THE GIBSON REPORT — 06-22-20 – Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group – WORLD REFUGEE DAY WAS JUNE 20 – AMERICA’S TRUMP REGIME CELEBRATED BY ADVANCING A DISINGENUOUS RACIST ATTACK ON WORK AUTHORIZATION FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS – Just A Few Days After 8 Justices of Supremes Claimed Cluelessness About Trump’s Racist Immigration Agenda! (See, Item #2 Under “Top News”)

COVID-19
Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify the latest policies on the relevant government websites and with colleagues on listservs as best you can.

New
• Opening dates for some non-detained courts: The Honolulu Immigration Court resumed hearings in non-detained cases on Monday, June 15, 2020. The Boston, Buffalo, Dallas, Hartford, Las Vegas, Memphis, and New Orleans Immigration Courts will resume hearings in non-detained cases on Monday, June 29, 2020. Hearings in non-detained cases at all other immigration courts are postponed through, and including, Thursday, July 2, 2020. All immigration courts will be closed Friday, July 3, 2020, in observance of Independence Day. The Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Saipan, and San Diego Immigration Courts will resume hearings in non-detained cases on Monday, July 6, 2020.
• USCIS Reopening
o Newark Asylum Office Remains Closed due to unresolved facility issues unrelated to COVID-19
o New York City and Brooklyn field offices are listed as closed to public, emergency services only

Closures
• EOIR Operational Status & Standing Orders
• EOIR Case Status
• EOIR Updates via Twitter
• ICE Updates (Including ERO and Detention)
• USCIS Updates
• Consular Updates
• NY Courts Updates

Guidance:
• IJ Email Filings
• BIA Email Filings
• EOIR Standing Orders
• EOIR Electronic Signature Guidance
• EOIR Update Regarding EOIR Practices Related to the COVID-19 Outbreak
• USCIS’s Signature Policy Update
• USCIS Announces Flexibility for Requests for Evidence, Notices of Intent to Deny

TOP NEWS

Trump suggests another attempt at rolling back DACA
Roll Call: The president in a series of tweets said the administration “will be submitting enhanced papers shortly in order to properly fulfil the Supreme Court’s ruling & request of yesterday.” See also DACA ‘unlawful’ despite Supreme Court ruling, acting Homeland Security chief says.

The Trump Administration Will Soon Deny Work Permits For Asylum-Seekers Who Enter The US Without Authorization
BuzzFeed: The policy, which was first reported by BuzzFeed News in August, will make asylum-seekers who do not cross into the country at a port of entry ineligible for a work permit in most cases. It will also delay the time it takes for those who apply for asylum — either while already in the US or after crossing the border and referred to immigration court — to become qualified to get a work permit, from 150 days to 365 days. Asylum-seekers who do not file for protections within one year of arriving in the US will also be denied a permit.

Businesses Brace for Possible Limits on Foreign Worker Visas
NYT: Citing the economic slump, the president could act this week to limit H-1B, L-1 and other visas as well as a program allowing foreign students to work in the United States after they graduate. See also Chasing Down the Rumors: Possible Extension and Expansion of Presidential Proclamation Suspending Entry of Certain Immigrants into the United States (Updated 6/19/20).

Representation at Bond Hearings Rising but Outcomes Have Not Improved
TRAC: Despite the rising rate of representation, bond grant rates have not improved. During FY 2015 and FY 2016, immigration judges granted bond at 56 percent of these hearings. This fell to 50 percent during FY 2018. Since FY 2018 grant rates have fallen to 48 percent where they have remained for the last three years.

Immigration attorneys face courtroom challenges amid pandemic
Roll Call: Even when courts remain open, to limit personal contact, most procedures are being conducted by video or phone, lending themselves to technical problems that have made it difficult, if not nearly impossible, for lawyers to effectively consult with clients.

Under Threat & Left Out: NYC’s Immigrants And The Coronavirus Crisis
CUF: Immigrant New Yorkers are enduring unprecedented economic pain from the pandemic—and yet they have been almost completely shut out of government programs created for those in need, CUF research and interviews with two dozen nonprofit leaders reveals.

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

Supreme Court Upholds DACA, Says DHS’s Decision to Rescind Was Arbitrary and Capricious
On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that DHS’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, also known as DACA, was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. (DHS v. Regents of the University of California) AILA Doc. No. 20061801

CA2 Remands CAT Claim of Petitioner Who Fled El Salvador After Threats from MS-13 Gang
The court held that the IJ erred as a matter of law in penalizing the petitioner for her prompt flight from El Salvador after members of the MS-13 gang threatened her, and thus remanded her Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim to the BIA. (Martinez De Artiga v. Barr, 6/10/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061702

Naturalization Applicants File Lawsuit Seeking to Compel USCIS to Conduct Immediate Administrative Naturalizations
The plaintiffs, who have been unable to complete the naturalization process due to the COVID-19 pandemic, filed a class action lawsuit seeking to compel USCIS to conduct immediate administrative naturalizations pursuant to INA §337(c). (Campbell Davis, et al. v. USCIS, et al., 6/10/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061602

BIA Issues Decision on K-1 Visas and INA §204(c)(2)
The BIA ruled that an individual who has conspired to enter into marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws by seeking to secure a K-1 fiancé(e) nonimmigrant visa is subject to the bar under INA §204(c)(2). Matter of R.I. Ortega, 28 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 2020) AILA Doc. No. 20061909

BIA Reverses Finding That Misdemeanor Conviction Was a Particularly Serious Crime
Unpublished BIA decision reverses finding that conviction for third degree assault under N.Y.P.L. 120.00(01) was a particularly serious crime because offense was a misdemeanor unaccompanied by any unusual circumstances. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of G-G-G-, 2/27/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061608

BIA Upholds Termination of Proceedings Based on Regulatory Violation
Unpublished BIA decision upholds termination of proceedings based on DHS’s violation of 8 C.F.R. 287.3(d), which requires ICE to decide within 48 hours of arrest whether to grant bond and issue an NTA. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Pablo-Nicolas, 2/25/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061607

BIA Holds Florida Aggravated Battery Does Not Require Use of Force
Unpublished BIA decision holds that aggravated battery under Fla. Stat. 784.045(b) does not require the use of force because it encompasses simple battery against a pregnant victim. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Campbell, 2/19/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061606

CA1 Finds Salvadoran Petitioner Was Denied Her Statutory Right to Counsel
The court concluded that the IJ had denied the Salvadoran petitioner her statutory right to be represented by the counsel of her choice, and found that the assistance of a lawyer likely would have affected the outcome of her removal proceedings. (Hernandez Lara v. Barr, 6/15/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061905

CA4 Reverses District Court with Instructions to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaints in Travel Ban Case
In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii, the court reversed the district court’s order of May 2, 2019, denying the government’s motion to dismiss, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaints with prejudice. (IRAP v. Trump, 6/8/20) AILA Doc. No. 17031332

CA5 Upholds BIA’s Denial of Asylum to Petitioner from Trinidad and Tobago Who Alleged Membership in Three PSGs
The court held that petitioner had failed to demonstrate a legal or constitutional error in BIA’s denial of his application for asylum based on membership in three alleged particular social groups (PSGs), including children unable to leave a family relationship. (Alexis v. Barr, 6/8/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061704

CA6 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Salvadoran Who Was Found to Be a UAC at Time of Entry
The court held that the IJ had properly exercised jurisdiction over the case of the petitioner, who had entered the United States when he was 18 years old and had been found by an immigration official to be an unaccompanied child (UAC) at the time of his entry. (Garcia v. Barr, 6/8/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061811

CA9 Holds Petitioner’s Conviction for Being Under the Influence of Amphetamines in California Rendered Him Removable
The court held that a conviction for being under the influence of a controlled substance in violation of California Health and Safety Code §11550(a) is divisible with respect to controlled substance and thus the modified categorical approach applied and was satisfied. (Tejeda v. Barr, 6/8/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061913

CA9 Rejects Petitioner’s Equal Protection Challenge to Former Derivative-Citizenship Statute
The court dismissed the petition for review, rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the second clause of INA §321(a)(3) discriminates by gender and legitimacy and thus violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. (Roy v. Barr, 6/4/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061912

CA11 Upholds Denial of Motion to Remand Based on Ineffective Assistance Where Petitioner Did Not Substantially Comply with Lozada
The court held that petitioner had failed to meet the three Lozada requirements for presenting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, finding that his attorney lacked actual notice of allegations that his assistance had been ineffective. (Point Du Jour v. Att’y Gen., 6/4/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061914

AILA and Partners Send Letter to EOIR on Premature Decision to Resume the Non-Detained Docket
AILA, the Council, CLINIC, HRF, NIJC, and NIPNLG sent a letter to EOIR recommending that the overwhelming majority of non-detained hearings be postponed for the duration of the national public health emergency. Additional recommendations include a moratorium on the issuance of in absentia orders. AILA Doc. No. 20061500

DHS Extends Flexibility in Requirements Related to Form I-9 Compliance
DHS announced that it has extended the flexibilities in rules related to Form I-9 compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic by an additional 30 days. The accommodations, which now expire on July 19, 2020, include discretion to defer physical presence requirements and extension for NOIs served in 3/20. AILA Doc. No. 20032033

DHS Acting Secretary Announces Extension of Border Restrictions
DHS Acting Secretary Chad Wolf announced that DHS will continue to limit non-essential travel at U.S. land ports of entry with Canada and Mexico due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that DHS’s Canadian and Mexican counterparts agree with the need for this extension. AILA Doc. No. 20042031

DHS Announces Imposition of Visa Sanctions on Burundi
DHS announced that it has imposed visa sanctions on Burundi “due to lack of cooperation in accepting its citizens and nationals ordered removed” from the U.S. As of 6/12/20, the Bujumbura U.S. embassy has discontinued issuance of all NIVs, with exceptions, for Burundian citizens and nationals. AILA Doc. No. 20061903

RESOURCES

• Post-Supreme Court Decision DACA Guidance
• ILRC: Understanding the 2020 Supreme Court Decision on DACA
• ILRC: All Those Rules About Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (June 2020)
• Practice Alert: Impact of the Supreme Court Decision Blocking DACA Rescission
• Practice Alert: Submitting Initial Evidence and Documentation with Form I-485
• Practice Alert: COVID-19 and the Public Charge Rule
• Practice Alert: Presidential Proclamations Suspending Entry Due to 2019 Novel Coronavirus
• Think Immigration: Fight Back Against Chevron Deference in Asylum and Withholding Cases
• DHS Releases Fact Sheet on Measures on the Border to Limit the Further Spread of Coronavirus
• Bite-Sized Ethics: Dual Representation and Secrets Between Clients
• OIG: CBP Struggled to Provide Adequate Detention Conditions During 2019 Migrant Surge
• COVID-19 IN ICE CUSTODY Biweekly Analysis & Update
• Practice Advisory: Criminal Consequences Updates from the BIA and the Ninth Circuit

EVENTS

Note: Check with organizers regarding cancellations/changes
• 6/22/20 The Supreme Court Ruling on DACA: What the Decision Means and What’s Next
• 6/24/20 I-730 Petition Training
• 6/24/20 Thought Getting an EAD Was Straightforward? Think Again!
• 6/26/20 Our Asylum System at Grave Risk: What You Can Do
• 6/29/20 Climate Change and Migration: Converging issues, diverging funding
• 7/7/20 Winning Withholding of Removal and Convention Against Torture Cases
• 7/15/20 Understanding Motions to Reopen Based on Changed Country Conditions
• 7/16/20-7/30/20 Webinar Series: Navigating Refugee and Asylee Issues in Turbulent Times
• 7/20/20 2020 AILA Virtual Annual Conference on Immigration Law
• 7/22/20 Tax Issues in Immigration Cases
• 7/23/20 Defending Immigration Removal Proceedings 2020
• 7/30/20 How to File a Successful Travel Ban Waiver
• 8/5/20 Unraveling Aggravated Felonies and Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude
• 8/18/20 Strategies for I-601 Waivers in Adjustment of Status Cases
• 8/26/20 Immigration Legal Services in Rural America
• 8/27/20 Crafting a Winning Particular Social Group for an Asylum Case
• 9/14/20 Working with Domestic Violence Immigrant Survivors: The Intersection of Basic Family Law, Immigration, Benefits, and Housing Issues in California 2020
• 9/22/20 Defenses to Denaturalization
• 9/23/20-10/7/20 3-Part Webinar Series: Integrating Technology to Improve Your Immigration Legal Services
• 10/1/20 Representing Children in Immigration Matters 2020: Effective Advocacy and Best Practices

ImmProf

Monday, June 22, 2020
• Immigration Article of the Day: Banished and Overcriminalized: Critical Race Perspectives of Illegal Entry and Drug Courier Prosecutions by Walter Goncalves
Sunday, June 21, 2020
• Will President Trump Make the Supreme Court’s DACA Decision a 2020 Presidential Campaign Issue?
• Immigration Article of the Day: Discriminatory Cooperative Federalism by Ava Ayers
Saturday, June 20, 2020
• “DREAMers” versus the Labels Used in Government Documents and Judicial Opinions in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California by Professor Maritza Reyes
• The Equal Protection Claim in the DACA Cases
• World Refugee Day – June 20, 2020
Friday, June 19, 2020
• DACA Victory at Supreme Court Is Precarious at Best
• Immigration Article of the Day: Injustice and the Disappearance of Discretionary Detention Under Trump by Robert Koulish
• DACA, College and University Students, and the Future of U.S. Immigration Law
• Guest Post: Minyao Wang, The Supreme Court Decides DACA Rescission Case on Administrative Law Grounds, Avoids Deciding Lawfulness of DACA
Thursday, June 18, 2020
• Responses to Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California
• Breaking News: DACA Lives Another Day: Supreme Court Vacates Rescission of DACA
• Some more good news: DACA recipients and noncitizens win two lawsuits that provide financial assistance
• Proposed rule bars colleges from granting covid-relief funds to DACA recipients [Updated 6/17/20]
• Immigration Article of the Day: Law Enforcement in the American Security State by Wadie Said
Wednesday, June 17, 2020
• From the Bookshelves:Mary Jordan, The Art of Her Deal: The Untold Story of Melania Trump
• Immigration Article of the Day: Making Litigating Citizenship More Fair
• UVA to Enroll Students Regardless of Immigration Status
Tuesday, June 16, 2020
• From The Bookshelves: Dominicana by Angie Cruz
• Immigration and Economic Recovery Symposium
Monday, June 15, 2020
• White House attributing covid-19 increase to travel from Mexico
• Lessons learned in the journey from Prop. 187 to DACA to the Supreme Court
• Supreme Court Denies Cert in United States v. California, State Sanctuary Law Case
• Supreme Court Grants Review in Immigration Detention Case
• DACA Decision Today?
• “Trump is quietly gutting the asylum system amid the pandemic President Trump’s election-year push to foreground immigration is officially in full swing.”

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

Just so we understand the work authorization fraud perpetrated by Trump, currently individuals who seek asylum at ports of entry are “rocketed” to the exceptionally dangerous countries of Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (none of which have a fair or functional asylum system) without any hearing, meaningful inquiry, or a chance to apply for asylum in the U.S. So, no work authorization for them.

Those who recognize the futility of trying to use our now-fraudulent legal system to seek protection might therefore cross the border and turn themselves in to DHS or, if they get to the interior, turn themselves in to USCIS to apply for asylum. They also will be denied work authorization under the latest Trump scheme.

So you, or some Federal Judge actually interested in upholding the law, might ask: “Who gets employment authorization under Trump’s shell game?” The answer: “Pretty much nobody.”

So, you might then ask, isn’t this government fraud, or at least grotesque dishonesty? Of course, but but “it’s only refugees not real humans.” For the most part, courts have allowed Trump, Miller, and company to run roughshod over the legal rights and humanity of migrants, with particular emphasis on looking the other way while refugees, women, and children are abused. So, it’s OK. Until Trump strips you of your humanity without recourse.

As if to punctuate the Constitutional malpractice and moral vapidity of everyone on the Supremes save Justice Sonia Sotomayor, on Saturday Trump headed off to Tulsa, Oklahoma, the site of one of the worst White-led race massacres in U.S. history, one day after the Juneteenth Celebration of African American liberation in America. Given the timing and the mood in the nation, it appeared to be a rather thinly disguised attempt by Trump to provoke some type of racial confrontation that he thought would benefit him politically.

Failing that, and faced with a smaller-than-expected audience of cultists, Trump turned the evening into a celebration of lies, hate, insults, and racism – denying the reality and justice of the cause of equal justice under law, using an offensive racist slur against Asians, and “joking” about 120,000 dead Americans and his totally incompetent response to COVID-19, to name just a few of his very public and intentional transgressions against our nation and human decency.

America can’t go any further with Trump and the GOP in charge and promoting an agenda of racism, hate, division, and inequality. But, it’s also worth asking how far we can get with eight Justices who are willfully blind to Trump’s obvious racism, his and his lawyers’ lack of honesty and ethics, and the toxic agenda of prolonging and deepening institutional racism in America that he and his supporters so ardently back and, to be frank, only exists because the Supremes and other government institutions have assisted it for more than a century.

Over more than two centuries, America has failed over and over again to deal honestly, ethically, courageously, and realistically with racism. At some point, the failures will become fatal for our republic. A house divided against itself and with rot in its structural integrity cannot stand for much longer.

Those in charge might claim cluelessness; but you should have your eyes open to the pernicious effects of malicious incompetence and systemic racism.

Some day, the full ugly truth of the Trump regime, its unbridled racism, its total dishonesty, its selfishness, its cowardice, its “crimes against humanity,” and our disgraceful national complicity will come out. It always does. Then, those in charge who were derelict their duties and looked the other way in the face of tyranny and needless human suffering will claim “just doing my job” or “how could I have known?” Don’t let them and/or their apologists get away with the “Nuremberg Defense!” We know; they know! It’s time to end the willful blindness and deal with the truth!

Due Process Forever! Complicit Institutions, Never!

PWS

06-22-20

TOM PETTY’S FAMILY BLASTS USE OF LATE ROCKER’S SONG “I WON’T BACK DOWN” AT TRUMP’S TULSA HATE RALLY, DEMANDS “CEASE & DESIST” — “Both the late Tom Petty and his family firmly stand against racism and discrimination of any kind. Tom Petty would never want a song of his used for a campaign of hate. He liked to bring people together.”

Alaa ElassarWriter
CNN — Alaa Elassar
Writer
CNN Digital

Alaa Elassar writes at CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/21/politics/tom-petty-trump-cease-and-desist-trnd/index.html

(CNN)The family of the late Tom Petty has filed a cease and desist notice to the Trump campaign after one of the musician’s songs was played at the President’s campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Petty’s 1989 hit “I Won’t Back Down” was played on Saturday evening at the rally, which drew a smaller-than-expected crowd of supporters.

“Trump was in no way authorized to use this song to further a campaign that leaves too many Americans and common sense behind,” the family said in a tweet Saturday.

“Both the late Tom Petty and his family firmly stand against racism and discrimination of any kind. Tom Petty would never want a song of his used for a campaign of hate. He liked to bring people together,” according to the tweet.

. . . .

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

Read the complete article at the link.

Good for them!

As my former Georgetown Law Refugee Law & Policy students will remember, I used the lyrics of “Refugee” from “Professor Tom” & The Heartbreakers as a “teaching vehicle” about what it’s really like to be a refugee (something of which Trump and his cult of mindless supporters seem entirely unaware).

Perhaps a better choice from Tom’s collection, and one more indicative of the true state of our nation and Trump’s recent poll performance would have been Tom’s “Free Fallin’.”

Free Fallin’

by Tom Petty

She’s a good girl, loves her mama
Loves Jesus and America too
She’s a good girl, crazy ’bout Elvis
Loves horses and her boyfriend too

It’s a long day living in Reseda
There’s a freeway runnin’ through the yard
And I’m a bad boy ’cause I don’t even miss her
I’m a bad boy for breakin’ her heart

And I’m free, free fallin’
Yeah I’m free, free fallin’

All the vampires walkin’ through the valley
Move west down Ventura boulevard
And all the bad boys are standing in the shadows
All the good girls are home with broken hearts

And I’m free, free fallin’
Yeah I’m free, free fallin’
Free fallin’, now I’m free fallin’, now I’m
Free fallin’, now I’m free fallin’, now I’m

I want to glide down over Mulholland
I want to write her name in the sky
Gonna free fall out into nothin’
Gonna leave this world for a while

And I’m free, free fallin’
Yeah I’m free, free fallin’

Check out the video and get more from Tom here:

https://www.songfacts.com/lyrics/tom-petty/free-fallin

PWS

06-21-20

IMBECILE ON THE LOOSE — 120,000 Americans Are Dead From COVID-19, & Many More Will Continue To Die As Infections Spike & The Gov. Response Falters — Trump Thinks It’s An Opportunity For A Racist Joke! — Asian Americans & Those Who Lost Loved Ones (Or Both) Might Not “Get” His “Humor”

Rebeccas Ratcliffe — Rebecca Ratcliffe
SE Asia Reporter
The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/21/global-report-trump-says-he-ordered-coronavirus-testing-to-slow-down?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Rebecca Ratcliffe reports for The Guardian:

Donald Trump told thousands of supporters on Saturday that he had asked US officials to slow down testing for Covid-19 because case numbers in the country were rising so rapidly.

Speaking at a campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the US president used racist language, referring to Covid-19 as “kung flu”, and described testing for the virus as a “double-edged sword” because it led to the identification of more cases.

The US had now tested 25 million people, far more than other countries, Trump said, adding: “When you do testing to that extent, you’re gonna find more people, you’re gonna find more cases. So I said to my people slow the testing down.”

Hide this and other advertisements

A White House official later told Reuters that Trump was joking.

Don’t call it a comeback: Trump’s Tulsa rally was just another sad farce | Richard Wolffe

Across the US, more than 119,654 people are confirmed to have been killed by Covid-19, according to Johns Hopkins University. It remains the country worst hit by coronavirus, followed by Brazil, which now has more than a million cases, and Russia, which has 576,162 infections.

Trump said the “radical fake news” media had not given him credit for doing what he called “a phenomenal job” of responding to the outbreak.

The campaign rally in Tulsa went ahead despite warnings from health officials that it risked fuelling a spike in coronavirus cases. The crowd was smaller than expected, with many empty sections in the 19,000-seat arena, but few attendees wore masks.

Globally, 8,753,853 coronavirus cases have now been recorded and 463,281 fatalities confirmed, according to Johns Hopkins University.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Rebecca’s global report at the link.

This from a dude who 1) has no sense of humor; and 2) lacks any trace of human decency.

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

PWS

06-21-20

LIGHT IN A TIME OF DARKNESS: Humanity & Law in America Probably Had Their Two Best Moments (LGBTQ Rights & DACA) in Three Years Of Trump’s Darkness — Chief Justice John Roberts Made It Happen — How His Decision to Stand Up For Dreamers & The Rule of Law Against Trump’s Inhumanity, Cruelty, & Lawlessness is Already Making A Difference in The Lives of American Young People Across Our Broken Nation!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/behind-defund-the-police-and-abolish-ice-is-a-shared-hope-that-more-dads-make-it-home/2020/06/20/a8c0969a-b28a-11ea-8f56-63f38c990077_story.html

Theresa Vargas reports for WashPost:

By Theresa Vargas

June 20 at 10:30 AM ET

Angel Romero was about 8 years old when his bus rides home from school changed.

His family was living in Prince William County in Virginia at the time, and the elementary school student didn’t understand much about the agreement the county had entered into with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He knew only that some of his classmates had arrived home after school and found their parents gone.

“I started worrying if I would have parents when I came home,” he recalls.

On those bus rides home, he would sit with his anxiety until his bus came to his stop.

Some days, he would see his mom and dad standing there, and feel immediate relief that they hadn’t been deported. Other days, his mother would wait alone, because his father had to work at his construction job, and the boy would carry his fears with him until his dad walked in the door.

“It would be really scary not knowing if he was at work — or somewhere else,” the now 21-year-old tells me when we talk on a recent morning. “There is still that subconscious fear that has stuck with me. It’s never gone away.”

In the past week, Romero has been able to celebrate on a personal level two nationally recognized victories: Prince William County’s decision to not renew its 287(g) agreement with ICE and a Supreme Court ruling that blocks President Trump’s attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that offers protections to immigrants who were brought to the country as children.

[[Large Virginia county ends immigration enforcement agreement]]

Romero, who is a DACA recipient, stood in front of the Supreme Court on the day that decision was made. At one point, he took a knee and raised a fist in the air. A line of people, who, like him, had worked with the immigrant advocacy group CASA toward that moment, did the same.

It’s a posture that has been seen over and over again in recent weeks as streets across the country have filled with people protesting police brutality and other racial inequities. The push to “Defund the Police,” which has grown from those protests, may seem a distant fight from the effort to “Abolish ICE,” which immigrant rights groups have demanded, but many of the activists who are on the front lines right now, pushing for change, see the two as connected. They see them as two cries in the same battle.

What “Defund the Police” and “Abolish ICE” share is an acknowledgment that bad law enforcement practices, no matter what the badge looks like, unjustly separate families. They leave children not knowing whether their dads (or moms) will make it home, not because of what they did that day, but because of who they are.

Both also directly affect black immigrants.

In rallies that took place before the Prince William County decision, brown hands held white signs declaring “Black Lives Matter.” And in the hours after the Supreme Court decision, black activists called for an end to how the country enforces immigration. The system, which has seen in-custody deaths of adults and children, criminalizes people for entering the country while not providing clear paths to citizenship.

“These movements should be very linked, and I believe they are getting more and more linked as we are fighting together,” says Luis Aguilar, the Virginia state director for CASA. He is a DACA recipient and has spent years working toward seeing Prince William County end its agreement with ICE.

He is also Afro-Mexican. His dad comes from a region of Mexico where runaway slaves settled.

“When I see things like what happened to George Floyd, it goes beyond the personal,” the 33-year-old says of the police-custody killing that has sparked weeks of protests. “It goes to a space where you start thinking about why these things are happening, and you realize that currently society isn’t in a place where it truly respects each person as a human being.”

Aguilar was 15 and living in Falls Church when his father was deported.

“I would not want any other child to experience the results of a broken immigration system,” he says. “I think we owe it to society to fix the system.”

The decision by Prince William lawmakers not to renew its agreement with ICE when it expires at the end of the month received a blip of attention compared with the Supreme Court decision. But it is a significant development for the Washington region. That program changed the county. It created a hostile atmosphere, and not just for undocumented immigrants. It forced Latino families to leave the county and some to avoid calling the police, even when they needed help.

I know this not only from studies that have been conducted over the years, but also from personal observation.

When I came to The Washington Post, it wasn’t as a columnist. I was hired to cover the Prince William County Police Department. I had been in that job less than a year when county lawmakers approved 287(g), which gave law enforcement officials some of the same powers as immigration enforcement agents. They did that despite hearing concerns from the police department that it would erode community trust, prevent immigrants from reporting crimes and require a whole lot of money.

When Corey Stewart was running for a Senate seat, I wrote about what I saw and experienced after the crackdown happened — including how a man yelled at me, “Go back to your country!” — to show the intangible ways in which it failed the community. (And for those who want to point to it as a solution to crime, Prince William Police Chief Barry M. Barnard was recently quoted as saying, “I’m not seeing any hard data where the 287 program has been shown to be the direct cause of any measurable crime reduction.”)

Instead, it left people feeling scared and targeted — and it did that to residents who weren’t even out of elementary school yet.

Angel Romero says for him, “that moment just changed everything.”

“It changed my personality,” he says. “I used to be a really talkative kid, and I had like a switch, where I became very closed off and introverted.”

. . . .

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

https://madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/an-amazing-feeling-of-relief-immigrant-community-cheers-daca-ruling/article_3d3a943b-ef1c-5228-aa44-af5bba8b347f.html?utm_source=BadgerBeat&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=News%20Alerts

Sophie Bolich reports for the Madison.com:

When Sharet Garcia heard the U.S. Supreme Court decided to uphold the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, all she could do was cry.

“I just couldn’t believe it,” she said.

As a DACA recipient and founder of the online networking space UndocuProfessionals, Garcia said that the decision came as a shock. “We’re very excited, of course, and very happy…but at the same time, we know there’s still a lot of work to be done,” she said.

In the year since its creation, UndocuProfessionals has garnered a nationwide following. In the past months, it has become a gathering space for DACA recipients — also called DREAMers — to find support through the uncertainty of the approaching decision.

Garcia said she stayed awake into the early hours Thursday morning answering messages from other DREAMers who were anxiously awaiting the results.

“I was there trying to support them in the best way I can,” she said.

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision, which came after months of anticipation, ruled that the Trump administration improperly ended the DACA program in 2017. The announcement left DREAMers and their loved ones with “an amazing feeling of relief,” said Centro Hispano director Karen Menendez Coller.

It was the second defeat this week for the Trump administration, coming just days after the court ruled in favor of anti-discrimination protection for LGBTQIA+ employees under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

“The emotional impact is huge,” Menendez Coller said. “I can’t even describe the burden that this has lifted from so many people in the community.”

Anticipating the court’s decision against the backdrop of the pandemic, she added, was “an incredible load to carry,” noting the financial impact as well as the daily emotional turmoil that DREAMers face.

“You kind of have to put [the worry] at the back of your mind and ignore it,” said a Madison-area DACA recipient, who asked to remain anonymous. At the same time, she said, the thought was always lurking. “At any moment, had the outcome been negative, your whole world is going to change.”

She added that while many people weren’t hopeful about the decision, she was.

“There’s a lot more opportunities that people have had now for eight years,” she said, noting that, since the program’s 2012 inception, DREAMers have started small businesses, graduated college and worked for big companies.

“I think that that’s a big reason why I was like, maybe they’ll think twice about it. And thankfully they did.”

Though she counts the decision as a win, Menendez Collar said that the path to equity is “a long road.” Centro Hispano plans to continue mobilizing and raising funds to assist DREAMers and the undocumented community. They plan to collaborate with the Immigration Office of Affairs and increase the Immigrant Assistance Fund, which is housed at the Madison Community Foundation and helps DREAMers access legal help and cover fees associated with filing DACA applications.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Theresa’s and Sophie’s articles at the respective links above.

Imagine how many lives could be saved and changed for the better and how great America could become as a nation if Chief Justice Roberts and all other Federal Judges could find it within themselves to stand up for the legal, human, and Constitutional rights of refugees, asylum applicants, and migrants in every case challenging the Administration’s systemic, lawless, and invidiously motivated attacks on our legal system and the lives and humanity of the most vulnerable among us?

And, special thanks to Theresa and Sophie for reporting that puts humanity back in the law where it belongs. Without mercy, humanity, fairness, and decency, there can be neither law nor true justice.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-21-20

🇺🇸🗽😎👍🏼⚖️BREAKING: SOCIAL JUSTICE EEKS OUT A SUPREME VICTORY: CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS FINALLY RISES TO OCCASION, BACKS HUMANITY, SAVES LIVES, HEADS OFF FURTHER SOCIAL UNREST FOR NOW — Four GOP Justices Remain Shills For White Nationalist Regime, Its Invidiously Motivated Racially-Driven Immigration Agenda, & Promoting Social Injustice Under Law! — DHS v. Regents of U. of Cal. — This Might Be Roberts’s Finest Hour As Chief Justice!

DHS V. Regents of U. of Cal., U.S. Supreme Court, 06-18-20

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf

Supreme Court Syllabus:

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ET AL. v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 18–587. Argued November 12, 2019—Decided June 18, 2020*

In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a memo- randum announcing an immigration relief program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which allows certain unauthor- ized aliens who arrived in the United States as children to apply for a two-year forbearance of removal. Those granted such relief become eligible for work authorization and various federal benefits. Some 700,000 aliens have availed themselves of this opportunity.

Two years later, DHS expanded DACA eligibility and created a re- lated program known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). If implemented, that program would have made 4.3 million parents of U. S. citizens or lawful perma- nent residents eligible for the same forbearance from removal, work eligibility, and other benefits as DACA recipients. Texas, joined by 25 other States, secured a nationwide preliminary injunction barring im- plementation of both the DACA expansion and DAPA. The Fifth Cir- cuit upheld the injunction, concluding that the program violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which carefully defines eligi- bility for benefits. This Court affirmed by an equally divided vote, and

——————

*Together with No. 18–588, Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al., on certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and No. 18–589, Wolf, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. v. Batalla Vidal et al., on certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

2

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY v. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CAL.

Syllabus

the litigation then continued in the District Court.

In June 2017, following a change in Presidential administrations,

DHS rescinded the DAPA Memorandum, citing, among other reasons, the ongoing suit by Texas and new policy priorities. That September, the Attorney General advised Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine C. Duke that DACA shared DAPA’s legal flaws and should also be rescinded. The next day, Duke acted on that advice. Taking into consideration the Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court rulings and the At- torney General’s letter, Duke decided to terminate the program. She explained that DHS would no longer accept new applications, but that existing DACA recipients whose benefits were set to expire within six months could apply for a two-year renewal. For all other DACA recip- ients, previously issued grants of relief would expire on their own terms, with no prospect for renewal.

Several groups of plaintiffs challenged Duke’s decision to rescind DACA, claiming that it was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and infringed the equal protec- tion guarantee of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. District Courts in California (Regents, No. 18–587), New York (Batalla Vidal, No. 18–589), and the District of Columbia (NAACP, No. 18–588) all ruled for the plaintiffs. Each court rejected the Government’s argu- ments that the claims were unreviewable under the APA and that the INA deprived the courts of jurisdiction. In Regents and Batalla Vidal, the District Courts further held that the equal protection claims were adequately alleged, and they entered coextensive nationwide prelimi- nary injunctions based on the conclusion that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their APA claims. The District Court in NAACP took a different approach. It deferred ruling on the equal protection chal- lenge but granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their APA claim, finding that the rescission was inadequately explained. The court then stayed its order for 90 days to permit DHS to reissue a memorandum rescinding DACA, this time with a fuller explanation of the conclusion that DACA was unlawful. Two months later, Duke’s successor, Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen, responded to the court’s or- der. She declined to disturb or replace Duke’s rescission decision and instead explained why she thought her predecessor’s decision was sound. In addition to reiterating the illegality conclusion, she offered several new justifications for the rescission. The Government moved for the District Court to reconsider in light of this additional explana- tion, but the court concluded that the new reasoning failed to elaborate meaningfully on the illegality rationale.

The Government appealed the various District Court decisions to the Second, Ninth, and D. C. Circuits, respectively. While those ap- peals were pending, the Government filed three petitions for certiorari

Cite as: 591 U. S. ____ (2020) 3 Syllabus

before judgment. Following the Ninth Circuit affirmance in Regents, this Court granted certiorari.

Held: The judgment in No. 18–587 is vacated in part and reversed in part; the judgment in No. 18–588 is affirmed; the February 13, 2018 order in No. 18–589 is vacated, the November 9, 2017 order is affirmed in part, and the March 29, 2018 order is reversed in part; and all of the cases are remanded.

No. 18–587, 908 F. 3d 476, vacated in part and reversed in part; No. 18– 588, affirmed; and No. 18–589, February 13, 2018 order vacated, No- vember 9, 2017 order affirmed in part, and March 29, 2018 order re- versed in part; all cases remanded.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV, concluding:

1. DHS’s rescission decision is reviewable under the APA and is within this Court’s jurisdiction. Pp. 9–13.

(a) The APA’s “basic presumption of judicial review” of agency ac- tion, Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 140, can be rebut- ted by showing that the “agency action is committed to agency discre- tion by law,” 5 U. S. C. §701(a)(2). In Heckler v. Chaney, the Court held that this narrow exception includes an agency’s decision not to insti- tute an enforcement action. 470 U. S. 821, 831–832. The Government contends that DACA is a general non-enforcement policy equivalent to the individual non-enforcement decision in Chaney. But the DACA Memorandum did not merely decline to institute enforcement proceed- ings; it created a program for conferring affirmative immigration re- lief. Therefore, unlike the non-enforcement decision in Chaney, DACA’s creation—and its rescission—is an “action [that] provides a focus for judicial review.” Id., at 832. In addition, by virtue of receiving deferred action, 700,000 DACA recipients may request work authori- zation and are eligible for Social Security and Medicare. Access to such benefits is an interest “courts often are called upon to protect.” Ibid. DACA’s rescission is thus subject to review under the APA. Pp. 9–12.

(b) The two jurisdictional provisions of the INA invoked by the Government do not apply. Title 8 U. S. C. §1252(b)(9), which bars re- view of claims arising from “action[s]” or “proceeding[s] brought to re- move an alien,” is inapplicable where, as here, the parties do not chal- lenge any removal proceedings. And the rescission is not a decision “to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders” within the meaning of §1252(g). Pp. 12–13.

2. DHS’s decision to rescind DACA was arbitrary and capricious un- der the APA. Pp. 13–26.

(a) In assessing the rescission, the Government urges the Court to consider not just the contemporaneous explanation offered by Acting Secretary Duke but also the additional reasons supplied by Secretary

4

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY v. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CAL.

Syllabus

Nielsen nine months later. Judicial review of agency action, however, is limited to “the grounds that the agency invoked when it took the action.” Michigan v. EPA, 576 U. S. 743, 758. If those grounds are inadequate, a court may remand for the agency to offer “a fuller expla- nation of the agency’s reasoning at the time of the agency action,” Pen- sion Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp., 496 U. S. 633, 654 (emphasis added), or to “deal with the problem afresh” by taking new agency action, SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U. S. 194, 201. Because Sec- retary Nielsen chose not to take new action, she was limited to elabo- rating on the agency’s original reasons. But her reasoning bears little relationship to that of her predecessor and consists primarily of imper- missible “post hoc rationalization.” Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402, 420. The rule requiring a new decision before considering new reasons is not merely a formality. It serves important administrative law values by promoting agency accounta- bility to the public, instilling confidence that the reasons given are not simply convenient litigating positions, and facilitating orderly review. Each of these values would be markedly undermined if this Court al- lowed DHS to rely on reasons offered nine months after the rescission and after three different courts had identified flaws in the original ex- planation. Pp. 13–17.

(b) ActingSecretaryDuke’srescissionmemorandumfailedtocon- sider important aspects of the problem before the agency. Although Duke was bound by the Attorney General’s determination that DACA is illegal, see 8 U. S. C. §1103(a)(1), deciding how best to address that determination involved important policy choices reserved for DHS. Acting Secretary Duke plainly exercised such discretionary authority in winding down the program, but she did not appreciate the full scope of her discretion. The Attorney General concluded that the legal de- fects in DACA mirrored those that the courts had recognized in DAPA. The Fifth Circuit, the highest court to offer a reasoned opinion on DAPA’s legality, found that DAPA violated the INA because it ex- tended eligibility for benefits to a class of unauthorized aliens. But the defining feature of DAPA (and DACA) is DHS’s decision to defer re- moval, and the Fifth Circuit carefully distinguished that forbearance component from the associated benefits eligibility. Eliminating bene- fits eligibility while continuing forbearance thus remained squarely within Duke’s discretion. Yet, rather than addressing forbearance in her decision, Duke treated the Attorney General’s conclusion regard- ing the illegality of benefits as sufficient to rescind both benefits and forbearance, without explanation. That reasoning repeated the error in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm— treating a rationale that applied to only part of a policy as sufficient to rescind the entire policy. 463 U. S. 29, 51. While DHS

Cite as: 591 U. S. ____ (2020) 5 Syllabus

was not required to “consider all policy alternatives,” ibid., deferred action was “within the ambit of the existing” policy, ibid.; indeed, it was the centerpiece of the policy. In failing to consider the option to retain deferred action, Duke “failed to supply the requisite ‘reasoned analysis.’ ” Id., at 57.

That omission alone renders Duke’s decision arbitrary and capri- cious, but it was not the only defect. Duke also failed to address whether there was “legitimate reliance” on the DACA Memorandum. Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A., 517 U. S. 735, 742. Certain features of the DACA policy may affect the strength of any reliance interests, but those features are for the agency to consider in the first instance. DHS has flexibility in addressing any reliance interests and could have considered various accommodations. While the agency was not required to pursue these accommodations, it was required to assess the existence and strength of any reliance interests, and weigh them against competing policy concerns. Its failure to do so was arbitrary and capricious. Pp. 17–26.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, joined by JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded in Part IV that respondents’ claims fail to establish a plausible inference that the rescission was motivated by animus in violation of the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 27–29.

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV. GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined that opinion in full, and SO- TOMAYOR, J., joined as to all but Part IV. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which ALITO and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., and KAVANAUGH, J., filed opinions concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

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

Whew! Disaster avoided, at least for now! That was close for America and 800,000 of our most promising young people. A good day for justice, humanity, and common sense. The Supremes finally slow down the White Nationalist immigration juggernaught.

Thanks Chief Justice Roberts! Thanks for having the legal acumen, moral courage, independence, and human decency to get to the correct result. This could be your finest moment, where you have saved America from further social upheaval and outrage at a time of national instability and lack of credible leadership. That’s actually what your job is all about. You have missed some opportunities in the past, but better late than never in one of our darkest and most difficult hours as a nation! Justice without mercy and humanity is not justice at all. Thanks for recognizing that in this particular case.

In Plain English: Cutting Through The Legalese:

Roberts’s Majority: It would be insane, inane, and inhumane to do this to our kids at this point in time.

Sotomayor’s Concurring/Dissenting: Come on guys, you don’t have to be rocket scientists to connect the dots between the Administration’s racist approach to immigration and possible violations of constitutional Equal Protection.

Thomas’s Dissenting/Concurring: Stupidity, inhumanity, and injustice need no justification so long as they are directed against vulnerable migrants. Never let your sense of justice, practicality, or human decency interfere with right-wing ideology.

As an Immigration Judge I saw the justice, beauty, practicality, and real life positive results for America and for humanity from DACA. Lives saved! Cases that never should have been brought in the first place, taken off overcrowded dockets! Human potential unleashed! Fair, professional, uniform nationwide administration by USCIS! A “big win” for America, humanity, and everyone involved! Probably the best thing the Obama Administration achieved in its otherwise largely inept, lackadaisical, and tone-deaf approach to justice for immigrants.

The reprieve is narrow and temporary. It will become a pyrrhic victory for social justice if we don’t remove Trump and the GOP from power in November.

This November, vote like your life and the lives of many others depend on it! Because they do!

PWS

06-28-20

🤡EYORE’S WORLD: AILA, Other NGOs Protest EOIR’s Unilateral COVID-19 Reopening Plan!

https://www.aila.org/advo-media/aila-correspondence/2020/letter-eoir-resumption-nondetained-docket

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

Fresh off third-party revelations of chronically unreliable data, poor record keeping, and mismanagement of interpreter funds, to name just a few management failures that have recently come to light, EOIR tries to jam an ill-advised reopening plan down the throats of stakeholders and their own employees without prior consultation. No wonder the backlog grows astronomically!

One way to get the backlog under control would be to solicit the input of the public, the Judges’ representative (NAIJ), court staff, and ICE counsel. These are the folks who know most about what’s on the docket and how best and most safely to get cases moving again. To state the obvious: Bureaucrats in EOIR headquarters and politicos at DOJ who don’t actually adjudicate local cases are in the worst position to make these decisions in a vacuum.

Competent court management and backlog reduction requires a plan developed with input from all interested parties. EOIR’s wacko “my way or the highway” approach to court management can only lead to more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and even bigger backlogs.

The letter linked above offers EOIR lots of practical, common sense ideas for improving the courts and avoiding backlog creating and life threatening mistakes. EOIR must start paying attention to the experts rather than kowtowing to the politicos at DOJ.

PWS

06-12-20

MILLER, OTHER TRUMP WHITE NATIONALISTS SEEK TO FURTHER DISHONESTLY EXPLOIT THE PANDEMIC TO ENACT NATIVIST IMMIGRATION PROGRAM W/O CONGRESS – Counting On Supremes & Feckless Federal Courts To Go “Belly Up” On Regime’s Racist, Xenophobic Agenda!

https://apple.news/A4blmWGWoQ1GmZyfSpSkpUw

Priscilla Alvarez reports for CNN:

White House prepares new immigration limits, using coronavirus as cover

7:40 PM EDT June 9, 2020 Washington

The Trump administration is preparing to roll outanother set of restrictions on legal immigration, citing the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, even as it argues for the reopening of the US economy, according to sources familiar with the deliberations.

Despite a push from President Donald Trump to move past the pandemic, the administration is continuing to usher forward immigration measures, citing the outbreak and its toll on the economy.

One of the key figures behind the push to limit immigration is Stephen Miller, Trump’s lead immigration adviser and the architect of the President’s hardline immigration agenda. In April, Trump signed an executive order barring some immigration to the US after teasing an outright ban on immigration to the country. Trump argued that the order was needed to protect American jobs.

Against the backdrop of the coronavirus pandemic, the administration has pressed forward with a series of immigration measures that, prior to coronavirus, had struggled to break through. Among those changes is the closure of the southern border to migrants, including those seeking asylum, unless certain conditions are met.

After the President’s April proclamation, Miller cast the move as a first step toward reducing the flow of immigrants coming into the United States. That proclamation set up deadlines for review, one of which is approaching this weekend, and left the possibility open for its extension or modification.

The economic argument is expected to be raised again in an anticipated expansion or new immigration executive order. While Trump has touted recent job numbers,unemployment numbers remain high — though businesses have said in a series of letters to the President that continued immigration is important for economic recovery.

Interest groups, businesses and experts are fighting any new restrictions, saying that visas allowing immigrants to temporarily work in the US are critical to the economy.

“Why would he want to cut off critical workforce that will help the economy recover?” said Greg Chen, director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

“It’s not a rational or reasonable approach to the stated goals of what they’re trying to achieve, which only points to the underlying purpose of effectuating the President’s campaign goals of cutting off immigration,” Chen added.

Trump pledged the previous order would “ensure that unemployed Americans of all backgrounds will be first in line for jobs as our economy reopens.”

The White House did not immediately comment for this story.

CNN previously reported that Trump’s political advisers view the immigration steps as motivating for his base supporters at a moment when the President’s key election message — a strong economy — is badly weakened by the pandemic.

Legal immigration, which has already taken a hit during the outbreak, is again in focus in deliberations about an anticipated immigration executive order.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Priscilla’s article at the link.

Emboldened by the lack of judicial pushback and absence of legal and moral leadership from the Supremes on racial injustice, the regime is planning an all-out assault on non-white immigration with coronavirus as a cover. Blacks and Latinos have already been disproportionately affected by the Cornoavirus, which has been of little concern to Trump except as it relates to his reelection schemes. Now, sensing lack of support for racial justice from a Federal Judiciary already stacked with far rightists raced by Mitch through the Senate, Trump, Miller, Barr, Wolf, and their cronies see a chance to further their dehumanization and “Dred Scottification” of the other.

Sure, it’s despicable! But, when those whose responsibility it is to promote racial justice and resist Executive abuses go AWOL, that’s what tyrants do! Even incompetent tyrants can sense institutional weaknesses and lack of moral leadership in others.

PWS

06-10-20

ACLU SUES TO STOP REGIME’S BOGUS USE OF COVID-19 AS PRETEXT FOR ELIMINATING ASYLUM PROTECTIONS – Suit Tests Federal Courts’ Willingness To Stand Up to White Nationalist Regime’s Institutionalized Racism That Continually Invokes Pandemic As Transparently False Justification For Abrogation of Constitutional & Statutory Rights Disproportionately Affecting Those With Brown Skins!

Michelle Hackman reports for the WSJ:

WASHINGTON—The Trump administration, which has used the coronavirus health emergency to expel migrants at the border without allowing them to apply for asylum, faces its first court challenge over the practice in a lawsuit filed on behalf of a 16-year-old boy.

Since President Trump declared a public-health emergency in March, immigration agents have turned back nearly all migrants, including children, at the border without providing a chance to file asylum claims. The government invoked a 1944 public-health law allowing it to expel any noncitizen who poses a threat of spreading disease during an emergency. It extended that provision indefinitely in May.

The new process overrides immigration laws that allow any foreigner on American soil with a credible fear of persecution to apply for asylum, and laws prohibiting migrant children from being deported.

The lawsuit was filed in the district court in Washington by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a 16-year-old boy from Honduras, known only by his initials J.B.B.C. He crossed the border in early June to join his father, who is living in the U.S. and awaiting his own immigration case to be heard, after fleeing what the suit described as “severe persecution” in his home country.

Under the typical process, border agents would have turned over the child to the Department of Health and Human Services, which runs a network of migrant shelters for children across the country and seeks to find them suitable guardians. Instead, border agents detained the boy in El Paso, Texas, and plan to deport him imminently, in accordance with the public-health emergency process.

Late Tuesday evening, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted J.B.B.C. a temporary restraining order, ordering the government not to deport him through at least Wednesday at midnight.

The White House and the Department of Homeland Security didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

The lawsuit’s supporters acknowledge that the suit is a gamble. If a federal judge rules that immigration laws can be bypassed during an emergency—a novel application of the public-health law—the government would gain broad new authority. But not suing, they say, could allow deportations without due process to continue.

“If the courts don’t step in, the Trump administration will continue to indefinitely strip refugees of the right to seek asylum,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy counsel at the American Immigration Council.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Michelle’s article at the link.

The name of the use is J.B.B.C. v. Wolf.

So far, in showing no genuine concern for human rights, the rule of law, or overt racism in major non-legislative eradications of asylum, refugee, and immigration protections by a scofflaw Administration, which has made only cosmetic efforts to disguise its racist immigration agenda, a Supremes’ majority has sent a strong chilling signal to lower Federal Judges willing to stand up for racial justice, equal justice before the law, and Executive accountability. Will the Trump regime continue to literally “get away with attempted (or actual) murder” of children and other asylum applicants? How far does the Supremes’ majority’s resolve not to give Black and Brown lives and rights their deserved legal protections, and to fold in the face of Trump’s racist bullying, extend?

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

This November, vote like your life depends ons it! Because it does!

PWS

06-10-20

BIGOTED BULLY BILLY BARR BRUTALLY BATTERS U.S. JUSTICE SYSYEM: B/T/W He Also Runs America’s Most Screwed Up, & Most Clearly Unconstitutional “Court” System Right Under The Noses of Feckless Article III Judges! — It’s Not “Justice” — Just The Open Fraud That Passes For Justice When Democratic Institutions & Moral Leadership Fails — Barr’s DOJ is a “Thugocracy,” Says Post’s Dana Milbank!

Bigoted Bully Billy Barr Brutalizes Justice as Federal Courts Fail

Dana Milbank
Opinion Columnist
Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/09/so-this-is-why-bill-barr-is-such-bully/

Milbank writes in WashPost:

Police in Buffalo shove a 75-year-old man to the ground and blood pours from his ear. Police in Brooklyn knock down a young woman and call her a “bitch” because she asked why she had to leave the street. Federal authorities in Washington fire tear gas at peaceful demonstrators, then lie about it.

Get the feeling law enforcement in this country is being run by a middle-school bully?

If so, you are not wrong.

Childhood bullies have a predisposition to become adult bullies, research shows, and, sure enough, it seems Attorney General William Barr was a teenage bully more than 50 years ago.

Back in 1991, during Barr’s confirmation to be George H.W. Bush’s attorney general, lawyer Jimmy Lohman, who overlapped with Barr at New York’s Horace Mann School and later Columbia University, wrote a piece for the little-known Florida Flambeau newspaper about Barr being “my very own high-school tormentor” — a “classic bully” and “power abuser” in the 1960s who “put the crunch on me every chance [he] got.”

Nobody noticed the Flambeau piece at the time, but Lohman posted it on Facebook when President Trump nominated Barr in 2018, and it took on “a life of its own,” Lohman told me Tuesday from Austin, where Post researcher Alice Crites tracked him down. The article resurfaces in social media each time Barr does something unconscionable — which is often.

The 1991 description of 1963 Barr’s harassment sounds eerily like the 2020 Barr. He “lived to make me miserable,” with a “vicious fixation on my little Jewish ‘commie’ ass,” Lohman alleged, because he wore peace and racial-equality pins. He said the four Barr brothers picketed the school’s “Junior Carnival” because proceeds went to the NAACP, and he alleged that Billy Barr, the “most fanatic rightist” of the four, later “teamed with the New York City riot police to attack anti-war protesters and ‘long hairs.’ ”

The 1991 article says Barr, a “sadistic kid,” has “come a long way from terrorizing seventh graders just because they wore racial equality buttons.” The Justice Department didn’t respond to my request for comment.

Lohman’s account is consistent with Marie Brenner’s reporting for Vanity Fair: “A few who knew the Barr boys came to call them ‘the bully Barrs’; the siblings, these former classmates claimed, could be intimidating.” A petition from Horace Mann alumni asks the school to “rethink” an award for Barr, who “violated our school’s Core Values of Mutual Respect and Mature Behavior.”

Historian Paul Cronin, in Politico this week, says Barr was part of the “Majority Coalition” at Columbia that fought antiwar demonstrators. Barr had told the New York Times Magazine he was part of a “fistfight” in which “over a dozen people went to the hospital.” Cronin noted: “There appears to be no record of any trip to the hospital.”

Now Barr exaggerates violence on a grand scale. After he directed the forceful eviction of peaceful demonstrators from Lafayette Square, he claimed to Fox News on Monday that the image of peaceful demonstrators was “miscreated” to ignore “all the violence that was happening preceding that.” He alleged that there were two “bottles thrown at me” when he surveyed the scene; footage showed him at a safe distance. He charged that previously “things were so bad that the Secret Service recommended that the president go down to the bunker”; Trump claimed it was merely a bunker “inspection.”

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Dana’s article at the link.

Sadistic kid grows up to be racist bully, becomes Attorney General, institutes thugocracy, perverts justice, enabled by courts who look the other way. Wow! What a “great American success story.”

What’s the purpose of an independent life-tenured judiciary that lacks the courage, integrity, and commitment to our Constitution to hold Barr accountable for his attacks on truth, the rule of law, and human decency?

The road from Buffalo, Minneapolis, and Lafayette Park leads directly to the Supremes’ failure of legal and moral leadership. “Equal justice for all” will never become a reality until we get a Supremes’ majority that actually believes in it and has the guts to make it happen! When judges will neither admit nor engage the problem, they are the problem!

Better judges for a better, fairer, more equal America!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-10-20

Ananya Bhattacharya @ QUARTZ: Yes, Trump’s B.S. White Nationalist Attack on Immigrants, Using COVID-19 as a Pretext, Will Harm U.S. Workers & the U.S. Economy, Says New Study by U.C. San Diego Profs!

https://apple.news/ATn0lgkBSTay-a1C2lMlh4A

Ananya writes in QUARTZ:

GOOD FOR YOU

A new study shows Trump’s anti-immigration policies will end up hurting the US

The Donald Trump administration’s planned measures to help American graduates find jobs during the Covid-19 pandemic may backfire in the long term.

Over the past couple of months, the US government has proposed several restrictions on foreign skilled workers, which it believes will open up opportunities for locals. However, a recent University of California San Diego immigrant rights study (pdf) has said immigrant rights enhance the lives and livelihoods of native workers in many ways such as improvement in incomes, sparking innovation, reducing crime and increasing tax revenues.

“We find there are several areas where strengthening migrant worker rights benefits native-born workers, outweighing any costs borne by them,” researchers Gaurav Khanna and Anna Brown found.

The research comes after Trump hit pause on immigration into the US via employment and family routes in April, affecting more than 20,000 people each month. A May 7 letter from a group of four Republican senators urged Trump to suspend the Optional Practical Training programme (OPT), which allows international students to work in the US for up to three years. Six days later, the New York Times reported Trump is considering barring the issuance of new visas in certain employment-based categories, including H-1B.

Here’s a break-down of how hurting immigrant sentiment is tied to the welfare of the US economy:

Entrepreneurship and innovation

Any change to immigrant laws could hurt the US’s long-term plans around innovation and new ventures because giving immigrants legal permanence and a sense of stability incentivises local investments.

“These new businesses may lead to an increase in jobs and a larger tax base,” the researchers said. “While much of the literature has focused on the potential of H-1B visa-holders to develop new patents and technologies, there is strong evidence suggesting that this relationship between immigration and innovation holds more broadly.”

Around 45% of Fortune 500 companies have been founded by immigrants or children of immigrants. These companies amass more than $6 trillion in revenue per year and include tech giants like Google-Alphabet, Microsoft, Tesla, and Apple. A previous study by Khanna revealed that hiring H-1B workers was strongly associated with firms introducing newer products.

Threat of reverse brain drain

The report also says America’s talent crunch could worsen if foreign professionals are not retained.

“When the US crisis abates, there may be a scarcity of high-skill professionals, which could stall a robust recovery,” Khanna, co-author and assistant professor of economics at the school of Global Policy and Strategy (GPS), said in a June 4 press release.

Silicon Valley’s gaping tech skills gap has long been plugged by foreign talent.

Back in 1994, the number of computer scientists in the US who were born abroad was less than one in 10. By 2012, the share was up to a quarter.

Most tech workers are employed under the H-1B programme, which is only renewable for up to six years. Workers who are not on track for a green card have to return home. “Such forces, set into motion by the six-year H-1B limit, have shifted production from the United States to India,” the research states. Extending the H-1B limit or making the green card process easier would allow employers to retain this high-skill talent.

And it’s not just about Silicon Valley. The IT sector has downstream effects on other industries that use software, such as banking and manufacturing.

Higher wages, more jobs for locals

The presence of immigrants had a more favourable effect on incomes, the researchers found. A study conducted by the US Department of Labor showed that granting legal status to migrant workers resulted in their wages rising by 15.1%.

Restrictions on the H-1B will have an outsize effect on Indians, who receive three-quarters of the visa, but they wouldn’t be the first group to fall prey. Historically, Chinese, European, and Mexican labour flow into the US has been limited or stopped altogether based on unsubstantiated evidence about these workers depressing wages.

“Often, such policies have been motivated by resentment against foreign workers; however, this fear may be based on false perceptions and lack of evidence,” the authors of the paper write. “This resentment may also be driven by racial prejudices and xenophobia.”

However, the reality is that protecting migrant workers from exploitation eventually levels the playing field between immigrants and non-immigrants. “Migrant workers, who are not legally protected, face much lower wages compared with their native counterparts,” according to Khanna. “This is detrimental to US-born workers, who are less likely to be hired. Ensuring migrant workers have substantial rights inadvertently helps US-born workers as well.”

A better tomorrow for America

Less crime: Trump has often tried to draw a link between immigrants and rising crime rates. But there is little truth in these claims. Between 1970 and 2010, increases in immigration in US metropolitan areas were correlated with decreases in both violent (homicides, assaults, etc) and property crimes (burglary, motor vehicle theft, etc), past research shows. Then, a 2007 studyfound that incarceration rates are lower for immigrants and far lower for newly arrived immigrants.

More taxes: Contrary to popular belief, undocumented migrant workers pay taxes, mostly income taxes, which are estimated to be at $11.7 billion. This number would rise by $2.2 billion if undocumented migrants were granted legal status. For a country with $804 billion in fiscal debt, every penny counts.

Future workforce: Children of currently undocumented individuals who are born in the US can join the country’s workforce, adding to productivity and expanding the tax base.

Quartz Daily Brief

Subscribe to the Daily Brief, our morning email with news and insights you need to understand our changing world.

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

I’ve featured this particular study in prior posts. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/06/06/debunking-the-trump-regimes-white-nationalist-myths%EF%B8%8F-furthering-protecting-immigrants-rights-benefits-society-bogus-covid-19-visa-rest/

But, Ananya’s summary is so highly relevant and beautifully written that it deserves its own post. One of her most important points: “[T]he reality is that protecting migrant workers from exploitation eventually levels the playing field between immigrants and non-immigrants.”

I’ve pointed out to my students that bigger investments by the Feds in Wage & Hour and OSHA enforcement, as an alternative to expensive, inhumane, wasteful, and often counterproductive civil immigration detention and enforcement, is something that a wiser and more intellectually honest Administration should consider in the future, in combination with a more robust and realistic legal immigration system.

PWS

06-09-20

TA-NEHISI COATES IS OPTIMISTIC THAT WE’RE FINALLY AT A MOMENT OF CHANGE IN AMERICA’S APPROACH TO RACE RELATIONS — Read Ezra Klein’s Vox News Interview With Ta-Nehisi to Find Out Why!

https://apple.news/Tn2n0n8PnRUG6W-1mAp_OZw

Why Ta-Nehisi Coates is hopeful

The author of Between the World and Me on why this isn’t 1968, the Colin Kaepernick test, police abolition, nonviolence and the state, and more.

The first question I asked Ta-Nehisi Coates during our recent conversation on The Ezra Klein Show was broad: What does he see right now, as he looks out at the country?

“I can’t believe I’m gonna say this,” he replied, “but I see hope. I see progress right now.”

Coates is the author of the National Book Award winner Between the World and Me and The Water Dancer, among others. We discussed how this moment differs from 1968, the tension between “law” and “order,” the contested legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., Donald Trump’s view of the presidency, police abolition, why we need to renegotiate the idea of “the public,” how the consensus on criminal justice has shifted, what Joe Biden represents, the proper role of the state, and much more.

But there’s one particular thread of this conversation that I haven’t been able to put down: There is now, as there always is amid protests, a loud call for the protesters to follow the principles of nonviolence. And that call, as Coates says, comes from people who neither practice nor heed nonviolence in their own lives. But what if we turned that conversation around? What would it mean to build the state around principles of nonviolence, rather than reserving that exacting standard for those harmed by the state?

An edited transcript from our conversation follows. The full conversation can be heard on The Ezra Klein Show.

Ezra Klein

What do you see right now, as you look out at the country?

Ta-Nehisi Coates

I can’t believe I’m gonna say this, but I see hope. I see progress right now, at this moment.

I had an interesting call on Saturday with my dad, who was born in 1946, grew up dirt poor in Philadelphia, lived in a truck, went off to Vietnam, came back, joined the Panther Party, and was in Baltimore for the 1968 riots. Would’ve been about 22 at that time.

I asked him if he could compare what he saw in 1968 to what he was seeing now. And what he said to me was there was no comparison — that this is much more sophisticated. And I say, well, what do you mean? He said it would have been like if somebody from the turn of the 20th century could see the March on Washington.

The idea that black folks in their struggle against the way the law is enforced in their neighborhoods would resonate with white folks in Des Moines, Iowa, in Salt Lake City, in Berlin, in London — that was unfathomable to him in ‘68, when it was mostly black folks in their own communities registering their great anger and great pain.

I don’t want to overstate this, but there are significant swaths of people and communities that are not black, that to some extent have some perception of what that pain and that suffering is. I think that’s different.

Ezra Klein

Do you think there is more multiethnic solidarity today than there was then?

Ta-Nehisi Coates

I do. Within my lifetime, I don’t think there’s been a more effective movement than Black Lives Matter. They brought out the kind of ridiculousness that black folks deal with on a daily basis in the policing in their communities.

George Floyd is not new. The ability to broadcast it the way it was broadcasted is new. But black folks have known things like that were going on in their communities, in their families, for a very long time. You have a generation of people who are out in the streets right now, many of whom only have the vaguest memory of George Bush. They remember George Bush the way I remember Carter. The first real president who they actually grappled with was a black dude. That’s a different type of consciousness.

Ezra Klein

I was watching the speech Trump gave before tear-gassing the protesters in the park in DC. What so chilled me about that speech was how much he clearly wanted this — like this was the presidency as he had always imagined it, directing men with guns and shields to put down protesters so he could walk through a park unafraid and seem tough.

He’s always seemed so disinterested and annoyed by the actual work of being president, even during coronavirus. But this is the thing that he seems energized and excited by. And that’s been the scary part of it to me — that you have somebody in that role who is eager for escalation.

Ta-Nehisi Coates

It is pretty clear that the war-making part of being head of state was the part that most appeals to Donald Trump.

What does this mean for the election? It may be true that Donald Trump will win. Maybe this will lead to some sort of white backlash that ultimately helps him. I can’t really call that. But what I will say is this is a massive denial of legitimacy. Donald Trump may win the election in November, but he will be a ruler and not a president.

I think that those things need to be distinguished. When you’re calling out the military to repress protests that are in cities across the country, not just in ghettos and in hoods, all you have is force at that point. Most likely if he wins, he’ll be someone who won with a minority of the vote two times, which will be a first in American history. And violence will be the tool by which he rules. I think it’s a very different situation to be in.

Ezra Klein

I’m glad you brought in that word legitimacy. I wrote a piece the other day called “America at the breaking point,” and one of the things that I was imagining as I wrote that was a legitimacy crisis. The stakes have been going higher and higher this year: coronavirus, the entire country locked in houses, upset, angry, scared. Then you add on a series of basically televised lynchings.

And then you think: This is an election year. In some ways, I’m more afraid of the situation you just described. If Donald Trump is reelected in a way that does not feel legitimate to people — if he loses by more votes than he did in 2016, or there’s a contested-vote situation — this could turn out badly. Legitimacy crises are scary things. And I don’t think we’re really well equipped for one right now.

Ta-Nehisi Coates

I agree. But when I look back historically, the alternative to me is 1968.

I think, amongst a large swath to a majority of black people in this country, the police are illegitimate. They’re not seen as a force that necessarily causes violent crime to decline. Oftentimes you see black people resorting to the police because they have no other option, but they’re not seen with the level of trust that maybe Americans in other communities bestow upon the police. They know you could be a victim to lethal force because you used a $20 bill that may or may not have been counterfeit, because you were asleep at night in your home and somebody got a warrant to kick down your door without knocking.

I would argue that [feeling] has been nationalized. I don’t know that everybody in America feels that way, but I think large swaths of Americans now feel that Trump is the police. And they feel about Trump the way we feel about cops: This is somebody that rules basically by power. I would prefer that situation to 1968, where we’re alone in our neighborhoods and we know something about the world and we know what the police do, but other folks can’t really see it — and if they can, they’re unsympathetic. I would prefer now.

The long history of black folks in this country is conflict and struggle, between ourselves and the state and other interests within the society so that we can live free. And this is the first time that I think a lot of us have felt that the battle was legitimately joined, not just by white people but other people of color. When I hear that brother in Minneapolis talk about how his store was burned down and him saying, “Let it burn.” That’s a very different world. It’s a very, very different situation. It’s not a great one. It’s not the one we want. But it’s not ‘68.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the interview at the link.

Coincidentally, I just finished reading Coates’s novel about slavery and freedom, The Water Dancer, which I highly recommend.

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️I also found the just-released streaming movie Just Mercy instructive. It’s based on the true story of unjustly convicted Alabama death-row inmate Walter McMillan and his courageous young just-out-of-Harvard African-American attorney Bryan Stevenson, played by Michael B. Jordan. In the movie, as in real life, justice was achieved in the end.

But, was it really?

Why should justice in America a be so dependent on both the “right lawyer” and the particular location and judges before whom you are tried? Why should it be so difficult, time consuming, painful, and uncertain to obtain? Why weren’t the crooked sheriff and the other perpetrators of deadly fraud held accountable? Why was such a tone-deaf judge on the bench in the first place? Why was a corrupt system not interested in real justice for the murder victim? Why do we still have the death penalty — clearly “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Constitution by any rational definition?

It’s also worth remembering that one of the greatest advocates of putting African Americans in Alabama to death was none other than White Nationalist prosecutor Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions. Sessions then went on to a further career involving child abuse, squandering of taxpayer funds on “gonzo” prosecutions of legal asylum seekers, and unfairly sentencing Hispanic refugee women to torture, and even death. Yet, Sessions walks free. He even has the audacity to run for public office again based on his perverted, racist views of “justice” in America.

Whether or not he, or the equally repulsive and bigoted other GOP candidate, former football coach Tommy Tuberville, get elected will be a true test of how far we have come as a nation, and in particular, how far Alabama has come in atoning for past wrongs. Anybody who cares about equal justice for all should send at least a few bucks to the re-election campaign of wholly decent, competent, U.S. Senator Doug Jones (D-AL) to help him fight the GOP “forces of darkness, racism, and inequality,” arrayed against him.

I really hope Coates is right. But, based on the “reality of the moment” we still have a long way to go. True social justice would involve accountability for individuals like Trump, Miller, Sessions, and Barr who have been actors and proponents of injustice toward “the other” in our society. When folks like unapologetic White Nationalist provocateur Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) are no longer placed in public office, then, and only then, will social justice and equal justice for all have been achieved.

And, I personally doubt our capacity as a nation for true due process and equal justice under law as long as the “JR Five” rule the Supremes. So far, there haven’t been many racial injustices or “Dred Scottifications” of the other that they have had the courage and integrity to condemn! Better judges, with more humanity and empathy, are a requirement for a truly just nation.

That pandering, maliciously incompetent, willfully ignorant, bigot Donald Trump, with his vile, intentionally racially divisive message of fear still polls at 42% shows just how far we have to go to achieve due process and equal justice for all in America. “Equal Justice For All” isn’t just a “snappy slogan;” it requires leaders who really believe in it!

Right now, save for Nancy Pelosi, we conspicuously lack such leaders in all three Branches of our National Government. Better results will require change at the top. It will also require a significant minority of voters to stop enabling the intolerant, incompetent, and divisive to rule.

As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once wrote:

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

The quote isn’t just an “abstract concept;” it has “real life” meaning. It’s from King’s Letter From Birmingham Jail, where he was unjustly imprisoned in 1963 for participation in peaceful protests against racial injustice.

“Social Justice” isn’t just an idealistic concept. It’s an absolute necessity for a well-functioning, just, and fully productive society!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-07-20

JAMELLE BOUIE @ NYT: The Police & Often The Misuse of a “Bogus Rule of Law” (when used to allow the empowered to run roughshod over the legal and human rights of “the other”) Are Long-Standing Roadblocks to a Fair & Just Society —“The simplest answer to the question ‘Why don’t the American police forces act as if they are accountable to black Americans?’ is that they were never intended to be.”

Jamelle writes in the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/05/opinion/police-riots.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

The Police Are Rioting. We Need to Talk About It.

It is an attack on civil society and democratic accountability.

By Jamelle BouieJune 5, 2020

If we’re going to speak of rioting protesters, then we need to speak of rioting police as well. No, they aren’t destroying property. But it is clear from news coverage, as well as countless videos taken by protesters and bystanders, that many officers are using often indiscriminate violence against people — against anyone, including the peaceful majority of demonstrators, who happens to be in the streets.

Rioting police have driven vehicles into crowds, reproducing the assault that killed Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017. They have surrounded a car, smashed the windows, tazed the occupants and dragged them out onto the ground. Clad in paramilitary gear, they have attacked elderly bystanders, pepper-sprayed cooperative protesters and shot “nonlethal” rounds directly at reporters, causing serious injuries. In Austin, Texas, a 20-year-old man is in critical condition after being shot in the head with a “less-lethal” round. Across the country, rioting police are using tear gas in quantities that threaten the health and safety of demonstrators, especially in the midst of a respiratory disease pandemic.

None of this quells disorder. Everything from the militaristic posture to the attacks themselves does more to inflame and agitate protesters than it does to calm the situation and bring order to the streets. In effect, rioting police have done as much to stoke unrest and destabilize the situation as those responsible for damaged buildings and burning cars. But where rioting protesters can be held to account for destruction and violence, rioting police have the imprimatur of the state.

What we’ve seen from rioting police, in other words, is an assertion of power and impunity. In the face of mass anger over police brutality, they’ve effectively said So what? In the face of demands for change and reform — in short, in the face of accountability to the public they’re supposed to serve — they’ve bucked their more conciliatory colleagues with a firm No. In which case, if we want to understand the behavior of the past two weeks, we can’t just treat it as an explosion of wanton violence; we have to treat it as an attack on civil society and democratic accountability, one rooted in a dispute over who has the right to hold the police to account.

Jamelle Bouie’s Newsletter: Discover overlooked writing from around the internet, and get exclusive thoughts, photos and reading recommendations from Jamelle.

African-American observers have never had any illusions about who the police are meant to serve. The police, James Baldwin wrote in his 1960 essay on discontent and unrest in Harlem, “represent the force of the white world, and that world’s real intentions are simply for that world’s criminal profit and ease, to keep the black man corralled up here in his place.” This wasn’t because each individual officer was a bad person, but because he was fundamentally separate from the black community as a matter of history and culture. “None of the police commissioner’s men, even with the best will in the world, have any way of understanding the lives led by the people they swagger about in twos and threes controlling.”

Go back to the beginning of the 20th century, during America’s first age of progressive reform, as the historian Khalil Gibran Muhammad does in “The Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime, and the Making of Modern Urban America,” and you’ll find activists describing how “policemen had abdicated their responsibility to dispense color-blind service and protection, resulting in an object lesson for youth: the indiscriminate mass arrests of blacks being attacked by white mobs.”

The police were ubiquitous in the African-American neighborhoods of the urban North, but they weren’t there to protect black residents as much as they were there to enforce the racial order, even if it led to actual disorder in the streets. For example, in the aftermath of the Philadelphia “race riot” of 1918, one black leader complained, “In nearly every part of this city peaceable and law-abiding Negroes of the home-owning type have been set upon by irresponsible hoodlums, their property damaged and destroyed, while the police seem powerless to protect.”

If you are trying to understand the function of policing in American society, then even a cursory glance at the history of the institution would point you in the direction of social control. And blackness in particular, the historian Nikhil Pal Singh argues, was a state of being that required “permanent supervision and sometimes direct domination.”

The simplest answer to the question “Why don’t the American police forces act as if they are accountable to black Americans?” is that they were never intended to be. And to the extent that the police appear to be rejecting accountability outright, I think it reflects the extent to which the polity demanding it is now inclusive of those groups the police have historically been tasked to control. That polity and its leaders are simply rejected as legitimate wielders of authority over law enforcement, especially when they ask for restraint.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Jamelle’s op-ed at the above link.

Truth is, we have the legal tools to do things like prosecute police misconduct, honor the human and civil rights of African Americans, overcome the years of unfair and discriminatory treatment of African Americans in education, employment, and leadership, promote community cooperation to allow each individual to reach maximum levels of contribution and enjoyment, correct the due process and bias flaws in court systems, tax more rationally and equitably, grant asylum to refugees we are now unfairly and illegally turning away, end inhumane and counterproductive “civil” detention, stop putting disproportionate numbers of minority communities in jail and prison, and end “Dred Scottification” of the other.

What we lack is 1) the honest, courageous, humane, and wise public officials necessary to make the laws and existing tools work; 2) the political will to get those types of officials into the correct offices.

I don’t know how much it would cost. But, whatever it is, we need to invest in it. And some “ready funds” could be made available if we stop building unneeded walls, detention centers, prisons, separating kids, and wasting legal and judicial resources fighting against the institutional fascism and tyranny of the Trump regime.

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

PWS

06-07-20

GEORGE PACKER @ THE ATLANTIC: With Failed Institutions & Lousy Leaders, Including a President Leading the Charge to the Bottom, America Faces An Uncertain Future — “A responsible establishment doesn’t exist. Our president is one of the rioters.” — Joe Biden & The Dems Could Be The Last, Best Hope For American Democracy & Real Progress Toward “Equal Justice For All!”

George Packer
American Journalist, Author, Playwright

https://apple.news/A-6795FCPQU6LRBMW1_nzvw

Packer writes in The Atlantic:

IDEAS

Shouting Into the Institutional Void

Demonstrators are hammering on a hollowed-out structure, and it very well may collapse.

The urban unrest of the mid-to-late 1960s was more intense than the days and nights of protest since George Floyd was murdered by a Minneapolis policeman. More people died then, more buildings were gutted, more businesses were ransacked. But those years had one advantage over the present. America was coming apart at the seams, but it still had seams. The streets were filled with demonstrators raging against the “system,” but there was still a system to tear down. Its institutions were basically intact. A few leaders, in and outside government, even exercised some moral authority.

In July 1967, immediately after the riots in Newark and Detroit, President Lyndon B. Johnson created a commission to study the causes and prevention of urban unrest. The Kerner Commission—named for its chairman, Governor Otto Kerner Jr. of Illinois—was an emblem of its moment. It didn’t look the way it would today. Just two of the 11 members were black (Roy Wilkins, the leader of the NAACP, and Edward Brooke, a Republican senator from Massachusetts); only one was a woman. The commission was also bipartisan, including a couple of liberal Republicans, a conservative congressman from Ohio with a strong commitment to civil rights, and representatives from business and labor. It reflected a society that was deeply unjust but still in possession of the tools of self-correction.

The commission’s report, written by the executive director, David Ginsburg, an establishment liberal lawyer of New Deal vintage, appeared at the end of February 1968. It became an instant million-copy best seller. Its language is bracing by the standards of any era: “What white Americans have never fully understood—but what the Negro can never forget—is that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it.” The report called for far-reaching policy reforms in housing, employment, education, and policing, to stop the country from becoming “two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal.”

[Anne Applebaum: History will judge the complicit]

It was too much for Johnson, who resented not being credited for his efforts to achieve civil rights and eradicate poverty, and whose presidency had just been engulfed by the Tet Offensive in South Vietnam. He shelved the report. A few weeks later, on the evening of April 4, Martin Luther King Jr. was killed in Memphis. The next night, Johnson—who had just announced that he wouldn’t run for reelection—spoke to a country whose cities were burning from coast to coast. “It is the fiber and the fabric of the republic that’s being tested,” he said. “If we are to have the America that we mean to have, all men of all races, all regions, all religions must stand their ground to deny violence its victory in this sorrowful time, and in all times to come. Last evening, after receiving the terrible news of Dr. King’s death, my heart went out to his family and to his people, especially to the young Americans who I know must sometimes wonder if they are to be denied a fullness of life because of the color of their skin.” To an aide, he was more blunt in assessing the uprising: “What did you expect? I don’t know why we’re surprised. When you put your foot on a man’s neck and hold him down for 300 years, and then you let him up, what’s he going to do? He’s going to knock your block off.”

King’s murder and the riots it sparked propelled Congress to pass, by an overwhelming and bipartisan margin, the decade’s last major piece of civil-rights legislation, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which enforced fair standards in housing. Johnson signed it on April 11. It was too late. The very best reports, laws, and presidential speeches couldn’t contain the anger in the streets. That year, 1968, was when reform was overwhelmed by radicalization on the left and reaction on the right. We still live in the aftermath. The language and ideas of the Kerner Report have haunted the years since—a reminder of a missed chance.

The difference between 1968 and 2020 is the difference between a society that failed to solve its biggest problem and a society that no longer has the means to try. A year before his death, King, still insisting on nonviolent resistance, called riots “the language of the unheard.” The phrase implies that someone could be made to hear, and possibly answer. What’s happening today doesn’t feel the same. The protesters aren’t speaking to leaders who might listen, or to a power structure that might yield, except perhaps the structure of white power, which is too vast and diffuse to respond. Congress isn’t preparing a bill to address root causes; Congress no longer even tries to solve problems. No president, least of all this one, could assemble a commission of respected figures from different sectors and parties to study the problem of police brutality and produce a best-selling report with a consensus for fundamental change. A responsible establishment doesn’t exist. Our president is one of the rioters.

After half a century of social dissolution, of polarization by class and race and region and politics, there are no functioning institutions or leaders to fail us with their inadequate response to the moment’s urgency. Levers of influence no longer connect to sources of power. Democratic protections—the eyes of a free press, the impartiality of the law, elected officials acting out of conscience or self-interest—have lost public trust. The protesters are railing against a society that isn’t cohesive enough to summon a response. They’re hammering on a hollowed-out structure, and it very well may collapse.

[James Fallows: Is this the worst year in modern American history?]

If 2020 were at all like 1968, the president would go on national television and speak as the leader of all Americans to try to calm a rattled country in a tumultuous time. But the Trump administration hasn’t answered the unrest like an embattled democracy trying to reestablish legitimacy. Its reflex is that of an autocracy—a display of strength that actually reveals weakness, emptiness. Trump’s short walk from the White House to St. John’s Episcopal Church had all the trappings of a strongman trying to show that he was still master of the country amid reports that he’d taken refuge in a bunker: the phalanx of armored guards surrounding him as he strutted out of the presidential palace; the tear gas and beatings that cleared his path of demonstrators and journalists; the presence of his daughter, who had come up with the idea, and his top general, wearing combat fatigues as if to signal that the army would defend the regime against the people, and his top justice official, who had given the order to raid the square.

William Barr has reacted to the killing of George Floyd like the head of a secret-police force rather than the attorney general of a democratic republic. His first act was not to order a federal investigation into the Minneapolis Police Department, but—as he’s done before—to rush out ahead of the facts and try to control public opinion, by announcing that the violence following Floyd’s death was the work of left-wing agitators. Streets of the nation’s capital are now blocked by security forces from Barr’s Department of Justice—many from the Federal Bureau of Prisons—wearing uniforms that make them impossible to identify, like paramilitary troops with unknown commanders.

The protests have to be understood in the context of this institutional void. They resemble the spontaneous mass cry of a people suffering under dictatorship more than the organized projection of public opinion aimed at an accountable government. They signify that democratic politics has stopped working. They are both utopian and desperate.

[Read: The double standard of the American riot]

Some public figures—politicians, policy experts, civic leaders—have come forward with proposals for changing the mindset and tactics of the police. Terrence Floyd, the brother of the murdered man, urged protesters to educate themselves and vote. But the overwhelming message of the protests is simply “end racism,” which would be a large step toward ending evil itself. The protesters are demanding an absolute, as if they’ve stopped expecting the state to produce anything that falls a little short. For white protesters—who are joining demonstrations on behalf of black freedom and equality in large numbers for the first time since Selma, Alabama, 55 years ago—this demand means ending an evil that lies within themselves. It would be another sign of a hollow democracy if the main energy in the afterglow of the protests goes into small-group sessions on white privilege rather than a hard push for police reform.

. . . .

This is where we are. Trust is missing everywhere—between black Americans and police, between experts and ordinary people, between the government and the governed, between citizens of different identities and beliefs. There’s an election coming in five months. It won’t end racism or the pandemic, or repair our social bonds, or restore our democracy to health. But it could give us a chance to try, if we get that far.

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

Read the rest of Packer’s article at the above link.

Well said! The only thing missing is specific reference to the toxic failure of the U.S. Supreme Court.

We once had a Court with the legal experience, ethics, vision, and moral courage to lead America forward toward a more just and equal society. That’s been totally dissipated by years of GOP erosion of the Court’s legal expertise, practical problem-solving ability, humanity, courage, vision of a better future for all in America, and integrity.

The “journey downward and march backward” from Brown v. Board of Education to legal travesties like Trump v. Hawaii and Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab (to name just two glaring examples of the Court’s disgraceful and illegal “Dred Scottification” of the other in our society) is certainly one of the most outrageous, disturbing, and disgusting tales in post-Plessy v. Ferguson American jurisprudence.

The Court’s abject failure to move forward and make voting rights and equal justice for all a reality is in no small measure linked to the death of George Floyd and other Americans of color and the nationwide protests of injustice. Failure of judicial integrity, vision, and leadership — in other words failures of both legal and moral justice — imperils our nation and many of its inhabitants.

America already faces long-term threats to our justice system and those it supposedly serves from the irresponsible and poorly-qualified life-tenured judicial appointments of Trump and the Mitch-led GOP. To them, things like “equal justice for all,” “voting rights,” “due process for all,” “women’s rights,” and “human rights” are just cruel hoaxes — things to be privately mocked, publicly “lip-serviced,” then buried forever beneath an avalanche of disingenuous and opaque legal gobbledygook intended to hide their true anti-democratic, White Nationalist enabling intent. The appointment of any more Justices along the lines of the “J.R. Five” likely would be the final “nail in the coffin” for our democratic republic! 🏴‍☠️👎🏻🥵

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

PWS

06-06-20

DEBUNKING THE TRUMP REGIME’S WHITE NATIONALIST MYTHS☠️: Furthering & Protecting Immigrants’ Rights Benefits Society — Bogus “COVID-19” Visa Restrictions & Other Nativist Nonsense Enabled By Feckless Congress & Failing Courts Hurts America!

Gaurav Khanna
Assistant Professor of Economics
U.S. San Diego

https://apple.news/AtzkkrgAGThCSMutjCZCjAg

From SCIENMAG:

New Visa restrictions will make the US economic downturn worse

New research shows legal protections for immigrants improve lives and livelihoods of citizen workers

The Trump administration is expected to set limits on a popular program that allows international students to work in the U.S. after graduation while remaining on their student visas. The restrictions on the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program are designed to help American graduates seeking jobs during the pandemic-fueled economic downturn; however, the move is likely to further hurt the economy, according to new University of California San Diego research on immigrant rights.

In a new research paper, economists find that immigrant rights enhance the lives and livelihoods of native-born workers in many ways. Drawing from a sweeping collection of studies on the U.S. labor market over the past century, the paper is the first of its kind to look at how legal protections for immigrants affect domestic workers of immigrant-receiving countries in terms of generating income, innovation, reducing crime and increasing tax revenues.

One in eight persons living in the United States was born in a different country. Therefore understanding the impact of migrant worker rights on receiving economies is crucial to immigration policymaking, especially with the White House’s immigration policies growing more exclusionary during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This time the political restrictions seem to be on high-skill foreign-born, like students, OPTs and those with H1B visas,” said Gaurav Khanna, co-author and assistant professor of economics at the UC San Diego’s School of Global Policy and Strategy (GPS). “Many high-skill workers have lost their jobs, which means many will have to leave the country soon. When the U.S. crisis abates, there may be a scarcity of high-skill professionals, which could stall a robust recovery.”

Legal protections for immigrants aid entrepreneurship and innovation

About 45 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants. These companies amass more than $6 trillion in revenue per year and include tech-giants like Google-Alphabet, Microsoft, Tesla and Apple. With one in four of computer scientists born in a different country, the U.S. immigrant workforce comprises of many of Silicon Valley’s top entrepreneurs, current CEOs or company founders.

As entrepreneurs know, starting a business requires a lot of money up front while the return on investment may take years, but the benefits to the local populations prove to be very positive from the start.

With the economy contracting at unprecedented levels, the White House’s decision to impose more visa restrictions is expected make economic recovery more difficult because the less confidence immigrants have in their status, the less likely they are to seed innovation and create businesses.

Providing legal permanence and stability to immigrants may help incentivize long-term local investments like businesses which lead to an increase in jobs and a larger tax base, Khanna and co-author Anna Brown, a graduate of GPS’s Master of Public Policy program write.

H1-B under fire, despite its well-documented economic benefits

Most technology workers enter the U.S. on H-1B visas, which are temporary work visas that are valid for three years and renewable up to another three years. At the end of the six-year period, these highly-skilled workers must either leave the country or apply for a costly green card that has a long waitlist, particularly for citizens of India and China.

“Extending the H-1B limit or making the green card process easier would provide immigrants with a longer legal work status in the U.S. and allow employers to retain high-skill talent, which could have downstream effects on other industries that use software, like banking, manufacturing and other sectors,” the authors write.

Since the H-1B visa was in introduced in 1990, it has yielded many economic benefits. For example, U.S.-born workers gained $431 million in 2010 as a result of the H-1B, according to previous research from Khanna. Moreover, another study of his revealed that hiring H-1B workers was strongly associated with firms introducing newer products.

However, new restrictions to the H-1B, the same type of visa the founder of SpaceX, Elon Musk, used to begin working in the U.S., could be released soon as the White House recently indicated it is reevaluating the program. This could yield another roadblock for the legalization of immigrants with entrepreneurial ambition.

“Unless immigrants are certain they will be allowed to remain within a country, they may not invest in developing a business in that country,” Khanna and Brown write. “This highlights a problem faced by many migrants who have ambitions to start businesses but will not because they know they may not be able to stay in the country for long.”

More protections for immigrants increases the likelihoods of jobs going to native born-workers, over immigrants

In addition to analyzing how immigrant rights aid entrepreneurship, Khanna and Brown also looked at how these policies impact the competition between native-born and immigrant workers. Immigrant worker rights protect migrant workers from employer exploitation; an indirect benefit of these laws is that they even the playing field between immigrants and non-immigrants.

“Migrant workers, who are not legally protected, face much lower wages compared with their native counterparts,” according to Khanna. “This is detrimental to U.S. born workers, who are less likely to be hired. Ensuring migrant workers have substantial rights inadvertently helps U.S. born workers as well.”

The study points to exclusionary immigration policies over the course of U.S. history, from the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, to the Kennedy and Johnson administrations’ policies targeted at farmworkers, all of which were driven by fear of low-skill laborers from other countries depressing wages of native-born workers in the U.S.

However, economist all over the world have been unable to find evidence that proves these theories. Rather, in each of these cases throughout U.S. history, employers adjusted to the missing workers in ways other than substantially bidding up wages, such as by shifting to production technologies that use less labor.

“Often, such policies have been motivated by resentment against foreign workers; however, this fear may be based on false perceptions and lack of evidence,” the authors of the paper, which appeared in the UCLA Journal of International Law & Foreign Affairs, write. “This resentment may also be driven by racial prejudices and xenophobia.”

Rights for immigrants also lower crimes in receiving countries

Even as the discussion on the impact of immigration has predominantly focused on wages and employment, the current U.S. President has strongly alluded to a link between immigrants and crime, propelling growing discourse on the subject.

Between 2001 and 2017, Gallup polls consistently reflected that roughly half (45 percent to 58 percent) of American respondents believe immigrants make the crime situation worse. These assumptions are false. The authors cite ample research that sheds light on incarceration rates being lower for immigrants, and far lower for newly arrived immigrants, revealing the baseline for criminal activity among immigrants is lower than native-born workers.

In addition, the authors point to previous studies that revealed a correlation between immigrant rights with decreased crime over the course of four decades (1970 to 2010).

“This is because the less protection and work opportunities immigrants have, the more likely they are to turn to criminal activity, as an act of desperation,” said Khanna. “Criminal behavior is widely understood to be a result of necessity and when given legal employment opportunities at livable wages, crime is reduced.”

For example, after the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of was implemented in 1986, which gave legal status to three million immigrants in the U.S., it led to a marked decrease in crime up to 5 percent.

Legal protections lower the fiscal burden and reduce deficits

Contrary to popular belief, undocumented migrant workers pay taxes, mostly income taxes, which are estimated to at $11.7 billion. Yet the number would be higher (by $2.2 billion) if undocumented migrants were granted legal status, an important consideration as the national deficit mounts in the wake of COVID-19.

Additional ways more protections for migrants would help domestic populous could be lower health care costs. Undocumented migrants may not be eligible for insurance, adding to healthcare costs in times of emergency.

“We find that the fiscal burden can be greatly reduced if immigrants are given working status and allowed to contribute to the tax base,” the authors wrote. “In conclusion, we find there are several areas where strengthening migrant worker rights benefits native-born workers, outweighing any costs borne by them.”

To read the full paper, go to the UCLA Journal of International Law & Foreign Affairs website.

Media Contact
Christine Clark
ceclark@ucsd.edu
https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/new-visa-restrictions-will-make-the-u.s-economic-downturn-worse

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

The fear mongering, racist lies, anti-scientific BS, and White Nationalist false narratives pushed by the Trump regime and enabled by a feckless Congress and complicit Article III Courts that refuse to give meaning to our Constitution and statutes while failing to require honesty and candor from the Administration are destroying America.

No, everything can’t be changed overnight. Sadly, the damage inflicted by Trump, his corrupt cronies, and his supporters on America and on our democratic institutions is huge; it will take years if not decades to repair. That’s what makes the exceptionally poor performance of Congress and the Federal Judiciary as a whole under the defective leadership of the Supremes so reprehensible. Far, far too many of the wrong people in the wrong jobs at the worst time in our history for fecklessness, lack of courage, and absence of integrity, not to mention empathy and compassion for “the other.” Disgraceful!

But regime change and appointing Federal Judges who demonstrate “community creds,” a commitment to due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice under law, human rights, and human decency would be an important necessary step to making social justice in America a reality rather than just a slogan. It would also help protect us against any future “Trump-style, neo-fascist regime.”

This November, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does!

PWS

06-06-20

COURTSIDE GUEST COLUMNIST: ANNA PATCHIN SCHMIDT — “2020 End of School Year Roundup From Beloit, WI”

2020 End of School Year Roundup From Beloit, Wisconsin

By Anna Patchin Schmidt

Courtside Exclusive

June 5, 2020. I almost couldn’t pull this off this year due to the realities of quarantine life. But here are my annual end-of-the-year reflections on education (and life)!

It has been a tumultuous school year in Beloit. We saw yet another superintendent come and go, but not before sustaining damage from his abusive leadership style and warped priorities. For a while the anonymous facebook profile “Jane Smith” stole our attention with a series of fascinating social media exposés. An election that coincided with a stay-at-home order and a brazen disregard for life and democratic values by state lawmakers, did at least result in some refreshing new faces on the school board. Meanwhile, a so-called “public” charter school has used the chance to sneak into town and garner support by exploiting the fears of white parents and the frustrations of parents of color.

And yet amidst the chaos and uncertainty of distance learning during a global pandemic, I actually think that we are in a better position than ever. Indeed, our current explosive national climate should be a wake up call that results in a renewed commitment to public education and a heightened awareness of its vital role in communities.

Earlier this year, long before the trauma induced by Covid-19 and George Floyd’s murder, I noticed a troubling narrative reflected in many conversations: “The School District of Beloit USED TO BE great,” or similarly, “The School District of Beloit is not the right place for my child ANYMORE.” Only now, in light of recent events, do I better understand what this narrative means. I can’t help but think that its unspoken truth is: “We never USED TO have to talk about race. We USED TO be able to push all this under the rug.”

If we are really serious about dismantling racism, as so many claim to be, then we need to get serious about supporting public schools. No doubt the public schools have a long-standing history of perpetuating systemic racism and oppression. I’m hardly suggesting that we ignore or accept the status quo. On the contrary, we still need the reforms inspired by activists that help our schools function better and thus serve all members of the community. This kind of activism could take many forms, including standing up to a corrupt school board member, pushing for teacher training on equity and trauma-informed instruction, promoting fair and representative hiring practices, or raising concerns about how bias influences individual and district-wide policies resulting in a disproportionate effect.

But instead of contributing towards positive change, many people opt out of public schools with the following justifications:

-“We are looking for a more rigorous curriculum.”

-“I’m concerned about all the behavior problems in public schools.”

-“I don’t think I should have to sacrifice my own child to make a political statement.”

-“We had a really bad experience with a teacher or principal.”

-“The school district doesn’t meet the individual needs of MY child.”

These types of explanations may not be racist in intent but, nevertheless, the results of these decisions do reinforce inequity. There are easy outs and self-serving options (for those few who have the resources to make these choices), but they do not hold up for those who are serious about being anti-racist. Private schools and charter schools will always be selective about who and how many students they serve. They continue to siphon funds away from public schools that desperately need them and their profit and successes are paid for by the struggle of others. We all live with a fair amount of hypocrisy in our lives. But the discrepancy between sharing black lives matter memes and then opting out of public school is just too much for me.

When I reflect on the sentiment that Beloit schools “used to be great,” I can’t help but think about the huge number of people marching at Horace White Park last Sunday, many of whom were our students. Their presence, their courage, and their sense of purpose is, for me, a marker of success and greatness and I’m proud to support them. While there are a growing number of fears I have for my own children as they grow up in this world, the value of their education in the School District of Beloit isn’t one of them.

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

Anna Patchin Schmidt is a High School English teacher in the Public Schools of Beloit, Wisconsin, where she lives with her husband, Professor Daniel Barolsky, and their three children Oscar, Eve, and Atticus, all of whom attend a bilingual program at Todd Elementary School, a Beloit Public School. Anna holds a B.A. and a B.Mus., both with honors, from Lawrence University in Appleton, Wisconsin where she was also a member of Phi Beta Kappa. She received her M.A. in Education from the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh. She is also certified to teach English Language Learning and did so in the Menasha and Walworth, Wisconsin Public School Systems before joining the Beloit System. She and Daniel are dedicated members of the “Beloit Proud” Movement, and she is also a qualified Doula who has assisted in the delivery of several babies. Anna grew up in Alexandria, Virginia, where she attended Alexandria City Public Schools (as did her brothers, Wick & Will) and graduated from T.C. Williams High School (“Remember the Titans”) with honors, earning 12 varsity letters, rowing on several championship crew teams, and playing oboe in the T.C. Williams Band. She is our daughter.

PWS

06-05-20

Due Process Forever! Complicit Institutions, Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life and the lives of many others depend on it! Because they do!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

This November, vote like your life depends ons it! Because it does!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does!

Related posts:

2020 End of School Year Roundup From Beloit, Wisconsin

By Anna Patchin Schmidt

Related posts: