Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) – immigrationcourtside.com

🗽 BORDER: WashPost’s Maria Sacchetti’s Nuanced Report Is Well Worth A Read: “The perceived success of Biden’s approach depends on which side of the border the migrants are on.” — Right to apply for asylum is a “simple rule” that politicos of both parties lack the will & skill to follow!🤮

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2023/07/18/border-asylum-us-mexico-biden-legal/

Maria writes:

. . . .

Federal law says anyone fleeing persecution may request asylum once they reach U.S. soil, no matter how they got there. Successive administrations have attempted to restrict that simple rule, however, desperate to reduce record numbers of crossings that have overwhelmed the immigration system, leaving many to live for years in the United States without a decision in their cases.

. . . .

One border, two realities

The perceived success of Biden’s approach depends on which side of the border the migrants are on.

Brownsville, an American city of 200,000 on the other side of the Rio Grande from Matamoros, Mexico, is officially under a state of emergency. But that emergency has dissipated in recent months.

The streets are quiet, thanks to a 70 percent drop in illegal border crossers since the new asylum rule and other Biden policy changes took effect. City workers greet the relatively small number of newcomers released from holding facilities and escort them to a curtained-off parking garage and to the first bus out of town.

In Matamoros, however, migrants trying to navigate the new rules are squeezing into shelters, sharing hotel rooms, curling up in a large camp on the dry riverbank or under pop-up tents at a grimy former gas station.

On a pedestrian bridge one hot morning in late June, Mexican authorities shooed away those who did not have an appointment through the app — including some Mexicans, even though the rule change is not supposed to apply to them.

“Let’s go, please,” one officer said to migrants who gathered at the Matamoros edge of the bridge. “Now.”

Advocates for immigrants say it is unlawful for officials to block migrants from crossing borders in search of protection — and unfair to presume they can easily navigate U.S. asylum law and appointments via smartphone apps. The process of requesting asylum is supposed to be simple, they said, because lives are at stake.

But advocates are powerless to navigate around the new rules until the court case is resolved.

In the sweltering heat one recent day, Christina Asencio, a lawyer with Human Rights First, tried to explain to migrants in the Matamoros camps how the system is supposed to work.

. . . .

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

Read Maria’s full article, one of the more balanced treatments I have encountered, at the link.

A few thoughts:

Even this fine article misses the biggest point: Most asylum seekers want to “do things the right way.” But there has been no “right way” for years because of the unlawful and bogus use of Title 42 by both the Trump and Biden Administrations. It’s still being unlawfully restricted by the arbitrary Biden Administration regulations. Yet, remarkably, asylum seekers are willing to risk their lives waiting in Mexico for an opportunity to apply in an orderly, legal manner under a broken and biased system unfairly “rigged” against them! THAT’S the “real big takeaway” about the reduction in unauthorized border crossings. It’s one that that nobody except experts and advocates are willing to fully acknowledge! Indeed, during the Title 42 charade, an asylum seeker’s only chance of getting into the system was to cross without authorization. Otherwise, they would have been summarily returned without any chance to present their claims.
Some asylum seekers will qualify for protection, some won’t. That’s what the legal, asylum system is supposed to determine — in a fair, expert, and timely manner. That our asylum system has become dysfunctional and ludicrously backlogged lies squarely with poor performance by Congress, the Executive, and the Courts, in many cases “egged on” by right-wing nativists’ myths and distortions. Blaming the victims — asylum seekers — for massive USG failures over decades is totally disingenuous!
Statistically, it’s true that most asylum applicants from the Southern Border do not achieve asylum under our current dysfunctional system. But, the question we should be asking is why aren’t more qualifying, given the horrible conditions in “sending countries” and the generous legal standards — including a presumption of future persecution based on past persecution — that are supposed to apply, but often don’t in practice.
For years, the Executive, through its captive EOIR “courts,” has been unfairly manipulating and intentionally misapplying the law, as well as misreading and ignoring evidence, to achieve unrealistically high asylum denial rates for applicants of color, particularly those arriving at our borders from Latin American and Haiti. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/justice-betrayed-the-intentional-mistreatment-of-central-american-asylum-applicants-by-the-executive-office-for-immigration-review/; https://immigrationcourtside.com/appellate-litigation-in-todays-broken-and-biased-immigration-court-system-four-steps-to-a-winning-counterattack-by-the-relentless-new-due-process-army/. This continues to happen, as documented by the unusually large number of rebukes by Article III Courts (even some of the most conservative) of the flawed decision-making coming out of Garland’s broken EOIR. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/07/14/🌊-tsunami-of-bad-☠️-bia-decisions-hits-garlands-doj-wrong-on-nexus-4th-2-1-wrong-on-nta-4th-2-1-wrong-on-agfel-8th-wrong-on-past-political-per/.
One of the most egregious EOIR-led anti-asylum “scams” is abuse and misuse of the “nexus” requirement for asylum to send legitimate refugees back into harm’s way. See, e.g., immediately preceding reference. “Persecution” must relate to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. But, the asylum statute does NOT require that that be the sole or even the primary motivation for the persecution. It just has to be “at least one central reason.” And, usually, persecution is carried out by the persecutor for a variety of reasons. It’s called “mixed motive analysis” and EOIR Judges, particularly at the precedent-setting BIA, routinely ignore or mis-apply it to deny grantable claims.
Harm resulting from things like “work, poverty, natural disaster, and bad governments” does not automatically qualify an individual for asylum. But, contrary to what many suggest, neither do these circumstances preclude asylum. For example, while a “natural disaster” might not make an individual a “refugee” under law, if that individual were forced to live in a known danger zone or denied life-saving assistance at least in part because of religious, ethnic, or political identity, that WOULD qualify. Was the infamous “Kristallnacht” in Nazi Germany systemic persecution of Jews for ethic and religious reasons? Or was it “mere vandalism, random violence, and hooliganism?” I would say clearly the former. But, I can imagine today’s BIA attributing it to the latter, to deny protection to a large group of individuals. I adjudicated thousands of asylum cases as both a trial and an appellate judge during 21 years at EOIR. I found that harm where a “protected ground” was “at least one central reason” was the rule, not the exception as EOIR tries so hard to make it.
Other often “trumped up” methods EOIR uses for denying valid asylum claims include bogus “adverse credibility” findings; unreasonable “corroboration” requirements; fabricated “reasonable internal relocation” opportunities; nonsensical, ahistorical “changed circumstances” conclusions; ignoring or misconstruing expert testimony; “selective reading” or mis-reading of country background reports; coercive detention in substandard conditions; and restricting or limiting access to counsel. If you think this sounds like a national disgrace on “Garland’s watch,” you’re absolutely right!
Undoubtedly, under a properly functioning system, with true expert adjudicators and judges — those whose career experiences demonstrated sound scholarship and understanding of the life-threatening circumstances of asylum seekers and the inherent limitations of both the Asylum office and EOIR — many more asylum cases from those applying at the Southern Border and elsewhere would be granted. So, Government policies based largely on “deterrence” or on the self-fulfilling prophecy that “few will qualify” should be viewed as fatally flawed. Without a better EOIR and an asylum adjudication system run by well-qualified experts, we can’t possibly formulate rational and humane border policies or indeed workable immigration policies at all. Tragically, we’re a long way from that right now!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-19-23

🤯🤮 AUTOMATED CRUELTY: FAMILY SEPARATION? — THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION HAS AN APP FOR THAT! — Latest Failed Gimmick From Administration Inflicts Unnecessary Chaos On Vulnerable Individuals Trying To Work Within An Incredibly Incompetent & Poorly Administered System!

Andrea Castillo reports for the LA Times:

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=b5d4d78a-33fb-4da8-9a0c-cdc6120dbb7d

Asylum seekers must wait for appointments in U.S. for everyone, or leave some behind.

By Andrea Castillo

WASHINGTON — Inside a tent near the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Jeyson woke up before 3 a.m. every day for a month to fill out applications to request asylum for his family of four through a U.S. government mobile app.

The 25-year-old from Venezuela eventually secured appointments for himself and his wife, but the slots filled up so quickly that he couldn’t get two more for their children. They weren’t worried, though — they had heard about families in similar situations being waved through by border officials.

Instead, he said, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent told them recently that because each member of the family did not have an appointment, “you two can enter, but not your children.” Jeyson asked The Times to withhold his last name out of fear for his family’s safety.

Now, many families like Jeyson’s have found themselves confronted with a seemingly impossible decision: Wait indefinitely for enough appointments for the whole family, or split up. It is unclear how many migrants have been put in this position.

. . . .

“We already risked it all,” he said. “What can we do? We are hopeful that we can get three appointments. Three, in the end, is less than four.”

Advocates said some parents have decided to leave their children with extended family or friends in order to keep their appointments.

Jeyson said a couple from his encampment did just that, leaving their five children at the border bridge and entering the U.S. after managing to get only two appointments.

Children who are unaccompanied by a parent are exempt from Title 42. Those in the care of adults who are not their legal guardians — even if they are extended family — are separated until a guardian can be properly vetted. Jeyson said he watched as the children walked up to a border agent and were taken into custody.

Felicia Rangel-Samponaro, director of the Sidewalk School, a nonprofit that offers education, medical care and other assistance to migrants in Mexican border towns, has organized sessions with parents at various shelters and encampments in Matamoros and Reynosa to explain what will happen if they send their child across the border unaccompanied.

“We don’t want them to think you cross and then your child crosses and will come back to you a day later,” she said. “We were surrounded by parents who were showing us, one after the other, [who] have an appointment but their child does not.”

Rangel-Samponaro recommended to parents that they cancel their appointments and restart their search. But some parents told her they would separate from their kids anyway.

“Family separation has never stopped,” she said, referencing the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” border policy that led to thousands of migrant children being taken from their parents. “The only difference here is that CBP One is now doing it instead of the other ways it’s been done since 2018.”

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

Read Andrea’s complete article at the link.

Let’s start with one undisputed fact: The number of appointments available on CBP One is pathetically, ridiculously inadequate for the KNOWN number of potential applicants waiting in Mexico! Why would this be after the Administration has had over two years to work on this perhaps challenging, yet very solvable problem?

Unnecessary delay is just another form of “bureaucratic deterrence through incompetence” used by the Trump Administration and, inexcusably, continued under Biden.

Just how bonkers is this DHS-created problem? Dependents are included on a primary asylum seeker’s application. Consequently, in most cases one application covers the entire family.

And, dependents don’t have to “prove” independent eligibility for asylum. Therefore, anything beyond biographical information and perhaps proof of relationship is unnecessary.

There is absolutely no reason for requiring a separate “appointment” for each family member. The current system is “pure harassment and deterrence through bureaucratic incompetence.”

In Immigration Court, a family of five required only ONE asylum hearing slot — NOT FIVE!

Most legal asylum seekers at the border want to “do things the right way” — present themselves to DHS and submit an application. It’s neither profound nor “illegal.”

The BEST way of getting applicants to use the ports of entry is to work with experts and NGOs to establish a user-friendly, generous, timely system that prioritizes the many strong claims and grants them promptly at the Asylum Office rather than feeding them into a backlogged and dysfunctional EOIR.

In other words, if you BUILD a fair, credible, user-friendly legal application system at legal ports of entry, applicants will USE it. That the Trump White Nationalists destroyed our legal, statutory refugee and asylum systems was well-known at the time. Indeed, Biden and Harris campaigned on a pledge fix the system and restore legal asylum!

Instead, the Administration failed to utilize the skills and experience of experts to have a planned fix ready on “day one.” Since then, over more than two years, they have inexplicably ignored expert advice, wasted time, squandered resources, and bobbled through a bewildering series of mindless “Stephen Miller Lite deterrence gimmicks,” including “dedicated dockets,” prioritizing the wrong cases, “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” on steroids, a “Miller Lite holdover” BIA known for hostility to asylum seekers, ignoring the need for pro bono representation, failing to train and deploy enough Asylum Officers to the border, and not working with advocates, NGOs, and asylum seekers to prescreen cases, start granting asylum and moving qualified refugees (and their families) through the system and into durable legal status prior to the lifting of Title 42.

The CBP One screwup is just the latest in a string of “unforced errors” by the Biden Administration that abuse asylum seekers without any systemic benefits to anyone — “random acts of cruelty and stupidity!” This app was obviously designed by non-users for use by USG “gatekeepers” without any idea of what its like to be an asylum seeker stuck in Mexico.

Indeed, it appears that the app’s developers have little idea of how the legal asylum system works. Talk about “amateur night at the Bijou!”

“Family separation” has never stopped; now it has been “automated” — by a Dem Administration that has abandoned humanity and betrayed its campaign promises! Inexcusable!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-27-23

🇺🇸⚖️🗽 GROUPS LEADING RESISTANCE 🛡⚔️ TO BIDEN’S “MILLER LITE” ASSAULT ON ASYLUM SEEK COMMENTS OPPOSING LATEST ASYLUM-BASHING, SCOFFLAW PROPOSALS!

Here’s the link to the “comment website:”

https://immigrationjustice.quorum.us/campaign/44910/

“I’m gone, but my ‘evil spirit’ lives on in the West Wing! They have even ‘one-upped’’ me with a ‘family separation app’ called CBP One! Never has inflicting gratuitous cruelty been so easy!” Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com

The Biden proposal has picked up somewhat tepid endorsements from the likes of Trumpsters DHS official Chad Wolf and leading GOP insurrectionist Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH). Tells you all you really need to know about just how cruel and counterproductive these harebrained proposals are!

These are the folks that the Biden administration is pandering to while ignoring and disrespecting experts and asylum advocates who have centuries of collective experience working on asylum and the border. They also have plenty of good ideas for real asylum/human rights/border reforms that will combat cruelty and promote orderly compliance with the rule of law. The Biden Administration just isn’t interested in, or perhaps capable of, “doing the right thing.”

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

Here’s the text of my “custom revision” of the standard comment posted on the website:

I am a retired US DOJ attorney with more than 35 years of government experience, all of it in the immigration field, mostly in senior positions. I have been involved in immigration and human rights, in the public and private sectors, for five decades

My last 21 years were spent as an EOIR Judge: eight years as an Appellate Immigration Judge on the BIA (six of those years as BIA Chair), and 13 years as an Immigration Judge at the (now legacy) Arlington Immigration Court. I was involved in the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980 as well as developing implementing regulations and setting precedents thereunder.

I state unequivocally that these unnecessary proposed regulatory changes are a disavowal of more than four decades of U.S. (and international) asylum law as well as a shocking betrayal of the promise by the Biden Administration to stand up for the rights of legal asylum seekers and end the White Nationalist attempt by the Trump Administration to kill asylum without legislation.

The proposed rule is contrary to well-established United States law regarding the right to seek asylum in our country. There is absolutely no basis in law for the proposed “presumption of denial” for those who seek asylum outside a port of entry or who have transited other countries (as most have) without seeking asylum.

Indeed, the Administration’s approach is in direct contravention of the INA, which establishes rigorous criteria for designating “safe third countries” for asylum seekers. Only Canada has met those rigorous criteria to date, and even then only for a very limited class of applicants.

The idea that Mexico or other countries in Central America that asylum seekers customarily transit on the way to our southern border are “safe havens” for asylum seekers is patently absurd and counterfactual! Indeed, all legitimate experts would say that these are some of the most dangerous countries in the world — none with a fairly functioning asylum system.

Individuals are specifically entitled by the Refugee Act of 1980, as amended, to access our asylum system regardless of how they enter, as has been the law for decades. They should not be forced to seek asylum in transit to the United States, especially not in countries where they may also face harm. The ending of Title 42—itself an illegal policy—should not be used as an excuse to resurrect Trump-era categorical bans on groups of asylum seekers.

As you must be aware, those policies were designed by xenophobic, White Nationalist, restrictionists in the last Administration motivated by a desire to exclude and discriminate against particular ethnic and racial groups. That the Biden Administration would retain and even enhance some of them, while disingenuously claiming to be “saving asylum,” is beyond astounding.

The rule will also cause confusion at ports of entry and cause chaos and exacerbate backlogs in our immigration courts. Even worse, it will aggravate the already unacceptable situation by making it virtually impossible for most asylum seekers to consult with pro bono counsel before their cases are summarily rejected under these flawed regulations.

People who cannot access the CBP One app are at serious risk of being turned away by CBP, even if the rule says otherwise. Additionally, every observer has noted that the number of “available appointments” is woefully inadequate. In many cases, observers have noted that this leads to “automated family separation.” Rather than fixing these problems, these proposed regulations will make things infinitely worse.

Additionally, as was demonstrated by the previous Trump Transit Ban, the rule is likely to create confusion and additional backlogs at the immigration courts as individual judges attempt to apply a complicated, convoluted rule.

Under the law, the U.S. Government has a very straightforward obligation: To provide asylum seekers at the border and elsewhere, regardless of nationality, status, or manner of coming to the U.S., with a fair, timely, opportunity to apply for asylum and other legal protections before an impartial, expert, adjudicator.

The current system clearly does not do that. Indeed, EOIR suffers from an “anti-asylum,” often misogynist “culture,” lacks precedents recognizing recurring asylum situations at the border (particularly those relating to gender-based persecution), and tolerates judges at both levels who lack asylum expertise, are not committed to due process and fundamental fairness for all, and, far from being experts, often make mistakes in applying basic legal standards and properly evaluating evidence of record, as noted in a constant flow of “reversals and rebukes” from Circuit Courts.

We don’t need more mindless “deterrence” gimmicks. Rather, it’s past time for the Administration to reestablish a functioning asylum system.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! The treachery of an Administration that abandons humane values, and fears bold humanitarian actions, never!

PWS

02-26-23

🗽DON’T “NORMALIZE” INHUMANITY & SCOFFLAW TREATMENT OF ASYLUM SEEKERS AT OUR BORDERS! — Heidi Altman, Policy Director, NIJC, Reflects On Administration’s “Miller Lite” Proposal To Deter Legal Asylum Seekers From Seeking Protection, Episode 34 Of The “Lawful Assembly Podcast,” With Rev. Craig Mousin of DePaul University!

Rev. Craig Mousin
Ombudsperson
Refugee and Forced Migration Studies, Grace School of Applied Diplomacy
DePaul University
PHOTO: DePaul Website

LISTEN HERE:

https://www.buzzsprout.com/1744949/12312323Lawful Assembly Podcast

Episode 34: Support Humanitarian Asylum Welcome

FEBRUARY 23, 2023 CRAIG B. MOUSIN SEASON 1 EPISODE 34

Lawful Assembly Podcast

Episode 34: Support Humanitarian Asylum Welcome

00:00

|

24:29

Rewind Speed Forward

Info

LAWFUL ASSEMBLY PODCAST

Episode 34: Support Humanitarian Asylum Welcome

FEB 23, 2023 SEASON 1 EPISODE 34

Craig B. Mousin

In this interview, Rev. Craig B. Mousin, an Adjunct Faculty member of DePaul University’s College of Law, Refugee and Forced Migration Studies Program, and the Grace School of Applied Diplomacy interviews Heidi Altman, the Policy Director of the National Immigrant Justice Center (www.immigrantjustice.org). Ms. Altman discusses a proposed rule that will effectively preclude most asylum-seekers from safely and effectively applying for asylum in the United States. She advocates for humanitarian asylum welcome. She previously served as the legal director for the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition and was a Teaching Fellow in the immigration clinic at Georgetown University Law School.

ACTION STEPS

1. Invite friends and family to learn how the proposed rule will undermine refugee protection and encourage them to respond to their elected representatives and the Biden administration urging withdrawal of the proposed rule.

2. The Sanctuary Working Group of the Chicago Religious Leadership Network currently serves and advocates alongside newly arrived asylum seekers in the Chicagoland area. There are many impactful ways you can help asylum seekers, from providing sponsorship and temporary housing to covering legal fees and advocating for policy change. Interested individuals, faith communities, or organizations may contact CRLN staff/consultant David Fraccaro at davidfraccaro99@gmail.com to talk about ways to partner together in supporting and protecting our newest neighbors.

RESOURCES

“Solutions for a Humane Border Policy,” National Immigrant Justice Center, January 17, 2023: https://immigrantjustice.org/staff/blog/solutions-humane-border-policy

“Proposed Ban on Asylum Violates US Law and Catholic Social Teaching,” Catholic Legal Immigration Network, February 22, 2023: https://www.cliniclegal.org/press-releases/proposed-ban-asylum-violates-us-law-and-catholic-social-teaching

“Biden Asylum Ban Will Endanger Refugees, Center for Gender and Refugee Rights, February 21, 2023: https://cgrs.uchastings.edu/news/biden-asylum-ban-will-endanger-refugees

The proposed rule is scheduled for publication on February 23, 2023: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-03718.pdf

Craig Mousin volunteers with the National Immigrant Justice Center. We welcome your inquiries or suggestions for future podcasts. If you would like to ask more questions about our podcasts or comment, email us at: mission.depaul@gmail.com

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

Thanks, Craig and Heidi for a very interesting and informative session!

Taylor Swift — T. Swift. Loss of chance to attend her latest concert due to Ticketmaster SNAFU caused immediate bipartisan Congressional outrage and hearings! Loss of chance to plead for life because of DHS CBP One App SNAFU, not so much! Dehumanization of our fellow humans degrades our society.
LOS ANGELES – Swift at 2019 iHeartRadio Music Awards on March 14, 2019 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Glenn Francis/Pacific Pro Digital Photography) Creative Commons License.

Here are “my takeaways:”

Asylum seekers have a legal right, established by the Refugee Act of 1980 and international conventions, to seek asylum at our border or in the U.S., regardless of status and/or nationality;
The Trump and Biden Administrations have abrogated this right without legislation;
The Trump Administration’s anti-asylum actions and intentional dehumanization of asylum seekers was rooted in White Nationalist nativism;
Despite recognition during the 2020 campaign of the invidious motivation for Trump’s anti-asylum policies, the Biden Administration has retained, or even enhanced, the dehumanization and denial of rights to asylum seekers at the border;
Over the past two Administrations, acceptance of the basic rights and obligations of the U.S. toward asylum seekers, incorporated in the Refugee Act of 1980, has been eliminated or reduced to a superficial “shell” (“asylum in name only,” as some advocates have termed Biden’s latest proposed anti-asylum border policies);
By abandoning the framework set forth in the Refugee Act of 1980, the Trump and Biden Administrations have re-injected the ad hoc approach, disorder, nationality bias, and ideological preferences at the border that the Refugee Act of 1980 was specifically enacted to eliminate;
There is much under-appreciated support for welcoming, fairly treating, and helping refugees and asylum seekers among Americans in communities throughout our nation;
NGOs and experts have dozens of great ideas for restoring and improving the legal right to seek asylum in fair, humane, non-discriminatory ways which they have shared or are happy to share with the Biden Administration;
The Biden Administration to date has shown little if any interest in adopting and implementing better humanitarian solutions for asylum seekers at the border;
Both parties lack leaders with the integrity and courage to stand up for the legal and human rights of asylum seekers;
We must continue to discuss ways to break the cycle of dehumanization, cruelty, and scofflaw treatment of asylum seekers and replace it with enhanced humanitarian procedures and a welcoming culture, in accordance with the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.N. Convention and Protocol, and the very best traditions of our nation of immigrants.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-24-23

🏴‍☠️☠️🤮 “THE END OF ASYLUM” — IGNORING THE ADVICE OF ASYLUM EXPERTS AND PROGRESSIVE DEMS, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION SEEKS TO FINISH THE TRUMP/MILLER WHITE NATIONALIST PROGRAM TO KILL ASYLUM AT THE BORDER, WHERE IT IS MOST NECESSARY & GUARANTEED BY STATUTE — Like Trump & Miller, Biden Plans To Strangle ⚰️ Asylum By Evading & Bypassing Statute W/O Legislation — Experts Planning “War Of Resistance” To Administration They Helped Elect, But Now Turns Its Back On Humanity!

Trump Dumping Asylum Seekers in Hondras — Legal asylum seekers from Central America might have thought that cruelty, illegality, and stupidity went out with the Trump Administration. They were wrong! Now Biden proposes to lawlessly “presume denial” of asylum — with no legal basis — and dump legal asylum seekers of color from his “disfavored nations” back into Mexico, whose asylum system is dysfunctional and where abusive treatment of asylum seekers has been well documented and recognized by a Federal Court! Women suffering from gender-based persecution are particular targets of this Administration’s campaign against humanity!
Artist: Monte Wolverton
Reproduced under license

Many groups issued immediate statements of outrage and protest at this cruel, lawless, and intellectually dishonest betrayal! I set forth two of them here:

From the American Immigration Council:

PRESS RELEASE

Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security Release Details of Dangerous New Asylum Transit Ban

Enforcement Border Enforcement Asylum

February 21, 2023

Last modified:

February 21, 2023

WASHINGTON, Feb. 21, 2023—Today, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that will implement a new asylum transit ban—one of the most restrictive border control measures to date under any president. The policy will penalize asylum seekers who cross the border irregularly or fail to apply for protection in other nations they transit through on their way to the United States.

As described in the NPRM, the proposed asylum transit ban rule would all but bar asylum for any non-Mexican who crosses the U.S.-Mexico border between ports of entry, unless they had previously applied for—and been denied—asylum in another country before arrival.

Specifically:

The rule would apply to all non-Mexican migrants (except unaccompanied minors) who had not been pre-approved under one of the Biden administration’s parole programs, which are currently open only to certain nationals of 5 countries; pre-register at a port of entry via CBP One or a similar scheduling system (or arrive at a port of entry and demonstrate they could not access the system); or get rejected for asylum in a transit country.

During an asylum seeker’s initial screening interview with an asylum officer, the officer will determine whether the new rule applies to them. If so, they will fail their credible fear screening unless they can demonstrate they were subject to an exception such as a medical emergency, severe human trafficking, or imminent danger—which would “rebut the presumption” of ineligibility.

Migrants subject to the rule, who do not meet the exceptions above, would be held to a higher standard of screening than is typically used for asylum (“reasonable fear”). If a migrant meets that standard, they will be allowed to apply for asylum before an immigration judge—although the text of the proposed regulation is unclear on whether they would actually be eligible to be granted asylum.

Migrants who do not meet the credible or reasonable fear standard can request review of the fear screening process in front of an immigration judge.

Once the regulation is formally published in the Federal Register, the public will have 30 days to comment on the proposal. The administration is legally required to consider and respond to all comments submitted during this period before publishing the final rule, which itself must precede implementing the policy. Given the Biden administration’s expectation that the new rule will be in place for the expiration of the national COVID-19 emergency on May 11, and the potential end of the Title 42 border expulsion policy at that time, the timeline raises substantial concerns that the administration will not fulfill its obligation to seriously consider all comments submitted by the public before the rule is finalized.

Furthermore, the sunset date for the new rule, two years after it becomes effective, is after the end of the current presidential term—making it impossible to guarantee it will not be extended indefinitely.

In 2020, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel blocked the Trump administration’s asylum transit ban from being applied to thousands of asylum seekers who were unlawfully prevented from accessing the U.S. asylum process. The ban was later vacated by the D.C. District Court.

The American Immigration Council was a part of the Al Otro Lado v. Wolf class action lawsuit on behalf of individual asylum seekers and the legal services organization Al Otro Lado (AOL), which challenged the legality of the previous asylum transit ban as applied to asylum seekers who had been turned back at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Jeremy Robbins
Executive Director
American Immigration Council
PHOTO: AIC websitel

The following statement is from Jeremy Robbins, Executive Director, The American Immigration Council:

“President Biden committed to restoring access to asylum while on the campaign trail, but today’s proposal is a clear embrace of Trump-style crackdowns on asylum seekers, many of whom are fleeing from globally recognized oppressive regimes. For over four decades, U.S. law has allowed any person in the United States to apply for asylum no matter how they got here. The new proposed rule would all but destroy that promise, by largely reinstating prior asylum bans that were found to be illegal.

“Not only is the new asylum transit ban illegal and immoral, if put into place as proposed, it would create unnecessary barriers to protection that will put the lives of asylum seekers at risk. While the rule purports to be temporary, the precedent it sets—for this president or future presidents—could easily become permanent.

“For generations, the United States has offered a promise that any person fleeing persecution and harm in their home countries could seek asylum, regardless of how they enter the United States. Today’s actions break from his prior promises and threaten a return to some of the most harmful asylum policies of his predecessor—possibly forever.”

###

For more information, contact:

Brianna Dimas 202-507-7557 bdimas@immcouncil.org

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

From the Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Services:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 21, 2022
Contact: Tim Young | tyoung@lirs.org

Washington, D.C. – In preparation for the end of Title 42 asylum restrictions, the Biden administration announced a new proposed rule severely limiting asylum eligibility for those who did not first seek protection in a country they transited through to reach the United States, or who entered without notifying a border agent. The proposed rule will be subject to a 30-day period of public comment before it can take effect.

The new rule mirrors a transit asylum ban first implemented under the Trump administration, which was ultimately struck down by federal judges in multiple courts. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides that people seeking protection may apply for asylum regardless of manner of entry, and does not require them to have first applied for protection in another country.

Krish O’Mara Vignarajah
CEO
Lutheran Immigrantion & Refugee Service

In response to the proposed asylum eligibility rule, Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, President and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, said:

“This rule reaches into the dustbin of history to resurrect one of the most harmful and illegal anti-asylum policies of the Trump administration. This transit ban defies decades of humanitarian protections enshrined in U.S. law and international agreements, and flagrantly violates President Biden’s own campaign promises to restore asylum. Requiring persecuted people to first seek protection in countries with no functioning asylum systems themselves is a ludicrous and life-threatening proposal.

While the Biden administration has launched a smartphone app for asylum appointments and expanded a temporary parole option for an extremely limited subset of four nationalities, these measures are no substitute for the legal right to seek asylum, regardless of manner of entry. It is generally the most vulnerable asylum seekers who are least likely to be able to navigate a complex app plagued by technical issues, language barriers, and overwhelming demand. Many families face immediate danger and cannot afford to wait for months on end in their country of persecution. To penalize them for making the lifesaving decision to seek safety at our border flies in the face of core American values.

We urge the Biden administration to reverse course before this misguided rule denies protection to those most in need of it. Officials must recognize that decades of deterrence-based policies have had little to no impact in suppressing migration. Instead, they should focus on managing migration humanely through expanded parole programs, efficient refugee processing in the hemisphere, and an equitably accessible asylum system.”

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

Lest anyone believe the absolute BS coming from the Biden Administration that they “had no choice” and that this “wasn’t the choice they wanted,” here’s an article setting forth the many southern border solutions that the Administration ignored or was too incompetent to carry out in their dishonest, immoral pursuit of the anti-asylum “vision” of Stephen Miller and other White Nationalists.

💡💡”There’s many things Biden could do. We published a resource called “Forty-Two Border Solutions That Are Not Title 42.” We could have done 142,” says immigration expert Danilo Zak in The Border Chronicle! The Biden Administration has ignored, failed, or is prepared to shrug off most of them!🤯

Danilo Zak
Associate Director of Policy and Advocacy Church World Service
PHOTO: The Border Chronicle

Zak was interviewed by Melissa Del Bosque of The Border Chronicle:

There are many changes that the Biden administration and Congress could make to alleviate suffering at the southern border. Immigration policy expert Danilo Zak recently published a report that offers several solutions, from rebuilding the refugee resettlement program to expanding nonimmigrant work visas to more countries in the Western Hemisphere.

Zak, formerly of the National Immigration Forum, is Associate Director of Policy and Advocacy for the nonprofit Church World Service. He spoke with The Border Chronicle about the increase of forcibly displaced people in the Western Hemisphere and the current situation at the border. “For many, there is no line to get into—no ‘right way’ to come to the U.S.,” Zak says.

Melissa Del Bosque
Border Reporter
PHOTO: Melissadelbosque.com

Read the full interview here:

https://open.substack.com/pub/theborderchronicle/p/how-to-alleviate-suffering-at-the?r=330z7&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post

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

Notably, better, more robust, use of Refugee Programs established by the Refugee Act of 1980 is among Zak’s “top three.” This is something that I have been “touting” since Biden was elected, but where the Administration has failed to meet the challenge.

And, contrary to what the Administration and others might say, there is nothing unachievable about using refugee programs to deal with emergency humanitarian situations. Also, with respect to cases taking forever to process, no need for that nonsense. It’s a matter of poor bureaucratic execution rather than a defect in the legal authority.

The Refugee Act of 1980 (“RA 80”) is basically a modified version of the “emergency parole, resettle with NGOs, and petition Congress to adjust status” that was used on an ad hoc basis to resettle Indochinese refugees and others on an emergency basis prior to the RA 80. Except, that the criteria, resettlement mechanisms, and adjustment process were all “built in” to the statute. Consequently, although Congress was to be consulted in advance, that process was designed to run smoothly, efficiently, and on an emergency basis if necessary.

While “Congress bashing” is now a favorite pastime of the Executive, Judiciary, and media, in 1980 Congress actually provided a mechanism to regularize the processing of type of refugee flows now facing the U.S. The statutory flexibility and the legal tools to deal with these situations are in RA 80.

A subsequent Congress even added the “expedited removal” and “credible fear” process so that initial asylum screening could be conducted by expert Asylum Officers at or near the border and those “screened out” would be subject to expedited removal without full hearings in Immigration Court. Clearly, there was never a need for the Title 42 nonsense for any competent Administration.

Basically, if an Administration can run a large-scale parole program, which the Biden Administration did for Afghanistan and is doing now for Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Haiti, it can run a legal refugee program beyond our borders, even in a “country in crisis” if necessary.

The idea that a statutory scheme specifically designed to have the flexibility deal with future mass refugee situations couldn’t be used to deal with the current humanitarian situation in the Western Hemisphere is pure poppycock!

Also unadulterated BS: The Biden Administration’s proposal to make the “end of asylum” at the southern border “temporary,” for two years! In 2025, the Biden Administration might not even be in office. If there is a GOP Administration, you can be sure that the demise of asylum at the border will become permanent, with or without legislation.

Also, what would be an Administration’s rationale for resuming asylum processing at the southern border in two years. Surely, there will be some other “bogus border crisis” cooked up to extend the bars. And, if there is no such crisis, the claim will be that the bars are “working as intended” so what’s the rationale for terminating them.

The argument that complying with the law by fairly processing asylum seekers regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or manner of arrival, as the law requires, might actually encourage people to apply for protection will always be there — hanging over cowardly politicos afraid of the consequences of granting protection. Fact is, the current Administration has so little belief in our legal system and their own ability to operate within in, and so little concern for the human lives involved, that they are scared to death of failure. That’s not likely to change in two years — or ever!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-22-23

🏴‍☠️SCOFFLAW DOJ: EOIR VIOLATES STIPULATED COURT ORDER ON VIDEO HEARINGS — Garland’s Failed Court System Moves A Step Closer To Contempt, As Federal Judge Tells Dysfunctional Agency 🤡 To Get Its Act Together!

Clown Car — “DOJ/EOIR litigation team arriving at U.S. Courthouse.”
PHOTO CREDIT: Ellin Beltz, 07-04-16, Creative Commons License, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. Creator not responsible for above caption.

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

Round Table “Fighting Knightess” and NJ Bar honoree Hon. Sue Roy reports from the Garden State:

Hi Everyone and Happy Friday!

Regarding the lawsuit AILA-NJ v. EOIR—WE WON!!! We received an oral ruling from Judge Vazquez today—EOIR lost; it violated the terms of our stipulated agreement by failing to grant (or even rule on) Webex motions. We are preparing another proposed order to submit to the Judge early next week. He stated that if EOIR fails to comply moving forward, he will hold them in contempt.

Sue

PS Please feel free to share, publicize, etc.

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

Hon. Susan G. Roy
Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC
Princeton Junction, NJ
Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Those seeking more information on this case should contact Judge Roy directly.

The caption “AILA-NJ v. EOIR” basically “says it all” about what it’s like to try to practice before Merrick Garland’s (and Biden’s) dystopian Immigration Courts these days. Such unnecessary trauma; such a waste of resources; such an abuse of public trust! All from a Dem Administration that back in 2020 ran on a platform of returning competency, professionalism, and public service to Government! Most infuriating and disappointing!🤬

Heard on “E-Street:”

“EOIR’s handling of this and the DOJ position are honestly ridiculous!”
“To quote Judy Collins & Stephen Sondheim:
‘Send in the clownsDon’t bother, they’re here.’”
“Great work Sue! But, the problem really is treating a court system like an administrative agency instead of a court system. Problem is baked into the institution.”
“Amazing! Great work, and thanks on behalf of all who will benefit from this.”
“And, maybe it will help with the Article 1 Court position.”
“Great work!”
“Thanks for outing Garland and his scofflaw EOIR again. Seems Garland should be held in contempt if EOIR ignores court order again.”
“All parties acknowledge the case will be moot when the pandemic declaration ends–which Biden said earlier this week will be sometime in May.”
“Thanks to our attorneys, to DHS attorneys, especially Ginnine Fried, and to everyone here who helped!”
“If there’s one thing that can bring ICE and the private/pro bono bar together, it’s EOIR’s incompetence and intransigence. My understanding is that their OWN WITNESS tanked EOIR’s case! Is ANYBODY “supervising” EOIR litigation at DOJ these days?”
“What if EOIR provided public service and acted rationally without Federal Court orders? Isn’t that something that Dems on the Hill should be ‘all over Garland’ to fix? Now!”

🇺🇸 Thanks to Sue and all involved, and Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-04-23

🤯 DEMS’ IMMIGRATION & RACIAL JUSTICE FAILURES BEGIN WITH REFUSAL TO BRING PRACTICAL EXPERTISE, INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATION, & MORE REAL JUDGES COMMITTED TO DUE PROCESS, HIGHEST QUALITY, & RULE OF LAW TO EOIR! — “[A] never-ending crisis at the border can be exploited by one party, as the other expands the needlessly punitive immigration practices of the previous administration.“

https://prospect.org/justice/2023-01-19-immigration-case-backlog-title-42/

JAROD FACUNDO in The American Prospect:

. . . .

All of these particularities matter, because once all available options have been exhausted, cases generally end up inside an immigration court before an immigration judge. The administrative snarls that predate a case before it arrives in immigration court are thus a result of policy from the top, for better or worse.

On paper, courts are supposed to be independent bodies. They are supposed to be immune from the political agendas of other government operatives or serve as independent mediators that can rectify previous errors.

But immigration courts are not. As a part of the Justice Department, at the end of the day, they work under the attorney general. While other courts function under a de jure practice of independence, immigration courts are held to the same standard despite not possessing the same protections that allow other judges to carry out their basic job functions. This creates an impossible work environment for immigration judges to fairly adjudicate every case with the attention it deserves. Instead, their measurements of success are based on accomplishing the president’s goals, which are translated into quotas for immigration courts. For example, Biden administration officials touted removing 1.3 million migrants last year.

As the Prospect has previously reported, immigration judges have long pointed out the tenuous environment they must work in.

But later this month, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) will be hearing from the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) over whether or not their union will be reinstated. The FLRA will now have a majority of Biden appointees.

A dysfunctional immigration system can only start to work with independent courts. But that change can only happen through congressional action. In the meantime, a never-ending crisis at the border can be exploited by one party, as the other expands the needlessly punitive immigration practices of the previous administration.

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

Many thanks to prodigious immigration commentator Nolan Rappaport for passing this along to me.

There is consensus among experts that an independent Article I Immigration Court is urgently needed and long overdue. There is also a consensus that the chance of achieving this critical legislative change with a GOP-controlled House is zero. At the same time, we must remember that Dems didn’t exactly give any priority to this essential and far-reaching reform when they had “unified control” over the political branches.

There is also consensus that in the absence of Article I there are things that Garland and the Biden Administration could and should have done administratively that would have drastically improved the due process, expertise, quality, efficiency, “customer service,” and professionalism of EOIR.

Gee whiz, a Harvard Law student figured it out! They have constructive suggestions for administrative reforms to change culture, improve training, place docket control in the hands of judges not politicos and bureaucrats, increase independence, improve quality, and insulate IJs from the political whims and enforcement agendas of each Administration. See https://wp.me/p8eeJm-8hE?

But, a Harvard Law grad, long-time Federal Judge, and Supremes’ nominee, and his band of supposedly smart and high-powered political lieutenants couldn’t or wouldn’t get it done for a Dem Administration? Gimmie a break!

A Dem Administration that was supposed to get us beyond the cruelty, White Nationalism, xenophobia, and “malicious incompetence” of the Trump Administration falls flat on its face on a critical and achievable part of immigration reform and racial justice in America! Go figure!

Meanwhile, the cries of pain keep coming from those subjected to Garland’s dystopian “courts!”

Had an “interesting” IH today with this IJ. [IJ] denied my motion to continue the case by email the evening before the 8:30 am hearing, even though I had four IHs scheduled in the same time slot and had filed a motion to continue a month before the hearing. [IJ] refused to grant me a few minutes to speak with OPLA counsel before the hearing to narrow issues, saying that discussion should have already taken place. [IJ] spent an inordinate amount of time on housekeeping issues. [IJ] read a list of “rules.” [IJ] would insist that counsel stand when they spoke. [IJ] would routinely deny motions for webex hearings. [IJ] went through the biographical information excruciatingly slowly, including having the respondent spell the names of all the riders, provide their birth dates, etc.
- It was a case where DHS had stipulated to 42b and the only issue would’ve been discretion but the IJ didn’t care. [IJ] told me to let everyone know that [IJ] reads each and every single document submitted in . . . court from back to front and . . . has a lot of questions . . . . [IJ] went on to conduct a full hearing, chastised DHS for stipulating, made a big deal of every little thing, asked irrelevant questions about medicaid forms that [client] may have filled for her children (not included as part of evidence), insinuated that she committed medicaid fraud, and made the ACC change position on each and every issue.
[The IJ] denied the asylum application of a young gay man from El Salvador. This is a first for me, in my 20+ years of asylum practice. We’ve never lost such a case that I can recall.
- The facts are pretty typical – the kid lived a life of humiliation and abuse in El Salvador due to his sexual orientation; tried to commit suicide several times; and ultimately left the country when the Mara 18 tried to get him to deliver marijuana for them. Arguably, not a strong case for past persecution, but such cases typically prevail where a judge fairly evaluates a claim of well-founded fear of future persecution and considers the country condition reports and articles about the horrendous human rights abuses against the LGBT community in El Salvador. This didn’t fly with IJ. [IJ] simply said “there is no meaningful evidence in the record to demonstrate that the Respondent would experience harm amounting to persecution in El Salvador” and then went on to say that the client would likely experience more bullying and discrimination, but that doesn’t mean it would be persecution. [IJ] did not mention any country conditions report or article from the record to support his ruling.
- [T]he DHS attorney called me directly after the hearing to empathize and tell me that it’s well-known even on their side that this judge is a piece of work and it’s always a good idea to take PD if offered.
- [T]his judge is a menace. I don’t know what to do to protect my clients from [IJ] other than prepare strong BIA appeals.
This is the third email I have received to schedule MORE cases. No one will tell me what the goal is. I’ve put them on notice of the health issues this is/has been causing me.
- Please tell the higher ups that this practice of overscheduling the private bar is taking a serious toll on practitioners’ health. Medical documentation is below and attached. I’m really not sure why the court has felt the need to overschedule practitioners to this level, but it is really taking a serious toll on everyone. Can someone please shed light on this urgent need to overwhelm the limited number of defense attorneys we have in the area?
Another outstanding Immigration Court practitioner told me that they had left courtroom practice and taken a “research and writing” position because the EOIR courtroom “experience” under Garland was so dehumanizing, demoralizing, stressful, and life consuming!

A different attorney called me with concerns that an IJ’s “over the top” abuse of pro bono counsel would discourage others from taking cases in Immigration Court.

IJ’s wasting time; discouraging negation and stipulation by parties; taking over hearings; abusing continuance discretion; failing to abide by Cardoza & Mogharrabi; showing bias; producing wildly inconsistent anti-immigrant results; showing thin knowledge of law; rudely treating counsel and clients; over-scheduling; abusing power; endangering the health of those appearing before them; driving practitioners to leave the EOIR courtrooms; discouraging pro bono!

Everything that is NOT what a fair, independent, court of law should be is present and allowed, perhaps even encouraged, in Garland’s broken EOIR! Why is this type of grotesque mismanagement, bad judging, unprofessional conduct, and disregard of fundamental due process “business as usual” under a Dem Administration?

This “star chamber” system needs new, expert, progressive, due-process-focused, free from political hackery and inane gimmicks, “kick-ass” management! Garland isn’t getting the job done!

Meanwhile, the Biden Administration’s incredibly short-sighted and legally flawed “Miller Lite” asylum and border policies, of which Garland’s broken EOIR and unwillingness to stand up for human rights are a critical part, have “gone over like a lead balloon” with younger progressive Dems in Congress. See, e.g., https://link.vanityfair.com/click/30312106.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.

These younger progressives are exactly the “core support” that Dems will need to win future elections! How does “dissing” them with inept leadership and ineffective nativist-derived immigration policies help the cause?

Honestly, what a mess! Garland’s dystopian EOIR is the Democratic Party’s shame!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-22-23

🤯⚠️ REV. CRAIG MOUSIN: NEW YEAR, SAME PROBLEMS, AS BIDEN’S REFUSAL TO FOLLOW REFUGEE & ASYLUM LAWS SOWS CHAOS, TRAUMA — (I’m cited)

‹ All episodes

Lawful Assembly Podcast

Episode 33: New Year, Same Problems

JANUARY 13, 2023 CRAIG B. MOUSIN SEASON 1 EPISODE 33

Lawful Assembly Podcast

Episode 33: New Year, Same Problems

Click here for podcast:

https://lawfulassembly.buzzsprout.com/1744949/12039357-episode-33-new-year-same-problems

00:00

|

15:05

Rewind Speed Forward

Info

LAWFUL ASSEMBLY PODCAST

Episode 33: New Year, Same Problems

JAN 13, 2023 SEASON 1 EPISODE 33

Craig B. Mousin

Show Notes

This is an interview with Rev. Craig B. Mousin, an Adjunct Faculty member of DePaul University’s College of Law, Refugee and Forced Migration Studies Program, and the Grace School of Applied Diplomacy. The podcast critiques Department of Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas’ recent NPR interview for what the interview omits in explaining 2023 asylum policies.

ACTION STEP

Imagine you are an asylum-seeker who has left your homeland. Listen to the interview with Secretary Mayorkas and consider its impact as you. Then write to the White House and Secretary Mayorkas and urge the Biden administration to follow the procedures and procedural protections of the Refugee Act of 1980: https://www.npr.org/people/4080709/steve-inskeep

RESOURCES

Dr. Shailja Sharma: “The Border ‘Crisis’ Is a Crisis We Can Solve,” January 9, 2023: https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion-border-asylum-seekers-resources-title-42-20230109-g3aoghdnn5avxavszsfcln7viu-story.html

Paul Schmidt quotes several experts on the new policy and adds his critique: (January 6, 2023): https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/01/06/%f0%9f%a4%af%f0%9f%91%8e%f0%9f%8f%bc-experts-condemnation-of-bidens-latest-anti-asylum-border-gimmicks-swift-brutal-true/

Law professor Karen Musalo: “Enough with the Political Games. Migrants Have a Right to Asylum,” January 6, 2023, https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-01-06/biden-border-immigration-asylum-title-42

The National Immigrant Justice Center’s FAQs on these policies: https://immigrantjustice.org/staff/blog/recycling-trumps-asylum-bans-expanding-title-42-how-bidens-new-policies-threaten

For information on U.S. policies undermining democracy, see, Mousin, “You Were Told to Love the Immigrant,” https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2784951, text between fns. 161-166.

For documentation on the violence caused by soldiers trained at the School of the Americas Watch, now WHINSEC: www.soaw.org

The statistics on the violence at the border: US/Mexico: Expelling Venezuelans Threatens Rights, Lives Restore Access to Asylum at the Border, (October 21, 2022) as cited in https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2022/10/human-rights-watch-usmexico-expelling-venezuelans-threatens-rights-lives-restore-access-to-asylum-at.html

We welcome your inquiries or suggestions for future podcasts. If you would like to ask more questions about our podcasts or comment, email us at: mission.depaul@gmail.com

Share

SHARE EPISODE

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Download

SUBSCRIBE

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

More

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

Google Podcasts

Podcast Index

Overcast

Amazon Music

Stitcher

iHeartRadio

TuneIn + Alexa

Podcast Addict

Castro

Castbox

Podchaser

Pocket Casts

Deezer

Listen Notes

Player FM

Goodpods

Podfriend

RSS Feed

Buzzsprout

LISTEN ON

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

Google Podcasts

Podcast Index

Overcast

Amazon Music

+

SHARE EPISODE

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share Link

SHOW NOTES

Show Notes

This is an interview with Rev. Craig B. Mousin, an Adjunct Faculty member of DePaul University’s College of Law, Refugee and Forced Migration Studies Program, and the Grace School of Applied Diplomacy. The podcast critiques Department of Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas’ recent NPR interview for what the interview omits in explaining 2023 asylum policies.

ACTION STEP

Imagine you are an asylum-seeker who has left your homeland. Listen to the interview with Secretary Mayorkas and consider its impact as you. Then write to the White House and Secretary Mayorkas and urge the Biden administration to follow the procedures and procedural protections of the Refugee Act of 1980: https://www.npr.org/people/4080709/steve-inskeep

RESOURCES

Dr. Shailja Sharma: “The Border ‘Crisis’ Is a Crisis We Can Solve,” January 9, 2023: https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion-border-asylum-seekers-resources-title-42-20230109-g3aoghdnn5avxavszsfcln7viu-story.html

Paul Schmidt quotes several experts on the new policy and adds his critique: (January 6, 2023): https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/01/06/%f0%9f%a4%af%f0%9f%91%8e%f0%9f%8f%bc-experts-condemnation-of-bidens-latest-anti-asylum-border-gimmicks-swift-brutal-true/

Law professor Karen Musalo: “Enough with the Political Games. Migrants Have a Right to Asylum,” January 6, 2023, https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-01-06/biden-border-immigration-asylum-title-42

The National Immigrant Justice Center’s FAQs on these policies: https://immigrantjustice.org/staff/blog/recycling-trumps-asylum-bans-expanding-title-42-how-bidens-new-policies-threaten

For information on U.S. policies undermining democracy, see, Mousin, “You Were Told to Love the Immigrant,” https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2784951, text between fns. 161-166.

For documentation on the violence caused by soldiers trained at the School of the Americas Watch, now WHINSEC: www.soaw.org

The statistics on the violence at the border: US/Mexico: Expelling Venezuelans Threatens Rights, Lives Restore Access to Asylum at the Border, (October 21, 2022) as cited in https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2022/10/human-rights-watch-usmexico-expelling-venezuelans-threatens-rights-lives-restore-access-to-asylum-at.html

We welcome your inquiries or suggestions for future podcasts. If you would like to ask more questions about our podcasts or comment, email us at: mission.depaul@gmail.com

All content © 2023 Lawful Assembly Podcast.

Republished by permission

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

Thanks for speaking out, Craig! Mayorkas’s interview was a shocking mix of intellectual dishonesty, insincerity, and misdirection worthy of a Trump Administration official. And, as Craig points out several times, the interviewer didn’t ask the right questions either.

Let’s understand what the Biden Administration’s arbitrary, ad hoc “parole program” that has been substituted for the Refugee Act of 1980 (“the law”), as amended, really does: 1) favors those who don’t necessarily meet the “refugee” definition (even if properly interpreted), but who have individual sponsors, over refugees; or 2) forces those who do meet the refugee definition into an inferior “parole status” that denies them the statutory path to a green card and eventual citizenship and other benefits that legal “refugee” or “asylum” status entails, or 3) a combination of 1) and 2).

Sound like a good idea? Of course not! It’s a prescription for a legal, humanitarian, and moral disaster!

Getting the USG to follow the law shouldn’t be this difficult. But, it is, because of the refusal of the Biden Administration to heed the advice of experts who not only know the law, but understand the border and the corrosive effect and real human consequences of unlawfully abandoning the statutory framework established by the Refugee Act of 1980.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-18-23

🤯👎🏼WHY U.S. ASYLUM LAW IS FAILING UNDER BIDEN: “ASYLUM DENIERS CLUB” 🏴‍☠️ @ EOIR REMAINS MAJOR OBSTACLE TO DUE PROCESS, EFFICIENCY, & BEST PRACTICES UNDER GARLAND — 20% Of IJ’s Deny Asylum @ Rates Of 90% Or More! — Grant Rates “Range” From 0% To 99%, With Nationwide Average Denial Rate of 64% For Represented & 83% For Unrepresented Applicants!

Jason Dzubow, “The Asylumist” —

https://www.asylumist.com/2022/12/21/judging-the-judges-in-immigration-court/

To paraphrase Forrest Gump, Immigration Court is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you’re going to get. Also, some of the chocolate is poison.

For many applicants in Immigration Court, the most important factor in determining success is not the person’s story or the evidence or the quality of their lawyer. It is the judge who is randomly assigned to the case. According to TRAC Immigration, a non-profit that tracks asylum approval rates in Immigration Court, Immigration Judge (“IJ”) approval rates vary widely. For the period 2017 to 2022, asylum approval rates ranged from 0% (a judge in Houston) to 99% (a judge in San Francisco). Of the 635 IJs listed on the TRAC web page, 125 granted asylum in less than 10% of their cases. At the other extreme, nine IJs granted asylum more than 90% of the time.

Based solely on these numbers, there is a 20% chance (1 in 5) that your IJ denies at least 90% of the asylum cases that he adjudicates. That’s pretty frightening. But there is much more to the story, which we will explore below.

If Santa were an IJ, it wouldn’t matter whether you were naughty or nice – he would deport you Ho-Ho-Home.

First, the raw TRAC data does not distinguish between represented and unrepresented applicants, and having a lawyer generally makes a difference. Overall, represented applicants were denied asylum in 64% of cases. Unrepresented applicants were denied asylum more frequently–in 83% of cases. So if your IJ sees many cases where the applicant does not have an attorney, her overall denial rate is likely to be higher than if most of her cases have lawyers. To find this information, go to the TRAC website, click on the judge’s name, and scroll almost to the bottom of the IJ’s individual web page. You will see the percentage of cases before that IJ where the asylum applicant had an attorney. If you see that your judge presides over many unrepresented cases, it probably means that her overall denial rate is higher than would be expected if that IJ saw more cases where the applicant had a lawyer. What does this mean? Basically, if you are before such a judge, and you have an attorney, your odds of success are probably better than the judge’s overall denial rate would suggest. Conversely, if you do not have an attorney, your odds of receiving asylum are probably lower than the judge’s overall denial rate would suggest.

A second big factor that is relevant to each IJ’s denial rate is country of origin. People from certain countries are more likely to be denied, and so if your judge sees many people from those countries, his overall denial rate will be pushed up. You can see country-of-origin information if you click on your judge’s name and scroll to the very bottom of his web page. The countries that have had the highest denial rates over the past two decades are: El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, and Mexico. And so if your IJ has many cases from these countries, his overall denial rate will likely be higher. Meaning that if you are not from one of these countries, your odds of winning asylum are probably better than what your judge’s overall denial rate would suggest.

A third important factor in examining IJ approval rates is the distinction between detained and non-detained asylum applicants. Certain judges have “detained dockets,” meaning that they rule on cases where the applicants are detained. Such people have a much more difficult time winning asylum: Some are barred from asylum due to criminal history or the one-year asylum bar. Others just have a more difficult time preparing their cases because they cannot easily gather evidence while detained. For these reasons, judges who decide many detained cases will generally have a lower overall asylum approval rate. Unfortunately, the TRAC data does not distinguish between detained and non-detained cases, and it is not always easy to know whether an IJ’s record includes detained cases (EOIR has a website that gives some details about each court, including whether that court is located at a detention facility).

While the TRAC data is not perfect (and there is no data on the newest IJs), it is the best source of information we have on Immigration Judge grant rates. Do keep in mind that the numbers only tell part of the story, and it is important to consider the above factors, as well as any other information you can gather from immigration lawyers and asylum applicants about your IJ.

What if you’ve done your research and have concluded that your judge is one of those who denies almost every case she sees? There are a few options.

One: You can go forward with the case and hope for the best. Sometimes a strong case can overcome a judge’s tendency to deny, and after all, even the worst IJs grant cases now and again (except for the 0% guy in Houston).

Two: You can ask for prosecutorial discretion and try to get the case dismissed. Except for cases where the noncitizen has a criminal or security issue, DHS (the prosecutor) is often willing to dismiss. Assuming you can get the case dismissed, you can then re-file for asylum at the Asylum Office (yes, this is a ridiculous waste of resources, but people are now doing it all the time). If you pursue this option, make sure to read the Special Instructions for the form I-589, as you will most likely be required to file your form at the Asylum Vetting Center.

Third: You can move. If you move to a new state (or at least a new jurisdiction within the same state), you can ask the IJ to move your case. Typically, you file a Motion to Change Venue. If the judge agrees, your case will be moved to a different court where you will hopefully land on a better IJ. Judges (and DHS attorneys) do not always agree to allow you change venue, especially if you are close to the date of your Individual Hearing or if you have previously changed venue in the past. And so if you plan to move your case, the sooner you make the move, the better.

Most Immigration Judges will do their best to evaluate the evidence and reach a fair decision. But some IJs seem intent on denying no matter what, and these judges are best avoided, if at all possible. Thanks to TRAC, you can get an idea about whether your IJ is one of these “deniers,” and this will help you decide how best to proceed in your case.

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

So, at roughly the “halfway point” of the Biden Administration, one of the “best minds in the business,” Jason Dzubow, is expending his awesome brain-power advising lawyers on “strategies” for avoiding unfair “any reason to deny” Immigration Judges who inhabit about one in five Immigration Courtrooms under Garland! In other words, what steps you have to take to get a “fair hearing” on asylum from an agency whose sole function is SUPPOSED to be providing said “fair hearings” to everyone! See something wrong here?

One of these “strategies:” Request the ICE prosecutor’s agreement to dismissal of the (probably already long-pending) case in Immigration Court and “refile” before the Asylum Office (which also is hugely backlogged). Jason admits “that this is a ridiculous waste of resources, but people are now doing it all the time.”

Wonder why we have huge asylum backlogs? Despite what Trump, Biden, and nativist GOP politicos would have you believe, it has less do with those vainly seeking legal justice at our borders and LOTS to do with inept decisions, dumb actions (some of them downright malicious), and inactions by Congress and Administrations of both parties in the 21st Century.

Garland’s job was to fix this broken, unfair, wasteful, and astoundingly inefficient system. That isn’t “rocket science.” But, it requires dynamic, progressive, due process committed new leadership at EOIR and a major “shakeup” among Immigration Judges, at both the trial and appellate levels, so that those who are “looking for any reason to deny” either are get different jobs or start treating asylum seekers fairly and humanely by following Cardoza, Mogharrabi, Kasinga, and 8 CFR!

Garland hasn’t gotten the job done! And, the applicants and lawyers whose lives and livelihoods are tied up in his beyond dysfunctional system are the ones paying the price for his failure! Also taxpayers see their dollars and resources being poured down the drain at EOIR!

But, they aren’t Garland’s only victims! EOIR’s dysfunction and its failure to provide consistently correct, generous, positive guidance on how to efficiently grant asylum, particularly at the border, drives a whole other series of failures, illegalities, wastefulness, and mis-steps by the Administration.

Much of the nonsense and legally inappropriate gimmicks being rolled out by President Biden himself at the border this week is an insane attempt to avert the dysfunction at EOIR and USCIS by punishing not the inept politicos and bureaucrats responsible (nor political grandstanding GOP demagogues like Abbott & DeSantis), but the victims!

Improperly taking away the legal right to seek asylum at the border and creating more “jury-rigged” faux refugee programs by misusing parole are NOT the answer! Whatever their short-term impact is, in the long run they will fail just like all the other “deterrents” and “asylum work-arounds” unsuccessfully tried by Administrations of both parties over the past two decades.

Indeed, for those of us who have been around immigration law and policy for the last half-century, it bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the “ad hoc, highly politicized, unsatisfactory” approach to refugee situations that was superseded by enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980. How little we learn from the past!

What HASN’T been tried is the obvious: Recognizing and vigorously defending the right to asylum and building a fair and efficient adjudication system run and staffed by human rights experts under the existing authority provided by the Refugee Act of 1980, as amended. Why not build a fair, functional, generous legal asylum system under that Act that would encourage applicants to use it and reward those qualified for doing so with timely legal status (including, of course, authorization to work)?

Existing law already provides for “expedited removal,” without full Immigration Court hearings, of those who fail to establish to a trained USCIS Asylum Officer that they have a “credible fear” of persecution! Draconian as that measure is, and it undoubtedly has resulted in mistakes and injustices to asylum seekers, both the Trump and Biden Administrations have gone even further by wrongfully depriving those fleeing persecution of even this limited statutory right to present their claim to an Asylum Officer! To matters worse, both politicos and so-called “mainstream” media have “normalized” this disgraceful and harmful scofflaw behavior by ignoring the pretextual, racist roots of the Title 42 charade!

In the meantime, given the near total lack of leadership, competence, and courage from above to “do the right thing” and bring the “rule of law” to life, I do have a strong suggestion for NDPA members courageously “fighting in the trenches.” Apply for upcoming Immigration Judge vacancies at EOIR in massive numbers, over and over, until the roadblocks are removed and justice prevails!

As the relative proportion of “expert practical scholars” on the Immigration Bench grows and the “deniers’ club cohort” shrinks, change will emerge “from below” at EOIR, lives will be saved by the thousands, and justice will finally be realized in a system that now tries to resist and twist it! Functionality and “good government” will eventually win out over today’s inexcusable, and preventable, mess!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-08-22

🤯👎🏼 EXPERTS’ CONDEMNATION OF BIDEN’S LATEST ANTI-ASYLUM BORDER GIMMICKS SWIFT, BRUTAL, TRUE!

From Eleanor Acer @ Human Rights First:

The president described the new approach as one intended to expand opportunities for migrants. But immigration advocates denounced the changes, saying that they included vast new restrictions on the right to claim asylum for people who need to escape their countries.

Eleanor Acer, the director of the refugee protection program at Human Rights First, called the new policies “a humanitarian disgrace” and said the president should not be adding restrictions on people who seek refuge in the United States.

“The Biden administration should be taking steps to restore asylum law at ports of entry,” she said, “not doubling down on cruel and counterproductive policies from the Trump playbook.”

https://lnkd.in/eJeDidzY

Biden Announces Major Crackdown on Illegal Border Crossings

nytimes.com • 2 min read

*******

From Amy Fischer @ Amnesty International USA:

“Amnesty International USA condemns the Biden Administration’s attack on the human right to seek asylum. Today, the Biden Administration fully reversed course on its stated commitment to human rights and racial justice by once again expanding the use of Title 42, announcing rulemaking on an asylum transit ban, expanding the use of expedited removal, and implementing a new system to require appointments through a mobile app for those desperately seeking safety. While we welcome the expanded humanitarian parole program to provide a pathway for Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans to apply for protection without having to make the dangerous journey to the border, that must not come at the expense of the human right to seek asylum. These new policies will undoubtedly have a disparate impact on Black, Brown, and Indigenous people seeking safety. In fact, Amnesty International previously found that the cruel treatment of Haitians under Title 42 subjected Haitian asylum seekers to arbitrary detention and discriminatory and humiliating ill-treatment that amounts to race-based torture. The United States has both a legal and moral obligation to uphold the right to seek asylum, and over the holidays, we once again saw communities mobilize to welcome asylum seekers with dignity. The Biden Administration must reverse course and stop these policies of exclusion, and instead uphold the right to seek asylum and invest in the communities that are stepping up to welcome.”

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2023/01/biden-administration-continues-to-attack-asylum.html

*******

From Mary Miller Flowers @ Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights:

“President Biden’s announcement today is a far cry from the commitments he made on day one to fight for racial justice, immigrant rights, and family protection,” Mary Miller Flowers, the senior policy analyst at the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights, said in a statement.

“The right to asylum should not hinge on your manner of flight from danger or your financial means,” Flowers continued. “Seeking safety is treated as a privilege for a select few, and the Biden Administration’s cherry-picking of who can and cannot access protection proves this.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-border-policy-cubans-haitians-nicaraguans_n_63b72754e4b0ae9de1bcb181

*******

From Kate Jastrom @ Center for Gender & Refugee Studies @ Hastings Law:

“Today President Biden proudly touted his commitment to providing legal pathways for asylum seekers and improving conditions at the U.S.-Mexico border. These were empty words,” said Kate Jastram, CGRS Director of Policy & Advocacy. “By expanding its deadly Title 42 policy to Haitians, Cubans, and Nicaraguans, the Biden administration is going far beyond what any court has required it to do. This expansion will put vulnerable refugees in harm’s way and exacerbate violence and chaos in border communities.”

“People fleeing persecution have a legal right to seek asylum at our border under both U.S. and international law, no matter how they get here, no matter who they know, and no matter what documents they hold,” Jastram continued. “Many are forced to escape their homes under threat of death at a moment’s notice, with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. Their rights should never be supplanted by limited and discriminatory parole programs that offer relief only to a lucky few. We are also deeply disturbed that the administration has announced plans to revive and repackage the Trump-era asylum transit ban. President Biden cannot pledge to hold the ‘torch of liberty’ aloft, then turn around and embrace the most inhumane, anti-refugee policies of his predecessor.”

https://cgrs.uchastings.edu/news/biden-doubles-down-trump-era-cruelty-border

From Maria Daniella Prieshoff @ Tahirih Justice Center:

“This is truly a stain on the record of any administration seeking to uphold the U.S. asylum law and its responsibilities under international law. We must work together to ensure that for #JusticeForImmigrants is truly equal.”

**********

From Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.):

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who along with Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has pushed the Biden administration for months to end Title 42, criticized the administration’s plan, saying it goes too far in restricting migrants’ access to the border.

“The Biden Administration’s decision to expand Title 42, a disastrous and inhumane relic of the Trump Administration’s racist immigration agenda, is an affront to restoring rule of law at the border,” Menendez said in a statement. “Ultimately, this use of the parole authority is merely an attempt to replace our asylum laws, and thousands of asylum seekers waiting to present their cases will be hurt as a result.”

From Jonathan Blazer @ ACLU:

The American Civil Liberties Union, which has led the legal battle to stop the expulsions since the Trump administration, criticized Biden for continuing to rely on Title 42, saying expelling migrants will send them into dangerous border cities where some have been kidnapped or killed. “This knee-jerk expansion of Title 42 will put more lives in grave danger,” Jonathan Blazer, the ACLU’s director of border strategies, said in a statement.

Border Death — This is a monument for those who have died attempting to cross the US-Mexican border. Each coffin represents a year and the number of dead. It is a protest against the effects of Operation Guardian. Taken at the Tijuana-San Diego border.
Tomas Castelazo
In order to comply with the use and licensing terms of this image, the following text must must be included with the image when published in any medium, failure to do so constitutes a violation of the licensing terms and copyright infringement: © Tomas Castelazo, www.tomascastelazo.com / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 3.0

From Margaret Cargioli @ Immigrant Defenders Law Center:

Margaret Cargioli, a lawyer with the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, said the program was effectively screening out migrants who lack U.S. connections or money to buy airplane tickets. She said Title 42 was “put in place by a racist and xenophobic administration” bent on stopping immigration, not protecting public health.

“It really does go against the nature of … ‘My life is in danger. I need to get out,’” she said at a Dec. 29 news conference. “And that is what the essence of an asylum seeker is.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/05/biden-border-security-immigration/

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

Alas, no surprise to “Courtside” readers! The question is what can and will human rights supporters, progressives, and racial justice advocates DO about the consistent betrayal of humanitarian values values and the rule of law by Dems; not to mention Dems trashing their own campaign promises!

Trump’s nativist racism and Biden’s incompetence have actually moved our nation’s approach to legal refugee and asylum status BACK more than four decades! In place of the international framework put in place by Congress in the Refugee Act of 1980, we now have a hodgepodge of arbitrary, ad hoc, actions by the Biden Administration, relying to an unacceptable (and prima facie illegal) extent on the use of “emergency parole” authority as a partial substitute for legal refugee and asylee admissions!

This favors some non-refugees with “sponsors” over those who meet the accepted international definition of “refugee.” It promotes Executive and political favoritism over the needs of legal refugees. It stands on its head the normal refugee definition requiring an individual to be OUTSIDE their country of nationality to apply.

Congress did give the President extraordinary authority to admit those who otherwise meet the “refugee” definition directly from their native countries in conflict. However, rather than using this legal authority, Biden has chosen to misuse parole to EVADE it.

Even for those Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, and Cubans fortunate enough to be chosen for parole, the first three groups will be left in limbo with no clear way of obtaining permanent immigration status after the expiration of their two-year “parole.” This obviously converts them into “political footballs” — particularly if the GOP were to regain the Presidency in 2024!

Paroled Cubans, on the other hand, might qualify for green cards under the “Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966” after one year. This creates yet another arbitrary inconsistency among those similarly situated, based solely on nationality.

The Refugee Act of 1980 creates a screening and adjustment process for those admitted as refugees thereunder, similar to the Cuban Adjustment Act. It also creates a similar process for those refugees granted asylum at the border or in the interior.

But, Biden’s choice NOT to use the existing legal provisions established by the Refugee Act of 1980, recreates exactly the type of disorder, arbitrariness, and uncertainty that the Refugee Act of 1980 was intended to end! And, they did in fact more or less end for nearly four decades, prior to the Trump-initiated fiascos that began in 2017 and which Biden, despite pledges to the contrary, has lacked the competence, expertise, and will to end and restore the rule of law!

If properly staffed with human rights experts and dynamic, visionary “practical scholars” as leaders, our legal refugee and asylum systems could not only be restored, but could also be dramatically improved and made fairer! That’s basically what Biden promised during the 2020 campaign.

Outrageously, once in office those promises have been trashed and, predictably, chaos and incompetence reigns. That’s a deadly combination for asylum seekers patiently waiting for our nation to honor its laws and international obligations!

It shouldn’t be like “waiting for Godot!” But, it is!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-06-22

🏴‍☠️ BREAKING: SCOFFLAW ALERT: LACKING COMPETENCE & ABILITY TO FAIRLY ADMINISTER REFUGEE & ASYLUM LAWS, LIKE TRUMP BEFORE HIM, BIDEN PROPOSES NEW “GIMMICKS” TO REWRITE LAW BY FIAT RATHER THAN LEGISLATION! — Expanded Use Of “Emergency Parole” To Replace Law’s Existing Refugee & Asylum Programs Appears Illegal!

Biden Border Message — “Border Message”
By Steve Sack
Reproduced under license

Biden’s new immigration plan would restrict illegal border crossings

The measures are likely to draw legal challenges. They would expand rapid expulsion for illegal border crossers but allow more migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and Venezuela.

Read in The Washington Post: https://apple.news/ARS8hkdNCShagYwOQlpmHkA

BY CLEVE R. WOOTSON JR., NICK MIROFF AND MARIA SACCHETTI report for WashPost, January 5, 2023 11:22 AM

President Biden on Thursday will announce new immigration restrictions, including the expansion of programs to remove people quickly without letting them seek asylum, in an attempt to address one of his administration’s most politically vulnerable issues at a time when the nation’s attention is focused on Republican disarray in the U.S. House.

The measures will expand Biden’s use of “parole” authority to allow 30,000 migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and Venezuela to come to the United States each month, as long as a U.S. sponsor applies for them first. But those who attempt to migrate through the region without authorization will risk rapid expulsion to Mexico, as the administration plans to expand its use of the pandemic-era Title 42 public health policy. Mexico has agreed to take back 30,000 border-crossers from those nations each month, U.S. officials told reporters during a briefing Thursday morning.

The measures, which are likely to draw legal challenges from immigration advocacy groups,”will expand and expedite legal pathways for orderly migration and result in new consequences for those who fail to use those legal pathways,” the White House announced.

Biden, who has said he will seek reelection in 2024, is contending with the political and operational fallout of two consecutive years of record numbers of migrants taken into custody at the Mexican border, in part because of his more welcoming policies.

Before taking office, Biden said he wanted an orderly system, not “2 million people on our border.” The number of border apprehensions jumped to 1.7 million during his first year in the White House, however, and soared to nearly 2.4 million in his second year. Biden campaigned on the promise that his administration’s immigration system would be “safe, orderly and humane”; his pivot toward amped up enforcement suggests the White House sees immigration as a 2024 liability.

The administration’s solution is legally thorny and will likely anger immigration advocates and even some Democrats — and will probably do little to silence Biden’s Republican critics.

. . . .

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

Read the complete story at the link:

Biden’s plan effectively imposes arbitrary geographic and ideological restrictions on those seeking protection — something that Congress specifically intended to eliminate when enacting the Refugee Act of 1980;
Biden’s plan leaves out asylum seekers and refugees from the Northern Triangle, some of those most in need of protection;
It imposes arbitrary and illegal numerical limits on those who might otherwise seek asylum;
It continues the illegal and expanded use of Title 42 as a border enforcement mechanism having nothing whatsoever to do with public health — a position that the Administration itself has refuted in Federal Court all the way up to the Supremes;
It leaves those “paroled” in limbo with no clear path to legalization in the U.S., other than perhaps eventually applying for asylum in overloaded and often biased system with a backlog of many years;
Any future path to legal status for these parolees would require legislation agreed to by the GOP — not likely to happen — thus making these individuals “bargaining chips” for nativists seeking further restrictions on legal immigration and the right of asylum;
The “mass use” of parole at a rate of 30,000/month appears a direct violation of section 212(d)(5) of the INA, as amended by the Refugee Act of 1980, which specifically intended to end the “mass use” of parole as a substitute for admitting refugees under the legal framework set up by the Refugee Act of 1980, as amended.

Here’s a “spot on” comment by Margaret Cargioli from the Post article:

Margaret Cargioli, a lawyer with the Immigrant Defenders Law Center said the program was effectively screening out migrants who lack U.S. connections or money to buy airplane tickets. She said Title 42 was “put in place by a racist and xenophobic administration” bent on stopping immigration, not protecting public health.

“It really does go against the nature of … ‘My life is in danger. I need to get out,’ ” she said at a Dec. 29 news conference. “And that is what the essence of an asylum seeker is.”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-05-23

🤮👨‍⚖️OUR FAILING COURTS👎🏽: Dean Erwin Chemerinsky Slams Supremes For Scofflaw, Politicized, Biased Title 42 Travesty — The Supremes’ Misconduct & Incompetence In This Case Affecting Human Lives Is Totally Unacceptable! 🏴‍☠️ — Progressives Must Take The Fight To The Neo-Fascist Right For American’s Future! — “The Supreme Court’s order is senseless!”

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=792adcfa-2c82-4cca-953c-bf1dfeb1a070

On Title 42, the Supreme Court rules for a partisan agenda

COVID-19 is no reason to shut out migrants. Yet it’s used as a political pretext.

By Erwin Chemerinsky

The Supreme Court’s ruling last week to keep in place a Trump-era immigration order can only be understood as five conservative justices advancing a conservative political agenda, in violation of clear legal rules.

Without giving reasons or any explanation, the court reversed lower court decisions that allowed the Biden administration to lift a restriction that prevents asylum seekers at the border from entering the country, imposed early during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The federal law — referred to as Title 42 — permits the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to prohibit people from coming into the U.S. to avert the spread of a “communicable disease” present in a foreign country.

.. . .

In November, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, in Washington, D.C., found that the continued use of Title 42 was “arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.” He ruled that the expulsion policy was no longer justified based in light of the present state of the pandemic, which includes widely available vaccines, treatments and increased travel in the United States.

Nineteen states with Republican attorneys general, however, oppose that ruling and sought the right to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They were not parties to the lawsuit in the District Court and the law generally does not allow parties to get into a case for the first time at the appeals level. On Dec. 16, the federal Court of Appeals, following its well-established law, refused to allow the states to intervene. The states then sought Supreme Court review of that decision.

On Dec. 27, in Arizona vs. Mayorkas, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, not only said that it would hear the states’ appeal, but that it would require that the Biden administration continue to use Title 42 to expel migrants.

The court’s action makes no sense for several reasons. Title 42 provides the government authority to close the borders only if a public health crisis involving a communicable disease requires it. No one in the litigation disputes that COVID no longer warrants restrictions on immigration.

. . . .

The states are intervening not because they believe that a continuing public health emergency requires Title 42, but because they want to use it as a pretext to close the borders.

In fact, in another case now pending on the Supreme Court’s docket — on whether the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness program is justified as a response to the pandemic emergency — 12 of the states in the Title 42 case argued in their brief that “COVID-19 is now irrelevant to nearly all Americans.”

The Supreme Court’s order is senseless for another reason: The only issue before the court is whether the states can intervene in the case. It is not about whether the District Court erred in ending the use of Title 42 to expel migrants. Even if the states were allowed to join the case, they can’t plausibly make the case that COVID concerns still justify immigration expulsions at this point.

. . . .

The five conservative justices based their decision not on the purpose of Title 42, which is to stop the spread of a communicable disease, but on their partisan agreement with conservatives on immigration issues. We should expect better of the court than that.

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

Read Dean Chemerinsky’s full article at the link. Having a High Court, with life tenure, where a majority of the Justices enter “senseless orders” — targeting some of the most vulnerable and abused in our society who also happen to be predominantly individuals of color — is in and of itself senseless — from a standpoint of preserving our democracy!

The action of the five GOP Supremes is beyond outrageous! The NDPA CAN turn this gross right-wing minority abuse of our judicial system around! Likely not in my lifetime!

But, you need to keep pushing Dems to pay attention to judicial appointments and start insisting on meaningful professional expertise in immigration and actual experience representing individuals in Immigration Court as a basic requirement to serve as a Justice. Also we need an Article I Immigration Court and NO MORE Attorneys General without proven “grass roots” immigration and human rights experience!

Immigration is “where the action is” on the fight to save American democracy! If tone-deaf and spineless Dem politicos keep “running” from the key issue in American law and society, perhaps it’s time for true liberals, progressives, and constitutional humanitarian realists to “run” from the Dem Party!

This Supreme farce also reinforces the disgraceful failure of Garland and the Dems to reform the “Supreme Court of Immigration” — the BIA — by replacing enforcement-tilted Trump holdovers with practical scholar, expert, progressive judges committed to realizing long-denied due process, fundamental fairness, and the best interpretations of immigration and refugee laws! Dems control an important Federal Appellate body and are too clueless and afraid to do the right thing — even with the rule of law, racial justice, and human lives on the line!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-02-23

🤯 ❓QUESTION OF THE DAY: “Biden says he wants to dismantle Title 42,” writes Catherine Rampell @ WashPost, “so why has he expanded it?”

By Catherine Rampell

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/29/title42-migrant-asylum-biden-solutions/

The Biden administration has long been saying that it wants to get rid of Title 42.

Why, then, has it been expanding use of this policy?

“Title 42” is shorthand for what is effectively an abuse of a public health authority to circumvent U.S. asylum laws. Beginning in March 2020, the Trump administration used an obscure public health statute to automatically expel migrants without allowing them to first apply for asylum, as is their right under U.S. law and international treaty;PresidentDonald Trump’s pretext was that these immigrants might spread covid-19.

Apparently, Trump considered covid a liberal media hoax except when useful for punishing foreigners.

Human rights advocates and public health experts alike criticized the policy as probably both illegal and lacking a credible epidemiological purpose. Whatever its intentions, it didn’t reduce stress at the border; instead, it increased attempted border crossings, as many people expelled without consequence or due process turned right around and tried again to enter the United States.

That is, if they weren’t kidnapped, tortured, raped or otherwise violently attacked first. This happened in more than 10,000 cases of expelled migrants, as documented by Human Rights First.

As a presidential candidate, Joe Biden pledged to restore the integrity of the asylum system. He promised that anyone qualifying for an asylum claim would “be admitted to the country through an orderly process.” As president, though, Biden dragged his feet in terminating Title 42. He finally agreed to end the program this past spring. But termination has since been delayed by complicated court rulings, which Biden officials seem to have fought only half-heartedly.

This week, the Supreme Court determined that Title 42 must remain in place at least until the court decides a related issue (probably in the coming months). Given the Biden administration’s claims of wanting to end Title 42, the president should theoretically be mad about the delay.

Instead, Biden officials seem to have seized the opportunity to make yet more immigrant groups subject to automatic expulsions. “The administration has taken the position in court that they can no longer justify keeping Title 42 in place, given the lack of any public health justification,” said Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is challenging the expulsion policy. “If you look at the administration’s actions, however, it’s clear they’re fine with Title 42 remaining in place.”

. . . .

Americans often complain that immigrants should come here “the right way,” but for many migrants, showing up at the border unannounced and turning themselves in is the only legal pathway available. If given options to come here that don’t require paying gangs and crossing deserts, people would gladly take them — which would in turn alleviate stress at the border.

To its credit, the Biden administration has taken baby steps on that last recommendation.

Its Uniting for Ukraine program, for instance, has vetted and “paroled in” more than 82,000 Ukrainians and their immediate relatives abroad, which has discouraged Ukrainians from showing up en masse at our southern border (as had been the case early in the war). A similar but much more restrictive program was created for Venezuelans, whose numbers are capped at 24,000; a parallel program is reportedly in the works for Cubans, Nicaraguans and Haitians.

But again, these additional legal pathways can be created while still upholding the ability to apply for asylum at our borders. That’s what U.S. law requires — and what Biden has, repeatedly, promised to do.

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

Read Catherine’s full article at the link. “If you look at the administration’s actions, however, it’s clear they’re fine with Title 42 remaining in place.” So true! So outrageous!

Contrary to much of the blather from both parties, refugee and asylum laws are an integral part of our LEGAL immigration system — one that is now being grossly misapplied and under-utilized!

Creating additional legal avenues for immigration by legislation is by no means inconsistent with maintaining robust, well-functioning refugee and asylum programs!

There are lots and lots of improvements that the Biden Administration could and should have made to the legal refugee and asylum programs that already exist under the law! Indeed, I suggest that many of the bogus “gimmicks” and counterproductive, wasteful, unfair “deterrents” devised and implemented by the Biden Administration, including expanded use of Title 42, were in direct or indirect response to Garland’s failed Immigration Courts. Because they are backlogged, inefficient, and dysfunctional, bureaucrats and politicos dream up ways to evade them (as opposed to fixing them so they work)!

It’s all wrong! There are “tons” of cases rotting in Garland’s ever-expanding EOIR backlog that could be granted or otherwise disposed of with relative ease and without stomping on anyone’s due process rights! There are ways of providing proper notice, better scheduling, and a new system for initial adjudications of non-LPR cancellation cases that do NOT require legislation; just better leadership and personnel at DOJ, DHS, and the White House!

The lack of scholarly, progressive, due process oriented precedents and implementation of best judicial practices by the BIA cripples justice in both the Immigration Courts and the USCIS Asylum Offices, even extending to the Refugee Program and other forms of USCIS adjudication of benefits.

For example, the ridiculous, largely self-created, backlogs in USCIS work authorizations is at least partially fueled by never ending backlogs in Immigration Court. Also, bad judicial decisions at EOIR create large amounts of unnecessary litigation in the Article III Courts and promote inconsistencies by allowing too many important issues, including proper application of some of the BIA’s own precedents favorable to respondents, to be resolved by the Circuits.

The system is a godawful mess! Yet, Dems in Congress didn’t even consider pressing for long-overdue Article I legislation, already introduced by Chair Lofgren, as part of their “lame duck push.” Thus, a key part of the immigration and justice systems continues to flounder and fail in Garland’s DOJ!

The need for so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” does not in any way minimize the responsibility of the Biden Administration for failing to reform the leadership and bureaucracies at DOJ and DHS to produce fairer, more efficient, expert, professional results!

Some cowardly Dem politicos and many Biden officials “run” from the immigration issue; yet, addressing and fixing the parts they control, like EOIR, could well have given them success to tout during the mid-term campaign.

And, as many experts suggest, it might also have helped address labor shortages, inflation and improved the economy. Rather than just “holding off disaster,” by acting more boldly on immigration the Dems might even have maintained and expanded their political control by demonstrating both the competence to solve immigration problems, even without comprehensive legislation, and the benefits of a fair, efficient, functional immigration system to America as a whole.

With the GOP taking over the House, expect many Dems to continue bellyaching that “nothing can be done about immigration.” It’s not like they did much of anything when they controlled both Houses!

There are still things that can be done to make the system fairer, more efficient, and more responsive to the common needs of America. Progressives should not let Dem “naysayers” off the hook!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-31-22

⚖️🏴‍☠️ SEPARATION OF POWERS DISAPPEARS AS SUPREME RIGHTY POLITICOS TAKE OVER IMMIGRATION POLICY, IMPOSE BOGUS NATIVIST AGENDA — “[P]olicymakers of last resort,” per Justice Neil Gorsuch!

Jay Kuo
American Author, Producer, CEO of The Social Edge
PHOTO: Facebook

Torture — Some righty judges get all the way to the Supremes while remaining indifferent to the wrongful suffering of humanity from their bad judging!y
Photo by David R. Badger, Creative Commons

https://open.substack.com/pub/statuskuo/p/scotus-just-deployed-its-most-potent?r=330z7&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post

From “The Status Kuo” by Jay Kuo:

Time and again, the current Supreme Court has waded into what should be a political fight, using its broad power to effectively freeze or rewind the clock. In so doing, it has often locked in the worst possible outcome, then leveraged its busy and lengthy docket to unacceptably extend that outcome.

It did this with the Texas vigilante enforced abortion law, allowing a facially unconstitutional restriction to remain on the books and actively in place, effectively shutting down reproductive health services across the state. It did it again by staying lower federal court orders that had struck down unconstitutional racial gerrymanders in the South, permitting illegal maps to disenfranchise African American voters. That was at least four seats that should have been minority opportunity districts—enough to cost the Democrats the House majority. And on Tuesday, SCOTUS pulled this trick once more, this time leaving in place a draconian Trump-era pandemic immigration ban, broadly known as Title 42, that the Biden administration wanted gone and that a federal judge already had ordered lifted.

In so doing, the Court further revealed itself as precisely what it should not be: a political powerbroker and, as even conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch noted in dissent, a group of “policymakers of last resort.”

What’s the story behind Title 42, and how does this most recent ruling get things upside down? What will it mean for the thousands of desperate migrant families camped in dangerous conditions at the border? And what should we expect next from Congress and the White House? I explore these and some key takeaways from the decision.

. . . .

It is next-level hypocrisy that red state leaders, who during the pandemic eschewed all manner of basic preventative health measures at great cost to human life, should now champion a policy that cites the virus as the reason to expel millions of theoretical carriers. The idea that Mexico was somehow a greater vector for disease and infection than the red states of America is also both deeply cynical and plainly counterfactual.

From a policy standpoint, the notion that certain states can claim they would suffer special harm from the lifting of Title 42 and that this somehow gives them standing to stop the government in its tracks threatens to upend our entire federal system. In every policy decision by federal authorities there are winners and losers, from taxation to infrastructure spending to rules around land and water use. Immigration, and the states which allegedly are most affected by it, should receive no special dispensation or consideration. Giving these states a voice and standing in this instance sufficient to hamstring the government would be premised on nothing but the Court’s apparent political priorities, and not sound federal principles.

Finally, the crisis at the border truly requires a bipartisan political solution, but no comprehensive immigration reform bill has passed Congress since 1986. Today, the “problem” of immigration has become a useful political tool for Republicans around which to rally their base and with which to fundraise. Unsurprisingly then, they appear to have no real interest in actually trying to solve the problem through legislation. As Secretary Pete Buttigieg has observed, this will remain the case so long as the problem of immigration is more useful to them than the solution.

The upshot is, we likely will continue to see misery at our border and buses of migrants sent by governors Abbott of Texas and DeSantis of Florida dropped off in liberal bastions like Martha’s Vineyard or in front of Vice President’s Harris’s home in D.C. The Biden Administration will still continue to work quietly behind the scenes to lessen the impact of Title 42 and to argue in court for ending the policy. But whether SCOTUS will relinquish its de facto policymaking role to the proper branches of government remains unclear.

Jay Kuo is the CEO of The Social Edge, a digital publishing and social media company based in New York City. Jay is head of “Team Takei,” managing engagement with Star Trek legend George Takei’s 23 million Facebook, Instagram and Twitter followers. Jay is also the composer, lyricist and co-librettist for the Broadway musical Allegiance as well as the librettist on the Broadway-bound Indigo, the first musical to feature and star a teenage girl on the autism spectrum. Jay is also a two-time Tony-winning co-producer for the hit musical Hadestown and the critically acclaimed, epic play The Inheritance.

Apart from his Broadway and social media work, Jay is a published author, an avid political blogger, and a partner in Gaingels LLC, the nation’s largest private investment syndicate. While he worked as an attorney, Jay was an appellate litigator admitted to practice before the Ninth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court.

Jay has served on the boards of the Northern California ACLU and the Bay Area Lawyers Individual Freedom, and he argued the first Ninth Circuit challenge to the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Jay currently serves on the national board of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization serving the LGBTQ+ community.

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

Read Jay’s complete, very clear and understandable, analysis of the Title 42 charade at the link.

These ivory tower right wing zealots in robes exempt themselves from the human pain and suffering that their horrible judging causes. Judges are supposed to solve problems. This gang makes them worse!

Lets’ repeat it again: The idea that this “esoteric issue,” raised at the last second, by corrupt GOP AGs who aren’t even parties to this case, claiming largely phantom “harm” that pales in relation to the well-documented life-threatening harm suffered by legal asylum seekers every day, merits an indefinite stay that inflicts yet more unconscionable harm, even death, upon the most vulnerable among us, is as illegal as it is patently absurd.

That it was imposed by five judges on our highest Court, who are suppose to uphold our Constitution and individual rights against government overreach is something that should be of grave concern to all who believe in American democracy, particular future generations who will have to live with the shame and damage inflicted by these out of touch far-right jurists!

Better judges for a better America! Why should judges who have never participated in the “retail level of our justice system” — by representing individuals in our broken, biased, and dysfunctional Immigration Courts — be ensconced on our highest Court and given life or death power over persons they wrongfully treat as less than human and whose legal and human rights they so shamelessly deny?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-30-22

🗽FROM LA TIMES ED BD: TWO BIG LIES & A WIDELY IGNORED TRUTH ABOUT THE S. BORDER: 1) LIE #1: Title 42 Is Effective Border Control; 2) LIE #2: The Border Is Wide Open; 3) TRUTH: There Is A Humanitarian Crisis At The Border & Many Gov. Actions Are Making It Worse!

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-12-28/la-ed-border-myths

BY THE TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD

DEC. 28, 2022 3 AM PT

Facebook

Twitter

Show more sharing options

The myths — or, rather, convenient lies — that some politicians keep circulating about the U.S.-Mexico border have resulted in another disappointing congressional session for immigration reform.

Instead of crafting much-needed solutions to address the fate of young immigrant “Dreamers,” the backlog of cases in immigration courts or any of the myriad problems caused by outdated immigration laws, policymakers spent most of their time wrangling over Title 42, a public health order invoked during the COVID-19 pandemic to manage border crossings.

Disinformation prevents policymakers from having honest discussions and enacting sensible solutions. The complex U.S.-Mexico border region is a confluence of cultural, social and economic communities whose problems need sophisticated solutions not easily summarized by sound bites. Yet many people continue to peddle misconceptions about the border and engage in partisan theater such as dispatching migrants to Vice President Kamala Harris’ home or creating a wasteful wall of shipping containers, as the Arizona governor has done.

The debate on immigration and border control is likely to intensify in early 2023, when the GOP takes control of the House. Though there’s little expectation of significant legislation in a divided Congress, the constant arrival of migrants at the border is sure to keep the topic in the news. Because it’s important to look beyond sound bites, we’re fact-checking the misconceptions about the U.S.-Mexico border you are likely to hear in the coming months.

. . . .

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

Read the complete editorial at the link.

The lies and myths are largely pushed by GOP nativist politicos, and some right wing activist Federal Judges, although disgracefully some Dems have adopted, enabled, or gone along with certain aspects of them.

NGOs, communities, and advocates are about the only ones acting with urgency on the truth of this solvable humanitarian crisis. In doing so, they too often face roadblocks or lack of competence, honesty, and urgency from government officials at all levels.

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-29-22

Maria writes:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Andrea Castillo reports for the LA Times:

Asylum seekers must wait for appointments in U.S. for everyone, or leave some behind.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the link to the “comment website:”

Here’s the text of my “custom revision” of the standard comment posted on the website:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! The treachery of an Administration that abandons humane values, and fears bold humanitarian actions, never!

Related posts:

LISTEN HERE:

Here are “my takeaways:”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Many groups issued immediate statements of outrage and protest at this cruel, lawless, and intellectually dishonest betrayal! I set forth two of them here:

From the American Immigration Council:

From the Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Services:

Zak was interviewed by Melissa Del Bosque of The Border Chronicle:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Round Table “Fighting Knightess” and NJ Bar honoree Hon. Sue Roy reports from the Garden State:

Heard on “E-Street:”

🇺🇸 Thanks to Sue and all involved, and Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

JAROD FACUNDO in The American Prospect:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Jason Dzubow, “The Asylumist” —

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Amy Fischer @ Amnesty International USA:

From Mary Miller Flowers @ Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights:

From Kate Jastrom @ Center for Gender & Refugee Studies @ Hastings Law:

From Maria Daniella Prieshoff @ Tahirih Justice Center:

From Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.):

From Jonathan Blazer @ ACLU:

From Margaret Cargioli @ Immigrant Defenders Law Center:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

By Catherine Rampell

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From “The Status Kuo” by Jay Kuo:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts: