COURTSIDE HISTORY: Trump’s American White Nationalist Antecedents Were The Racist Pols & Pseudo-Scientists Of A Century Ago! — The Lies & Ugliness Of The Past Are Being Repeated — Only This Time It’s People Of Color Rather Than Italians, Irish, Slavs, Catholics, & Jews Who Are Targeted For “Dehumanization” (Although It Would Be Wrong To Underestimate Trump’s Responsibility For The Revival Of Anti-Semitism)!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/03/opinion/sunday/anti-immigrant-hatred-1920s.html

Daniel Okrent writes in the NY Times:

In early 1921, an article in Good Housekeeping signaled the coming of a law that makes President Trump’s campaign for immigration restriction seem mild by comparison. “Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend,” it read. “The dead weight of alien accretion stifles national progress.” The author was Calvin Coolidge, about to be sworn in as vice president of the United States. Three years later, the most severe immigration law in American history entered the statute books, shepherded by believers in those “biological laws.”

The anti-immigrant fervor at the heart of current White House policymaking is not a new phenomenon, nor is the xenophobia that has infected the political mainstream. In fact, race-based nativism comes with an exalted pedigree — and that pedigree is something we all should remember as the Trump administration continues its assault on immigrants of specific nationalities. The scientific arguments Coolidge invoked were advanced by men bearing imposing credentials. Some were highly regarded scholars from Harvard, Princeton, Yale and Stanford. One ran the nation’s foremost genetics laboratory. Another was America’s leading environmentalist at the time. Yet another was the director of the country’s most respected natural history museum.

Together, they popularized “racial eugenics,” a junk science that made ethnically based racism respectable. “The day of the sociologist is passing,” said the Harvard professor Robert DeCourcy Ward, “and the day of the biologist has come.” The biologists and their publicists achieved what their political allies had failed to accomplish for 30 years: enactment of a law stemming the influx of Jews, Italians, Greeks and other eastern and southern Europeans. “The need of restriction is manifest,” The New York Times declared in an editorial, for “American institutions are menaced” by “swarms of aliens.”

Image

Protesters rallied last June against family separations in front of the United States Port of Entry in downtown El Paso, Texas. CreditVictor J. Blue for The New York Times

Keeping people out of the country because of their nationality was hardly a novel idea. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was avowedly racist. In 1923 a unanimous Supreme Court declared that immigrants from India could be barred from citizenship strictly on racial grounds.

What was different about the new, putatively scientific campaign was that even whiteness was no ticket to entry.

Writing about Slavic immigrants, the sociologist Edward A. Ross of the University of Wisconsin — later the national chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union — declared, they “are immune to certain kinds of dirt. They can stand what would kill a white man.” The president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology said newcomers from eastern and southern Europe were “vast masses of filth” who were “living like swine.”

The Washington Post editorialized that 90 percent of Italians coming to the United States were “the degenerate spawn” of “Asiatic hordes.” A Boston philanthropist, Joseph Lee, his city’s leading supporter of progressive causes, explained to friends why he became the single largest financial backer of the anti-immigrant campaign: His concern, he wrote, was that without a restriction law, Europe would be “drained of Jews — to its benefit no doubt but not to ours.”

The “biological” justifications for this nativism were first developed in Cold Spring Harbor, on Long Island, in laboratories financed by the widow of the railroad baron E.H. Harriman. (One of her goals, Mary Harriman said, was preventing “the decay of the American race.”) The laboratory’s head, the zoologist Charles B. Davenport, took the ideas of the British gentleman scientist Francis Galton — who had coined the word “eugenics” in 1883 — welded them to a gross misunderstanding of the genetic discoveries of Gregor Mendel, and concluded that the makeup of the nation’s population could be improved by the careful control of human breeding. One of the first steps, he believed, was to impose new controls on open immigration.

At first, Davenport wished to bar the immigration only of people afflicted by specific disorders — epileptics, the “feebleminded” and others of similarly troublesome (to Davenport) disability. But soon he was caught up in a racialist whirlwind initiated by “The Passing of the Great Race,” a book by Madison Grant, the founder of the Bronx Zoo and the era’s most prominent conservationist. A bilious stew of dubious history, bogus anthropology and completely unfounded genetic theory, Grant’s work persuaded Davenport and others that the American bloodstream was threatened not by suspect individuals, but by entire ethnic groups.

First published in 1916 and reissued in a series of revisions over the next eight years — all of them brought into print by Maxwell Perkins, the celebrated editor of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway — “The Passing of the Great Race” savagely denigrated the peoples of eastern and southern Europe while exalting the “Nordics” of northwestern Europe. With the presumed authority of scholarship, he summarized the essential argument of racial eugenics.

“Whether we like to admit it or not,” Grant wrote, “the result of the mixture of two races, in the long run, gives us a race reverting” to the “lower type.” Lower than Nordics were the questionable “Alpines.” Lower than the “Alpines” were the woeful “Mediterraneans.” And, he concluded, “the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew.”

Grant was not an actual scientist. But Henry Fairfield Osborn, a world-famous paleontologist and his closest friend, definitely was. Osborn, who once expressed his opposition to the extension of the Westchester Parkway near his country estate because it would bring thousands of “East Side Jews” to the area, presided over the American Museum of Natural History for 25 years, and made that institution the beating heart of the combined eugenics and anti-immigration movement. “I am convinced,” said Osborn, that the “spiritual, physical, moral and intellectual structure” of individuals is “based on racial characteristics.” It wasn’t a matter of ethnic bias, he said — it was “cold-blooded” science.

Other scholars rallied to the cause. Robert M. Yerkes — his name immortalized today at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta — conducted a severely flawed series of tests of American servicemen purporting to establish the intellectual inferiority of eastern and southern Europeans. Charles W. Gould, a lawyer in New York, sponsored “A Study of American Intelligence,” by Carl C. Brigham, a young Princeton psychologist (and later the inventor of the SAT). Brigham’s conclusion: “There can be no doubt that recent history has shown a movement of inferior peoples or inferior representatives of peoples to this country.”

At the same time, Perkins and his colleagues at Charles Scribner’s Sons published a raft of books promoting racialized eugenics. Scribner publicists wrote in one promotion piece: “The inrush of lower races is threatening the very blood of our country.” Perkins’s authors were echoed in the country’s leading magazine, The Saturday Evening Post. “Race character is as fixed a fact as race color,” the Post declared. “Thirty years ago,” the magazine insisted in another article, “science had not perhaps sufficiently advanced to make us fully aware” of the danger of open immigration. Now it had.

Read more

Opinion articles about immigration.

Opinion | Janet Murguía

The American Family Makes This Country Great, and It’s in Danger

May 2, 2019

Opinion | Alan Cross

Alabama Is More Pro-Immigrant Than You Think

April 30, 2019

When the 1924 Immigration Act reached the floor of Congress, passage was assured. Albert Johnson, chairman of the House Immigration and Naturalization Committee, declared that “the fundamental reason” for immigration restriction was “biological.” During the floor debate, one congressman said the law was provoked by “the necessity for purifying and keeping pure the blood of America.” Given the arguments presented by so many of the nation’s leading scientific figures, who could disagree?

The resulting law established quotas by nation; they cut like a scythe. In the last year before their introduction, more than 220,000 Italians entered the United States. The quota slashed that number to less than 4,000. Reductions nearly as harsh were imposed on other eastern and southern European groups, while tens of thousands of slots reserved for Britons, Scandinavians and other “Nordics” went unfilled.

The 1924 quotas remained in force for more than 40 years — while the economic devastation of a worldwide depression hit southern Europe especially hard; while a 1939 measure that would have allowed 20,000 German Jewish children into the United States died in Congress, and the savagery of the Holocaust began; while the Nazis and their allies starved 350,000 Greeks and slaughtered 200,000 Serbs; and while displaced-persons camps stretched across the ruins of postwar Europe.

In 1920, Charles Davenport had asked Madison Grant, “Can we build a wall high enough around this country” to keep out the unwanted? They could, and they did.

Daniel Okrent is the author of “The Guarded Gate: Bigotry, Eugenics, and the Law That Kept Two Generations of Jews, Italians, and Other European Immigrants Out of America.”

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

The race-based ”Aryan Nationalism” of 1920’s America helped pave the way for the Nazi atrocities of World War II.

Out of the failure of the West to save lives when it was possible before the start of World War II and the horrible human exterminations that followed came the 1951 U.N. Convention on Refugees. It is that Convention which Trump and other nationalist leaders throughout the Western World are committed to destroying.

At the recent Louisiana State Bar Immigration Conference, held on April 26, 2019, Attorney R. Andrew Free of Nashville, TN, who had been to the border and observed firsthand the lawless, counterproductive, and inhumane behavior of both the Mexican and U.S. authorities toward asylum seekers, particularly women and children, made an excellent “historical perspective” presentation.

Free traced the origins of today’s xenophobic and racist-inspired restrictionist immigration policies policies to two historic events: 1) the Eisenhower Administration’s 1954 “Operation Wetback” directed against Mexicans which resulted in some Mexican-American citizens and lawful residents being swept up in the indiscriminate “dragnet,” without any hint of due process, directed against Hispanic appearing and Spanish speaking individuals along the Southern Border; and 2) the highly racist Immigration Act of 1924, praised by such “modern day Jim Crows” as Jeff Sessions and his acolyte White House Advisor Stephen Miller.

Do we as a people REALLY want to be remembered the way Coolidge, Albert Johnson, and the host of racist “pseudo-scientists” are described in this article? Or, are we willing to take a stand against the White Nationalist restrictionist agenda being pushed by Trump and his many enablers?

How can we forget our own immigrant heritages and the nasty racist stereotypes thrown at almost every group of new immigrants, including of course enslaved African Americans and other “involuntary forced migrants,” who built America into a great nation!

Due Process Forever — White Nationalism Never!

PWS

05-09-19

LEADERSHIP CRISIS: Poor Quality Of Today’s World Leaders Threatens All Of Our Human Rights, Says Former U.N. Human Rights Chief — “[W]orld leaders are weak, shortsighted and mediocre, and no longer willing or able to defend human rights.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/opinion/united-nations-human-rights.html

Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein in the NY Times:

In the video Op-Ed above, a former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, argues that world leaders are weak, shortsighted and mediocre, and no longer willing or able to defend human rights. Abuses used to be called out and stopped, and human rights offenders had something to fear. Today, they are met with silence instead.

Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein (@raad_zeid) served as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights from 2014 to 2018. Previously he spent 18 years as a diplomat helping to establish the International Criminal Court and serving on the Security Council. He is now the Distinguished Global Leader in Residence at the Perry World House, University of Pennsylvania.

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

Watch the video at the above link.

Actually, “weak, shortsighted, and mediocre” is an exceedingly generous description of Trump’s toxic, openly racist, incompetent, and aggressively xenophobic leadership that has seen the U.S. become a major human rights scofflaw.

PWS

05-06-19

MY SCARFF DISTINGUISHED VISITING PROFESSORSHIP LECTURE @ LAWRENCE UNIVERSITY, April 4, 2019 — “EXISTENTIALISM AND THE MEANING OF LIFE IN THE U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT: FROM LAWRENCE TO THE WORLD BEYOND”

EXISTENTIALISM AND THE MEANING OF LIFE IN THE U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT: FROM LAWRENCE TO THE WORLD BEYOND

By

Paul Wickham Schmidt

Retired U.S. Immigration Judge

Lawrence University

Appleton, Wisconsin

April 4, 2019

KEY EXCERPTS:

. . . .

In that respect, September 13, 2018 was a highly significant day in Lawrence history. For, on that day President Burstein delivered his Commencement address posing the question “Can We Stand With The Statue of Liberty?” This wasn’t your usual “namby-pamby “welcome to college and life in the big time” sleeper. By comparison, one of the introductory speeches at another institution attended by one of our children focused on the protocols for “stomach pumping” in the emergency detoxification ward of the local hospital. Important information to be sure, but not very inspirational or reassuring.

President Burstein made an urgent call to value knowledge and learning, improve our national dialogue, recognize our undeniable immigrant heritageand culture, and use the learning and skills developed at Lawrence and other great institutions to create a better and more socially just future for all of mankind. Never, in the nearly 50 years since I left Lawrence have I seen those basic, common-sense concepts and universal values of Western liberal democracy under greater attack and daily ridicule by those for whom facts and human decency simply don’t matter!

. . . .

Folks, unknown to most of you in this room there is an existential crisis going on in our U.S. Immigration Courts, one of America’s largest, most important, little known, and least understood court systems. It threatens the very foundations of our legal system, our Constitution, and our republic. In the words of country singing superstar Toby Keith, tonight “It’s me, baby, with your wake-up call!”

. . . .

Lawrence taught the humane practical values of fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, and teamwork which have guided me in life. Lawrence emphasized critical thinking — how to examine a problem from all angles and to appreciate differing perspectives.

I was introduced to informed dialogue and spirited debate as keys to problem solving, techniques I have continued to use. I also learned how to organize and write clearly and persuasively, skills I have used in all phases of my life.

I found that my broad liberal arts education, ability to deal with inevitable ups and downs, including, of course, learning from mistakes and failures, and the intensive writing and intellectual dialogue involved were the best possible preparation for all that followed.

. . . .

Among other things, I worked on the Iranian Hostage Crisis, the Cuban Boatlift, the Refugee Act of 1980, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”), the creation of the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”), and establishing what has evolved into the modern Chief Counsel system at Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).

I also worked on the creation of EOIR, which combined the Immigration Courts, which had previously been part of the INS, with the BIA to improve judicial independence. Interestingly, and perhaps ironically, the leadership and impetus for getting the Immigration Judges into a separate organization came from Iron Mike and the late Al Nelson, who was then the Commissioner of Immigration. Tough prosecutors by position and litigators by trade, they saw the inherent conflicts and overall undesirability, from a due process and credibility standpoint, of having immigration enforcement and impartial court adjudication in the same division. I find it troubling that officials at today’s DOJ aren’t able to understand and act appropriately on the glaring conflict of interest currently staring them in their collective faces.

. . . .

Now, let’s move on to the other topics: First, vision. The “EOIR Vision” was: “Through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” In one of my prior incarnations, I was part of the group that developed that vision statement. Perhaps not surprisingly given the timing, that vision echoed the late Janet Reno’s “equal justice for all” theme.

Sadly, the Immigration Court System now is moving further away from that due process vision. Instead, years of neglect, misunderstanding, mismanagement, and misguided political priorities imposed by the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) have created judicial chaos with an expanding backlog now exceeding an astounding one million cases and, perhaps most disturbingly, no clear plan for resolving them in the foreseeable future. There are now more pending cases in Immigration Court than in the entire U.S. District Court System, including both Civil and Criminal dockets, with fewer U.S. Immigration Judges currently on board than U.S. District Judges.

This Administration has added hundreds of thousands of new cases to the Immigration Court docket, again without any transparent plan for completing the already pending cases consistent with due process and fairness. Indeed, over the past several years, the addition of more judges has actually meant more backlog. In fact, notably, and most troubling, concern for fairness and due process in the immigration hearing process has not appeared to be a priority or a major objective in the Administration’s many pronouncements on immigration.

Nobody has been hit harder by this preventable disaster than asylum seekers, particularly scared women, children, and families fleeing for their lives from the Northern Triangle of Central America.

. . . .

My good friend and colleague, Judge Dana Leigh Marks of the San Francisco Immigration Court, who is the President of the National Association of Immigration Judges, offers a somewhat pithier description: “[I]mmigration judges often feel asylum hearings are ‘like holding death penalty cases in traffic court.’”

. . . .

From my perspective, as an Immigration Judge I was half scholar, half performing artist. An Immigration Judge is always on public display, particularly in this “age of the Internet.” His or her words, actions, attitudes, and even body language, send powerful messages, positive or negative, about our court system and our national values. Perhaps not surprisingly, the majority of those who fail at the job do so because they do not recognize and master the “performing artist” aspect, rather than from a lack of pertinent legal knowledge.

. . . .

Next, I’ll say a few words about my judicial philosophy. In all aspects of my career, I have found five essential elements for success that go back to my time at Lawrence: fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, and teamwork.

Obviously, fairness to the parties is an essential element of judging. Scholarship in the law is what allows us to fairly apply the rules in particular cases. However, sometimes attempts to be fair or scholarly can be ineffective unless timely. In some cases, untimeliness can amount to unfairness no matter how smart or knowledgeable you are.

Respect for the parties, the public, colleagues, and appellate courts is absolutely necessary for our system to function. Finally, I view the whole judging process as a team exercise that involves a coordinated and cooperative effort among judges, respondents, counsel, interpreters, court clerks, security officers, administrators, law clerks and interns working behind the scenes, to get the job done correctly. Notwithstanding different roles, we all shared a common interest in seeing that our justice system works.

Are the five elements that I just mentioned limited to Immigration Court? They are not only essential legal skills, they are also necessary life skills, whether you are running a courtroom, a law firm, a family, a PTA meeting, a book club, or a soccer team.

. . . .

Our Immigration Courts are going through an existential crisis that threatens the very foundations of our American Justice System. Earlier, I told you about my dismay that the noble due process vision of our Immigration Courts has been derailed. What can be done to get it back on track?

First, and foremost, the Immigration Courts must return to the focus on due process as the one and only mission. The improper use of our due process court system by political officials to advance enforcement priorities and/or send “don’t come” messages to asylum seekers, which are highly ineffective in any event, must end. That’s unlikely to happen under the DOJ – as proved by over three decades of history, particularly recent history. It will take some type of independent court. I advocate an independent Article I Immigration Court, which has been supported by groups such as the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and the National Association of Immigration Judges.

Clearly, the due process focus was lost even during the last Administration when officials outside EOIR forced ill-advised “prioritization” and attempts to “expedite” the cases of frightened women and children from the Northern Triangle who require lawyers to gain the protection that most of them need and deserve. Putting these cases in front of other pending cases was not only unfair to all, but created what I call “aimless docket reshuffling” that has thrown the Immigration Court system into chaos and dramatically increased the backlogs.

Although those misguided priorities have been rescinded, the current Administration has greatly expanded the “priority” targets for removal to include essentially anyone who is here without documentation. We had an old saying in the bureaucracy that “when everything becomes a priority, nothing is a priority.” Moreover, Attorney General Sessions stripped Immigration Judges of their authority to “administratively close” low priority cases and those that could be referred to DHS for possible legal status. Incredibly, he also directed that more than 300,000 previously “administratively closed” low-priority cases be “restored” to dockets already backlogged for many years.

This Administration also greatly expanded the “immigration detention empire,” – I call it the “New American Gulag.” Immigration detention centers are likely to be situated in remote locations near the Southern Border, relying largely on discredited private “for profit” prisons. Have you heard of places like Jena, Louisiana or Dilley, Texas?

Individuals detained in such out-of-the-way places are often unable to obtain legal assistance or get the documentation necessary to present a successful asylum case. So-called “civil immigration detention” is used to coerce individuals out of making or appealing claims for protection in Immigration Court and also inhibits the ability of an individual to put on his or her “life or death” case.

This Administration also wants to make it more difficult for individuals to get full Immigration Court hearings on asylum claims and to expand the use of so-called “expedited removal,” thereby seeking to completely avoid the Immigration Court process.

They also have created and recently expanded what is known as the “Remain in Mexico Program.” Under that program, which is being challenged in Federal Court, even those who pass initial screening and are determined by an Asylum Officer to have a “credible fear” of persecution are forced to remain in questionable conditions in Mexico while their cases are pending in Immigration Court.

Before he was fired, Attorney General Sessions imposed new “production quotas” on Immigration Judges, over their objection and that of almost all experts in the field. That insures that judges will be focused on churning out “numbers” to keep their jobs, rather than on making fair, impartial, scholarly, and just decisions.

But even these harsh measures aren’t enough. As you have no doubt read or heard, the President is threatening to “close the Mexican border” notwithstanding that Mexico is our third leading trading partner. Just Monday, he said that the solution was to eliminate Immigration Judges rather than provide fair hearings in a timely manner.

Evidently, the idea is to remove without full due process those who arrive at our border to seek protection under our laws and international conventions to which we are party. According to the Administration, this will send a powerful “don’t come, we don’t want you” message to asylum seekers.

But, as a deterrent, the Administration’s harsh enforcement program, parts of which have been ruled illegal by the Federal Courts, has been spectacularly unsuccessful. Not surprisingly to me, individuals fleeing for their lives from the Northern Triangle have continued to seek refuge in the United States in large numbers. Immigration Court backlogs have continued to grow across the board, notwithstanding an actual decrease in overall case receipts and an increase in the number of authorized Immigration Judges.

. . . .

Keep these thoughts in mind. Sadly, based on actions to date, I have little hope that Attorney General Barr will support due process reforms or an independent U.S. Immigration Court, although it would be in his best interests as well as those of our country if he did. However, eventually the opportunity will come. When it does, those of us who believe in the primary importance of constitutional due process must be ready with concrete reforms.

So, do we abandon all hope? No, of course not! Because there are hundreds of newer lawyers out there who are former Arlington JLCs, interns, my former students, those who have practiced before me, and others who have an overriding commitment to fair and impartial administration of immigration laws and social justice in America.

They form what I call the “New Due Process Army!” And, while mytime on the battlefield is winding down, they are just beginning the fight! They will keep at it for years, decades, or generations — whatever it takes to force the U.S. immigration judicial system to live up to its promise of “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!”

What can you do to get involved now? The overriding due process need is for competent representation of individuals claiming asylum and/or facing removal from the United States. Currently, there are not nearly enough pro bono lawyers to insure that everyone in Immigration Court gets represented.

And the situation is getting worse. With the Administration’s expansion of so-called “expedited removal” and “Remain in Mexico,“ lawyers are needed at even earlier points in the process to insure that those with defenses or plausible claims for relief even get into the Immigration Court process, rather than being summarily removed with little, if any, recourse.

Additionally, given the pressure that the Administration exerts through the Department of Justice to “move” cases quickly through the Immigration Court system with little regard for due process and fundamental fairness, resort to the Article III Courts to require fair proceedings and an unbiased application of the laws becomes even more essential. Litigation in the U.S. District and Appellate Courts has turned out to be effective in forcing systemic change. However, virtually no unrepresented individual is going to be capable of getting to the Court of Appeals, let alone prevailing on a claim.

. . . .

Finally, as an informed voter and participant in our political process, you can advance the cause of Immigration Court reform and due process. For the last two decades politicians of both parties have largely stood by and watched the unfolding due process disaster in the U.S. Immigration Courts without doing anything about it, and in some cases actually making it worse.

The notion that Immigration Court reform must be part of so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” is simply wrong. The Immigration Courts can and must be fixed sooner rather than later, regardless of what happens with overall immigration reform. It’s time to let your Senators and Representatives know that we need due process reforms in the Immigration Courts as one of our highest national priorities.

Folks, the U.S Immigration Court system is on the verge of collapse. And, there is every reason to believe that the misguided “enforce and detain to the max” policies being pursued by this Administration will drive the Immigration Courts over the edge. When that happens, a large chunk of the entire American justice system and the due process guarantees that make American great and different from most of the rest of the world will go down with it. As the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

In conclusion, I have introduced you to one of America’s largest and most important, yet least understood, court systems: the United States Immigration Court. I have shared with you that Court’s noble due process vision and my view that it is not currently being fulfilled. I have also shared with you my ideas for effective court reform that would achieve the due process vision and how you can become involved in improving the process.

Now is the time to take a stand for fundamental fairness and social justice under law! Join the New Due Process Army and fight for a just future for everyone in America! Due process forever!

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

READ THE FULL TEXT OF MY SPEECH HERE:

Existentialism-—-Lawrence

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

What is the Scarff Distinguished Professorship at Lawrence University?

The Scarff professorial chair allows Lawrence University to bring to campus distinguished public servants, professional leaders, and scholars to provide broad perspectives on the central issues of the day. Scarff professors teach courses, offer public lectures, and collaborate with students and faculty members in research and scholarship.

Mr. and Mrs. Edward L. Scarff created the professorship in 1989, in memory of their son, Stephen, a 1975 Lawrence graduate who died in an automobile accident in 1984. In the photo, the Scarffs are pictured with G. Jonathan Greenwald (center), former United States minister-counselor to the European Union and the 1998-99 Scarff Professor.

Recent Scarff visiting professors have included William Sloane Coffin, Jr., civil rights and peace activist; David Swartz, first U.S. ambassador to the Republic of Belarus in the former Soviet Union; Greenwald; Takakazu Kuriyama, former ambassador of Japan to the United States; Charles Ahlgren, retired diplomat and educator; and George Meyer, former secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Robert Suettinger ’68, Intelligence analyst and China policy expert, and Russ Feingold, former United States Senator from Wisconsin.

Stephen Edward Scarff Visiting Professors, 1989-2018

1989-90

McGeorge Bundy
National security advisor to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson

1990-91

Edgar Fiedler
Assistant security of the treasury for economic policy

1991-92

Jiri Vykoukal
Professor/scholar of East European history at the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences in Prague

1992-93

Richard Parker
Ambassador to Lebanon, Algeria, Morocco

1993-94

Donald Leidel
Ambassador to Bahrain/deputy director of management operations for the Department of State

1994-95

Karl Scheld
Senior vice-president/director of research, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

1995-96

William Sloane Coffin, Jr.
Civil rights and peace activist

1997-98

David H. Swartz
Ambassador to the Republic of Belarus

1998-99

G. Jonathan Greenwald
Minister-counselor to the European Union at the U.S. mission in Brussels

2000-01

Takakazu Kuriyama
Ambassador of Japan to the United States

2001-02

Charles Ahlgren
Retired diplomat and educator

2002-04

George Meyer
Former secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

2007-08

Robert Lee Suettinger ’68
Intelligence analyst and China policy expert

2008-09

Robert (Todd) Becker
Former U.S. foreign service officer and deputy head of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Mission in Croatia.

2009-10

George Wyeth, ‘73
Director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Policy and Program Change Division.

2010-11

Rudolf Perina
Former U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Moldova (1998-2001), head of the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade in the mid-1990s and U.S. Special Negotiator for Eurasian Conflicts, 2001-04. Spent 35 years as U.S. foreign service officer, retiring in 2006.

2011-12

Alexander Wilde, ‘62
Senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., former director of the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), an independent nongovernmental organization concerned with human rights and U.S. foreign policy.

2012-13

Russ Feingold
Former United States Senator from Wisconsin

2013-14

Alexander Wilde, ’62
Senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., former director of the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), an independent nongovernmental organization concerned with human rights and U.S. foreign policy.

2015-16

George Rupp
Former President of the International Rescue Committee, the largest refugee resettlement organization in the world. Before leading the IRC he was president of Columbia and Rice Universities and Dean of the Harvard Divinity School.

2016-17

Christopher Murray, ’75
Most recently served as political advisor to the Supreme Commander of NATO forces. Prior to that he was the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of the Congo.

2017-18

William Baer, ’72 and Nancy Hendry
Baer recently stepped down as Associate Attorney General in the Obama Administration. Previously, he was Assistant Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division. Hendry is senior advisor to the International Association of Women Judges where her focus is on sexual harassment law. They are married and both graduated from Stanford Law School.

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

LAWRENCE UNIVERSITY PICTORIAL:

Professor Jason Brozek, Stephen Edward Scarff Professor of International Affairs and Associate Professor of Government
Fox River from overlook next to Briggs Hall
Main Hall
Atrium connecting Youngchild and Steitz (named for Nobel Prize Winning Biochemist and Lawrence Graduate Thomas Steitz) Science Halls
Main Hall
Residence of Lawrence University President Mark Burstein
“Luna” contemplating early admission on the back steps of Main Hall
Locks area across Fox River from campus
Cathy and Luna about to cross the bridge
Historic Fox River Mills Apartments (where our daughter, Anna, lived during her “Supersenior Year” at Lawrence)
Fox River rapids
Lawrence Memorial Chapel
Another view of the Fox River near campus

PWS

04-09-19

“THE 5-4-1 PLAN FOR DUE PROCESS IN IMMIGRATION COURT” — My Speech To The Association Of Deportation Defense Attorneys, NY City, March 21, 2019

ASSOCIATION OF DEPORTATION DEFENSE ATTORNEYS (“ADDA”)

NEW YORK CITY

MARCH 21, 2019

“THE 5-4-1 PLAN FOR DUE PROCESS IN IMMIGRATION COURT”

PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT

U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGE (RETIRED)

Good evening. Thanks so much for coming out tonight. As you know, I’m retired, so I no longer have to give my famous, or infamous, “super-comprehensive disclaimer.” However, I do want to hold my fellow panelists, ADDA, and anybody else of any importance whatsoever “harmless” for my following remarks.

They are solely my views, for which I take full responsibility. That’s right, no party line, no “bureaucratic doublespeak,” no BS. Just the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, of course as I define truth.

In my brief “5-4-1 program,” I’m going to tell you five horrible problems infecting justice and Due Process in today’s U.S. Immigration Courts; 4 needed reforms, and one solution.

First, the problems, with which I’m sure most of you are painfully familiar. This isn’t a “court system” as any right-thinking person would envision it.

First, unlike any normal court system, the chief prosecutor, the Attorney General selects, directs, and “supervises” the “judges.” Not surprisingly, over the last decade, over 90% of the judges have come directly from government or prosecutorial backgrounds. Well-qualified candidates from private practice, NGOs, and academia have effectively been excluded from participation in today’s immigration judiciary. As part of his “improper influence” over the Immigration Courts, the Attorney General has imposed, over the objection of all judges I’m aware of, demeaning and counterproductive “production quotas” that elevate productivity and expediency over quality, Due Process, and fundamental fairness.

Second, notwithstanding that, according to the Supreme Court, “everything that makes life worth living” might be at issue in Immigration Court, there is no right to appointed counsel. Therefore, DOJ has taken the absurd position that infants, toddlers, and others with no understanding whatsoever of our complicated legal, asylum, and immigration systems are forced to “represent themselves” in life or death matters against experienced ICE Counsel. The Government disingenuously claims that this complies with Due Process.

Obviously, these first two factors give the DHS a huge built-in advantage in removal proceedings. But, sometimes that isn’t enough. Somehow, despite the odds being stacked against them, the individual respondent or applicant prevails. That’s when the “third absurdity” comes in to play.

The chief prosecutor, the Attorney General, can reach into the system and change any individual case result that he or she doesn’t like and rewrite the immigration law in DHS’s favor through so-called “certified precedents.” As you know, former Attorney General Sessions, a committed lifelong xenophobe and the self-proclaimed “king of immigration enforcement” exercised this authority often, more than the preceding two Attorneys General over the eight years they served. Sometimes he intervened even before the BIA had a chance to rule on the case or over the joint objections of both the individual and the DHS.

Fourth, this system operates under an incredible 1.1 million case backlog, resulting largely from what we call “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” or “ADR,” by DOJ politicos and their EOIR underlings. This largely self-created backlog continues to grow exponentially, even with a significant increase in judges, without any realistic plan for backlog reduction. In other words, under the “maliciously incompetent” management of this Administration, more judges has meant more backlog.

Even more disgustingly, in an attempt to cover up their gross incompetence, DOJ and EOIR have attempted to shift the blame to the victims — asylum applicants, migrants, their hard-working often pro bono or low bono lawyers, and the judges themselves. Sophomoric, idiotic non “solutions” like “deportation quotas for judges,” limitations on legitimate continuances, demeaningly stripping judges of the last vestiges of their authority to manage dockets through administrative closing, and mindlessly re-docketing cases that should remain off docket have been imposed on the courts over their objections.

The result has been an increase in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” the only thing that DOJ politicos and EOIR bureaucrats seem to excel in. How many of YOU have been victims of ADR?

Fifth, the Administration, DOJ, and EOIR use so-called “civil immigration detention” mostly in absurdly, yet intentionally, out-of-the-way locations, to limit representation, coerce migrants into abandoning claims or appeals, and supposedly deter future migration, even through there is scant evidence that abusive detention actually acts as a deterrent. This is done with little or no effective judicial recourse in too many cases. Indeed a recent TRAC study shows neither rhyme nor reason in custody or bond decisions in Immigration Court, even in those cases where the Immigration Judges at least nominally had jurisdiction to set bond.

Now, I’ve told you how due process and fairness are being mocked by DOJ and EOIR in a dysfunctional Immigration Court system where judges have effectively been told to act as “DOJ attorneys” carrying out the policies of their “partners” in DHS enforcement, supposedly a separate party to Immigration Court proceedings but now “driving the train.”

Here are the four essential reforms. First, and foremost, a return to the original “Due Process Focus” of the Immigration Courts: through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best courts guaranteeing fairness and Due Process for all. DOJ politicos and EOIR bureaucrats must be removed from their improper influence over this system that has turned it into a tool of DHS enforcement. Everything done by the courts must go through a “Due Process filter.”

Second, replace the antiquated, inappropriate, bloated, and ineffective “Agency-Style Structure” with a “Court-Style Structure” with sitting judges rather than DOJ politicos and EOIR bureaucrats in charge. Court administration should be decentralized through local Chief Judges, as in other systems, appointed competitively through a broad-based merit system and required to handle a case load. Sitting judges, not bureaucrats, must ultimately be in charge of administrative decisions which must be made in a fair and efficient manner that considers the legitimate needs of DHS enforcement, along with the needs of the other parties coming before the court, and results in a balanced system, rather than one that inevitably favors DHS enforcement over Due Process, quality, and fairness.

Third, create a professional administrative office modeled along the lines of the Administrative Office for U.S. Courts to provide modern, effective judicial support and planning. The highest priorities should be implementing a nationwide e-filing system following nearly two decades of wasted and inept efforts by EOIR to develop one, efforts that have once again been put “on hold” due to mismanagement. A transparent, merit-based hiring system for Immigration Judges, with fair and equal treatment of “non-government” applicants and a system for obtaining public input in the process is also a must. Additionally, the courts must be redesigned with the size of the dockets and public service in mind, rather than mindlessly jamming a 21st century workload into “mini-courts” designed for a long bygone era.

Fourth, a real Appellate Division that performs as an independent court, must replace the “Falls Church Service Center” a/k/a the BIA. The crippling Ashcroft purge-related bogus “reforms” that turned the BIA into a subservient assembly line must be eradicated. The BIA is a so-called “deliberative body” that is far removed from the public it serves and no longer deliberates in a publicly visible manner. The Appellate Division, not politicos and bureaucrats, must be responsible for promulgating precedents in controversial areas, insuring that the generous standards set forth in Cardoza-Fonseca and Mogharrabi are made realities, not just lip service, and reining in wayward judges, the worst of whom have turned some areas into veritable “asylum and due process free zones” resulting in loss of public confidence as well as denial of Due Process and unfair removals.

Some will say that these reforms only deal with two of the five glaring problems — prosecutorial control and political interference. But, an independent, judge-run, Due Process focused U.S. Immigration Court where judges control their own dockets free from political interference and bureaucratic incompetence will be able to work with both private entities and the DHS to solve the problems leading to lack of representation, “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and backlog building, and abusive use of immigration detention.

No, all problems that have been allowed to fester and grow over decades of calculated indifference and active mismanagement won’t be solved “overnight.” Additional legislative fixes might eventually be necessary. But, fixing Due Process is a prerequisite that will enable other problems and issues to be constructively and cooperatively addressed, rather than just being swept under the carpet in typical bureaucratic fashion.

So, now the “One Solution:” Congress must create an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court. That’s exactly what the ABA Commission on Immigration recommended in a comprehensive study and report released yesterday.

Thus, the ABA joins the FBA, AILA, and the NAIJ, all organizations to which I belong, in recommending an Article I legislative solution. Significantly, after watching this Administration’s all out assault on Due Process, common sense, truth, the rule of law, human decency, and best practices, the ABA deleted a prior “alternative recommendation” for an independent agency within the Executive Branch. In other words, we now know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Executive Branch is both unwilling and unable to run an independent court system in accordance with Due Process.

I highly recommend that you read the comprehensive ABA report in two volumes: Volume I is an “Executive Summary;” Volume II contains the “Detailed Findings.” You can find it on the ABA website or on immigrationcourtside.com my blog, which, of course, I also highly recommend.

In closing, we need change and we need it now! Every day in our so-called “Immigration Courts” Due Process is being mocked, fundamental fairness violated, and unjust results are being produced by a disastrously flawed system run by those with no interest in fixing it. Indeed, one of the stunning recommendations of the ABA is that no further judges be added to this totally dysfunctional and out of control system until it is fixed.

As the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Tell your elected representatives that you’ve had enough injustice and are sick and tired of being treated as actors in a repertory company specializing in “theater of the absurd” masquerading as a “court system.” Demand Article I now!

Thanks for listening! Join the New Due Process Army, do great things, and Due Process Forever!

(03-21-19)

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

The horror stories from those actually attempting to practice in the NY Immigration “Courts,” the examples of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) from my friend, “Our Gang” colleague, and fellow panelist Retired U.S. Immigration Judge Patty McManus, and pressing need for an independent Article I Court to replace this dishonest and dysfunctional mess described by fellow panelist NY Attorney Jake LaRaus, of Youman, Mateo, & Fasano were most compelling.

Recurring complaints from the audience were the unequal treatment of private attorneys and DHS Counsel, the glaringly inappropriate deference shown by some Immigration Judges to DHS, and the unwillingness of some judges to enforce rules against the DHS. In other words, many of the things that EOIR originally supposed to “cure” are now “back in spades.” Everyone echoed the theme that this is a system in regression, where things that “worked” at one time have now been intentionally disabled by DHS and EOIR.

Independence and competent, professional, apolitical judicial management by judges would go a long way toward reducing today’s
Government-created backlogs. The problem is definitely not, as some would claim, the number of asylum seekers. Indeed legitimate asylum seekers all over this system who have been waiting years for their cases to be heard and who have time and time again been the victims of “ADR” and politicized meddling with the legal standards are among the many victims of this broken system.

We should all be ashamed of this disgraceful perversion of our Constitution and grotesque waste of Government money going on every day. The solution isn’t “rocket science;” it’s Article I. An achievable idea “whose time has come.”

PWS

03-22-19

What The DAG SHOULD Have Said To New U.S. Immigration Judges (But, Of Course Didn’t) . . .

WELCOME: DUE PROCESS IS YOUR ONLY MISSION

Congratulations on your appointment as U.S. Immigration Judges. It’s a difficult and important judicial position under the best of circumstances. Given the many controversies surrounding immigration today your job is even more challenging.

You face an overwhelming backlog resulting from factors largely beyond your control. Rather than being consumed or demoralized by that backlog, your job is to guarantee fairness and due process in each individual case coming before you. This requires you to act independently and resist pressures, from any quarter, to “cut corners” or otherwise compromise your constitutional duty to act impartially, fairly, and professionally toward each individual appearing before you.

While you occupy an unusual position as quasi-judicial officers who are also employed by Department of Justice, the Department regulations charge you with exercising your “independent judgment and discretion and . . . [taking] any action consistent with [your] authorities under the Act and regulations that is appropriate and necessary for the disposition of such cases.”

Indeed, the United States Supreme Court in the landmark case U.S. ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954) stated with respect to your similarly situated judicial colleagues on the Board of Immigration Appeals that each administrative judge serving under these regulations “must exercise his authority according to his own understanding and conscience. This applies with equal force to the Board and the Attorney General. In short, as long as the regulations remain operative, the Attorney General denies himself the right to sidestep the Board or dictate its decision in any manner.”

Consequently, although as a cabinet officer the Attorney General might sometimes take certain positions or advocate certain policies, you must consider only the facts, the statutes, the regulations, and any precedent decisions directly relevant to your particular case in reaching your decisions. And, you must always treat the Department of Homeland Security as a separate party, with the same respect and consideration that you will give to individuals coming before you and their attorneys. That you are all employees of the same Government should not entitle DHS to special or preferable treatment or deference not afforded to other parties coming before your courts.

The motto of the Department of Justice, basically refers to one “who prosecutes in the name of justice.” Thus, our Department stands alone in incorporating a moral principle — the requirement of doing justice — into its mission. As that great American Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Some of the most vulnerable individuals entitled to due process under our Constitution will come before you in your courts. Your awesome and solemn responsibility is to insure that they receive due process and fairness — in other words justice — no matter how difficult their individual circumstances might be or any handicaps under which you might be operating.

Many of those arriving in the United States today are applying for asylum under our laws. Those fleeing persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion are eligible for protection. In INS v.Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S 421 (1987) our Supreme Court instructed us to apply the asylum standard in a generous manner. Others who face torture at the hands of, or with the “willful blindness” of, their governments, are entitled to protection without having to establish that the torture results from one of the foregoing “protected grounds.” An important part of your job will be insure that those who qualify for protection under our laws are given a full and fair chance to prepare their cases, to be represented by counsel of their choice, receive fair and reasoned decisions, and are not unfairly returned to harm in the countries they fled.

For my part, I pledge that during the time I remain with the Department of Justice I will do everything in my power to protect your quasi-judicial independence from improper influence, to allow you to manage your own dockets and develop “best practices” without bureaucratic interference, and to secure for you the resources you need to do your critically important jobs. I trust that my successor will do likewise.

The vision of our Immigration Courts is “through teamwork and innovation become the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Your challenge is to do everything within your power to make that vision a reality each day you are on the bench.

Congratulations again on your selection and on choosing to serve our country in these important judicial positions at this critical juncture in our history. I thank you in advance for your future service and commitment to insuring equal justice for all. Good luck, do great things, and make due process for all your daily goal.

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

Someday, we will once again have an Attorney General and a DAG who truly respect Constitutional Due Process, don’t fear independent judicial decision-making, and have the courage and backbone to “just say no” to White Nationalist restricitionist agendas that conflict with our Constitution, our statutes, our international obligations, common human decency, and what were once almost universally considered “true American values.”

Until then, it will be up to the “New Due Process Army” and their allies to keep Due Process and fairness for all of us alive during what will go down as one of the darkest and most evil periods in modern American history.

PWS

08-18-19

U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS: FEINBLOOM, STEVENS, & SCHMIDT TAKE CASE FOR ARTICLE I IMMIGRATION COURT TO FBA’S 2019 CIVIL RIGHTS ENTOUFFEE IN NEW ORLEANS, LA, FEB. 16, 2019

“Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere. . . . Whatever Affects One Directly, Affects All Indirectly.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Letters From the Birmingham Jail

New Orleans– Appearing before the Federal Bar Association’s 2019 Civil Rights Entouffee, Attorney Jeffrey Feinbloom of the FBA Civil Rights Section, FBA Immigration Section Chair Elizabeth “Betty” Stevens, and I made a powerful pitch to assembled Civil Rights Attorneys for their support for an Article I United States Immigration Court.

Our panel emphasized that the current Immigration Courts under the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), U.S. Department of Justice are a “failed system” threatening everyone’s civil rights. Notwithstanding more Immigration Judges, these “courts” have continued to build backlog at an astonishing and accelerating rate, now topping 1.1 million pending cases following the Government shutdown.

Worse yet, they have essentially become a “hostile environment” for migrants, their attorneys, and sometimes the Immigration Judges and court staff themselves. They also are an impediment to realistic, professional immigration enforcement by DHS. Perhaps worst of all, due process of law has become the apparent enemy of DOJ and EOIR, rather than the objective.

The only way out of this mess is the establishment of an independent Article I Immigration Court, administered in a professional and apolitical manner by sitting judges, not politicized bureaucrats in Washington. Section Chair Betty Stevens and other Section members have helped develop a non-partisan bill to create an Article I Court. We urge everyone to ask their Congressional representatives to make Immigration Court reform an urgent national priority.

Schmidt’s Five Points On Why U.S. immigration Courts Are Unlike Any Other Court System in America

Judges are selected, directed, and “supervised” by the Attorney General, the chief prosecutor;
There is no right to appointed counsel, so young children and others without any understanding of the U.S. legal system, often in detention, are forced to “represent themselves” in life or death cases against experienced ICE Counsel;
The chief prosecutor, the Attorney General, can change any individual case result that he doesn’t like, and rewrite immigration law in the DHS’s favor through “certified precedents;”
There is a 1.1 million case backlog, resulting largely from “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by the DOJ that continues to grow, despite an increase in judges, without any realistic plan for reducing it;
So-called “civil immigration detention” can be used by the Government to limit representation, and for coercion and deterrence of migrants with little or no effective judicial recourse in many cases.

PWS

02-21-19

COLBY KING @ WASHPOST: The “Original Dreamers” Were Disenfranchised African Americans! — “That fight must continue on behalf of today’s dreamers, the disenfranchised, the demeaned and left out, and all freedom-loving people in this nation.“

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-black-men-of-the-civil-war-were-americas-original-dreamers/2019/02/15/8c00088e-30a8-11e9-813a-0ab2f17e305b_story.html

Colby King writes in WashPost:

Today, a wall looms large in my thoughts. It isn’t the structure President Trump has in mind for our southern border. I’m thinking of the Wall of Honor at the African American Civil War Memorial, located at Vermont Avenue and U Street NW.

Listed on the wall are the names of 209,145 U.S. Colored Troops who fought during the Civil War. One of those names is that of Isaiah King, my great-grandfather.

I think of those courageous black men as America’s original “dreamers.”

Today’s dreamers are in their teens and 20s, having arrived in this country as children. King’s generation of dreamers were former slaves or descendants of slaves brought to these shores against their will.

However, the black men who fought in the Civil War had the same status as today’s dreamers: noncitizens without a discernable path to citizenship.

Like dreamers of today, those black soldiers and sailors also had families and attended churches; some were enrolled in schools. They could dream of a future, anchored in the rights and privileges that come with democracy. But they had no legal claim to an existence within America’s borders.

My great-grandfather was born in the slave-holding city of Washington in 1848, but his mother was a freed woman. She moved the family to New Bedford, Mass., when he was 4. Around the time of his 17th birthday, Isaiah King enlistedin the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry (Colored), thinking, “I would have it easier riding than walking,” he told the New Bedford Evening Standard in an interview on the eve of Memorial Day services in 1932.

Black men such as my great-grandfather signed on to fight for a Union in which the right to citizenship was reserved for white people. The Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford, in 1857, that black people were not citizens of the United States. Putting it bluntly, the high court said black people were “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

And even then, they started their service to the United States one step behind.

In his book “The Fifth Massachusetts Colored Cavalry in the Civil War,” Steven M. LaBarre cited the first disparity: It was enshrined in the Second Confiscation and Militia Act of July 17, 1862, which authorized recruitment of black men into the Union army. The law stated that a “person of African descent [of any rank] . . . shall receive ten dollars per month . . . three dollars of which monthly pay may be in clothing.” White privates at the time received $13 per month plus a $3.50 clothing allowance. It wasn’t until July 15, 1864, that Congress granted equal pay to black soldiers.

Yet, serve they did.

As evidence of the regard in which they were held, LaBarre quoted Massachusetts Gov. John Albion Andrew’s commendation of the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry when it was launched: “In this hour of hope for our common country and for themselves; at a time when they hold the destiny of their race in their own grasp; and when its certain emancipation from prejudice, as well as slavery, is in the hands of those now invited to unite in the final blow which will annihilate the rebel power, let no brave and strong man hesitate. One cannot exaggerate the call sounding in the ears of all men, in whose veins flows the blood of Africa, and whose color has been the badge of slavery. It offers the opportunity of years, crowded into an hour.”

Volunteering was a start. They still had something to prove.

According to National Archives, by the end of the Civil War, roughly 179,000 black men were serving as soldiers — 10 percent of the Union army — and 19,000 served in the Union navy. Nearly 40,000 black soldiers died over the course of the war — 30,000 of infection or disease. By war’s end, 16 black soldiers had been awarded the Medal of Honor .

King came back to the capital in May 1864 as a private with the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry to defend the city against attack by Confederate troops. His unit participated in the Siege of Petersburg. They guarded Confederate prisoners at Point Lookout, Md. And his unit was among the first Union regiments to enter Richmond, capital of the dying Confederacy, on April 3, 1865.

The Civil War ended, but not his service. Three months later, the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry was sent to Texas to defend against threats from Mexico. (Sound familiar?) He was mustered out of service on Oct. 31, 1865, at Clarksville, Tex. — still not a citizen of the United States.

It wasn’t until 1868 that the threat of removal from the United States was lifted by the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in this country, including former slaves.

The men with names on the African American Civil War Memorial’s Wall of Honor fought and died to end two centuries of slavery, without being able to count democracy as their own.

For their descendants, the fight for full rights, for full participation in every part of our democracy, goes on.

That fight must continue on behalf of today’s dreamers, the disenfranchised, the demeaned and left out, and all freedom-loving people in this nation.

Read more from Colbert King’s archive.

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

Thanks, Colby, for putting the current plight of “Dreamers” (and I might add refugees and other migrants who are serving, contributing, and building our society despite their disenfranchisement and the government-sponsored dehumanization being inflicted upon them) in the historical context of the fight for civil rights and human dignity in America.

That’s why the “21st Century Jim Crows” like Trump, Sessions, Stephen Miller, Sen. Tom Cotton, Rep. Steve King, and others (largely associated with the GOP) are so pernicious. Like the “Jim Crows of the past,” these guys use degrading racial stereotypes, intentionally false narratives, and bogus “rule of law” arguments to generate hate and bias, sow division, and use the law to suppress and violate rights rather than advancing them.

While sycophant DHS Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen does not appear to be an “ideological racist,” her mindless and disingenuous parroting of the Trump White Nationalist “party lies” and “enforcement” (read “de-humanization”) agenda certainly makes her a “functional racist.”

It’s quite outrageous and dangerous that individuals with these types of views have been elevated to powerful public offices in the modern era, after the death of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn?

PWS

02-16-19

JUDICIAL BRAIN DRAIN: As Outlaw Administration Attacks Due Process & Attempts To Institutionalize Xenophobic Bias, Experienced, Conscientious U.S. Immigration Judges Head For The Exits – Abandonment Of Scholarship, Fairness, Commitment To Due Process Threatens Entire U.S. Justice System!

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/immigration-policy-judge-resign-trump

Hamed Aleaziz reports for BuzzFeed News:

Being An Immigration Judge Was Their Dream. Under Trump, It Became Untenable.

“It has become so emotionally brutal and exhausting that many people I know are leaving or talking about finding an exit strategy,” said one immigration judge. “Morale has never, ever been lower.”

Hamed AleazizBuzzFeed News Reporter

Reporting From

San Francisco, California

Posted on February 13, 2019, at 6:15 p.m. ET

Tweet

Share

Copy

Constanza Hevia for BuzzFeed News

Former immigration judge Rebecca Jamil in Fremont, California, on Dec. 28, 2018.

SAN FRANCISCO — Rebecca Jamil was sitting in a nondescript hotel ballroom in suburban Virginia when she realized that her dream job — being an immigration judge — was no longer tenable. It was June 11, 2018, and then–attorney general Jeff Sessions, her boss, was speaking to a room packed with immigration judges, running through his list of usual complaints over what was, in his estimation, a broken asylum system.

Toward the end of the speech, Sessions let slip some big news: He had decided whether domestic abuse and gang victims could be granted asylum in the US. Advocates, attorneys, and judges had been waiting months to see what Sessions, who in his role as attorney general had the power to review cases, would do. After all, it would determine the fate of thousands of asylum-seekers, many fleeing dangerous situations in Central America.

Sessions didn’t reveal to the room the details of his ruling but Jamil, based in San Francisco since she was appointed in 2016, learned later that day that the attorney general had decided to dramatically restrict asylum protections for domestic abuse victims.

“I’d seen the faces of these families,” the 43-year-old judge said. “They weren’t abstractions to me.”

Eric Risberg / AP

Hundreds of people overflow onto the sidewalk in a line snaking around the block outside a US immigration office with numerous courtrooms in San Francisco.

Jamil, a mother of two young daughters, had been shaken by the images and sounds that came as a result of the Trump administration’s policy to separate families at the border. As a judge who oversaw primarily cases of women and children fleeing abuse and dangers abroad, this was the last straw.

Soon after, she stepped down from the court.

“I can’t do this anymore,” she told friends. “I felt that I couldn’t be ‘Rebecca Jamil, representative of the attorney general’ while these things were going on.”

In many ways, her resignation underscores the tenuous position of immigration judges, who are overseen by the attorney general and susceptible to the shifting winds of each administration. To avoid potential conflicts, the union that represents the judges has long called for its court to be an independent body, separate from the Department of Justice.

The Trump administration has undertaken a monumental overhaul of the way immigration judges, which total around 400 across the country, work: placing quotas on the number of cases they should complete every year, ending their ability to indefinitely suspend certain cases, restricting when asylum can be granted, and pouring thousands of previously closed cases back into court dockets.

In the meantime, the case backlog has jumped to more than 800,000 under the administration and wait times have continued to skyrocket to hundreds of days.

The quotas in particular have made judges feel as if they were cogs in a deportation machine, as opposed to neutral arbiters given time to thoughtfully analyze the merits of each case.

“The job has become exceedingly more difficult as the court has veered even farther away from being administered as a court rather than a law enforcement bureaucracy,” said Ashley Tabaddor, an immigration judge who heads the National Association of Immigration Judges, a union representing around 350 judges.

And it’s not just Jamil who has departed because of the massive changes to the court undertaken by the Trump administration, according to observers within the Department of Justice and those on the outside. While some, like Jamil, have resigned, others have retired early in large part because of the policies instituted under Trump, they said.

For those remaining at the immigration court, the mood is bleak.

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks during a news conference on Oct. 16, 2018.

“It has become so emotionally brutal and exhausting that many people I know are leaving or talking about finding an exit strategy,” said one immigration judge who declined to be named. “Morale has never, ever been lower.”

Another Justice Department official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, told BuzzFeed News, “It is exhausting when you feel undervalued by the people at the top of your organization, especially when they are motivated by partisanship and have not spent their careers doing the job that you do.”

Tabaddor, the head of the union, said that her group has noticed a higher rate of retirements and resignations than in the past because of the way judges have been treated under Trump.

Some have been bold in their timing. John Richardson, a former immigration judge in Phoenix, stepped down on Sep. 30, 2018 — the day before the administration instituted a quota for the number of cases to be completed by judges.

“The timing of my retirement was a direct result of the draconian policies of the Administration, the relegation of [judges] to the status of ‘action officers’ who deport as many people as possible as soon as possible with only token due process, and blaming [judges] for the immigration crisis caused by decades of neglect and under funding of the Immigration Courts,” he said in a statement to BuzzFeed News.

Another judge who resigned from the bench in September told staff members in a goodbye email, “I know things are getting difficult for you at [the Executive Office for Immigration Review], but I believe all you will ‘ride through the storm’ and ‘come out with a smile.’”

There have long been work challenges for immigration judges, including heavy caseloads and assignments, leading to comparatively high burnout rates. Justice Department officials told BuzzFeed News that concerns over retirements were nothing new.

“In 2015, 2013, and 2011, the National Association of IJs [immigration judges] raised the same concerns. In 2011, the NAIJ said that ‘stress on judges has reached unbearable levels … a large contributing factor to retirement at the earliest possible opportunity,’” said Steven Stafford, a Justice Department spokesperson. “What is actually new is that we are hiring more and more IJs and doing so faster than ever before. Today we have 68.9 percent more IJs than we did in 2010, and that number is only rising.”

According to the agency, from the beginning of fiscal year 2014 through Feb. 12, 2019, 94 immigration judges have retired, separated, or died. More than a third of those judges, 32, have left since Oct. 1, 2017. The agency does not track why judges leave their positions.

To those within the court and others who have recently retired, the situation has worsened to an unprecedented level. Richardson, the former judge in Phoenix, said he would have continued presiding over immigration cases if the status quo had remained.

“Yes, I was 75 years old with over 50 years of honorable federal service with the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice, but had no plans for retirement as long as I was treated with respect, appreciated, and provided adequate support,” he said. “I had 28 years as an IJ and very much enjoyed my job, even with the poor funding and lack of support by Congress and the White House during that 28 years.”

Jeff Chase, a former immigration judge who stepped down years ago and who speaks regularly with others who’ve left the bench, was blunt in his characterization.

“The fastest growth industry is former immigration judges,” Chase said. Those still on the bench have told him, “It’s horrible. Whatever you think it is, it is much, much worse.”

In the meantime, the Trump administration has hired more than 100 judges to not only fill the vacancies of those who’ve retired but to add numbers to the bench. It’s a rehauling of the courts that could “have a drastic impact,” according to Chase.

Many of the judges retiring in recent months are experienced jurists, hired by the Clinton administration in the mid to late ’90s, he said. These judges, Chase said, were more willing to push back on claims made in court by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement or to allow immigrants extended time to make their cases in what could otherwise be a rushed procedure.

In their place, Chase said, are judges hired by the new administration with case completion quotas, a two-year probation period, and a mandate to avoid showing sympathy for the people appearing before them.

“Even if it doesn’t show up on the sheet, just the level of humanity, that makes a huge difference — that’s what this administration is trying to remove from the immigration judge corps,” he said.

Constanza Hevia for BuzzFeed News

Rebecca Jamil holds her immigration judge certificate.

For her part, Jamil wanted to become an immigration judge from the earliest moments of her legal career. After working as a staff attorney at the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals, she joined the government as a prosecutor with ICE in 2011, where she was able to use discretion to focus deportation efforts on those with serious criminal backgrounds. Under the Trump administration, ICE attorneys have been told that nearly all undocumented immigrants are priorities for deportation.

In 2014, Jamil took a chance to fulfill her dream: She applied to become an immigration judge. It was a 17-month process, full of drawn-out interviews in Washington, DC, but finally, in 2015 she received a phone call informing her that she got the job.

“I thought, and I must have told most people I know, that this is the last job that I would ever have. It’s all I wanted to do,” she said.

Jamil dedicated herself to the exhausting career. She oversaw a docket made up primarily of families and regularly heard cases in which women and children applied for asylum based on abuse that they had experienced by partners and family members abroad.

Day in and day out, Jamil heard intense testimony of physical and sexual violence against women and children.

“You’re sitting in a windowless room and people tell you the very worst parts of their life and you have to decide if it is enough to stay in the US,” she said. “That is very tiring day after day to be the person who makes that decision.”

Then, under the Trump administration, things started to change. In 2018, Sessions instituted a new policy, severely limiting when judges could suspend certain cases. Suddenly, her docket expanded and she wasn’t allowed to decide which cases deserved to remain in court and which didn’t.

Jamil and fellow immigration judges were in attendance at the Virginia conference where Sessions spoke for annual trainings on courtroom procedure. The year before, jurists heard substantive legal updates and trainings on bias in the courtroom.

This version of the training, however, felt different.

“The entire conference was profoundly disturbing. Do things as fast as possible. There was an overarching theme of disbelieving aliens and their claims and how to remove people faster,” Jamil said. “That is not what I saw my job as an immigration judge to be. I was not trained to do that.”

Soon after she returned home, Jamil put in her resignation. Her colleagues fretted, probing her about whether she had considered the type of judge that could fill her spot on the bench and the impact that could have.

She didn’t have an answer, but she knew that she couldn’t do it any longer.

“Family separations; Sessions making his own case law on asylum; when we could continue cases — I could no longer sit below the seal of the Department of Justice and represent the Department of Justice at that point,” Jamil said. “They just chipped away at our authority on a daily basis. It felt like we weren’t really judges. It was frustrating and demoralizing.”

A former colleague, Laura Ramirez, worked for years as an immigration judge in San Francisco. In December, she retired at the earliest date possible, five days after she turned 60.

The changes put in place by the Trump administration, especially the case quotas, and the politicization of her job, became too much to handle.

The loss of judges like Jamil and others could be immeasurable to both immigrants and Department of Homeland Security attorneys, Ramirez said.

“For the system of justice, there’s these highly qualified, fair, thoughtful people who are being squeezed out of the system for political reasons, basically,” she said. “If people like her are squeezed out, it’s a loss to people who appear before her. The system can’t be fair if good people like her are pushed out.”

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

Forcing the “best, brightest, and fairest” out. Reinforcing “worst practices.” Enabling judges with well-established records of anti-asylum, nationality-based, and misogynistic bias. Attacking those private attorneys who steadfastly defended legal and Constitutional rights that were being systematically undermined by the Administration. Blaming others for his own incompetence and lack of scholarship. That’s what the “Sessions program” was all about.

The only good news: folks like Judge Jamil, Judge Ramirez, Judge Richardson, and Judge Chase are now part of the ever-growing “Our Gang” of retired Immigraton Judges helping others to fight the injustices and destruction of Due Process being pushed by the Trump Administration and a DOJ that has abandoned its mission in favor of a White Nationalist political agenda. Our voices are being heard in support of the efforts of the “New Due Process Army.”

And, while I doubt that anyone outside of Trump and Miller can match the viscous lies, racism, and knowingly false narratives of Sessions, I wouldn’t expect much improvement under Barr. Barr thought Sessions was “the greatest thing since sliced bread.” That, more than the Mueller investigation, should have caused all Democrats to vote against his confirmation. He’ll just “lose” some of the overtly racist and inflammatory lingo of the White Nationalist restrictionists and attack immigrants on the basis of bogus “strict enforcement” platitudes.

Every American who believes in our Constitution and thinks that America is different from the “Banana Republics” we often criticize will be threatened by this development. Malicious harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all; and the collapse of one of the “building blocks” at the “retail level” of the American justice system will adversely affect everybody’s ability to get justice with fairness and impartiality.

Many of us don’t think we will need fair, independent, and impartial courts until we do. Once the Trump Administration destroys them, they won’t easily be rebuilt.

Who will defend your rights when the time comes if you stand by and watch the rights of others being trampled?

PWS

02-14-19

TRUMP TAKES “LIEFEST” TO EL PASO BORDER — Many Protest Against His White Nationalist Baloney!

TRUMP TAKES “LIEFEST” TO EL PASO BORDER — Many Protest Against His White Nationalist Baloney!

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-beto-border-rallies-20190211-story.html

Eli Stokols & Molly Hennessy-Fiske reports for the LA Times:

President Trump falsely told a raucous rally in El Paso on Monday night that he is already building a wall on the adjacent border with Mexico, as a potential Democratic challenger assailed him at a large protest nearby and, in Washington, congressional negotiators announced a tentative funding deal without the billions he demanded for a wall.

Beneath banners reading “Finish the Wall,” Trump hailed what he called a “big, beautiful wall right on the Rio Grande,” though no such construction is known to be underway. When supporters launched into a chant of “Build the wall!” — standard at his rallies for years — Trump corrected them: “You mean finish the wall.”

The president alluded to lawmakers’ announcement of a deal, which came moments before he took the stage, but did not give it his blessing. Nor did he disparage it though one of his foremost confidants, Fox News host Sean Hannity, came on the air midway through the president’s rally and condemned the reported agreement as “this garbage compromise.”

Without the president and Congress agreeing to a border security funding bill by midnight Friday, the government could be partially shuttered again, just three weeks after a shutdown that at 35 days was the longest ever. The “agreement in principle” called for $1.375 billion for 55 miles of new barrier on the 2,000-mile border — less than a quarter of the $5.7 billion Trump demanded.

He told the crowd that he hadn’t bothered to find out the particulars of the agreement because he was eager to take the stage. “I could have stayed in there and listened, or I could have come out to the people of El Paso, Texas,” he said. “I chose you.”

Outside the El Paso County Coliseum, thousands of protesters, bundled against the evening chill, marched along the Rio Grande to a nearby park. There, El Paso’s former congressman and a possible Democratic 2020 presidential candidate, Beto O’Rourke, joined other locals who spoke of El Paso and neighboring Juarez, Mexico, as one community and expressed indignation over Trump’s false characterization of their city as a violent one in last week’s State of the Union address.

“With the eyes of the entire country upon us, all of us together are going to make our stand. Here in one of the safest cities in the United States of America — safe, not because of walls but in spite of walls,” O’Rourke said, in the sort of rousing speech that brought nationwide attention to his Senate race last year, though he lost to Republican Sen. Ted Cruz.

“Let’s own this moment and the future and show this country there’s nothing to be afraid of when it comes to the U.S.-Mexico border,” O’Rourke said to cheers. “Let’s make sure our laws, our leaders and our language reflect our values.”

Late Monday, the House-Senate committee bargaining over border security funding and trying to avert another shutdown reached an “agreement in principle,” according to Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Talks had stalled on the weekend, Republicans said, over Democrats’ demands to limit the detention of undocumented immigrants, many of them seeking asylum.

Should Congress pass a compromise, the onus would be on the president to accept it, or risk taking blame again for a partial federal shutdown. Before arriving in El Paso, Trump sought to preemptively shift blame to Democrats should the legislative effort ultimately fail. After the recent shutdown, polls showed the public put the blame squarely on him, and his approval rating slid.

With both his rally and the protest featuring O’Rourke receiving national coverage, the split-screen moment promised something of an audition of a hypothetical 2020 matchup, effectively creating a live debate between the president and a charismatic potential challenger on the issue that most animated Trump’s followers in 2016 and probably will again in his reelection bid.

Before leaving the White House, the president signaled that he too saw the dueling rallies as an early competition, with his familiar emphasis on crowd sizes. “We have a line that’s very long already,” Trump told reporters at the White House, referring to people waiting to enter his El Paso venue. He added, “I understand our competitor’s got a line too, but it’s a tiny little line.”

At his rally, Trump bragged that 10,000 supporters were inside the arena and 25,000 more were standing outside. According to the El Paso Fire Department, 6,500 people — the building’s capacity — were allowed inside, while at least 10,000 attended the protest rally. Organizers, however, had a slightly lower estimate.

“We have 35,000 people tonight and he has 200 people, 300 people,” Trump said. “Not too good. That may be the end of his presidential bid.”

While the border visit was intended as an opportunity for Trump to promote his signature issue, he wandered widely in his remarks — attacking Democrats repeatedly, including on abortion and on a so-called Green New Deal environmental platform that some are advocating, and mocking Virginia Democrats for controversies that have roiled the state’s government.

Trump’s drumbeat on immigration has yet to pay political dividends beyond his own supporters, and it has further galvanized his opponents. His fear-mongering during campaign rallies last fall over caravans of immigrants failed to prevent a Democratic wave that cost Republicans a net 40 seats and their majority in the House.

And during his State of the Union address, his incorrect portrayal of El Paso — he said it had “extremely high rates of violent crime” and was “one of our nation’s most dangerous cities” until the government built a “powerful barrier” there — touched a nerve among civic leaders and citizens.

The El Paso County Commissioners Court on Monday approved a resolution assailing the president and his administration for misinformation and lies about a “crisis situation” on the U.S.-Mexico border, and noting that the federal government said “no crisis exists” and that “fiscal year 2017 was the lowest year of illegal cross-border migration on record.”

Yet Trump, at the rally, denounced his critics and media fact-checkers who disputed his claims that existing border fencing had slashed crime rates in El Paso. “They’re full of crap when they say it doesn’t make a difference,” he said, suggesting that local officials tried to “pull the wool over everybody’s eyes” by reporting low crime rates.

Lyda Ness-Garcia, a lawyer and founder of the Women’s March of El Paso, said organizers of Monday night’s protest were motivated to counteract Trump’s “lies” about their city.

“There was a deep sense of anger in our community, from the left and the right. It’s the demonization of our border. It’s the misrepresentation that the wall made us safe when we were safe long before,” she said.

Referring to the Mexican city just over the border, Garcia added: “We’re connected to Juarez. People forget. We’re not separate. We’re one culture.”

In truth, violent crime dropped in El Paso after a peak in 1993. It was at historic lows before Congress authorized a fence along the Rio Grande in 2006. Crime began to rise again over the next four years, after the fencing went up.

The city’s Republican mayor, Dee Margo, admonished Trump after the State of the Union speech, saying during an appearance on CNN that the president’s depiction of El Paso is “not factually correct.”

Fernando Garcia, executive director of the Border Network for Human Rights, said organizers intended the march as a community celebration rather than an anti-Trump or pro-O’Rourke political event. “The administration, they didn’t believe our community would react, that people would get upset about the lies,” he said. “Our community spoke in numbers.”

Garcia noted that residents had seen the fallout from the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policies firsthand, both in family separations and in asylum-seekers being turned away from border bridges and required to remain in Mexico while they await hearings.

In December, two Guatemalan migrant children died in Border Patrol custody in the El Paso area after seeking asylum.

“Trump has created policies and strategies that have created deep wounds in our region,” Garcia said. “We are not a violent city. We are not criminals. We are part of America and we deserve respect from this president.”

Although the protest event brought together roughly 50 local groups, O’Rourke’s political star power generated significant media coverage.

“If you’re Beto, there couldn’t be a better, more visual contrast,” said Jen Psaki, a former communications director to President Obama. “By leading a march, he gets back to his grass-roots origins and it allows him to stand toe to toe with the president of the United States and to echo a message that even local Republicans agree with. It gives him a platform and a megaphone at a beneficial time.”

Not willing to cede the moment completely to O’Rourke, Julian Castro — a former mayor of San Antonio, an Obama Cabinet member and already a declared presidential candidate — went Monday to the border checkpoint where his grandmother entered the United States as a young girl. He filmed a video denouncing the president and calling Trump’s visit to El Paso an effort “to create a circus of fear and paranoia” and “to tell lies about the border and about immigration.”

Speaking directly into the camera, Castro added, “Don’t take the bait.”

Politics Newsletter

Twice-weekly

Analysis and breaking news from our award-winning journalists in Sacramento and Washington, D.C.

Eli Stokols

CONTACT

Eli Stokols is a White House reporter based in the Los Angeles Times Washington, D.C., bureau. He is a veteran of Politico and the Wall Street Journal, where he covered the 2016 presidential campaign and then the Trump White House. A native of Irvine, Stokols grew up in a Times household and is thrilled to report for what is still his family’s hometown paper. He is also a graduate of UC Berkeley and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.

Molly Hennessy-Fiske

CONTACT

Molly Hennessy-Fiske has been a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times since 2006. She won a 2018 APME International Perspective Award;2015 Overseas Press Club award; 2014 Dart award from ColumbiaUniversity; and was a finalist for the Livingston Awards and Casey Medal. She completed a Thomson Reuters fellowship in Lebanon in 2006 and a Pew fellowship in Mexico in 2004. Hennessy-Fiske grew up in Upstate New York and graduated from Harvard College. She spent last year as Middle East bureau chief before returning to cover foreign/national news as Houston bureau chief.

COMMENTS (41)

Please enable JavaScript to view the <a href=”http://solidopinion.com/”>comments powered by SolidOpinion.</a>

MOST READ

ADVERTISEMENT

LATEST POLITICS

Gavin Newsom has been more antagonistic to Trump than Jerry Brown was. And he’s just getting started
5h

Border showdown: Trump and Beto O’Rourke hold dueling rallies on immigration in El Paso
FEB 11, 2019

Lawmakers announce a deal to prevent another government shutdown, but prospects remain uncertain
FEB 11, 2019

Border funding fight bogs down over detention beds. Here’s why
FEB 11, 2019

Slamming Trump’s ‘political theater,’ California Gov. Gavin Newsom pulls National Guard from border
FEB 11, 2019

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

The racist lies about immigration just keep spewing forth from Trump and his White Nationalist support groups, including the “right wingnut” media.

We’re not being invaded by foreign criminals. Actually, we’re experiencing a quite predictable and potentially manageable influx of refugees seeking to exercise their legal rights to lawfully apply for asylum in the US. Not surprising, given that we have no viable refugee program in or near the Northern Triangle and have undoubtedly contributed to the breakdown of the rule of law and society in those “failed states.”

The idea that real criminals, terrorists, drug smugglers, or human traffickers will be stopped or even materially deterred by a Wall is beyond absurd. Walls generally “reroute migration” and kill more innocent people. Real threats to our security are laughing at Trump and his base while they view the diversion, wasted time and money, and the failure to beef up intelligence, undercover, and anti-smuggling operations as a free gift.

And, I’m sure they cheer the focus on “rounding up” and detaining asylum applicants who turn themselves in to apply for asylum (because Trump has intentionally disabled reasonable processing through legal ports of entry) instead of doing the real law enforcement work of breaking up criminal enterprises.

“Numbers” aren’t everything, particularly when the majority of the apprehensions have little to do with criminals or other “bad guys. But, it’s easier to “chalk up big numbers” and support a bogus White Nationalist narrative about “loss of border security” by apprehending asylum applicants who are in search of ever more elusive justice in the U.S.

Unfortunately, outright fibs and bogus racist narratives seem to work for our “Lier-in-Chief!” Here is an article from today’s NY Times by native Texan Richard Parker actually suggesting that Trump succeeds because Texans are as addicted to “Tall Tales” as Trump is to “Big Lies!” In other words, a “match made in Heaven.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/opinion/el-paso-trump-beto.html

Rather an unhappy commentary, if true. Who am I as a “mere Badger” to say, but I would suspect that these tall tales of fake invasions and bogus fear mongering directed mostly at the growing Latino community appeal more to some Texans than to others.

Just shows the importance of the work of the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”) in defending our laws and Constitution! Also illustrates the importance of committing ourselves to “regime change” in 2020. The immigration nonsense from Trump and his supporters and the intentional divisiveness, chaos, and anarchy that flow from it is an existential threat to our national existence — much greater than his mostly fake “border emergency.”

PWS

02-12-19

SOME FEDERAL CIVIL SERVANTS WERE IDEALISTIC & NIAVE ENOUGH TO EXPECT TRUMP TO APOLOGIZE FOR HIS SHUTDOWN — Instead, He Kicked Them In The Teeth, Ignored Their Essential Contributions, Pain, & Suffering, & Instead Touted His Bogus Border Wall Using A False Nativist Narrative!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-shutdown-state-of-the-union_us_5c5a4711e4b00187b55612d4

Amanda Terkel writes in HuffPost:

The longest government shutdown in history happened on Donald Trump’s watch. But the president made no mention of it in his State of the Union address Tuesday night.

The partial government shutdown lasted 35 days, affecting about 800,000 federal workers ― in addition to thousands of federal contractors. Government employees missed two paychecks, with many wondering how they would pay for essentials like food, medicine and housing. They looked for new jobs, turned to relatives and friends for temporary loans and went to food pantries.

The shutdown occurred because Trump insisted that Congress give him $5.7 billion to build a wall on the country’s southern border, even though he once promised that Mexico would pay for that barrier. Democrats refused to go along with his demand and said he should simply fund the government and argue about immigration later. He refused.

On Jan. 25, Trump caved and signed a bill funding the government for three weeks. He has insisted that if he doesn’t get his money for a wall by Feb. 15, he may declare a national emergency allowing him to build it anyway.

Trump never mentioned what federal workers went through during his speech Tuesday night. He expressed no remorse for the shutdown, and he didn’t promise that it wouldn’t happen again. The closest he came to referencing the shutdown was in urging Congress to fund the border wall when passing legislation to fund the government beyond Feb. 15.

“Congress has 10 days left to pass a bill that will fund our government, protect our homeland and secure our southern border,” he said. “Now is the time for the Congress to show the world that America is committed to ending illegal immigration and putting the ruthless coyotes, cartels, drug dealers and human traffickers out of business.”

Even Trump’s State of the Union address was affected by the shutdown. It was supposed to occur on Jan. 29, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) canceled it ― she has that power since the president delivers it in the Capitol ― and said they would discuss a new date only after the government reopened.

Trump’s approach is a break from what President Bill Clinton did in 1996, after what had previously been the longest shutdown ever. In his State of the Union speech that year, Clinton honored a heroic public servant who had been furloughed because of the shutdown. He then warned Congress to remember the pain of the shutdown when legislating in the future.

“On behalf of Richard Dean and his family and all the other people who are out there working every day doing a good job for the American people,” Clinton said. “I challenge all of you in this chamber: Never, ever shut the federal government down again.”

In the Democratic response to Trump’s address Tuesday night, Stacey Abrams ― who ran for governor of Georgia ― did address the shutdown.

“Just a few weeks ago, I joined volunteers to distribute meals to furloughed federal workers. They waited in line for a box of food and a sliver of hope since they hadn’t received a paycheck in weeks. Making their livelihoods a pawn for political games is a disgrace,” she said. “The shutdown was a stunt engineered by the President of the United States, one that defied every tenet of fairness and abandoned not just our people ― but our values.

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

If Tom Brady is the the “GOAT,” Trump certainly is the “WOAT,” hands down!

There aren’t many things more vile than an ungrateful employer!

PWS

02-06-19

POLITICS: METAMORPHOSIS: 🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥How Ralph Northam Morphed Into A “Trump-Style” Liar Before Our Eyes — Resign Now, Ralph, Before You Inflict Even Further Harm On Our Commonwealth & Our Nation!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/ralph-northam-is-lying.html

William Saletin writes in Slate:

Ralph Northam, the governor of Virginia, swears he’s telling the truth. On Friday, Northam confessed to appearing in a racist photo in a 1984 yearbook. On Saturday, after Democrats called on him to resign, he reversed himself and said it was a case of mistaken identity. “I will stand and live by my word,” Northam told reporters at an afternoon press conference. He quoted the honor code of his alma mater, the Virginia Military Institute: “A cadet shall not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”

I don’t know whether Northam is one of the people in the photo. But I do know he’s been lying in his responses to this story. The evidence is in his own words. Let’s take his denials, one by one.

1. He believed right away that he wasn’t in the picture. The photo appears in the yearbook of Eastern Virginia Medical School, where Northam was a student. It seems to have been taken at a party, and it appears on a page that bears Northam’s name, alongside what are clearly pictures of him. It shows one person in blackface and another in a Ku Klux Klan hood and robes. The two people are hard to identify. In a written statement that Northam read aloud at his press conference, he asserted that when he was first shown the photo, “I believed then and now that I am not either of the people in that photo.”

That denial contradicts Northam’s previous statements. The photo was initially posted on a conservative website, Big League Politics, on Friday afternoon. Reporters confirmed that it was in the yearbook. Around 6 p.m., Northam issued a statement acknowledging that it was “a photograph of me.” He apologized for “the decision I made to appear as I did in this photo.” Two hours later, he released a video statement in which he apologized for “my past actions,” “the decisions I made,” and “the harm my behavior caused.” Northam’s Friday statements, like his Saturday statement, were scripted, so he couldn’t have misspoken. Either he believed on Friday that he wasn’t in the photo—in which case his Friday statements were false—or he didn’t, in which case his Saturday statement was false.

Northam also told the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus that he was in the picture. According to three lawmakers, the governor confirmed in a Friday-night meeting with the caucus that he was in the photo. “Last night, from his mouth to my ear, he apologized to me for the mistake that he made,” Sen. Louise Lucas, a member of the caucus, reported on Saturday. Did Northam mislead the caucus? Or is he misleading everyone else now?

2. He knew he couldn’t have done it. This is a stronger denial, based on Northam’s moral certainty that he isn’t the sort of person who could have worn such costumes. At the press conference, he claimed that when he first saw the photo, “My first impression, actually, [was] that this couldn’t be me.” In fact, it was more than impression. “There is no way that I have ever been in a KKK uniform,” he declared. “I am not the person in that uniform. And I am not the person [in blackface] to the right.”

But if Northam was that certain of his innocence, why didn’t he say so on Friday? When he was asked at the press conference, he pleaded, “I didn’t know at the time.” He claimed to have confessed initially because “based on the evidence presented to me at the time, the most likely explanation [was] that it was indeed me in the photo.” He added, “It has taken time for me to make sure that it’s not me.”

Again, Northam’s story doesn’t add up. If he originally thought he was one of the people in the photo, or if he was uncertain about it, then it can’t be true that he was morally certain he’d never do such a thing. Nor does his denial square with what he told the black caucus on Friday night. Two members of the caucus, Del. Lamont Bagby and Sen. Lionell Spruill, say that when the group asked Northam which character he had played in the picture, he said he didn’t know. No one who confessed that degree of doubt on Friday night could stand before cameras on Saturday afternoon and honestly say there’s “no way” either of the characters could be him.

3. He could tell just by looking at the photo. “It is definitely not me. I can tell by looking at it,” Northam told reporters on Saturday. Later, he repeated, “If one looks at the picture, it’s not my picture.” That’s not consistent with the governor’s confessions of guilt or his confessions of uncertainty. The picture was the first piece of information he had. If it was sufficient to exonerate him, why didn’t he say so? When a reporter posed that question at the press conference, all Northam could say was, “I didn’t study it as well as I should.”

That’s just not credible. What changed between Friday night and Saturday morning wasn’t Northam sitting up late with a magnifying glass. It was two other things. First, based on the governor’s initial confessions, a wave of Democrats, including the Virginia Democratic Party and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, announced that he should resign. Second, Northam contacted his former medical school classmates. At the press conference, he said they told him they had “never seen me in any outfit like that.” He also said he had asked a former classmate, “Is there a possibility, you think, that someone could have put a photo on the wrong page?” Northam said that this classmate told him photos had been misplaced “on numerous pages in this very yearbook. … Photos laid out on a table. One could mistakenly get put on the wrong page. This happened numerous times in this yearbook. And I suspect that’s what happened in this case.”

Northam presented these conversations with his classmates as evidence of his innocence.
And maybe that’s what they’ll turn out to be. But for now, they’re just evidence that he checked to see whether anyone in his class might have information that could support the case against him. Nobody remembers him wearing anything like the costumes in that picture. He has also found a witness who could testify that pictures were sometimes misplaced. So what Northam knows now—but didn’t know on Friday night—was that if he denies he’s in that photo, he might be able to get away with it.

I hope Northam isn’t in that picture. But one way or the other, he’s been lying.

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

Sorry, Ralph, but forgiveness and redemption have to be earned, not demanded! And, lying, making a spectacle of yourself and our state, and insulting our intelligence with lies, contradictions, and obvious evasions aren’t a good start. Go now, before the Legislature has to act to remove you. You have become Donald Trump. And, that’s not a good thing for Virginia or our nation

PWS

02-03-19

RALPH NORTHAM MUST GO! NOW!

No excuses, no delays, the best and only thing that Northam can do for the people of Virginia and for himself is to resign, get out of the political arena, and use his medical skills to promote social justice and improve the lives of all Virginians.

Every additional minute that he remains in office demeans and embarrasses the state and the office for which he was elected, while continuing to insult African-Americans and humane values everywhere.

Resign now! Call Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax and pass him the helm tonight. Don’t make us go through the painful and unnecessary circus of removing you.

PWS

02-01-19

SPLIT DECISION: Supremes Deliver “Gut Punch” To Transgender Americans, But Give Another Round To Dreamers

SPLIT DECISION: Supremes Deliver “Gut Punch” To Transgender Americans, But Give Another Round To Dreamers

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

United States Immigration Judge (Retired)

On Tuesday, a divided Supreme Court allowed a portion of Trump’s homophobic ban on certain transgender troops to go into effect. At the same time, they properly squelched the arrogantly disingenuous attempt by Trump and his “go along to get along” Solicitor General Noel Francisco to “expedite” review of lower court rulings that found that Trump, former Attorney General Sessions, and DHS acted lawlessly and without any apparent legal rationale in terminating the “DACA” program. In simple terms, decisions that required the Administration to follow the law.

Prior Solicitors General have sometimes balked at representing liars and presenting disingenuous arguments in behalf of their Government “clients.” (Actually, somewhat of a bureaucratic misnomer, because the “institutional client” is really the “People of the U.S.” who pay Government salaries, regardless of whether they are citizens or can vote.) Not this one, who seems to savor the opportunity to carry Trump’s more than ample “dirty water” and reduce the credibility of his one-respected office to around zero. As I predicted, nobody serves Trump without being tarnished.

For the LGBTQ community, it’s a horrible signal that a narrow majority of the Supremes are unwilling to move into the 21^stcentury and recognize their Constitutional rights to equal protection under the 14^thAmendment as well as their rights as human beings. It’s also shockingly disrespectful to those who have stepped forward to risk their lives in the name of our country, something Trump took great pains to avoid. It’s doubly disappointing that Chief Justice John Roberts joined his far-right colleagues on this one, at least in part (he rejected the bogus argument for immediate review put forth by Francesco and instead sent the case back to the lower courts for further development).

Unlike some of his colleagues on the right, Roberts has some sense of institutional history, the horror and existential dangers to democracy of Trump as Chief Executive, and the future. Come on, “Chiefie,” we can all get smarter as we get older! Don’t blow your chance to “get on the right side of history.” Leave the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” behind in their dust and join your four more enlightened colleagues in moving America forward and showing some leadership and courage on the Supremes. As this month has shown, you might be the only person able to save America.

Paraphrasing what many pundits have said, “The Supremes can basically do anything they want, whenever they want to, for any reason they can come up with, because they are Supreme.” With that caveat in mind, the Court’s well-deserved slap down of Trump on DACA basically leaves the full protections in effect for Dreamers until the end of the Trump Administration. At that point, we’ll either get a new President, or there won’t be any country left for the “Dreamers,” the Supremes, or the rest of us to “dream about” or live in. The so-called “American Dream” will be at a tragic end. We’ll all be living in a continuing nightmare of cruelty, incompetence, and randomness.

I think the Supremes would be wise not to take up the DACA issue ever. It needs to be resolved by the lower courts, who have for the most part done a fine job, and the Congress, which hasn’t. But, assuming the Supremes do take the issue, they probably wouldn’t schedule argument before the October Term 2020. That makes it highly unlikely that they would reach and issue any final decision before the November 2020 elections. There would certainly be no reason for them to “rush to judgement” on this one.

Thus, Trump’s hollow offer of meager “Dreamer relief,” no path to green cards or citizenship and less than they have now under the court decisions, is even less of a legitimate “bargaining chip” than it was before. And, “poisoning the well” with Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist anti-asylum, child-abuse agenda shows how intellectually dishonest Trump and the GOP are and that the rancid “thousand pages of vile gibberish” that they launched as a “fake offer to reopen our Government” is a pure political stunt and an insult to 800,000 unpaid Government workers.

Moreover, all of this nonsense must be viewed in context of reality. That’s something that seldom intrudes on the daily intentionally created chaos and national dysfunction of this Administration. The Dreamers aren’t going anywhere! Almost all of them have legitimate applications for immigration relief that they can file in Immigration Court, including cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT.

Trump, Sessions, and now Whitaker have totally destroyed the U.S. Immigration Court system. I’m not sure it will be able to reopen even when the Trump shutdown finally ends. With a politically-created backlog of well over one million cases, growing by tens of thousands with every day of the mindless Trump shutdown, virtually no “Dreamer” (other than a minute percentage who might be convicted of crimes and probably would have had their DACA status revoked or denied on that basis) would be scheduled for removal proceedings within the next four years, let alone by 2020. Indeed, if Congress doesn’t step in and provide Dreamer relief and an Article I independent Immigration Court to replace the current dysfunctional mess in the DOJ, some of these cases may well still be pending a decade from now!

This context also reaffirms the total disingenuous absurdity of SG Francisco’s argument that this is an “emergency” requiring “early intervention” by the Supremes. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only “emergency” is the one intentionally caused by his “client” Trump — by illegally and unnecessarily trying to shut down the DACA program and aggravated by his Administration’s wanton destruction of our U.S. Immigration Courts, and by the “Trump shutdown.”

The Supremes must take a “hard line” against being “sucked in” to the many bogus “emergencies” that Trump creates to detract attention from his and his party’s inability to govern in even a minimally fair and effective manner. Perhaps, it’s also time for Francisco to reread the rule of ethics for lawyers and have a “heart to heart” with his “client” about abusing the Federal Courts with semi-frivolous litigation and presenting lies as “facts.” It’s never too late to learn!

PWS

01-23-19

COLBERT I. KING @ WASHPOST: NATION IN REGRESSION: Trump & His White Nationalist Flunkies Are An Insult To All That Rev. Martin Luther King & His Supporters, Of All Races & Religions Stood For! — From the promise of guaranteed rights to a return to the insecurity of injustice. A pluralistic America is being cynically drawn along racial lines by a president who is as far from the civility of his predecessors Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton and Obama as the charter of the Confederacy was from the Constitution.” — But, The New Due Process Army Continues MLK’s Legacy!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/martin-luther-king-jr-would-be-outraged/2019/01/18/e4a7b4c6-1a75-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html

Colby King writes:

. . . .

The greatest contrast between the time King led the struggle for America’s legal and social transformation and now is a White House occupied by Donald Trump.

The federal government, once a powerful legal and moral force to make real the promise of democracy, is in the hands of adversaries who seek to restore a hierarchy in which the interests of the bigoted, the xenophobic, the sexist and the defender of white male privilege always come out on top.

There is a long list of ways in which backtracking on civil and human rights has occurred since the election of a president who lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. It ranges from discriminatory travel bans against Muslims to turning a federal blind eye to intentionally racially discriminatory state voter-suppression schemes, to opposing protections for transgender people, to inhumanely separating children from families seeking to enter the country.

Sadly, that’s not all that stands out.

Once the federal locus of the nation’s quest for racial reconciliation, today’s White House is a source of racial divisiveness and a beacon to the prejudice-warped fringes of American society. It’s no surprise that the FBI found hate crimes in America rose 17 percent in 2017, the third consecutive year that such crimes increased. In King’s day, racially loaded, hateful rhetoric could be heard across the length and breadth of the Deep South. Now, mean, disgusting and inflammatory words come out of the mouth of the president of the United States.

How far have we traveled?

From the promise of guaranteed rights to a return to the insecurity of injustice. A pluralistic America is being cynically drawn along racial lines by a president who is as far from the civility of his predecessors Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton and Obama as the charter of the Confederacy was from the Constitution.

King, and the movement he led, would be outraged. The rest of us should be, too.

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

Read the full op-ed at the above link.

Very powerful! King speaks truth, reason, and humanity — in the spirit of Dr. King. Contrast that with the vile slurs, bogus race-baiting narratives, and non-policies spewing from the mouth of our racist (and incompetent) Liar/Grifter-in-Chief!

Two of my favorite MLK quotes (from the Letter from the Birmingham Jail — with acknowledgment to the Legal Aid and Justice Center from their poster hanging in my “office”)):

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

Thanks to those many courageous and dedicated individuals tirelessly serving America in the New Due Process Army by resisting Trump’s illegal and anti-American policies! You, indeed, are the 21st Century continuation of Dr. King’s legacy to our country and the world! Dr. King would be proud of you! Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-21-19

CHRISTMAS EVE @ COURTSIDE: A Muslim Gets The Message Of Christ Better Than Many Christians!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/22/opinion/muslim-christian-trump-supporters.html

By Wajahat Ali

NY Times Contributing Opinion Writer

Dec. 22, 2018

Image

A Christmas nativity scene.CreditCreditAmir Levy/Getty Images

At Bellarmine, an all-boys Catholic school in San Jose, Calif., I was often the token Muslim and probably the only person who began freshman year thinking the Eucharist sounded like the name of a comic book villain. I eventually learned it’s a ritual commemorating the Last Supper. At the monthly Masses that were part of the curriculum, that meant grape juice and stale wafers were offered to pimpled, dorky teenagers as the blood and body of Christ.

During my time there, I also read the King James Bible and stories about Jesus, learned about Christian morality, debated the Trinity with Jesuit priests and received an A every semester in religious studies class. Twenty years later, I can still recite the “Our Father” prayer from memory.

Growing up, I’d been taught that Jesus was a major prophet in Islam, known as “Isa” and also referred to as “ruh Allah,” the spirit of God born to the Virgin Mary and sent as a mercy to all people. Like Christians, we Muslims believe he will return to fight Dajjal, or the Antichrist, and establish peace and justice on earth. But it was everything I learned in high school that came together to make me love Jesus in a way that made me a better Muslim.

Even though I don’t personally celebrate Christmas, the season always makes me think of his legacy of radical love. This year, it’s especially hard to understand how Trump-supporting Christians have turned their back on that unconditional love and exchanged it for nativism, fear and fealty to a reality TV show host turned president.

According to a Washington Post/ABC poll conducted in January, 75 percent of white evangelicals in the United States — compared with 46 percent of American adults over all — said “the federal crackdown on undocumented immigrants” was a positive thing. Sixty-eight percent of them believe America has no responsibility to house refugees, according to a Pew Research poll conducted in April and May.

The numbers aren’t quite as jarring when we look at different slices of religious America. According to a PRRI poll conducted in late August and early September, 59 percent of Catholics and 75 percent of black Protestants view Trump negatively. Still, I can’t fathom how anyone who knows the Jesus I encountered at Bellarmine could be comfortable with this administration.

Jesus was a humble carpenter from Nazareth who miraculously fed 5,000 people but never humiliated them with condescending lectures about God favoring those who pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Mr. Trump has expressed enthusiasm for gutting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, by adding unnecessary and cruel work requirements for food stamp recipients.

Mr. Trump also chose Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon who admitted he isn’t qualified to run a federal agency, to head the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Dr. Carson, who says his Christian faith helps him “serve the nation even better,” tweeted he’s “moving more people toward self-sufficiency” by advocating huge cuts to housing aid, increased rent and more stringent work requirements. In high school, I must have missed the sermon where Jesus told the poor, hungry and homeless to stop asking God for handouts.

President Trump and Republicans have also waged a nonstop war on Obamacare for nine years, allowing 14 states to opt out of Medicaid expansion, leaving four million eligible Americans unable to enroll. The Jesus I met in high school healed a blind man. Guess what he didn’t do? Rail against the socialist evils of taking care of people’s health.

The Jesus I know commanded, “You shall love your neighbors as yourself.” He didn’t add “unless they are undocumented immigrants or Muslim or gay.” He would welcome refugees from Central America, feed them, wash their feet. He would have been horrified at the conditions that led 7-year-old Jakelin Caal to die of dehydration and shock in Border Control custody after seeking refuge in this country with her father.

Christianity isn’t unique: Every religion is abused as such by some of its followers and manipulated to advance political agendas. But the hypocrisy of white Evangelical Christians’ support for Trump in light of his undeniable cruelty and apathy — toward refugees, Puerto Rican citizens recovering from a devastating hurricane, victims of California fires and a newspaper columnist killed by Saudi Arabia — is too much to bear. Despite this barrage of hate, Evangelical leaders like Franklin Graham still support Mr. Trump because they believe he “defends the faith.” How?

Our school’s motto was “Men for others,” a reminder that the Christian faith should be lived through active selfless service. Judging from the type of Christianity that is practiced and preached by some Trump supporters, they must know a Jesus whose message is “Every man for himself.”

At Bellarmine, we had to perform 100 hours of community service before graduating. I volunteered at the senior center and the local homeless shelter, where my friends and I cleaned the kitchen and packed peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for struggling men and women, most of them eager for employment.

This Christmas, I hope Trump-supporting Christians try to find compassion for people who are similarly suffering. I hope they open their Bible and reflect on James 2:14: “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?”

Thankfully, I know many Christians who resemble Jesus, investing their life to uplifting vulnerable people. Mr. Trump’s supporters should meet Sister Simone Campbell, who in 2012 organized Nuns on the Busto oppose the Paul Ryan-backed budget plan’s assault on social programs for the poor. They should join the Rev. William Barber II of North Carolina, who has revived the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Poor People’s Campaign to fight racism and income inequality. They should donate to Sister Norma Pimental of Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley, which runs a “respite center” in McAllen, Tex.,offering food, clothes and shoes to people seeking asylum.

These are the kinds of Christians who I believe are following the lessons and footsteps of Jesus, the prophet I met and loved as a Muslim at a Catholic high school. This Christmas, I hope some of the Christians who support President Trump can meet him too.

Wajahat Ali is a playwright, lawyer and contributing opinion writer.

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

There’s no doubt that if Jesus were here today he’d be holed up with the migrants waiting on the Mexican side of our Southern Border for a chance at justice or whiling aways the hours in DHS detention. One place he’d never be found would be in the West Wing, Mar A Lago, or any far right Evangelical Church that preaches doctrines of exclusion, intolerance, and “beggar thy neighbor.”

And when his time came, Jesus, as a scruffy, unemployed, uneducated, single Palestinian male who led a ragtag band of similarly unemployed men and was considered to be a subversive by the authorities would be given short shrift by the U.S. system and returned to those who would torture and kill him.

Something to think about.

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays

PWS

12-24-18

🎄👍😎

Related posts:

Related posts:

EXISTENTIALISM AND THE MEANING OF LIFE IN THE U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT: FROM LAWRENCE TO THE WORLD BEYOND

By

Paul Wickham Schmidt

Retired U.S. Immigration Judge

Lawrence University

Appleton, Wisconsin

April 4, 2019

KEY EXCERPTS:

Stephen Edward Scarff Visiting Professors, 1989-2018

1989-90

1990-91

1991-92

1992-93

1993-94

1994-95

1995-96

1997-98

1998-99

2000-01

2001-02

2002-04

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

“Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere. . . . Whatever Affects One Directly, Affects All Indirectly.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Letters From the Birmingham Jail

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: