states.”
— Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), in a speech on the Senate floor, March 23
“Have you had to cancel or rethink any upcoming summer trips because of high prices? Don’t worry — your taxpayer dollars will be used to pay for illegal immigrants to fly into a town near you.”
— Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, in a post on X, April 2
Two lawmakers from Tennessee have issued misleading statements about a Biden administration program that permitted an increased use of a process known as humanitarian parole for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Hagerty offered an amendment to a spending bill — defeated in a party-line vote — that he said would prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to fly in migrants. Green, on X, posted a Fox News article — headlined “All Senate Dems vote against barring taxpayer funds to fly illegal migrants to US towns” — and made a similar claim.
Under the Biden program, people from these countries who try to cross the border without the proper paperwork are ineligible for parole and subject to expulsion. Instead, before arriving, they must receive authorization to travel to the United States and a statement of financial support from a sponsor.
As of the end of February, the Department of Homeland Security says, more than 386,000 people from those countries had arrived lawfully in the United States and another 19,000 were vetted and authorized to travel. In other words, they are not in the country illegally, despite the rhetoric in the statements.
And beyond the question of whether these immigrants are “illegal,” if you listen to Hagerty and Green, U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill for their travel. That’s wrong.
. . . .
Four Pinocchios Source: WashPost
********************
Get all the relevant facts in the complete report at the link!
Dems appear “chronically afraid of touting success” when it comes to immigration. These programs show that with leadership, creativity, and coordination, robust, realistic legal immigration programs will garner public support, be cost effective (particularly when compared with expensive, wasteful, ineffective, cruel “detention and deterrence”), take pressure off the border, and maximize America’s ability to capitalize and maximize the benefits of human migration.
Despite the GOP’s disingenuous denial, human migration, including forced migration, is a reality! The countries that eschew “GOP-style” fear-mongering, xenophobia, and nativism to work with and manage human migration in an orderly, fair manner will own the future.
Angel of Death Artist: Evelyn De Morgan 1880 Public Realm The Angel of Death (“AOD”) comes for another asylum seeker at the border. American border policies have needlessly and heedlessly created “full employment” for the AOD!
Arelis R. Hernandez, Mariana Dias, Danielle Volpe report from Eagle Pass, TX for WashPost:
“If they’ve been in the water awhile, their skin gets pruned and webby and starts to peel off. Their eyes, nose and mouth get swollen,” [Sgt. Aaron] Horta said with a far-off look in his eyes. “For a while, I couldn’t sleep.”
By the end of 2022, Horta had recorded 225 deaths. He said it bothers him when no one claims a body, so he tries to do what he can. This past Thanksgiving, 11-year-old Cristal Tercero Medrano of Nicaragua drowned while wearing a bright-yellow Tweety Bird sweater. Horta worked with Border Patrol agents to identify her. Not long after, they found the girl’s family. Relatives sent in a photo of Cristal wearing the same yellow sweater.
“I get mad, as the father of a little girl,” Horta said. “There should be a process that isn’t the river. It gets to me, but I have to be a professional.”
. . . .
As she swiped through the images in her photo album, she landed on one of a boy in his late teens who had been in the river so long that the current had wiped the features of his face away. In another, the braces inside the mouth of a sun-scorched child were still visible. Behind [Justice of the Peace Jeannie] Smith were rows of folders detailing each death.
“River. River. Ranch. Ranch,” she said as she thumbed through the files. “John Doe. Jane Doe. John Doe. Fetus, the mother gave birth at the river, but the baby didn’t survive. They come from everywhere. I say a little prayer for each one.”
. . . .
“There’s no dignity in this,” [forensic scientist Kate]Spradley said. “But this is what our state deems acceptable.”
. . . .
As for the total fiction that immoral politicos dishonestly present (and the “mainstream media” too often mindlessly and uncritically repeats) that “deterrence — even by death” will stop forced migrants from seeking legal refuge:
[Evelin Gabriella] Gue [of Guatemala] said she and her relatives are still struggling with denial and hoping that the body Texas officials found was not her mother. They want her home, if for nothing more than to be absolutely sure it is her as they grieve. Consular officials have confirmed to the family that it is her body, though they have not submitted DNA for further verification.
Cú Chub’s family is still in debt. To pay off the loan they took out for her to migrate, they may soon make the same journey that cost them their matriarch.
So much for the deadly, irresponsible “bipartisan BS” spouted by politicos who have lost their humanity and their sense of decency!
****************************
Everyone should read the stomach-churning complete report at the link.
It has lots of dramatic color photography, so folks can get “face to face” with this preventable human carnage. These are the truths and consequences that should — but aren’t —being heard and heeded as border enforcement is discussed.
For the same amount, or likely much less, that governments at all levels are squandering on uncoordinated “proven to fail, illegal, gonzo enforcement and false deterrence,” that enriches cartels and human smugglers while killing legitimate refugees and harming our national psyche, the U.S. could build a first-class, timely, legally compliant, processing and resettlement system for forced migrants here and abroad that would reduce unnecessary border tragedies while capitalizing on the positive power of migration in today’s world.
I realized that it was really I who needed orientation and guidance from Juan Carlos. That if I wanted to understand the border, and what to do about the border, it was Juan Carlos, or anyone who was coming across for that matter, who knew the answers. He knew why he had to leave his land. He knew the specific injustices of Guatemala, which for more than a century has been a target for “unvarnished” U.S. imperialism.
[John] Bolton could have probably talked glowingly about Guatemala and the United Fruit Company, the 1954 CIA-instigated coup, a 36-year military dictatorship—supported and trained by the United States—that was behind the mass killing of civilians. Maybe being discombobulated was OK, that kind of knowing that there isn’t a clear-cut sheet of bullet-pointed answers to evolving situations around the world that uproot people, but rather an ability to courageously look across borders and actually be curious and engaged, and to listen to what people are saying. That was my indirect lesson from Bolton: maybe it is by listening, rather than talking, that debates are actually won.
***********************
I encourage everyone to read Todd’s complete article at the link.
John Bolton Former National Security Clown — Always reassuring to know that “Johnny B” remains arrogant, unapologetic, outrageous, unaccountable, immoral, and wrong about just about everything! Republished under license.
As safe corridors for migration disappear, more people risk their lives crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. And more people die. A new report by the nonprofit No More Deaths, along with a searchable map and database, documents the increasing number of migrant deaths at the border in New Mexico and far West Texas. Until now, not much research has been done on the deaths of people migrating through this section of the border. The project was led by Bryce, a No More Deaths volunteer (who asked that we not use his last name because the Far Right has recently been targeting the group). He, along with several others, have created the most comprehensive database to date of deaths in the Border Patrol’s El Paso Sector, which includes New Mexico and two counties in Texas, El Paso and Hudspeth. The report covers 15 years, from 2008 to 2023, and it shows many disturbing trends, including the acceleration of deaths that has accompanied “prevention through deterrence,” the U.S. government’s strategy implemented in the 1990s to push migrants into more remote, dangerous crossings. That strategy is now morphing into something all the more tragic as people, increasingly women and children, are barred from accessing asylum and are dying at the doorstep of American cities and towns. In this Q&A, Bryce talks about documenting these deaths, and the discoveries that both shocked and angered him in creating this new report.
Why did you study this particular part of the border in New Mexico and far West Texas?
A couple of years ago, a few of us started getting interested in what’s happening in New Mexico, and whether there’s any need for humanitarian aid out there, just because we hadn’t really heard anything but assumed there must be something happening out there. Quickly, we noticed that there was not much data in general about the area. So I started doing public records requests. And pretty quickly, just with the first batch of data, we got about 20 deaths for 2022. We went to some of those locations to see if we’d see trails. And while we were checking out some of these locations, we found human remains right across the street from a cemetery and about 50 feet from a main road in Sunland Park [New Mexico]. It was not a remote place. It was right in town. So we started looking at the Sunland Park Fire Department’s social media page, and quickly realized that there was a lot happening and quickly. And then 2023 ended up being this record deadly year for the area.
It’s shocking that you found a dead person right there in the middle of Sunland Park. Can you tell me more about this person? Were they identified? How long had the person been there? And how could this have been missed by people who live there?
He was later identified as a man from Colombia. [His name was Johan Orozco Martinez, age 36.] He had been there for a couple of days. I’m not joking when I say he was right across the street from the Memorial Pines Cemetery, and near the shoulder of the road. Many cars drive this road, but I think typically people look toward the cemetery, and I guess they didn’t see him because they were looking in the other direction. He was in his 30s and so older than many of the usually young men you see, for instance, crossing through southern Arizona.
Two findings that really stand out to me from your report are the number of women who have died, and how increasingly people are dying within city limits and no longer just in remote areas that are hard to access. I mean, you found a person in the middle of Sunland Park. What’s going on, do you think?
The dynamics of migration are complex. But one thing that seems pretty clear is that the asylum policies in the last few years have led to an increase in some of these deaths, just from people trying to get asylum and being prevented either by metering or by turnbacks. And then feeling they have no choice but to cross through the desert. A lot of people who are crossing are older, they’re women, they’re people with health problems. The demographics, we found, were much different in the El Paso sector than in southern Arizona, with people being older and more than 50 percent of the deaths in 2023 being of women, which is unusual.
Subscribed
When did the deaths start increasing? And has the increasing militarization of the border and Operation Lone Star in El Paso contributed to these deaths?
Up until 2015, there were very few deaths in this area. But especially since 2018, the deaths have just been ramping up every single year. We were in New Mexico watching Operation Lone Star soldiers put up a barbed-wire fence between New Mexico and El Paso in an area where a lot of people cross. So once you’re in the United States, even crossing into Texas from the New Mexico side has become more deadly. And you can see National Guard in El Paso patrolling and pushing people back. The more enforcement, the more the deaths increase. In El Paso, there are what I call “moats” because if people climb the border wall, there’s an irrigation canal right on the other side, which at times can be moving very quickly. Then beyond that there’s multiple highways and more canals. So if someone is being chased by Border Patrol or Operation Lone Star, there are multiple deadly obstacles.
In 2022 there was a two-week period when 15 people died in the canals, one right after the other. This was during irrigation season in El Paso. Water is released from a reservoir in New Mexico into the canals and the river to irrigate farmland further east of El Paso. When that happens, the water can be going like 20 miles per hour. Unless somebody physically rescues you, there’s no way of getting out once you’ve fallen in. I watched a news broadcast in El Paso where they made a public service announcement about drowning deaths in El Paso, saying like, “Irrigation season is here, stay away from the canals, watch out for drowning.” But if you read all the autopsy reports, it’s almost all migrants dying. Because the medical examiner doesn’t flag whether it’s a migration-related death, you end up getting these weird statistics about drowning deaths being on the rise in El Paso. And so they’re directing these public safety messages toward El Paso residents who are actually in very little danger of drowning. And the people who are in danger of drowning, the migrants, have no idea.
Did you also find an increase in the deaths of children?
Definitely, yes. In 2018, two eight-year-old Guatemalan kids died. There’s a lot of teenagers dying, crossing the border wall, a lot of them drowning in El Paso city itself. For instance, there was a Russian man and his teenage daughter who both fell into a canal and drowned. They were running from Border Patrol agents. I believe that happened in 2021. We saw fewer deaths of younger people in New Mexico.
You also found that Customs and Border Protection is significantly undercounting deaths related to enforcement. Can you talk about this finding?
CBP is supposed to keep track of migrant deaths and CBP enforcement-related deaths, but we found that the agency is severely undercounting them. There’s been a lot of documentation in the past, talking about that fact, but there hasn’t been a whole lot of quantifying that undercount. Aside from the Arizona data that the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner and Humane Borders have reported. For example, in one year we found 39 deaths, while CBP reported only 10 deaths.
We looked at investigator reports and so we were able to read the narratives, and learn circumstances around the deaths. We were able to see if someone was chased by Border Patrol, either on foot or by vehicle, or if they died in Border Patrol custody. We found that Border Patrol had tried to underplay some of these deaths.
We found that 15 percent of all migrant deaths in the El Paso sector were caused directly by Border Patrol due to chases or use of force, also due to custody deaths, or falls from the border wall. Humane Borders doesn’t track deaths related to Border Patrol enforcement. So this is the first instance that I’m aware of, where we are able to quantify the CBP undercount of Border Patrol-related deaths.
For 2022, for instance, we found 16 deaths that should have been reported by CBP as CBP-related deaths. CBP had only reported six of those deaths. Of the 16 we found, I think it’s still an undercount, because a lot of the investigative reports use vague or passive language about a person “jumping into the canal,” for instance. So you don’t know if the person was actually chased. So we only included cases where it’s very explicit.
What surprised you most in working on this report?
It’s really just shocking how close to help a lot of people died. I’m used to southern Arizona, where the terrain and trails are very remote. But we found people dying across the street from the cemetery, people dying a short walk from the Dollar General store. We’ve had this narrative of “prevention through deterrence” for the last few decades, which has pushed people away from cities into remote areas where they’re more prone to dying from heat exposure or something else. But now the border is militarized to the point where even Sunland Park, this suburb of El Paso, can be as deadly as the middle of nowhere in southern Arizona.
Last June, for instance, something like 40 percent more people died in Doña Ana County in New Mexico than the entire state of Arizona. Most of these deaths were close to the highway or close to a town. It’s a dynamic that has not really been studied. And the fact that it’s been happening for years without anybody really noticing is really scary.
With these findings, are No More Deaths and other humanitarian groups mobilizing to do search-and-rescue and water drops in this area?
Like Texas, much of the land in New Mexico where people are dying is privately owned land, so it’s difficult to access for humanitarian groups.
We’ve been going there about once a month for the past year to try to organize some support. There’s a group that doesn’t have a name yet that we’ve started to work with, that’s putting out water in some of these areas. There’s another group from southern Arizona that has moved over to New Mexico to search for remains in the desert.
We’re hoping the news will spread and that others will join to help. We have some money to help out some groups that are forming. We’re really hoping that groups will form on their own for search-and-rescue and putting out water. Because right now, Border Patrol is the only game in town if you call 911 as a migrant. And Border Patrol has a horrible track record of actually helping anybody.
To get involved, learn more, or support humanitarian efforts, contact No More Deaths here.
A complete lack of accountability for the misguided politicos and bureaucrats who are dishonestly pushing these immoral and ineffective policies without “owning up” to both the known deadly consequences and the lack of long-term “deterrent” value (even assuming, as I do not, that effective deterrence could justify immoral and illegal policies) of the actions they are touting; and
A complete abdication of professional journalistic standardsand performance from the many members of the so-called “mainstream media” who fail to include in each report on draconian “border control” proposals and “policies” the deadly, well-documented human consequences of those policies and who provide a toxic forum for politicos and supposed “pundits” spouting myths andnativist propaganda about “border enforcement,” without presenting experts like Melissa, Todd Miller and many others who have actual experience with the unending trauma and futility caused by our current misguided, often flatly illegal, and clearly immoral approach to “border enforcement.”
Subscribed